[Tomcat088]

Now later on, in the page you listed, they actually show some bare gelatin tests (test 1) with a 155 grain hornady round. The .40 S&W actually had more penetration in this test, although we don't know if they fired 1 shot, average 5 or what, but that's what that particular number showed. Through various layers of clothing the .357 sig edged out the .40, but when you took that distance a bit further, the .40 edged out over the .357 sig. Either way, 18" or more of penetration is sufficient for a defense loading and some might say it was bordering on over penetration.

Then a bit later we can look at tests 6 and 8, which are actually windshield tests. The question I would like to ask first is this, "How many civilians are actually going to be shooting through 45 degree angled automobile glass?" Not that many of us are, and if we are, most of us will be shooting out, and not in. Test 6 is at an angle and in this one, the .357 sig does beat the .40 by 5", but the .40 still has enough penetration to kill. This scenario of shooting through a windshield that is diagonal to a shooter is something that police would more often see, and not civilians. If you're shooting at an angle then you are out of the way of the car and probably have no reason to be firing shots at the person. Test 8 is a head on (car driving at you) scenario, and the penetration through glass for both bullets was identical. This is the kind of scenario that you might have to shoot in, or would be the same but reversed if you were shooting from the inside of the car through the windshield at someone in front of your car (why not gas it?).

On box of truth they tested side windows of your car; which I think you are more likely to shoot through if you were being car jacked or something like that. These tests showed almost no deflection from the glass, I don't remember if they did some penetration results or not. Either way, the tests that are plausible (situations we might see) and actually what you are talking about, do NOT put the .357 sig at an advantage over the .40 S&W. Some people would consider the .357 sig to have over penetration and not want that much. Also realize that these were only a few bullet designs that were tested and all do differently through different materials and conditions. Something that does make me a bit suspect about some of these numbers are the penetration numbers through the autoglass. Many times when bullets pass through glass, they undergo jacket seperation and they do not penetrate as deeply (which they didn't), or if you are properly measuring "expansion" then you have to consider where the jacket of the bullet ended up, etc. It is not noted in any of these numbers that any of the bullet underwent jacket seperation, or how much they deflected off of the original point of aim (which is nice to know).

Next time man, please read all of the numbers and think for yourself before you go on spouting the views of someone who obviously likes the .357 sig and is touting it's horn. The data doesn't necessarily suggest one way or the other, and you merely reading what is in black and white and not coming to your own conclusions from the data doesn't help with passing on accurate knowledge. You should also realize that the majority of articles that are cited in this article are at least 10 years old, and in the past 10 years bullet designs and especially steps in new powders could have significantly changed these numbers. I understand what you mean about the "tone" of this thread and how you wanted to present a different light, but you don't have to present data in a biased way to do so. The .357 sig is an effective handgun cartridge, it will perform just as good as the .40. Some people will like it, others will not, let's just leave it at that please.

Disclaimer: Please be aware that the numbers I am commenting on are NOT mine and I do not attest to their accuracy. I was merely trying to debate a point that was made with these numbers and wanted to address those numbers. Also realize that there is a significant difference between 155 grain bullet and 230 grain bullet (.45), and that their velocities are also significantly different. I do not believe that the tests would necessarily be the same if we compared the .357 sig to the .45 ACP, and was merely using the data that was present.