357sig vs 40s&w - Page 2
Firearm & Gun Forum - FireArmsTalk.com > Handguns > Semi-Auto Handguns > 357sig vs 40s&w

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 08-23-2011, 05:22 PM   #11
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
sweeper22's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 2,397
Liked 244 Times on 192 Posts
Likes Given: 30

Default

For my own tastes, 357sig/40sw both take a backseat to 9mm and 45acp. But that doesn't mean they aren't fine options for a lot of people.

I do like the 357sig as a defense caliber. And my nightstand gun is a P226 chambered in 357sig. But this is something worth your consideration:

A 40sw is cheaper to shoot at the range, more versatile in weight (135-140gr, 155-165gr, 180gr), and the lighter 135-140 CorBon defense loads are actually very comparable ballistically to 357sig. Maybe they're not technically as ultra-precise in a slow-fire range session, but you're not exactly calmly "shooting for groups" in a defense situation.

Recoil is quite similar between the two rounds. I actually like the 357sig, but find 40sw to be a far more practical choice for the average shooter.

__________________
"The Future is Unwritten"
sweeper22 is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 08-23-2011, 10:14 PM   #12
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
WHOSNEXT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Concord,NH
Posts: 18
Liked 1 Times on 1 Posts

Default

being that it is highly unlikely I will be shooting through windshields or a-pillars as well as the price and variety of options with the 40sw my new 239 will be the 40sw. I will look forward to adding the 357sig barrel in the future.

__________________

Cross country skiing is great if you live in a small country

WHOSNEXT is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 08-23-2011, 11:13 PM   #13
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
DodgerBlue's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Maricopa county, AZ
Posts: 769
Liked 80 Times on 53 Posts
Likes Given: 36

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by WHOSNEXT View Post
Thanks for the input. I think the best way to go might be 40s&w until I feel more comfortable with the gun itself then look into the barrel swap for the better ballistics of the 357.
if you're going to barrel swap you can only go down in cal. it might take some research but I think you need the .357 and then pop in the .40. I don't know with the .40 will take a .357 barrel.

Hope this helps or if you already knew all this maybe it'll help someone eles
__________________
DodgerBlue is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 08-24-2011, 03:18 AM   #14
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
sweeper22's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 2,397
Liked 244 Times on 192 Posts
Likes Given: 30

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DodgerBlue View Post
if you're going to barrel swap you can only go down in cal. it might take some research but I think you need the .357 and then pop in the .40. I don't know with the .40 will take a .357 barrel.
Going from 40sw to 357sig would be "going down" in caliber...not the other way around. A 357sig is a 40sw case necked down to meet a 9mm bullet. If the 357 was larger, it (obviously) wouldn't have any need to be "necked down". That's why 357sig's standard weight is 125gr, while 40sw's is 180. A 357sig shoots a 9mm bullet, while a 40sw essentially shoots a 10mm.

Regardless, you can (in almost all cases) go either way on these calibers when it comes to conversion barrels and bi-caliber mags...because the butt end (70% or so) of the 40sw casing applies to both.


I don't mean to be rude at all, but... DodgerBlue, I'm going to excercise an opportunity to call you out a bit here- based on some of your previous posts claiming that Glocks are the be all/end all...and that archaic guns like the BHP can't hold a candle to them. Well, your limited experience is now officially confirmed. Glocks are very good and very reliable guns BTW, and I wish you nothing but the best in your experiences with them. But you have a great deal to learn. I should know, as I'm in that boat myself. But maybe keep a bit more of a humble, open-minded approach going forward.
__________________
"The Future is Unwritten"

Last edited by sweeper22; 08-24-2011 at 03:31 AM.
sweeper22 is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 08-24-2011, 05:20 AM   #15
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
AznZOhAn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 613
Liked 8 Times on 8 Posts

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by WHOSNEXT
being that it is highly unlikely I will be shooting through windshields or a-pillars as well as the price and variety of options with the 40sw my new 239 will be the 40sw. I will look forward to adding the 357sig barrel in the future.
Good choice, enjoy it. Sigs are good guns, I have 4.
__________________
AznZOhAn is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 08-24-2011, 06:29 AM   #16
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
AznZOhAn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 613
Liked 8 Times on 8 Posts

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DodgerBlue

if you're going to barrel swap you can only go down in cal. it might take some research but I think you need the .357 and then pop in the .40. I don't know with the .40 will take a .357 barrel.

Hope this helps or if you already knew all this maybe it'll help someone eles
You need more experience dodger, but don't take it personal. 40S&W kicks less than the 357sig which means more manageable, the 357 is a smaller and lighter bullet, but it has more power. My advice is start with a 40 then convert to 357, because we walk before we run and 40 is slower than 357. I have a Sig 229 in both calibers and I'd say start 40 then move up because of price of ammo and manageability.
__________________
AznZOhAn is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 08-24-2011, 03:43 PM   #17
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
AznZOhAn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 613
Liked 8 Times on 8 Posts

Default

Going from 40 to 357 is only a step down in physical size, it's comparing a middle weight boxer to Bruce Lee. You don't mess with either one, but if you did you mess with the slower and weaker boxer before you tangle with pure power and speed. Look at this pic of 357 sig ammo, the ballistics at 50 yards is better most 40 muzzle ballistics. 357 sig is hardly a step down.

image-2371119634.jpg  
__________________
AznZOhAn is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 08-24-2011, 05:11 PM   #18
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
sweeper22's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 2,397
Liked 244 Times on 192 Posts
Likes Given: 30

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AznZOhAn View Post
40S&W kicks less than the 357sig which means more manageable, the 357 is a smaller and lighter bullet, but it has more power. My advice is start with a 40 then convert to 357, because we walk before we run and 40 is slower than 357. I have a Sig 229 in both calibers and I'd say start 40 then move up because of price of ammo and manageability.
In my experience I wouldn't agree with this at all. I've found that they handle almost identically. But my only experience (shooting both through the same gun, that is) is with a Sig P226. So I've only done so with a full-framed, well-balanced, and somewhat heavy gun. Maybe that's skewed my take. I honestly don't know how a lighter frame like a compact Glock would handle one vs the other.

As far as ballistics and defense...the larger diameter of the 40sw will make a bigger hole. The 357sig's speed will deliver more energy and a flatter trajectory. The lighter 135-140gr 40sw defense rounds will offer many of the best attributes of both rounds.

When it comes to the subject of "conversion", going "up vs. down" is almost exclusively dictated by bullet diameter. So you're converting down to 357sig from the larger diameter 40sw.

And I'll still usually turn to 9mm or 45acp as my autos of choice.
__________________
"The Future is Unwritten"

Last edited by sweeper22; 08-24-2011 at 05:14 PM.
sweeper22 is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 08-24-2011, 05:21 PM   #19
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
AznZOhAn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 613
Liked 8 Times on 8 Posts

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sweeper22

In my experience I wouldn't agree with this at all. I've found that they handle almost identically. But my only experience (shooting both through the same gun, that is) is with a Sig P226. So I've only done so with a full-framed, well-balanced, and somewhat heavy gun. Maybe that's skewed my take. I honestly don't know how a lighter frame like a compact Glock would handle one vs the other.

As far as ballistics and defense...the larger diameter of the 40sw will make a bigger hole. The 357sig's speed will deliver more energy and a flatter trajectory. The lighter 135-140gr 40sw defense rounds will offer many of the best attributes of both rounds.

When it comes to the subject of "conversion", going "up vs. down" is almost exclusively dictated by bullet diameter. So you're converting down to 357sig from the larger diameter 40sw.

And I'll still usually turn to 9mm or 45acp as my autos of choice.
You're right diameter has a big advantage, but bullet design has alot to play in also. If you compare 357 sig corbon to 40 Speer gold dot, the corbon blows a bigger hole. And if you hog hunt a 357 sig is a lot better back up gun than a 40.
__________________
AznZOhAn is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 08-24-2011, 07:24 PM   #20
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
AznZOhAn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 613
Liked 8 Times on 8 Posts

Default

I have a G23 and had a G32, and on that light frame you feel that difference. And if you're compare a light load 40 do the same with the 357Sig(apples to apples). My experience is limited to 15 years and my collection is small by some standards, but I own no garbage. I've shot everything from 22 to Smith 500 in handguns. Not a lot but but I got some experience.

I like both rounds and they have their specific jobs.

__________________
AznZOhAn is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Firearms Forum Replies Last Post
FNG has FNP-357sig. questions The_Desert_Rat Semi-Auto Handguns 14 02-17-2011 05:39 AM
Glock .357SIG FTE Problem Zappa Glock Forum 6 06-09-2009 03:30 PM