Interesting test results and question about ammo?
 

I have been debating on getting a pistol in 357 Sig, i really like the 9mm and this round is like a 9mm on steroids. But i sit down and watched Tnoutdoors9 tests and wrote down all the results. After going back and looking at them i found that 357 Sig 125 gr had a velocity of about 1,336 fps with about 14.50in of penatration. The Underwood 9mm +P+ 124 gr shot at 1,298 fps with about 13.25in of penatration. So now im thinking that with the high cost of 357 Sig ammo and barely better performance over the 9mm that i would be crazy to buy a handgun in 357 Sig, not to mention the reduced round magazine capacity. But i know to achieve the results of the 9mm test i am pretty much limited to Underwood ammo. (all of the tests on this ammo that i have seen has been great!) So my questions are: I want everybodys opinion on Underwood ammo and why would people buy a gun in 357 Sig when u can get pretty much the same results with cheaper ammo and more magazine capacity with the 9mm?

I would never want to rely on a boutique ammo manuf for my carry rounds, That is just me, but if it doesn't come from one of the majors, I am likely not going there. So yes, there are a few +P or +P + loads that are close to 357sig, but they are not cheap compared to 357sig, often cost more. Round count, depends. In Kommifornia, I get 10+1, regardless fo caliber, so round count is pretty moot. I would go 357sig over 9mm in the same platforms. I like the 357sig, shoot it as well as 9mm+P+ so I'll take the extra 75-100fps. In smaller compact or subcompact, I choose the 9mm in a +P laoding. Cost of ammo doesn;t matter to me as I relaod all my practice stuff & 357sig loads for the same cost as 9mm+P.

As Fred says above, unless the ammo has "street cred" it's probably better to not use it for CCW.

That said, I have had good results from Underwood ammo and many others have, too. But it hasn't "paid its dues" in LEO guns, etc. The final decision is up to you.

I've settled on two self-defense calibers, the 9mm and .357sig. If I had to choose only one it would be the .357sig because of its greater overall range and application. Like fred mentioned it's a disadvantage to rely on a single boutique ammo company's supply for your ammo needs.

There is a greater supply of effective 9mm self-defense ammo but where the 9mm is pushing the envelope for that caliber the standard, run-of-the-mill .357sig self-defense rounds aren't even breathing hard.

I carry my 9mm pistols more frequently than my .357sig because of their easier CCW conceal ability, not for their semi-equivalent effectiveness. If you do end up with a .357sig pistol I do think you'll appreciate the fine distinction between the two calibers while acknowledging the worth of both.

With a 125gr bullet in the 357Sig case you should be able to get 1400fps from a full size Glock. That's a respectable difference between a 124gr in a 9mm casing moving at 1200-1250fps. I'm going to have to pick up a G32 barrel for my G23.

.357 Sig is still faster.

Also, are you going to be able to replicate the shooting characteristics of this ammo with your practice ammo? And is this stuff going to be hard on the gun?

If you go with the Glock platform, why not get the .357 sig and by a 9mm conversion setup in 9mm. Shoot more often in 9mm and save some change, shoot more sparingly in .357 sig to maintain proficiency. Practice with 9 carry .357.

The .357 is far from being out of breath as far as popularity is concerned, more choices may be on the horizon. That being said, Underwood may grow, giving more confidence as a supplier. He may never be as big as the big three (or care to be) but being a mainstay such as Corbon or BB is a strong possibility.

Getting the Glock platform in .357 is your "cake and eating it too" scenario once you have the conversion in 9mm.

Underwood 9mm +p+ 124gr = 1,298fps
New Underwood 357 sig 125gr = 1,475fps (as stated by Underwood on GT, not tested yet by TNOutdoors9)

The rounds tested by TNOutdoors9 for 357 sig are all loads from the bigger guys that don't make hotter 357sig loads(Federal, Remington, Speer, hornady).

Let's compare apples to apples.

Having said all of that, the 9mm is a fine cartridge and would serve you well.

I'm just not a fan of the 357 Sig. Just not.

For decades people wanted SOMETHING between 9mm and 45 ACP - give them the 10mm Auto and 40 S&W, but they're not happy. So what's the next GREAT thing? Neck down the 40 S&W so we can have the reduced magazine capacity of the 40 S&W with the smaller bullet of the 9mm - OUTSTANDING! Really? Aren't we kind of re-inventing the wheel? 38 Super Comp seems like a better solution - just because of magazine capacity.

It just seems a bit odd.

Now that said... the 357 Sig is a fine round. Nothing WRONG with it. The thing that makes me "not a fan" is there is a lot of hype about it - "flat shooting", "unbelievable manstopper", etc.

With proper bullet selection there isn't a nickel's worth of difference between 9mm, 357 SIG, 40 S&W, and 45 ACP. Shot placement with any of them will get the job done. Each caliber has advantages and DISADVANTAGES. Choose any caliber you want, but understand your decision has compromises.

Boutique ammo? How about Federal they started out small or corbon or any of the other smaller mfg's with a good rep? I run Underwoods 124 +p+ load and have fired quite a bit in my 19 and 26 and it has been flawless and quite accurate to boot, Is it s a 357 sig? Nope but the 357 sig is not a 357 mag either. A warm 9 midweight will handle just about anything that I'm likely to get into it with.

Actually it's about exactly equal to a 125gr .357 Magnum from a 3" revolver.

A good 9mm load will be a great SD round, no question about it. If I was using a 9mm I would probably use a 124gr +p or +p+.

I like the 357, but there is nothing wrong with the 9mm. In fact, the 9mm has some advantages: additional rounds in the mag, cheaper range shooting, less recoil, less wear on pistols, etc.

I prefer the 357, but I would never get down on the selection of a 9mm. But I do feel to call them the same isn't accurate, as stated in the post I quoted. Different options are wonderful, long live the 9mm, .40S&W, 357sig, .45 gap, .45acp, 10mm, etc!!!!

How's that for diplomacy and peace makin'? :rofl:

It seems to me that shooting +P/+P+ ammo in a 9mm pistol would result in more wear compared to shooting .357sig ammo in a .357sig pistol. Now if shooting a velocity-hyped .357sig round like Underwood is reputed to be then it would be a wash, in my opinion.

Good thinking, bro. I carry a G17 with 115gr WW JHP +p+. I have chronoed this load at 1400 FPS. 17 rounds in my G17 will handle almost anything.

I was specifically thinking about range time with standard pressure rounds, but it is a good point. Although, I still wonder if the +p and +p+ stuff causes as much wear as a 357 sig. I am afraid it is beyond my limited knowledge base.

After spending some time shooting GDs out of the G23 and G24 at "reactive" targets (water bottles, wet cardboard, clay mud, fruits, etc), I think that they are plenty for SD*. They are also street-proven. I am eagerly looking forward to TNOutdoors9 upcoming test of the new Underwood 357 sig GD load.

*I know this isn't flesh. However, I don't have any people to practice on and I won't hunt anymore. If I did I wouldn't use a 357 sig. Hunt all you want, it is just no longer my thing.

Glock endorses 9mm +p and +p+ ammunition. :supergrin:

if that was true everyone would shoot 9mm, why shoot anything else.
in the real world good shot placement, although hoped for, very seldom happens when the shooter and the shot are in motion.
I have seen what those calibers do on animals and the results are quite different, especially the sig.

9mm ammo is the least expensive of all of them, but ammo price is not even in my top five of reasons to choose a caliber. I have chosen 9mm because I have a G17. If I had a G22 I would use .40 S&W. :cool:

I think the 9mm is a fine choice for SD, as is the 357sig, .40s&w, 10mm, 45gap, 45acp, 357 mag, etc. But, none of them are the same. They are all different for different applications, preferences, etc.

It would be boring if they were all the same. I like options!

I think it all depends on the build of the pistol. I have one 9mm pistol that can shoot +P and +P+ ammo without any concern and another that the maker warns against shooting anything but standard pressure ammo. I am confident that my 3rd generation G-32 can shoot the normal (1325-1375 fps) .357sig rounds without any worries and I wouldn't think twice about shooting hotter ammo through this pistol if I had a mind to. But anytime ammo is loaded "hot" it results in more pressures on the gun, whatever the caliber.

I'm sure the Gold Dots in those platforms are more than adequate for self-defense.

Of course. The caliber choices for me depend on the purpose I need it for and I do wonder why so many people --- after having chosen a perfectly adequate caliber --- give in to some anxiety over whether or not they picked the "right" one.

I'm not a hunter but if I was I would need a pistol of a different caliber from the two primary handgun calibers I own. That is, if I was ever inclined to hunt with a handgun.

You are right.

I figure I have the perfect cartridges FOR ME to choose in my Glocks, 357 sig and .40 s&w. They both have worked well for SD with proper loads. I can go with the 125gr 357 sig for most things since I shoot it a little better than the .40. There are a few circumstances where I think a .40 is the better choice FOR ME. I switch out the barrel and load up .40S&W.

I just don't think all of the service cartridges are the same. And I'm not necessarily talking about their ability to stop. One may penetrate barriers better than another. One may have less recoil than another. One may have a platform that is preferred. One may be better from short barrels. Etc.

With the modern +P and +P+ loads available for the 9mm, I don't see the need nor any benefit in the .357 Sig over the 9mm.

The cost of the .357 Sig alone is a major turn off and I'm willing to bet there isn't enough of a difference in the real world in terminal effectiveness between the 9mm +P+ Winchester 127 grain and the hottest 125 grain JHP loads in the .357 Sig.

Anyone want to put forth any real credible data to prove this one way or another?

I'd be willing to be the difference isn't as large as the .357 Sig fan boys would like to think it is.

Another advantage of the 9x19 is that there are more of them. My G17 holds 18. :cool:

Seeing the results from hunting I just really can't buy the penetration only argument, even with handguns. You have to have the penetration, but achieve the same penetration with a higher velocity and different things seem to happen. Gel, while a good way to compare loads, seems to be too homogenized to capture the damage that occurs.

Regarding cost, I can plink with 357 sig at the same price as I can with .40. More expensive than 9mm, but cheaper than .45acp.

I like it and I'll stick with it.