TexasCHLforum.com

Is there more than just changing the barrel and mag?

John Galt wrote:Is there more than just changing the barrel and mag?

The .40 extractor might tend to throw the 9mm casing back into your face. You can replace it with the 9mm extractor which will work fine with the .40 casing.

I have never had any problem with my Glock 23 to Glock 19 and back.

My G27 functions perfectly with a Lone Wolf 9mm conversion barrel. No problems with ejection.

It works equally well with a G32 (G23 size) stock barrel, but of course the .357 Sig is a necked down .40 so the extractors are the same.

ShootDontTalk wrote:My G27 functions perfectly with a Lone Wolf 9mm conversion barrel. No problems with ejection.

It works equally well with a G32 (G23 size) stock barrel, but of course the .357 Sig is a necked down .40 so the extractors are the same.

Is there a plus to the .357 Sig verses the .40?

carlson1 wrote:

ShootDontTalk wrote:My G27 functions perfectly with a Lone Wolf 9mm conversion barrel. No problems with ejection.

It works equally well with a G32 (G23 size) stock barrel, but of course the .357 Sig is a necked down .40 so the extractors are the same.

Is there a plus to the .357 Sig verses the .40?

Yeah, plus an additional $10 per box.

carlson1 wrote:

ShootDontTalk wrote:My G27 functions perfectly with a Lone Wolf 9mm conversion barrel. No problems with ejection.

It works equally well with a G32 (G23 size) stock barrel, but of course the .357 Sig is a necked down .40 so the extractors are the same.

Is there a plus to the .357 Sig verses the .40?

Aside from the "plus" to the price? No, not really. A decent 9mm +P or +P+ will put you within spitting range of a .357 Sig's velocity/energy, with more ammo in the magazine. Adding in the fact that the differences between and among the various calibers of pistol rounds are essentially statistical noise, when rating the effects of a modern hollowpoint fired from them into a goblin, and all you're really getting from the Sig round is more noise, more recoil, and less ammo, than a similarly-sized 9mm pistol. Compared to the .40, you get more muzzle flip, sharper recoil, louder bark, a lighter and faster bullet, and no change in mag capacity. I too had a G32/23, and I found the Sig round to be more unpleasant than the S&W round (and I cordially detest the .40 S&W for its unpleasant recoil impulse).

If a bottlenecked 9mm cartridge is your "thing," and you like it and can afford the ammo and shoot it well, then by all means, carry it. But if you're wondering if a switch is worth if for sheer terminal ballistic performance? Stick with a 9mm/.40/.45. Ammo's cheaper, and a goblin won't be able to tell the difference, anyway.

carlson1 wrote:Is there a plus to the .357 Sig verses the .40?

My carry gun (P239) is .357 Sig as well as my P226 Tacops house gun.

The .357 Sig was designed to replace the .357 Magnum as closely as possible when departments were switching from wheel guns to semi-autos. While the hotter 9mm ammo is close to or maybe better than .357 Sig, now the primary advantage of the .357 Sig is the bottleneck casing which for all practical purposes eliminates feed problems. Louder? I've shot a .40 and then a .357 Sig and the report is different but I wouldn't call it louder, the only way to know for certain would be to measure both with a DB meter. More felt recoil - possibly. Here again I wouldn't know for sure unless somehow that could be measured with instrumentation. More expensive? Absolutely. I'll switch barrels to .40 for some practice but I shoot a bit of .357 Sig FMJ.

EDIT: I was looking at 9mm +P ammo at sgammo prices and you're looking at .40 to .50 cents a round so I think the price delta between .357 and 9mm is not a factor for carry ammo.

Here's an excerpt from the Wiki:

Because of its relatively high velocity for a handgun round, the .357 SIG has an unusually flat trajectory, extending the effective range. However, it does not quite reach the performance of the .357 Magnum with bullets heavier than 125 grains (8.1 g). Offsetting this general slight disadvantage in performance is that semi-automatic pistols tend to carry considerably more ammunition than revolvers.

The Virginia State Police has reported that attacking dogs have been stopped dead in their tracks by a single shot, whereas the former 147 grain 9 mm duty rounds would require multiple shots to incapacitate the animals. Proponents of the hydrostatic shock theory contend that the energy available in the .357 SIG is sufficient for imparting hydrostatic shock with well-designed bullets. Users have commented, "We're really impressed with the stopping power of the .357 SIG round."

The bottleneck shape of the .357 SIG cartridge makes feeding problems almost non-existent. This is because the bullet is channeled through the larger chamber before being seated entirely as the slide goes into full battery. Flat point bullets are seldom used with other autoloader platforms because of feeding problems; however, such bullets are commonly seen in the .357 SIG chambering and are quite reliable, as are hollow-point bullets.

The "Accurate Powder" reloading manual claims that it is "without a doubt the most ballistically consistent handgun cartridge we have ever worked with."

carlson1 wrote: Is there a plus to the .357 Sig verses the .40?

Actually, no they're different. I wouldn't compare the two. The Sig was designed to give a high capacity auto loader the same performance as a .357 Magnum - without the flash and muzzle blast. It does that with regard to flash. Muzzle blast is diminished somewhat, as is recoil due to the action. .40 shoots heavier bullets better - which is why I chose the G27 over the G26.

.357 Sig vs 9mm? Yes, there is a rather significant difference in that when people say, "well you can just use a 9mm +P+ and approach Sig velocities" which is true, but at the expense of a pressure level that is unspecified by SAAMI. You are completely at the mercy of whoever loads 9mm to +P+ levels - pressure wise. There is no spec.

The .357Sig uses a bottle necked .40 S&W case (necked down) that does not suffer from bullet setback caused by feeding the .40. The Sig feeds very reliably and I've never seen any setback issues. Bottle neck cases are inherently more consistent ballistically than straight wall cases.

I like the .40 for heavier bullets, the .357 Sig for near .357 Mag performance with the 125gr Gold Dot, and the 9mm for cheaper practice and all the other advantages it offers. Having my pick of the three with a simple barrel swap (and mags for 9mm) in my G27 gives me lots of flexibility. My take on it anyway.

ShootDontTalk wrote:

carlson1 wrote: Is there a plus to the .357 Sig verses the .40?

Actually, no they're different. I wouldn't compare the two. The Sig was designed to give a high capacity auto loader the same performance as a .357 Magnum - without the flash and muzzle blast. It does that with regard to flash. Muzzle blast is diminished somewhat, as is recoil due to the action. .40 shoots heavier bullets better - which is why I chose the G27 over the G26.

.357 Sig vs 9mm? Yes, there is a rather significant difference in that when people say, "well you can just use a 9mm +P+ and approach Sig velocities" which is true, but at the expense of a pressure level that is unspecified by SAAMI. You are completely at the mercy of whoever loads 9mm to +P+ levels - pressure wise. There is no spec.

The .357Sig uses a bottle necked .40 S&W case (necked down) that does not suffer from bullet setback caused by feeding the .40. The Sig feeds very reliably and I've never seen any setback issues. Bottle neck cases are inherently more consistent ballistically than straight wall cases.

I like the .40 for heavier bullets, the .357 Sig for near .357 Mag performance with the 125gr Gold Dot, and the 9mm for cheaper practice and all the other advantages it offers. Having my pick of the three with a simple barrel swap (and mags for 9mm) in my G27 gives me lots of flexibility. My take on it anyway.

And this is why I said to carry what you're comfortable with. Very true on the +P+ designation, btw; I forgot to add that in. For -me-, I found the .357 Sig to be more unpleasant to shoot than the .40. And for -me-, I don't find that the Sig adds enough in "power benefit" over the 9mm to justify the increased recoil and decreased magazine capacity. That being said, I would certainly never feel "undergunned" with the Sig round; it IS a good round, I just don't like it.

But then, this is the great thing about handguns: there's variety enough for everyone!

JSThane wrote:..But then, this is the great thing about handguns: there's variety enough for everyone!

Just like ladies and their purses . I have handguns in .380, 9mm, .357 Sig, .40 and .45 - something for every occasion.

johncanfield wrote:

JSThane wrote:..But then, this is the great thing about handguns: there's variety enough for everyone!

Just like ladies and their purses . I have handguns in .380, 9mm, .357 Sig, .40 and .45 - something for every occasion.

What, no wheel-guns?

JSThane wrote:

johncanfield wrote:

JSThane wrote:..But then, this is the great thing about handguns: there's variety enough for everyone!

Just like ladies and their purses . I have handguns in .380, 9mm, .357 Sig, .40 and .45 - something for every occasion.

What, no wheel-guns?

Nah, they never appealed to me.

johncanfield wrote:

JSThane wrote:

johncanfield wrote:

JSThane wrote:..But then, this is the great thing about handguns: there's variety enough for everyone!

Just like ladies and their purses . I have handguns in .380, 9mm, .357 Sig, .40 and .45 - something for every occasion.

What, no wheel-guns?

Nah, they never appealed to me.

Years ago nearly everything I shot was a revolver, 44 mag, 44 special, 41 mag, 357 mag, and S&W model 25-1955 (45 ACP), but now auto's are just more comfortable in my hand.