First, I like the 357SIG. It is the caliber I prefer, actually. However, there are those who feel that the 357SIG is just a 9mm. Well, technically, they are right. Conceptually, it is also hard to argue against the merits of their statement as such. After looking at teh information on hand, I have concluded that: The 9mm penetrates almost identically. The 9mm expands to almost exactly the same diameter in a given loading. Where then is the advantage to the 357SIG against an animal (hunting), or against a human assailant who is not hiding behind sheet metal (in which case, the superior velocity and identical meplat of the 357SIG would be an advantage)? Temporary cavity, within the human body, is worthless unless it causes the tearing or rupturing of tissue. Below about 18-2200fps, it is not violent enough to do so, unless the liver, a non-elastic organ, is involved. Ergo, the energy from the 357SIG that causes a slightly larger TC is doing work--moving tissue--but not in a violent enough manner to cause it to tear/be destroyed. Thus this work/energy is wasted on something superflous that is not causing any more blood-loss than the lesser expendature of energy from the 9mm, which has an identical permanent cavity. Ergo, other than the "fun-factor", or the ability to punch through sheet metal (the FBI sheet-metal tests show the 9mm performing identical to the 357SIG, btw.), what reason is there to give up capacity and tolerate more blast/recoil (even though I find it a very slight increase, it IS an increase), and more wear/tear on the weapon? I do not have a reason other than I ENJOY the round. Thus-far, I am incapable of arguing that it is terminally superior to a quality 9mm. Here are my sources with regards to ballistic testing: http://www.winchester.com/SiteCollectionDocuments/flash-SWFs/law_bullit.swf http://le.atk.com/pdf/Butte_WBW_5_27_09.pdf What say you?