Bottle-necked Cartidges (.357 Sig) Really More Reliable?

[Higgins]

I've read here and elsewhere that the .357 Sig cartridge contributes to the functional reliability of a pistol because it is a bottle-necked round, which makes feeding and extraction more reliable.

Has this been empirically proven in testing or historical experience (other bottle-necked cartridges perhaps) or is this just assumption based on the design of the cartridge versus straightwalled cartridges?

Just curious as reliability is my big priority when considering a pistol. Thanks.

 

[usnavymasterchief]

As far as I can tell, the primary reason for bottlenecked cartridges is to get a lot of powder (read power) behind a light, very fast projectile. The feeding reliability is simply a very welcome co-incidental by product. The NAA.32 is another recent pistol cartridge that the makers also claim has improved feeding characteristics.
If this has been empirically (wphew!! ) proven, I really can't say.

 

[WonderNine]

I still think that a tapered case (like 9mm) combined with its short length has the best feeding characteristics. There's no "hump" like on bottleneck cartridges.

 

[cratz2]

Yeah, I think the primary time when bottle neck cartridges offer reliablity over straight or slight tapered cartridges is in longer cartridges like in rifles.

I think that the 9mm makes for the most reliable cartridge in general when looking at dozens of designs. Of course, many designs were designed around the 9mm cartridge and later adapted to other cartridges...

 

[BigG]

I think it's an "old wives tale" that makes a shooter feel better abuot having a small bore pistol, i.e., 30 Luger, Mauser, 357 SIG. "Yeah, but it's more reliable feeding," is one of the rejoinders sure to come out of them if you ask them why they purchased a bottleneck. Incidentally, I had one of the first .357 SIG/Sauers on my block and the short short neck does not make it an easy round to reload. So that is a further detriment to me. If you want a .355 round, 9mm Luger is about the best, imho, for the reasons Wondernine stated. YMMV

 

[usnavymasterchief]

The .357SIG is a 9mm bullet in a .40 cal casing designed primarily in an attempt by Sig to get a semi-auto cartridge to duplicate the ballistics of the .357Magnum revolver cartridge. This was done by necking down a .40cal casing (which holds more powder) to accomodate a 9mm bullet. The result was a cartridge that came very close ballistically, but not exactly, to the .357Magnum revolver cartridge.
North American Arms and Cor-Bon designed the .32NAA cartridge for all the same reasons and it was discovered that.32NAA in JHP fed much more reliably than the venerable .32ACP in JHP form. The .32NAA is a .380 casing necked down to hold a .32cal JHP bullet which produced a 1200 FPS .32 cal cartridge that fed more reliably in the NAA Guardian series pistols.
Again, as I said in a previous post in this thread, the necked down cartridges were designed to get more velocity and energy from a pistol cartridge. The fact that they seem to feed more reliably was simply a very welcome coincidence. As explained in Hangunner Magazine, the reason that the .357Sig feeds better is that when the round is being chambered, you have a 9mm bullet sliding into a .40" diameter chamber which offers less resistance to the 9mm bullet hence better feed especially under rapid fire conditions.

 

[WonderNine]

designed primarily in an attempt by Sig to get a semi-auto cartridge to duplicate the ballistics of the .357Magnum revolver cartridge.

I think the 9X23 is a better attempt, although a miserable failure in marketing and distribution up to this point...

You can fit more in a mag than the .357 Sig, it has a stronger case, you can use something OTHER than 125gr. bullets that the Sig is limited too, it's more powerful.....more like a true full house .357.....the downside is that it pretty much requires a 1911 framed gun to accommodate the longer case...

 

[The Tourist]

I hate to get into this thread late, but if your combat pistol is unreliable, then our discussion of calibre is lower on the list of things to debate.

I've heard that 'long, slender' catridges are the worst to feed. I had a stainless Colt Delta Elite that fed reloaded rounds so smoothly there was not tactile feedback.

Then again, I had one of the first nickel plated Colt Officer's ACPs that choked with a frightening regularity. I got some new magazines, had a gunsmith look for problems, and then decided my SAFETY was real problem and sold it to a shooter who wanted to putz around.

Now, I do believe the premise that a 'little tip has an easy time with a big hole,' no doubt about it. I wouldn't want to build dependancy on a singular point of contention. I want the sucker, any sucker, to run like a clock, with any calibre.

 

[Telperion]

WonderNine: 357 SIG can be loaded with other than 125 gr bullets. I've seen 100 (frangible), 115, 125, and 150 gr bullets.

 

[Badger Arms]

It's really flooring me hearing the discussion here. A bottlenecked cartridge IS more reliable by nature. Here's why with the 357 Sig as an example:

- Bottlenecked cartridges feed a small diameter into a large hole. The simple fact that the breech opening is for a 40 cal and you're pushing a 357 through that opening.

- The primary feeding surface on a bottleneck is a tapered surface... the neck. On a straight case, it is the lip of the case and the ogive of the bullet.

- Straight cases headspace on the tiny lip of the case preventing a proper crimp and also creating a surface to jam on pretty much anything in it's path that's not normal.

- Tapered cases can utilize wide bullet styles such as full wadcutters without the need for dramatic feed ramps and tuning. Straight cases rely completely on the bullet shape for proper feeding.

All this being said, most modern autloading pistols are 100% reliable even with straight cases. Manufacturers have worked around the problems involved with straight cases and pistols today will feed a wide variety of practical bullet styles. Bottleneck cartridges still have the advantages mentioned as well as a few not mentioned, but the bottom line works against the bottleneck cartridge.

Fact is, smaller faster bullets are less reliable STOPPERS. While the 357 Sig and 400 Corbon are probably fine stoppers, it gets a little absurd with the 32 NAA and them 22 bottlenecks. The're fine for other purposes, but personal defense is a different matter.

 

[usnavymasterchief]

Gee Whiz BADGER. I'm really sorry to hear our discussion floored you Quit lecturing and have a little patience for people who are trying to learn, isn't that what this forum is all about, trying to learn? No where in this thread did anyone say that the .32NAA or them 22 bottlenecks where great "stoppers". Also .357Sig and .400 Cor-Bons aren't quote "probably fine stoppers" they are fine stoppers.
Isn't it amazing how a simple question like the one Higgins asked can get totally blown out of proportion by so many differing opinions.:banghead:

 

[WonderNine]

The simple fact that the breech opening is for a 40 cal and you're pushing a 357 through that opening.

With 9mm it could be argued that you're pushing a .001 through a 9mm opening. Rather than hitting the bottleneck the feedramp hits the smooth bullet surface and then the tapered case...

Oh well. This is one of those unanswerable questions anyways, just all opinions...

 

[Erich]

FWIW, I never had a misfeed of any kind in more than 2k rounds through my miniGlock 33 .357 Sig. I do think that shoving a 9mm pole in a 10 mm hole helps with feeding. OTOH, I've also never had a misfeed of any kind with my 9mm 6946 . . . but I was impressed with this aspect of the .357 Sig cartridge.

 

[The Tourist]

USNavymasterchief,

I know what you meant, but I use the forums to learn. And at 53, it just takes that much more to teach an old dog. You see, all of my experience is with older standard stuff; to me, a .40 SW is a 'new' catridge, and things like the 357 SIG represent new possibilities.

After all, I have a 4-ganger, 123 grain .355, flat-point set of casting blocks with no driving band. I have tons of .40 SW cases.

I also have a two-tone P229 SIG in .40 SW.

With a day's casting, and a 150 dollar barrel, I have a new calibre for my SIG, in something I have never seen.

But I know NOTHING of the .357 SIG, nor do any of my friends have them. We all have .40's and we all 'say' we are going to get 357 barrels, but then something else comes along. And I won't be making the purchase if the this new calibre is just inviting trouble.

I've been in firearms for 30 years. This column's post gave me information I did not have on a calibre I do not own. I know it must be tedious info for you to re-read, but it was all new stuff to guys like me.

 

[Badger Arms]

Also .357Sig and .400 Cor-Bons aren't quote "probably fine stoppers" they are fine stoppers.

Nope, in my mind they are still 'probably' fine stoppers. Never had to shoot anything living with these calibers so I'll leave them in the probably category for now. The 357 Sig and 400 Corbon should perform EXACTLY like the 10mm and 357 Magnum and maybe better in some circumstances so I don't think they are anything to slouch at.

Quit lecturing and have a little patience for people who are trying to learn

If they're trying to learn, can't they attend a lecture or two?

 

[BigG]

Hiya Tourist, welcome aboard!

The .357 SIG, and for that matter .40 S&W, were created to put a more powerful cartridge in a firearm that would still be smaller than a full sized pistol using, say, .45 ACP. Like all good ideas, there are some tradeoffs. Both cartridges are shoehorned into 9mm Luger sized pistols. This works out OK, but it leaves little room for error as both cartridges are high pressure, unlike the forgiving .45 ACP.

The .357 SIG case is actually a bit LONGER than the .40 S&W. When you size a .40 to a .357 you end up with a neck that is even SHORTER than the factory article. I’d say 1/32 - 1/16†shorter. I found in trying to reload the SIG, it is possible and good results can be obtained but the life of the cases is only a couple of loadings. One of the difficulties is most 9mm bullets are quite tapered; I.e., there is little parallel surface to get good neck tension on the bullet. So you are subject to driving the bullet back into the case which I’ve read can escalate pressures. At any rate, it is not a good clean job like I like to do.

In terms of power, I would forget .357 Magnum and think more in terms of .38 Super, a bit more than 9mm Luger but not enough to make a dramatic difference. I have had all three and there really is nothing ot choose between them in my opinion. When you factor in price of factory ammo and availability, there is no contest that in the .355 caliber war the 9mm Luger is king. The .357 Magnum, on the other hand, in a large revolver can be stoked to be a much more authoritative cartridge than the 125 grain FBI load the .357 SIG is intended to mimic.

Again, welcome aboard and look forward to seeing some more input from ya!

 

[usnavymasterchief]

Greetings Mr Tourist from one old timer to another. I'm no sprout myself, at 67 years I guess I could be considered a curmudgeon but what the heck. I learned to shoot and respect firearms 55 years ago from my Dad who was a Deputy Sheriff back in the 40's and 50's. I just enjoy B/S'n and talking firearms in general, I could be wrong but I thought that I had mentioned that these forums were in fact for learning. I offer up what limited knowledge I have gained after being in the military for 32 years but I try really hard to not come across as a self proclaimed firearms expert which I definitely am not. I did earn Marksman and Expert Medals for pistol and rifle shooting while on active duty utilizing the G.I. issue 1911 .45ACP and an M1 Garand rifle. I have tried to keep myself educated on what's new in the world of firearms, handguns in particular.and in retirement I spend a lot of time at our indoor range chewin' the fat with the good old boys. Again, I have a lot of firearms experience but I am far from being an expert and don't profess to be. I too come here to learn.

 

[BluesBear]

NEW STUFF?

Poppycock!

What about the .38/48 cartridge? That came around about 35-40 years ago. It was a .45acp necked down to .356. I had a Clarke barrel back in the early 1970s. Just drop it in any .45 and you could have .38 super ballistics. One of the big features touted was the ability to feed using any bullet shape. Mine would feed anything from full wadcutters to Speer ½jacketed soft point SWC.
Sure it was a wildcat and never factory loaded but it was written up quite a bit.

Then there was the .41 Taylor I believe it was called. A .45 necked down to accept .41magnum bullets.

And don't forget the .357 Auto Mag. I think there were some factory loads for it. It came out in 1973. It was a .44 Auto Mag case necked down to .357.

The knowledge that a bottlenecked cartridge has easier feeding characteristics in a semi-auto pistol is not new. Just as the knowledge that a bottlenecked cartridge has case setback problems in a revolver has been around for half a century as well.

 

[artherd]

No doubt .357SIG may have a few percentage points in favor WRT feeding.

However, in say a Glock type (ie, well designed) pistol, feeding problems are all but non-existant (unless the gun brakes.)

Still, it's nice to have, and definately is a factor (albit a very tiny one.)





Now, something to consider.

The Glock 17 holds 17 rounds of 9mm. 9mm +P+ loadings are ~100fps off a .357 MAGNUM in this gun. (Winchester Ranger +p+ is quite safe and reliable in this gun.)

The Glock 31 holds 15 rounds of .357SIG. Standard loads of .357 SIG are ~100fps off a .357 MAGNUM in this gun (no +p loadings are available, because .40/.357sig are already loaded very hot, in this gun.)


I'll take the extra 2 rounds any day of the week, and twice on sundays.

But that's my own personal call, and I sure do regard the .357SIG as something pretty neat.

 

[The Tourist]

BigG and Usnavymasterchief,

Thanks, guys.

And yes, bottleneck cartridges were around in my salad days, one that I remember was called a 357/44 Bain & Davis. A Smith or Ruger in .357 had the rear portion of the 357 cyclinder opened up to take the stepped down .44 Rem Mag case. The ones I remember being the most prevelant were the Ruger combo kits were two cylinders, a .357 and a 9mm were shipped with the gun. Most guys sacrificed the 9mm cylinder.

I also remember the one that SW had. It was a 'jet' something or other. A .357 case necked down to .223. I had some of these 45 grain .223 bullets. I used them for 'speed' in an old CAR I had. Yes, yes, I know it's .224, but a guy has to experiment a time or two.

I like it here. I like to cast bullets and I like auto pistols. Feels like home already.

 

[Badger Arms]

Arthred:

Excuse me, but if you are trying to get me to believe that 9mm +P+ is as powerful as 357 Sig, you gotta tell me what you're selling the bridge for!

 

[PCRCCW]

Oh boy.......here we go!

To begin with the original question was is the necked down case more reliable in feeding than the non necked down rounds.

ALL OF MY NON NECKED DOWN GUNS HAVE BEEN 100% SO....NO! HOW CAN YOU IMPROVE ON 100%?

Its a great theory......but you need a baseline of malfunctions to go from.

I have none to give you, at least in my guns..........................

As far as the +P+ 9mm VS Sig VS Magnum..........there are way to many variables.........grain/powder/barrel length/bullet design/action style/revolver/s-auto.............etc, to really bring up this little comparison..at least IMO...........

Shoot well.

 

[AnklePocket]

I'd get a few jams every now and then with my P229/.357 Sig which resulted in the projectile getting pressed into the shell so I bought a .40 Bar-Sto barrel, sold the .357 Sig barrel and haven't looked back. The .357 Sig was more enjoyable to shoot, but 100% reliable wins.
It could have been the ammo or maybe a .357 Sig Bar-Sto barrel would have solved the problem, but a larger/slower bullet seemed to make more sense anyway, kinda. The next step might be the swap out the P229 for a P220, and maybe not.