I am trying to decide on these two cartridges for the Glock purchse I am going to make for concealed carry. I have heard that the 357sig overpenetrates and is more dangerous to bystanders. Muzzle energy and velocity only slightly favor the 357sig.

What are the issues when considering a concealed handgun and the bearing on choosing between these 2 calibers?

Quoted: I am trying to decide on these two cartridges for the Glock purchse I am going to make for concealed carry. I have heard that the 357sig overpenetrates and is more dangerous to bystanders. Muzzle energy and velocity only slightly favor the 357sig. What are the issues when considering a concealed handgun and the bearing on choosing between these 2 calibers?

My neighbor has a sig in 357 sig great little gun but MAN the ammo was expensive I have a 40 and can shoot all day compared to what he was paying maybe you can do better on line I don't know but just something to think about. pg

I have a Sig 226 in .357 Sig and am very happy with it.   It is probably the most accurate handgun I own.  

Blast and Report are substanial to say the least but Recoil is controllable and none are as offensive as a true .357 Mag out of a short barrel.

The U.S. Secret Service carries 229's in .357 Sig and they have not expressed any fear of over-penetration with the loads they carry.

If you're going for the .40 S&W Glock sub-compact (27) or compact (23), I can say that .40 is the right choice.  If you ever want to use .357 SIG ammo, you just pop a .357 SIG barrel in there and it will work for that caliber.
The .40 gets the nod, for ease of finding ammo and ammo price.  In the area of terminal ballistics, the two are close enough that any difference is marginal.  Buy what you can afford to practice the most with.  Your dollars will be better spent on a .40 instead of the exotic .357 SIG.  Like I said, if the .357 is still popular in a few years, you could buy the extra barrel (under 200 bucks from Glock), and use the same slide, frame, and magazines as your .40- just my .02 cents on the matter.

 Also, if you're a speed demon, CorBon sells some .40 S&W 135gr. loads that chronograph out of my Glock 23 at 1390 fps, and out of my Glock 27 at around 1310fps.  

Dissapator has given you some good advice.

I reload so I don't follow it.  My Sig. P239 is in .357 Sig.  It's fast and flat and as I reload with free brass from the local constabulary, very cheap to shoot.

Thanks for the compliment there HalfCocked; I also reload, but have heard that the .357 is a tricky devil to reload.  Something about it being a high-pressure load and the bottleneck effecting bullet seating depth- improperly seating can make your gun explode (KB)...supposedly only a small mistake in bullet seating will cause extremely higher pressures in the bottlenecked cartridge.  
  Your situation is rather unique, as I doubt our friend has an unlimited supply of once-used brass at his disposal (YOU LUCKY BASTARD!!!).  

The Fast little bullet Vs the big slow bullet arguement has been around as long as i've been reading gun books and i'm in my 50's--so with all that knowledge (or bullshit) that i've amassed in all those years--my opinion is to give me the big slow bullet everytime (as far as pistols go) preferrably a 45/230....Dick

with that logic, you should just throw a fucking sledge hammer at them and call it a day!  I'm not big on the .45 230gr load, in case you couldn't tell.  If you must have a .45, CorBon makes a 185?gr +p load that is absolutely devastating.  230 gr. is too damn slow!

Quoted: with that logic, you should just throw a fucking sledge hammer at them and call it a day!  I'm not big on the .45 230gr load, in case you couldn't tell.  If you must have a .45, CorBon makes a 185?gr +p load that is absolutely devastating.  230 gr. is too damn slow!

Yeah, ignore 90 years of proven results and trust the guy that wants to hang a CWL badge from his mirror to put fear into the hearts of the bad guys.

I'd like to offer my two cents on this topic; First of all, a handgun in any caliber is not the best choice for ending a lethal force threat, a rifle and a high powered cartridge is more efficient at destroying tissue and causing blood loss or shock. That being said, a handgun is most certainly a compromise because it's is difficult and hardly likely you'll have a rifle when you need it and pistols are readily concealable.

All pistol calibers are weak when held to this standard. Also, what the police choose is not necessarily the choice for a civilian need. What you need is the most powerful caliber you can handle. Overpenetration is not your main concern. Your concern is ending a threat to your life. You also are burdened with the very critical decision of when to shoot, or should you shoot. If you are shooting near others, the chance of missing is greater than of overpenetrating. If you are truly in a legally defensible self-defense situation with no other chance of extricating yourself you'll probably be face to face with an attacker at close range and your shots ought to impact him alone and the debate over a handful of similarly powered handgun caliber becomes insignificant. The force of your defense and your ability to fight are more important. Picking the right bullet that expands in human tissue is the best way to avoid overpenetration.

As far as .357 vs. .40cal is concerned, pick what you can shoot safely, accurately, and with adequate speed.

ive never had a problem reloading 357 sig.
excluding having to lube those damm little cases.
Granted i dont push the envelope i stay in the 1200 fps bracket.
Ive been dooing it since 95  with nary a problem, loading everything from 90 grain hollow points to 147 grain round nose.

Here's my two cent's. I agree with alot that has already been said but lets take a look at where the 40 came from. FBI needed a better man stopper they could have simply went to the 45 or got better ammo for there nine's but that was too easy instead they wanted something new that would make all other calibers obsolete, so the 10mm came the answer to all are prayers.

But soon they found out that that many agents could not qualify with this caliber, so under preasure they come up with the forty an extremly high preasure load that tears up sub and compact guns even Glocks, but was easier too handle.

The 357 sig.  on the other hand is not that high of a preasure load and and measures up too the 357 mag. rated #1 in stopping power, check out Evan Marshalls data.

To conclude if you want hi capacity get 9mm if you want a big bullet get a 45. compare 9mm balistics with the 40' theres not much difference.
I'm soorry too say the emperior has no clothes.

Quoted: I'd like to offer my two cents on this topic; First of all, a handgun in any caliber is not the best choice for ending a lethal force threat, a rifle and a high powered cartridge is more efficient at destroying tissue and causing blood loss or shock. That being said, a handgun is most certainly a compromise because it's is difficult and hardly likely you'll have a rifle when you need it and pistols are readily concealable. What he said......... All pistol calibers are weak when held to this standard. Also, what the police choose is not necessarily the choice for a civilian need. What you need is the most powerful caliber you can handle. Overpenetration is not your main concern. Your concern is ending a threat to your life. You also are burdened with the very critical decision of when to shoot, or should you shoot. If you are shooting near others, the chance of missing is greater than of overpenetrating. If you are truly in a legally defensible self-defense situation with no other chance of extricating yourself you'll probably be face to face with an attacker at close range and your shots ought to impact him alone and the debate over a handful of similarly powered handgun caliber becomes insignificant. The force of your defense and your ability to fight are more important. Picking the right bullet that expands in human tissue is the best way to avoid overpenetration. As far as .357 vs. .40cal is concerned, pick what you can shoot safely, accurately, and with adequate speed.

700PSS- way to make yourself seem even more retarded than normal.  Give your 3 month old topic a rest and stay more informed before you flap your cock holster in my direction again.  Pretty big talk from a guy who has posted 3 times in the last 3 months...you go girl.

 The "90 years of proven results" that you speak of are riddled with urban legends and myths that are absolute fantasy.  I don't think I'm going to convince you that you are full of shit, but any reasonably open-minded person will see that there is very little difference between the best loadings of 9mm, .40, .357SIG, or .45.  If guns for the.45 were smaller and easier to conceal, I would have gone with that.  Shoot the Glock 23C, and tell me that isn't a sweet gun.

Quoted: 700PSS- Give your 3 month old topic a rest and stay more informed before you flap your cock holster in my direction again.

MY 3 month old topic? I don't know what you're talking about there, sport. You've obviously confused me with someone else.

Pretty big talk from a guy who has posted 3 times in the last 3 months...you go girl.

Yeah, uninformed idiots like yourself have made this board less worthwhile, so I've made myself fairly scarce. I have posted far more than 3 times in the last 3 months though, so once again, you appear to have me confused with someone else.

...but any reasonably open-minded person will see that there is very little difference between the best loadings of 9mm, .40, .357SIG, or .45.

The best loadings of the .45? You mean like the top rated 230gr loads you were saying are useless in your previous post?

BTW, I've spent plenty of time with Glocks, and come away less than impressed with them. They are good cheap weapons for LEOs with little training, but I'll keep my H&K USPs and 1911s thank you.

Hi Guys.  A friend of mine got a Glock 357Sig about 1 1/2yrs ago.  We tried some Cor-Bon and Speer ammo.  We found the bullets were getting pushed back into the cases when cycleing.  We even used a Lee crimper to try an tighten the bullets up, but bulet setback was still measureable.  Both companies said send the ammo back and theyed replace it.  He sold the pistol instead.  So you guys might want to measure yours.  Don't know f it's still a problem or not.
 He then bought a Glock 40 cal.  It bulged the cases. So relading them was questionable, so he sold it.
   Now he's got the Glock 21   45cal an the midsize 9mm.  No problems with either an dam they shoot accurate.  JB

If you MUST have a GLOCK, get the model 23 in .40 and you'll be a crappy hamper, I mean, a happy camper...

I've read good things about the Beretta MiniCougar 8040, too.
Getta Beretta.

At the very least, go .40.

Go shoot both the .357 and the 40 in a low light situation. The .357 has a muzzle blast that will destroy any night vision you had. It will make any night site useless. Both cal. are accurate and effective. The .357 is a little more accurate but the muzzle blast of the .357 is bad news.    

Go for the .40. Get some Corbon or other "personal protection ammo" get a 357 Sig barrel later. I went with the 40, can't convince myself of the need for the 357 Sig. If you reload 135 gr. 40 over some Power Pistol Powder will give you all the bang you can stand.

...but any reasonably open-minded person will see that there is very little difference between the best loadings of 9mm, .40, .357SIG, or .45.

The best loadings of the .45? You mean like the top rated 230gr loads you were saying are useless in your previous post?

  I'm not sure they are "useless," in fact, I never said that at all.  I don't believe, based on indicators such as the Fuller Index and other published data, that there is much practical difference between a +P+9mm, a hot .40 or .45, or the .357 SIG- THEY ARE ALL EFFECTIVE MANSTOPPERS!   Please cite me some hard evidence to the contrary.

Foot lbs. gentlemen!  Most "self-defensive" loads for the .40 are in the 400 range in ft. lbs. with the Corbon being the exception.  But, 357 Sig self defense loads are normally 500+.  I have a Sig Pro with both .40 and 357 Sig barrels and shoot both loads.  I am more comfortable carrying self-defense loads with at least 500+ ft. lbs.  As far as expense, you can buy 357 SIG 50 rds. in Selmer & Bellot on the Cheaperthandirt website for around 8$.

Musicman said

Foot lbs. gentlemen! Most "self-defensive" loads for the .40 are in the 400 range in ft. lbs. with the Corbon being the exception. But, 357 Sig self defense loads are normally 500+. I have a Sig Pro with both .40 and 357 Sig barrels and shoot both loads. I am more comfortable carrying self-defense loads with at least 500+ ft. lbs. As far as expense, you can buy 357 SIG 50 rds. in Selmer & Bellot on the Cheaperthandirt website for around 8$.

Remington Factory Ballistics
125gr 357 Sig 506 ft/lbs
155gr 40 S&W 499 ft/lbs

That's only a difference of 7 ftlbs

Quoted: ...but any reasonably open-minded person will see that there is very little difference between the best loadings of 9mm, .40, .357SIG, or .45. The best loadings of the .45? You mean like the top rated 230gr loads you were saying are useless in your previous post?   I'm not sure they are "useless," in fact, I never said that at all.  I don't believe, based on indicators such as the Fuller Index and other published data, that there is much practical difference between a +P+9mm, a hot .40 or .45, or the .357 SIG- THEY ARE ALL EFFECTIVE MANSTOPPERS!   Please cite me some hard evidence to the contrary.

I never said they weren't effective stoppers, I just think 9mm+P+, .40 and .357 SIG operate at pressures that leave too little room for error (I've seen several poorly crimped rounds straight from the factory, bullet setback is a very bad thing with these high pressure rounds). They also have excessive muzzle blast, flash, and usually shorten the life of a pistol. Why bother with them when standard pressure .45s like the 230gr Hydra-Shok and Golden Saber perform just as well, or better in most tests? IMHO, I don't consider the increased magazine capacity with the 9mm, .40, or .357 SIG much of an advantage, I've got 7+1 in my pistol and 14 more on my belt.

Hey 700PSS- I think the difference is still negligible when compared with real world references.  I mean:  are you (the target)really going to feel the difference between something with 450 ft lbs of energy and something with 500 or 550ft lbs?  Dead is dead.

Quoted: Hey 700PSS- I think the difference is still negligible when compared with real world references.  I mean:  are you (the target)really going to feel the difference between something with 450 ft lbs of energy and something with 500 or 550ft lbs?  Dead is dead.

I agree 100%

Actually a 100 ft. lbs of difference is pretty substantial. I doubt the person being shot would be aboe to tell the difference but the energy is the key in the end.

I still will always say the .40 is the best all around cartridge.IMO

Jeez- we all seem to be in agreement- that's scarry.

The .40 was not designed for the kind of SAAMI pressures that the 357 SIG was.  The 357 SIG was designed for pressures more in the 10mm range.

The .357 Sig is at it's best when light. (At or under 125 gr.)

If you plan to do reloading, go .40 S&W.  If you try to reload 357 Sig, you'll be pulling your hair out.  Damn little buggers (357 sig) don't have enough case mouth to grab the bullet.  Most factories, I've heard, use a bonding agent of some type around the case neck.

My .40's reload as easy as any other straight side case ammo, and are a happy mix of magazine capacity and performance in one package.

I like the idea of the 357 Sig, but I prefer the simplicity of the .40 S&W.

Hey!

I resent you telling me that I know what to hell I'm doing!

First pistol I reloaded for was this Sig.

I loaded 'em up 'til I saw flat primers; with a friends die, (told hom if he got the die I'ld buy a pistol and keep him in ammo), and I've been in hand gun bliss ever since.

Crushed one case due to too little lube and bad die set (as in I set it up wrong).

As long as you're using a good factory load, the practical difference between a 9mm +P, .40, .357 Sig, or .45 load is negligible.  Shot placement is far more important.  Pick a gun that fits your hand well and is reliable, then worry about the caliber.  Pick whatever of the above suits your fancy best, then practice your ass off and don't worry about whether or not you're carrying the absolute best 'manstopping' caliber.  They all do pretty decent on the street, and they can all fail, as well.

The FBI gunfight of 11 Aprril 1986 and the studies made afterwards emphatically prove the practical differences between a 9mm+P, .40, .357 Sig, or .45 load are significant.

Energy (foot pounds) is not a measure of wounding ability.  A broad point hunting arrow has the foot pounds of a .22 Short, yet routinely kills big game in North America.  Clearly energy isn't a measure of woulding.  Energy is easy to determine and, yes, a 120mm APFSDS-T long rod penetrator has a LOT of energy and will kill you.

It's all about penetration to reach vital organs and damage at that depth.  Has to penetrate a minimum of 12" to even rate consideration as a defensive (or offensive ) bullet.  With pistol bullets maximum damage is achieved with expanding bullets.  Those which start out bigger will almost always end up bigger.

Shot placement is the excuse for using small bullets and shot placement is an impossible task unless you shoot hundreds of rounds a week in practice.  In a gun fight you get tunnel vision and your fine motor skills fail.  The best you can do is aim center of mass and pull the trigger several times.

Shot placement works fine in hunting and other ambush shooting where the target just stands there without moving.  Works fine in a IDPA match where the targets don't shoot back.  Don't expect to make headshots or 0-rings in a gunfight unless you're behind good cover and have time for perfect aim.

9mm is too small.  That includes fast 9mm like .357Sig.  .40 and 10mm are minimal.  You give up little, maybe one cartridge in the magazine, go move to .45ACP.

Of course if we all agreed we'd all have one pistol firing the same cartridge .

-- Chuck

Chuck I think your last sentence says it all.

Have to disagree, Chuck.  12" is an arbitrary standard, and a number of rounds that only penetrate 10" have performed admirably on the street.  Are you saying that a 40-grain .223 round that only penetrates 9" in a human torso will have no measurable effect on it's target?  Of course it will have an effect, because it dumps a lot of energy in that distance.  Energy is absolutely an indicator of how much damage a round will do, providing the bullet dumps that energy within the torso.  Shot placement is also not an impossible task under stress, unless you've already decided that's so before you get into your gunfight.  Surgical shot placement, maybe.  But when trainers refer to shot placement, it means aiming center of mass rather than the lower intestines, arm, leg, etc.  Trying to get the bullet into the thoracic cavity rather than into a non-vital area.

Just curious, what studies are you referring to that prove the .45 is so superior to all the other calibers?  And don't bother referring to the one the FBI did right after Miami- that was NOT designed to find the best anti-personnel handgun round.

As far as the 9mm being too small, there are a lot of folks who've been killed with them who would probably disagree with you.  My department just had a shooting where the bad guy took one round of standard-velocity 124-grain 9mm center of mass.  Dropped like a rock, DOA.  Most gang homicides in my area- 9mm.  Some of our bad guys have taken good, solid COM hits with .45 hollowpoints and been released from the hospital in a few weeks, back to normal.  The .45 is not a death ray, and the 9mm, .357 Sig, .40 and 10mm are definitely not 'marginal' handgun calibers.  I'd take a full-power 10 over any .45, all other things being equal.  .40's are giving excellent service to hundreds of PD's, and frequently outperform the .45.  

Sparky you the man. I don't know if I would waste my time. You will never convert the die hard 45ers.


Me and Chuck had this same discussion about a month or two ago.

I don't really have a need to convert any .45 fans, I'd just like to hear some evidence beyond someone parroting Fackler that says it's sooooo much superior to rounds like the 155-grain .40 and full-power 10mm.  

Contrary to what Chuck claims, energy IS important.  Energy is the ability to do work, in this case penetrate and destroy or disrupt tissue.  The important things in a handgun round are to penetrate deeply enough in tissue to reach vital organs, and to do maximum damage in the area where those vital organs are.  

Chuck's 12" minimum for penetration is an arbitrary figure arrived at by the 'experts' on the FBI's panel after the FBI's Miami shootout.  They decided that any round that penetrated less than 12" was unacceptable because it probably wouldn't penetrate deeply enough to reach vital organs in some law enforcement shooting scenarios, especially cross-torso shots and shots that went through arms before striking the torso.  Based on the FBI's criteria, it was decided that 'deeper is better', and so American law enforcement got saddled with the horrible 147-grain 9mm hollowpoint.  Based on their 'wound value' system, a Cor-bon 115-grain +P 9mm round actually has a 'wound value' of zero, because it doesn't meet the arbitrary minimum penetration depth.

This, of course, doesn't take into consideration that the average adult male torso is approximately 9-10 inches front to back.  That means the vital organs we want to destroy are located a mere few inches from the front or back.  Rounds that possess a lot of kinetic energy and release that energy shortly after penetration will do far more damage than a load that penetrates 18 inches and waits until the last eight or nine before dumping its energy.  That's why the .44 magnum is not really a good anti-personnel round.  Big bullet, lots of energy, but it routinely overpenetrates and that extra energy is wasted.

The 230-grain Hydra-shok, one of the best .45 loads out there, penetrates an average of 12 inches and expands to an average of .78 caliber.  It dumps 369 foot-pounds of energy in that 12 inches.  This is an excellent anti-personnel round.

However, the Winchester .40 caliber 155-grain Silvertip at 1200 feet per second penetrates an average of 13.5 inches, expands to an average of .70 caliber, and dumps 500 ft/lbs of energy.  Yes, obviously an inferior load to the above-mentioned .45, right?

How about the 175-grain 10mm Silvertip?  At around 1250 fps (depending on barrel length) this round expands on average to .81 caliber, penetrates an average of 12.5 inches, and dumps a whopping 647 ft/lbs of energy.  Again, clearly inferior to the 'man-stopping' .45 [:\].  True, the full-power 10 is too hard of a kicker for many shooters, but that has nothing to do with your allegation that it is a 'marginal' caliber.

So where does the .45 have an advantage?  The only advantage the .45 has is a heavier, wider bullet, but what does that, in itself, do?  Does it give you more penetration?  Not really.  Does it make the bullet expand more so it destroys more tissue?  Again, not really.  True, the .45's greater starting diameter gives you some advantage if the bullet fails to expand, but modern hollowpoints rarely have that problem.  In fact, the higher velocity 9mm, .40, and 10mm rounds are more likely to expand simply because of their greater velocity.

As far as the higher-velocity 9mm rounds go, I think the best .45 loads do have something of an advantage.  However, it's nowhere near what the .45 devotees would have us believe.  Those rounds dump over 400 ft/lbs of energy into their 10 or so inches of penetration, and expand very well, many to .55 caliber or larger.  Many agencies who use these rounds have had excellent results in actual shootings.

There's nothing wrong with the .45 for duty or concealed carry.  It's an effective round, and there are many excellent platforms from which to launch it.  However, it is not a death ray, nor is it the right choice for many shooters.  Non-shooters, people of smaller stature and some females may not like the heavier recoil or large grip size.  For them, a smaller, lighter-recoiling 9mm or .40 may be much more appropriate.  Two or three good hits with a 9mm +P will outperform a miss with a .45 any day.

And the only things that the 1986 Miami gunfight 'proved' is that mindset and will to win are more important than hardware, and don't take your fucking gun out of your holster and stick it under your leg before you ram the bad guys' car.

I have a .40, getting a 357 sig barrel, a S&W 66 .357, several 9's, couple .45's, .38's, .22's

Really the only caliber I would rule out is the .25 acp.

I have a variety of both .40s and 357 SIGs.  I prefer the 357 SIG since I can shoot it more accurately than the .40.  Both recoil about the same, but the 357 has more blast, whcih scares the shit out of other people next to me at the range.  My 229 has both barrels and I enjoy shooting both calibers.  Pick the one you want because they are not that different.