.357 SIG

Power of a 9mm, capacity of a .40S&W and the price of a cheap rifle round.

Is this the shittiest caliber ever? Why is everything that has "SIG" on it such a massive piece of crap?

Attached: 1505768221685.jpg (1154x1154, 61K)

It's not shitty, but it's not worth buying either

It doesn't have the power of a 9mm, it actually has better terminal ballistics than 9mm, .40 and .45, even if the typical load produces roughly the same muzzle energy as .40

It shoots flatter than .40 but outside of target shooting that's irrelevant. It is a higher velocity round than 9mm which means it will lose its energy quicker in the human body, leading to less penetration and more expansion. That doesn't mean it underpenetrates however; penetration, given equal testing conditions, also depends on bullet design and hardness of the lead.

So in theory it will cause more damage to soft tissue but in the real world there's no appreciable difference, so it's not worth the cost of upgrading from 9mm to .357 SIG. 9mm is an a available, cheap and effective caliber with extra capacity (although 2 more rounds is arguably negligible),and therefore it is the better choice

Forgot to answer your question

The shittiest caliber ever is probably .45 GAP

I'll just stick with my .40 because I shoot it great, have over 1k rounds and a huge supply of 165 grain Winchester Ranger T that has incredible street performance.

Attached: winchester-ra40t-bullets.jpg (900x600, 83K)

I-iI like it and training with it is fun

Couple it with meme bullets like the extreme defenders at 1600-2000fps and it's pretty impressive

It’s the pinnacle of a defensive round.

I like it, however I like 9x25 Dillon a lot more.

>ridiculously minor differences between things cause you emotional distress
>caring about whatever people buy, use or like
Re-examine your life.

Attached: DLbV.gif (245x220, 1.1M)

>power of a 9mm
Power of a 9mm PCC in a compact pistol, maybe.
From barrels of modest length (8-10"), it actually approaches the ballistics of intermediate-rifle or magnum-pistol cartridges, while fitting through a normal-sized pistol grip much better. Something like pic-related, with a USW-style holsterable folding stock, and firing xtrememe bullets, would be a worthy PDW.

Generally agreed; unless you're going with ludicrously fast-and-light loads to defeat body armor, the ballistics gain just doesn't matter; you're paying more, and getting more, but not in a way that does you any practical good.
However,
>It shoots flatter than .40 but outside of target shooting that's irrelevant.
That's exactly backwards. Target shooting is pretty much always done at known ranges, so it's a simple matter of knowing a hold for that range. The place where flat trajectory really matters is unknown ranges, where a given uncertainty in range results in less potential error. This potentially applies to combat, but is especially relevant for hunting, where one is often shooting at comparatively small targets (the accuracy to hit a fox or coyote's chest zone is comparable to making a headshot on a human), and generally faces greater ethical pressure to make perfect shots every time.
Of course, that's for flat-shooting in general, and explains e.g. why one might favor .223 over .44 magnum despite similar muzzle energy. But why one would even be considering a .357sig PCC for hunting is more than I can imagine.

Attached: 20161010_212346.jpg (1900x1068, 419K)

Fucking this

It basically has the external ballistics 9mm gel boys wanna troll about, while having none of the capacity they claim is important.

>why is this uncommon round with sparse choices in chambering more expensive?
Open an economic textbook, user. A better question would be why is buckshot so damn expensive.

It might not be a great handgun round, but I suspect it would be amazing in a PCC.

Attached: pc-carbine.jpg (3805x1958, 2.67M)

9 pellet 00 buck requires somewhat careful stacking by a human or machine.

It's not a mindless fill and crimp like birdshot. You could finish two or three birdshot rounds in the time it takes to finish one round of buckshot.

>power of a 9mm
You 9 fags are on full delusional butthurt alert

Attached: gay.jpg (600x600, 27K)

>9 pellet 00 buck requires somewhat careful stacking by a human or machine.
you're a retard. a machine just literally drops them into the shell. no manual stacking of any kind! it's just geometry.

As a Glock fan, I think 45 GAP failed worse than 357 SIG. And 41 special is probably the silliest recent revolver cartridge

Can't tell if this is bait or if OP is actually this retarded

Attached: OP.png (800x578, 871K)

>It might not be a great handgun round
Explain

>power of 9mm
>1500 fps
>its more expensive than basic 9mm and thats a problem because you can use specialty +p 9mm ammo that's more expensive that can make a whopping 1200 FPS

.357 sig failed because you have too be intelligent to understand how more powder behind a 9mm sized projectile is a good thing

Attached: f93.png (898x790, 279K)

0 arguments, ching chong.

It's not very popular, and the utility of the extra velocity is dubious when you account for increased muzzle flash and reduced capacity, compared to 9mm.

In a carbine the capacity difference doesn't matter as much, because you're not trying to conceal it, and the extra unburnt powder are efficiently converted into even more velocity.

Can you swap that back to a 9mm barrel and use g17 mags? Because that setup honestly looks like a pretty decent bo pistol

>swap that back to a 9mm barrel
Not "back" as such, since it's originally a .40/.357 slide, not a 9mm slide. A factory 9mm barrel will function, but has a smaller OD, and consequently sloppier fit.
But you can drop in an aftermarket "conversion barrel" (9mm with the .40/.357 OD) and have exactly what you want.

>So in theory it will cause more damage to soft tissue but in the real world there's no appreciable difference.
Yeah, man. 9mm is just as good at .357 Magnum.

.357 SIG was designed to equal typical .357 Magnum performance out of a 4-inch barrel, and it succeeds (.357 Magnum will outperform it out of longer barrels). It gives you ~600 ft-lb, whereas standard-spec 9mm gives you ~350 ft-lb and +P gives you ~450 ft-lb. That's close to double the muzzle energy of standard-spec 9mm.

This matters. With much more energy, there's a significantly higher probability of a one-shot stop. .357 SIG is what 10mm should have been in the first place, and what they should have designed to replace it instead of .40 S&W. Leaving "Magnum" out of the .357 SIG name is the biggest marketing blunder in the history of firearms, if it was .357 Automagnum, everyone would have understood it right away. In revolvers, everyone wants .357 Magnum, even though .38 Special is "enough".

The accuracy is significantly improved by the extra velocity, which doesn't just mean a flatter trajectory, but also starting well above the transonic range, whereas a 9mm bullet starts out in the middle of it. True supersonic = less pitching and yawing.

The problem with .357 SIG being expensive and with limited availability is not inherent to the round. If it gets more popular, that problem will go away. Furthermore, the bullet selection is excellent: .357 Magnum bullets are perfect in it, so there's no problem for reloaders. The necked cartridge is superior, and eliminates compromise between bullet effectiveness and feeding concerns: the feed mechanism doesn't need to touch the bullet, it's got the shoulder to work with. It even has some advantages over .357 Magnum: the smaller powder volume and short, necked shape makes for more consistent burn rate and better ballistic consistency.

9mm is okay, 380 is okay. If you want higher performance in an autoloading handgun, you want .357 SIG.

But also smart enough to not say "but 9x25 Dillon!" because that round is garbage.