.45 vs. .357

[Coyote]

Dont believe everything you hear about the smith and wesson 40. I have a friend who has one and we took it out and my 45 and the 40 kicks just as much as my .45 so if you thinking of going that route you might as well just go all the way to the 45.

[Tomcat088]

[quote=Coyote;111513]Alot of people cant handle the .357 sig because of the recoil so they talk bad about it.....Its lighter than the .45 can even dream of being. It does kick a lot for the inexperienced shooter... The ability to shoot through the wind shield and kill the occupant if neccessary is also a relief...The thought of one bullet knocking a full grown man on his ass is also another satisfying thought...QUOTE]

I just wanted to make a few comments about what was said here. First off, recoil is a subjective thing from one shooter to another, and many people are more sensitive than others. Impulse is also another factor to consider besides just the straight force of recoil because one must consider the distance and speed at which this recoil is delivered. Because the pistol that you shoot the .357 sig in is lighter, that by itself means that the gun is going to feel like it recoils harder because there is less weight to that the recoil of the round has to push. Some shooters will have a problem with this, others will not.

Now what I did want to talk about is some things that you implied in your post which are quite inaccurate. I have yet to see a 9mm, .40 S&W, or .45 ACP that will not shoot through a windshield of a car. Someone that has done some experimenting with shooting through windshields (or read about it) knows that glass will always deflect a bullet as it passes through the glass. The deflection will depend on the angle of incidence, velocity, etc. Either way, NONE of the typical self defense rounds have any problem shooting through glass, and ALL of them will undergo deflection. There is also NO handgun round that is going to "knock a man on his a$$". It may be something satisfying to think about, but let me assure you that you are only fantasizing. Bullets deliver a great deal of kinetic energy, but people being knocked down is something from tv, and when it happens in real life it is a reaction of the person being shot, not because the force of the bullet "knocked them down". Sorry to burst your bubble man, but that's the facts, if it makes you happy to fantasize about those things then that's fine, but please do NOT pass that off as fact to others who might not know true facts. Either way, the .357 sig is definately effective as a self defense cartridge, it might not be everybody's "flavor" for who knows what reason, but I don't think most people who are educated would argue that it won't get the job done.

[Coyote]

Tomcatt088 In reply to what you have written. your not bursting my buble. if you have ever seen anyone shot with a 45 when wearing a vest alone will drop them. Im not saying that i know everything because by all means i dont. But somethings i have seen i will portray. You may be right about the persons reaction but either way weather its there reaction or the reaction from the bullet they still get put down on their ass do they not? As far as the recoil from the .357 your right its "not everyones "flavor" the recoil dosnt bother me and for those people that it does bother they make all kinds of parts you can add or replace on the gun for the less recoil or tighter double taps. I just didnt agree with the whole conversation in here about how bad the .357 is when its not. Below is a comparison of the .357 and a .40 shooting through auto glass and the penetration it has, i know its not a .45 but there is actually no comparison to the .45 that i can find that is listed. All there really is on that is hear say. but as you can tell from this the 40 has less of a penetration that the .357 and if you think about it the 45 round isnt made to not frag or expand like the .357 is. By the penetration on the 40 the 45 is a slower fatter round so its pretty much a defenite that the 45 will have even less of a penetration through glass than the .357 will. If you can find some hard facts showing me im wrong i will happily admit to my mistake.




Cartridge
Penetration
Expansion
Crush C.C.
Stretch S.C.

357 Sig Federal 125 gr JHP
13.7
.59
3.7
43.4

40 S&W Corbon 135 gr JHP
9.8
.56
2.4
69.1

Note: The 357 Sig Federal bullet is engineered to not fragment, while the 40 S&W Corbon 135 gr bullet violently expands and fragments.

http://www.recguns.com/Sources/IIIC2q6.html here is the site it is in attatchment 1 and 2.

[Tomcat088]

I haven't personally seen someone shot with a .45 while wearing a vest, but do realize that the vest changes everything. Instead of the kinetic energy being spread in the fluid and air of the chest cavity or abdominal cavity, all the energy is taken at a single point. The layers of the vest actually stop the bullet, so all the kinetic energy is delivered there, this is quite a different scenario than when a bullet actually enters the body and causes hydrostatic shock. I will not agree or disagree with your numbers because I cannot confirm or deny those, but I will comment on them some and some of the misinterpretation of data that you have made of those numbers.

The numbers that you listed have nothing to do with shooting through glass, they are through bare ballistics gel. It does not say what the consistency of the ballistics gel or if more than one shot was taken and measured, just that this was the numbers. That's the way it is for all the numbers listed on this site, it doesn't say how many shots were taken, so we don't know how reliable these numbers are. Also, 9.8" of penetration in bare gelatin isn't considered enough penetration to be an "effective" loading. Therefore I would have automatically taken another shot or two to verify data. Another thing you have to take into consideration is that most people shooting .40 S&W are NOT going to be shooting 135 grain bullets. Most of them will be shooting between 155-180 grain bullets, which carry more momentum and will penetrate deeper. I'm not sure if you're familiar with this, when bullets are made to expand and moving at the speeds that the .40 S&W is, they sometimes "blow up" and don't penetrate all that deep. You should realize that the 135 grain load is not the typical load that people shoot in their .40 S&W. Something else that I thought was funny is that they say that the .40 S&W violetly expanded and fragmented, but this isn't true. Your numbers say the diameter of the expanded .40 bullet was .56" and the diameter of the .357 sig bullet was .59. The .357 sig is a smaller bullet than the .40 bullet and it expanded to a larger size, so how the heck did the corbon bullet "expand and fragment" and the .357 sig did not? Also realize that different bullet weights, velocities, brands, etc, will expand differently under different conditions. Some manufacturers develop a bullet for a certain optimal velocity and weight. Then later they downsize this bullet to be less grainsand load it at other velocities. The performance from these loads will be different and not always the best design for the speed or load that they use it in.

I'll continue to talk about your numbers in a second post

[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.

[reverserboy]

Good thread but I think hairs are being split. All of the common defense calibers can & have been put to good use. I would say that the most important thing is packing what you can shoot decent & carry comfortably. These will be highly subjective & also depend on a person's size & body type & the size of their hands.

I sometimes carry a G20 (..10mm...I've always been an oddball ). However I have had a few people tell me the grip was too big for their hands. A 120lb skinny guy will have trouble CCing a G20/21 in warm weather.

I own a 1911 but don't care to carry it. Some will carry only a 1911.

Each caliber has its fans,although I think .45GAP is a silly idea. When used effectively by a skilled or even semi skilled person they all can get the job done. One shot stops are great.....but most of us have at least 5.

As far as the penetration of this & that......if any of us (non LEOs) have to use a gun in self defense.....it will likely be real up close & not involve barriers. So I'm guessing 12 to 16 in of penetration should be good. (large assailant..winter clothing) I used the word "likely",so keep the flames to a moderate level.

One thing I will say about load selection....I like the heavier bullet weights in any caliber,even with the lower velocity. I'm a beliver in sectional density.

.45acp.....230
.40/10mm.....180
.38/.357.....158
9mm/
.357sig.....147

[NYSARSENAL]

Originally Posted by Abrams.357

What is the difference between the .45 ACP and .357 sig? ( in Glock 21/31)

Well it seems Im a bit late here,...everyones pretty much said what I was going to say but...

I own a Sig Sauer 226 in .357Sig as well as a Sig Sauer 220 in .45 ACP and a Kimber in 45 ACP. BOTH rounds are awesome for any sort of defensive desire.
The .357 Sig obviously being a higher velocity round does have a 'bit' more kick to it than my 45s but not very much.

I havent fired Glock's .357sig model so I cant compare the way my SigSauer fires to any other .357sig, but I have no issues with it.
Its my choice to carry for 'open carry' as it is a full size pistol. For concealed I have my Kimber Ultra Covert 2.

As far as ammo,...I haven't had ANY issues finding ammo in any of the states Ive been to. Normally I just ordered it thru ammoman.com.

I'd recommend it if you're looking for something with more power than a 9mm.

[MettleOfMan]

Originally Posted by The Drew

While you are right that the formula for piercing soft body armor is surface area and velocity, NO handgun short of a FiveseveN with proper ammo should be considered reliable at piercing soft bodyarmor, and even then the effectiveness of the round is somewhat in question.

That being said, if you expect to run into guys wearing body armor, then the alternative should be a headshot.

The point though, is really what level can you comfortably carry and conceal and what type of handgun can you handle the best.

Hi folks,

I'm absolutely new to this forum and found it by accident while researching the .357 Sig. I'm a rifleman at my core so pistols are secondary but I recognize the need and practice with them as much as possible so as to be able to deal with any situation that arises that should require deadly force. Oh, before I get going... my local range is home to many of the Federal Air Marshalls since their office is about 200 yards from it and last night I had the pleasure of walking in behind them while their targets were still in the shuttles. The guy I walked in behind had just scored a whopping 190. That's 190 out of 300 folks and the 5 ring on their target is quite large. I'm not poking fun but I shoot with these guys a lot and I've tried time and again to ask them why don't they slow down and learn to shoot before they try to race. I know that slinging lead is fun but it's a very serious occupation and you should strive to hit exactly what you intend to before you engage. Maybe that's the ex Recon Scout coming out in me.

Back to the .357 versus the 9 versus the .40 S&W. I carry all 3 of these pistols and for different reasons. The .357 was chosen by the Secret Service as their sidearm so all of the Treasury Department, Homeland Security, and TSA people get this round. They chose it based on penetration because they may have to shoot through car doors, airplane seat backs, etc. I carry a Sig 229 in .357 Sig when I'm on my motorcycle because my biggest danger is generally drivers with road rage. A .40 may well penetrate the windshield at the proper angle or a car door but it's risky whereas the .357 Sig has a much better potential. A .357 magnum would be more appropriate but I need concealment and a 229 is what I shoot several times a week. When I'm in a situation where soft targets would be the threat I choose the .40 S&W for greater frontal area and less penetration and collateral damage.

Now then I am indeed in the market for a .45 ACP. At least I think I am. I generally make a 2 inch ragged hole with 200 rounds at the range at distances less than 15 and I'll open up to 5 inches at the 25 but that seems to be reasonable compared to shooters around me. My question would be whether it is worth buying a .45 for sport use and accurate target shooting or should I stick with my .40 since the ballistics are comparable? It's a lot of money but I really liked .45s.

Thanks... and I'm glad to be here.

Ran

[MettleOfMan]

Hi again folks,

Sorry for the intrusion but what a fantastic discussion. As for the Sig 229 in .357 Sig I can attest to the durability of it. Last night I shot with my FAM friend at the range and they carry the 229 in .357 as do I. Their pistol is beaten to death... and I mean in excess of 20K rounds while they only clean their guns every 800 rounds or so. I found their beaten 229 to be as accurate as my brand new 229... at least in my hands and that's 1.5 to 2" at 15 slow fire for 20 rounds. That's not bad for a CC gun and certainly for one as beat up as that one. After the range I volunteered to clean their 229 and what I found was astonishing. The frame and slide are nearly perfect but the barrel has been eaten alive. Just in front of the chamber on the bottom, where carbon tends to lie after hundreds of rounds, it looks like the face of the moon from subsequent bullets grinding carbon along. From 1.5" out the rifling looked fine and this pistol still shoots fantastically well.

And finally another testament to these fantastic guns, and the Sig Night Sights. They practice jacking the slide by using the rear sight and slamming it against airplane seat arms or whatever they can find to simulate being one handed. And it still shoots like that! Fantastic firearm, fantastic round, and the recoil is not significant enough to stop anyone from using it.

thanks
ran

[MettleOfMan]

Originally Posted by Tomcat088

"How many civilians are actually going to be shooting through 45 degree angled automobile glass?"

I absolutely agree, to a point. If I were in my truck I would most likely use my truck as a method to exit a situation unless I were there to prevent someone else from being assaulted, but I'm more often on a motorcycle than anything. That being said, I've thought about this a lot and my conclusion was that I would carry a .357 Sig while on my bike because I've been 'assaulted' by road raged vehicles in the past. My sidearm is a 229 so I practice with it almost exclusively since I can easily swap barrels between .40 and .357. I'm right handed and right eye dominant but I practice left handed at the range to ensure that if the time came I would be able to have one hand on the throttle trying to get away while defending myself with the other.

Just real world stuff to me but my point would be that one needs to identify with what their perceived threat would be and gear up for that. Also practice practice practice those scenarios in your head. I shoot no less than 200 rounds a week with my left hand while facing the other direction in a seemingly motorcycle seated position. Hmmm... if they would only let me take my bike onto the range!