Replies

And when it comes to the broad extremes in handgun ballistics (say from the .25 ACP to the .500 S&W), both the .357 Sig and the .357 magnum are so close as to be virtually negligible.

125gr in .357 magnum is 1600fps/710ft.lbs. 125gr Sig is 1425fps/584ft.lbs. Smallest load for my 10mm is a 135gr that clocks in at a blistering 1700fps/866ft.lbs.

Those are not negligible differences. Ok, well... Not in my book they aren't. ;-)

Smallest load for my 10mm is a 135gr that clocks in at a blistering 1700fps/866ft.lbs.

Wow! Is that for a Glock? I have a G29 and the hottest round I've purchased for it is the CorBon Hunting 180 Grain Soft Point, 1300 fps, 676ftlbs. Had no idea the Glock could tolerate 1700fps/866ft.lbs!

"Those are not negligible differences. Ok, well... Not in my book they aren't. ;-)"

As far as statistical comparisons go, by the numbers, yes, they show apparent differences in the respective performance of the cartridges. I would argue the differences would be considered "highly significant" if you could find a person who would look at them and say, "OK, I guess with numbers like that, you can shoot me with a .357 Sig, but not a.357 magnum or a .10mm!"

And yes...as "different" as those performance numbers are, when placed against the broader spectrum of handgun ballistics, they fall within a relatively narrow band of one another (even more so when you exclude the 10mm and run the .357s head to head).

If you don't believe me, There was an interesting study from about a year ago by Greg Ellifritz:

"Ayoob took his critics to task. He suggested that if people didn't believe his data, they should collect their own and do their own analysis. That made sense to me. So that's just what I did. "

Among the numbers he explored were % 1 shot stops, Avg. # of hits until incapacitated, % fatal shootings, etc. Essentially, while he concludes that some handgun rounds are somewhat better than others, they are generally close enough in performance across the boards that one's best choice is a rifle :-)