Talk:.357 SIG

Please improve the History section
Can some of the people who watch this article find any include some date when the round was developed and first implemented. Thanks in advance.Lordaleksandre (talk) 06:56, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

"While it is based on a 10mm auto case shortened and necked down to accept 0.355-inch (9.0 mm) bullets..." This is not accurate. It is based on a 40 S&W case. To prove that... The 10mm is a large pistol primer and the 40 smith is a small... The 357 Sig is a small. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.240.116.111 (talk) 21:29, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

The 357 Sig is loosely based on the 40 S&W, but there is no commercial casing that can act as a parent, its got a different primer than the 10mm and is longer than the 40 S&W. In short, it is its own thing, and the origin phrase "While it is based on a 10mm auto case shortened and necked down" is not accurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.174.150.165 (talk) 01:10, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Proper cartridge name in Wikipedia
There are several pages in Wikipedia that are meant to relate to the .357 SIG cartridge, many of which are incorrectly named or do not conform to the de facto naming standards present here on Wikipedia.

The correct naming convention for all designated English-unit cartridges in Wikipedia includes the decimal before of the cartridge name, regardless of whether or not the numbers represent the actual bullet diameter of the cartridge. Also, with this particular cartridge, SIG is an acronym for Schweizerische Industrie Gesellschaft. As such, SIG should be capitalized.

All other .357 SIG pages (i.e. 357 SIG, 357 sig .357 sig, etc...) should point to this page.

Thanks, Raygun 00:58, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I would also like to add that there are several cartridges in existence that do not conform to this non-decimal naming convention, yet are commonly known by their approximate caliber. For example, .45 ACP (uses .451" bullets), .45 Colt (uses .454" bullets) and .45-70 (.458" bullets); .380 Auto (uses .356 bullets); .44 Magnum (uses .429" bullets), etc... I do not see the necessity in making such a differentiation here on Wikipedia when it is not widely used in any case. Raygun 02:02, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Note on cartridge name and use of 40 S&W brass Joe4570 The proper name is 357 SIG as defined by both CIP and SAAMI, the standards group's released drawings, as petitioned by the manufacturer. The SAAMI cartridge and chamber drawing is dated 7/19/64.

The documented headspace in on the case mouth, however, handloaders frequently headspace on the shoulder as is the norm for bottle neck cases. The drawing reference dimension to a mid shoulder is 0.677"-.007". The problem with conversion of 40 S&W brass is that it results in a 0.020" shorter neck after forming and the 357 SIG already has marginal bullet contact surface area. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joe4570 (talk • contribs) 14:50, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Headspacing
The "necked" .357 SIG round offers high reliability and potentially improves accuracy as the round headspaces on the shoulder (angled or sloped part of the case) of the cartridge in a similar way to rifle rounds. and Unlike most bottlenecked cartridges, the 357 SIG headspaces on the case mouth; cartridges that are too short can result in serious malfunctions of the guns in which they are used, possibly leading to serious injury. Well? Which is it?

71.235.66.254 03:43, 20 March 2007 (UTC)


 * According to the 48th edition of the Lyman Reloading Handbook, it headspaces on the case mouth. —Thernlund (Talk 18:09, 20 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Fixed and referenced. —Thernlund (Talk 18:14, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Article title
I understood that the correct name of the the round was "357 SIG", not ".357 SIG", because this was not a .357 caliber round, it was just named "357" because it was designed as a competitor to the .357 magnum round. If I am correct, then the article should be moved to "357 SIG". Bradford44 13:39, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

POV?
"Until the .357 SIG, there was no practical semi-automatic pistol round with comparable performance to the 125 gr .357 Magnum revolver bullet." Seems sort of POV. Not to mention incorrect, since the 10mm actually exceeds said performance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 214.13.82.22 (talk) 07:56, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Not to mention the old .38 Super. I removed the paragraph. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 22:01, 28 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Seems there are at least two uncredited rounds here -- Bo Clerke's .38/45 Clerke, originally intended as a target round but capable of reproducing .38 Super ballistics (and it much precedes the .357, dating from the '60s), and the 9x25 Dillon, as I recall a 10mm case necked to .357, which was I guess sort of a stalking horse for the .357 SIG. -- Craig Goodrich 98.220.72.56 (talk) 04:22, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

.40 S&W ????
Bullet .357 SIG calibre is a bullet .357 S&W and case proportion copied from .30 Tokarev Gnomsovet (talk) 11:51, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Quick question about the listed speed for 110-125 grain projectiles coming from a .357 Magnum Handloaded cartridge-which a 357 SIG CANNOT do safely if at all:

Has anyone here checked the hodgdon load data with 110-125 grain projectiles using 296 and H-110 powder? From a longer barrel (ten inches or more) those handloads can approach 2,000 fps safely (without being over-pressure). 296 and H-110 are not powders for novices to use (the burn rate is erratic if the powder charge isn't compressed correctly). However, the standard factory loads of approximately 1600fps can be easily exceeded. Please check into this, it always bugs me to see the milder loadings of magnum cartridges listed as the baseline. 357 SIG cannot do this, there is no way to push that cartridge to the upper limits of what .357 Magnum can do. While the SIG can come very close to the MAG with factory loaded .357 Magnum, this is not the case with carefully constructed .357 Magnum handloads, not even close at all. The SIG has many great advantages over the 9mm Luger but it's performance can be reached with 9mm +P ammunition, the advantages are reliability in feeding and ballistic consistency. It has a place in specialized applications but it is NOT capable of .357 Magnum performance, and cannot even use the heavy bullet weights of the latter. Also bullet construction of .355 bullets is much more limited than .357.

Another thing, lots of mentions of hydrostatic shock for the popular handgun rounds but not much if any talk of energy dump/transfer. The kinetic energy of the bullet doesn't necessarily transfer to the target, so for hydrostatic shock to occur: bullet construction is paramount. A roundnosed bullet is very unlikely to do so unless it's built to fragment (sintered metal DRT, glaser safety slugs). HAAzero (talk) 07:13, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

You overstate the design objective of the 357 SIG: to duplicate the performance of 125-grain (8.1 g) .357 Magnum loads fired from 4-inch-barreled (100 mm) revolvers, in a cartridge designed to be used in a semi-automatic pistol. NOT to equal the .357 Magnum in all loads in all firearms. 97.91.254.54 (talk) 15:57, 24 February 2016 (UTC)


 * This is laughable. The velocities listed by Double Tap are well known foibles in the handgun world. I have tested loads that box list as 1,400 fps in X" barrel, and even in an 1.25X" barrel will not even hit 1,200 fps. Msjayhawk (talk) 18:44, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Please correct "Implementation"
In the "Implementation" section of this article, it is stated that "In most cases, it [the .357 SIG] has replaced 10 mm, .40 S&W and 9 mm loads." While this may be true for 10 mm loads, I know for a fact that 9mm and .40 loads are still significantly more popular in Europe and The United States with military & law enforcement personnel and civilians as well. ErinGoBragh555 (talk) 23:19, 12 November 2010 (UTC) ErinGoBragh555


 * What it meant was that, in most cases where 357 SIG replaced something, the other named rounds were what was replaced, not that in most cases where the other cartridges have ever been used, they have been replaced by 357 SIG. --67.180.106.165 (talk) 17:21, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Might a tabular display of this data be more useful? haugen haus (talk) 02:56, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

SigSauer
SigSauer was a German and Swiss firearms manufacturer. Today the Swiss SIG (Schweizerische Industrie Gesellschaft) has sold their firearms production manly to German partners. Sauer was founded 1751 in Suhl, Thuringia, Germany. SIGarms was founded 1985 by SIG. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.153.3.10 (talk) 13:02, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Dead link
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!


 * http://www.cip-bp.org/index.php?id=tdcc-telechargement
 * In .223 Remington on 2011-05-20 21:28:33, Socket Error: 'getaddrinfo failed'
 * In 10mm Auto on 2011-05-23 02:08:47, Socket Error: 'getaddrinfo failed'
 * In .223 Remington on 2011-05-31 04:44:11, Socket Error: 'getaddrinfo failed'
 * In .325 WSM on 2011-05-31 12:36:32, Socket Error: 'getaddrinfo failed'

--JeffGBot (talk) 12:44, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 2
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!


 * http://www.accuratepowder.com/data/PerCaliber2Guide/Handgun/Standarddata/35738Cal(9.2mm)/357%20SIG%20pages%20103%20and%20104.pdf
 * In .357 SIG on 2011-05-20 21:37:04, 404 Not Found
 * In .357 SIG on 2011-05-31 12:44:12, 404 Not Found

--JeffGBot (talk) 12:44, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on .357 SIG. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110928053224/http://www.flickr.com:80/photos/mstroopers/4301510197 to http://www.flickr.com/photos/mstroopers/4301510197/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 20:55, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Contradictions in Characteristics section
This section claims (1) the .357 SIG produces virtually identical muzzle velocity for a 125-grain bullet as a .357 Magnum; (2) recoil is the product of bullet mass and muzzle velocity; and (3) the .357 SIG produces less recoil than the .357 Magnum. If (1) and (2) are true, then (3) sounds doubtful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ClarkC162 (talk • contribs) 05:00, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

abc NEWS (2019 Aug 01): "US Secret Service switching to 9mm Glock pistols"
In 2019 the U.S. Secret Service announced they will be switching from the Sig 357 to Glocks in 9mm. https://abcnews.go.com/US/us-secret-service-switching-9mm-glock-pistols/story?id=64719349 Phantom in ca (talk) 07:20, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

10mm in-text link destination
In the first line of the 'Conversions' section the text '10 mm' is linked to 'Orders of magnitude: Length', should it not link directly to the page for 10mm Auto? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.13.219.163 (talk) 13:25, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Is 9mm equal to or superior to 357 Sig?
Is 9mm equal to or superior to 357 Sig? Let’s think about that for ourselves for just a moment, shall we? I get it that some people pick a side and feel the need to defend their choice, but not to the extent of regurgitating pure nonsense that they themselves were misinformed on.

Some ammo manufacturers actually have loads that even surpasses the ballistics of traditional 357 magnum performance. Underwood's 357 SIG Gold Dot for example. Also because it’s a bottleneck cartridge it has the added benefit of feeding more reliably than other pistol rounds. It’s flat shooting and will punch through auto glass like it was butter.

It’s literally a 9mm projectile “except” because it’s 225-300 fps faster it penetrates most barriers as well as 10mm yet doesn’t over penetrate flesh, which is welcomed to aid in avoiding collateral damage.

It has a flatter trajectory that in turn makes it more accurate and potent at distance. Though the penetration is no greater than 9mm in flesh, the cavity damage is much more devastating making it more likely to stop a threat with less shots.

357 Sig Compact and Subcompact firearms actually have more energy than an equivalent sized barrel length 10mm. Even out of as much as a 4” barrel, Underwood 125gr 357 Sig has the energy that’s equal to or greater than most 10mm loads with the exception of a few specialty loads. Basically 10mm energy only surpasses 357 Sig out of longer full size barrel lengths.

Underwood has a 357 Sig 65g Xtreme Penetrator round that exceeds 2250+ fps out of just a 6” barrel. I don’t know of any other semiautomatic pistol caliber that has rounds capable of such velocities from a handgun. It goes straight through a 3A panel even. At those velocities normally temporary cavities tear.

One of the most attractive benefits of owning a 357 Sig is the ability to convert the firearm to 40 S&W & 9mm with nothing more than a simple barrel swap. You also normally can do a 357 Sig or 9mm conversion if you own a 40 S&W firearm as well. That means you can train on whatever platform you’re most comfortable with and whatever ammo is the most affordable, and no it isn’t always 9mm. That means that you are less hindered by ammo shortages… and when you’re done training simply swap out the barrel and ammo back to 357SIG and you’re all set. Sadly on a native 9mm firearm you don’t have any option to do a conversion.

I never understood what’s not to like about 357 SIG… well other than ammunition availability and cost being the only negatives I guess, but it is the better round.

Keep in mind that when you compare 9mm +P or +P+ to try to achieve 357 Sig performance, 357 Sig is actually cheaper than 9mm. When I searched +P+ to get as close to 357 Sig performance as possible, it was more expensive than a standard 357 Sig JHP round.

9mm +P+ is still only 1300 fps in 124 grain. That’s 50 fps slower than the lowest end 125 grain Sig round at 1350 fps and we’re comparing +P+ 9mm ammo here. Yet the bare minimum 357 Sig performance isn’t even achievable and this is usually attempted in a platform that isn’t even recommended for +P+ or even +P at times.

I say it’s best to swap to a 9mm conversion barrel when training and back to 357 Sig right before you’re all done to finish up with 357 to cut that expense down.

In most cases the recoil of any superior round can be overcome with training. I actually have little to no recoil on one of my setups. It’s compensated. You’ll find that comps actually provide greater compensation with 357 Sig compared to 9mm because of the higher pressures. I do understand that some people are recoil sensitive and are more comfortable with 9mm or other lower recoiling rounds. I understand some just prefer the thought of higher capacity. I totally understand your decisions. But let’s not bash any superior round because you prematurely decided on a specific one.

Naturally shot placement, especially with pistol calibers is key… but under pressure understandably, your shot placement could be lacking. With that in mind the welcomed advantages of 357 Sig could easily make the difference between life and death, shot placement aside.

There’s nothing wrong with 9mm it’s awesome, but let’s be clear… it isn’t equal to 357 Sig and the few extra rounds it’s capable of holding in a magazine over 357 Sig definitely doesn’t make it the superior choice. In time I expect 357 Sig to make the comeback that 10mm has made in recent years… For myself these 357 Sig advantages make 9mm less desirable. How about for you? 357SIG (talk) 04:18, 12 July 2023 (UTC)