357 Sig vs 9x19

Ouch, that would hurt. Even the worst of them (147 grn 9mm) would be bad for your day. Crappy hydrostatics though, not much shock value. Bet it would be better out of a longer barrel (carbine or smg).

The stretch cavity on the .357 and the 40 is very close isn't it? They'd all end a discussion very quick.

For availablity, it's pretty hard to beat the .40 S&W. I've just always liked the sig, nice to see people do things differnt sometimes.

I was suprised at the performance of the .45 hp. We've come a long way with bullets in the last 10 years. 45 never used to expand worth beans, now they open up as low as 700 fps.
 
no Darren that wan't me...

.357sig is more powerful (because it obvoiusly has more room for powder). I never disputed that, but IMO the diff. is very small when compared to hot 9mm loads.

Also the wear on gun doesn't really depend on the operating preasure, the gun will either expoald or it won't. It's the recoil (that preasure generates) is what beats up guns. Just like 9mm +p+ will wear out a gun faster than a regular 9mm load, so will a .357sig.
 
IM_Lugger said:
Also the wear on gun doesn't really depend on the operating preasure, the gun will either expoald or it won't. It's the recoil (that preasure generates) is what beats up guns. Just like 9mm +p+ will wear out a gun faster than a regular 9mm load, so will a .357sig.
Click to expand...


I was thinking the same thing, but on examination of about 1/2 of the guns that have failed here, the cracks were in the locking system( slide recess/locking insert). So it is very possible that the higher pressures affect this type of failure. Of course very high pressures will cause catastophic failures.
 
Two thoughts... Higher pressures mean higher stresses and faster bullets of the same weight mean more recoil and thus more impact (more peak stress in the parts that stop the slide travel in both directions.)

Both of these mean a reduced fatigue life (i.e. fatigure cracks form and propagate until critical fracture happens.) in fewer cycles. As the desired number of cycles before failure or replacement increases the maximum allowable stress drops rapidly and then levels off at what's called the endurance limit. The value of the endurance limit (steel only) as a % of the yield strength is determined by notch radius and by surface finish. Areas with sharp notches are most prone to crack formation. Aluminum doesn't have an endurance limit and will get weaker and weaker with each cycle until eventually it fails.

This is why aircraft have strict parts replacement schedules. The parts are more than strong enough for a few cycles but will fail after too many. So they need to be replaced after a specific number of cycles (flight time.)

Wear is NOT fatigue... Wear, is related to abrasion, or deformation due to pounding. Fatigue is inherent strength loss of the material. It typically leads to cracks that weaken the part until it is replaced or fails catastrophically.
 
How does the Stainless as used in the Sig compare for fatigue compared to other gun steel? The stainless should be softer than regular steel and more malleable, therefore wearing faster but more resistant to cracking?
 
There are a lot of variables. Heat treating, surface finish, radius at stress concentrations...

These all play as large or larger a role than the base material. Some stainless is more fatigue resistant and some is less. Also with some stainless in some environments you can get selective corrosion of the alloying elements that leads to molecular sized "sharp" cavities that act as ideal crack starting points.

In general though I'd say the risk is lower with stainless due to reduced corrosion, typically lower hardnesses and typically higher yield and ultimate strengths.

Sorry I can't be more definitive.
 
I concurr with those who said that failure isn't pressure related. Pressure would act against the tensile strength of the material and all of the steels involves are more than strong enough. The failure is caused by fatigue, (as mentioned) brought on by slide battering due to slide velocity. Slide velocity is controlled by a) lock up geometry or system (either browning cam or hk delayed blowback) and b) spring strength. Most 9mm are sprung for standard 9mm (at least in north america) and I would contend that most 357 are sprung for the slide speeds it generates. If you changed out your 9mm springs for stronger ones, I will agree that the difference between +P+ and sig in very small, and that it is no harder on the pistol. However you now have a pistol that won't fire standard rounds reliably. It's a trade off.
 
Darren Constable said:
I concurr with those who said that failure isn't pressure related. Pressure would act against the tensile strength of the material and all of the steels involves are more than strong enough. The failure is caused by fatigue, (as mentioned) brought on by slide battering due to slide velocity. Slide velocity is controlled by a) lock up geometry or system (either browning cam or hk delayed blowback) and b) spring strength. Most 9mm are sprung for standard 9mm (at least in north america) and I would contend that most 357 are sprung for the slide speeds it generates. If you changed out your 9mm springs for stronger ones, I will agree that the difference between +P+ and sig in very small, and that it is no harder on the pistol. However you now have a pistol that won't fire standard rounds reliably. It's a trade off.
Click to expand...


SIG only sells one standard recoil spring for their 9mm guns, there is no "heavy" or "light" option for NATO ammo. Same with Glock and Beretta.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom