I own guns in both cartridges and really enjoy shooting both. It's really up to the shooter. On one hand you make a bigger hole, which is better in soft tissue. On the other you make a smaller hole which allows lighter bullets and thus, more velocity which, along with being a smaller caliber allows you to penitrate hard barriers better. Neck it down even further and you would have body armor penitration but at what point is a bullet too small? 357sig is pretty much one bullet weight design to do one thing really well and it does.
The sectional density of 125gr is comparable to 155gr .40 by the way.Comparing those weights the difference in drop at 100 yards between them is roughly 2 inches. The .40 being heavier looses less energy at range. Heck, standard pressure 230gr .45 can have more energy@ 100 yards than either despite starting out with much less, although it drops like a rock. I just don't understand why you'd need a 357sig to reach out farther, for a tiny difference in drop and no more energy (actually less) at distance. I like the 357 I just don't buy some of the bull surrounding it. I also shoot .40 better and more accurately. I will say .40 has a little more recoil on average but the difference is like splitting hairs. It can vary by brand of ammunition as to which has more or less recoil.
Is 357 sig needed? I think so. The light fast 9mm is covered in other cartridges but they are longer and need larger grips/frames. Some agencies feel they need the best barrier penitration available in current service calibers and for that, 357 sig is the king but that is an awfully small niche.
Last edited by Scoob; 04-13-2011 at 08:14..