40 S&W vs .357 Sig barrel swaps?
When I shot my first Sig 229 in .357 Sig the thing that impressed me the most was the flat shooting trajectory. One of the biggest issues I’ve had shooting 45acp was the adjustments I had to make in bullet trajectory when shooting with my fixed 1911 sights. Bullet impact may not be something to worry about in close home situations for some people, but for my shooting styles, I want to know exactly where my bullets are going to go from 10-50yds. I know that bullet weights can make a difference, but I’ve always thought that 230gr FMJ was the proper thing to send downrange from a 1911. Although I love my 45acp guns, I don’t use them as defensive weapons. The .357 Sig always seemed to be a step up from the 45acp in certain aspects, like penetration and trajectory. For Law Enforcement, running into bad guns with body armor is become more and more common and the only thing around that these days is a more powerful firearm.
The .357 Sig is a good step in the right direction without being too much.
What about over-penetration? From the data I have read, the .357 Sig has better bullet expansion that 9mm and 45acp and that’s exactly what helps slow the bullet down in the first place. We’re not going to bother talking about stopping power, because if you don’t know this already, it’s not something more experienced shooters attach to handgun calibers because shot placement is more important. I am not that impressed with the 40 S&W. It seems to be more bang and ammo weight, but not a flatter shooting round and doesn’t have much more penetration than the best 9mm rounds. The real reason to have a gun in these calibers is that you can get both in the same gun, if you pick up gun barrels for the other. The Sig 229 in my opinion is the best balanced. There are certain calibers that are meant for concealment and because that’s what they do best, you should use them in that manor, for combat guns, I think the .357 Sig is a step up from other handguns and the next big leap would be for a Carbine.