357sig........40 s+w.......9mm.....which to choose?

[soggybottomboys20]

I just wanted to start off by saying thank you for everyones help. A while ago I asked a question about a rifle - which caliber is most accurate, good enough for north american game, and doesn't have much recoil. Thanks to all of you, I took the advice and went out and bought the rifle and I love it. It did everything I wanted.


Now I have another question I hope I can get some help on. I am starting to buy handguns. I have narrowed down a revolver choice to the Smith & Wesson 657   41 for a hunting round.  On the other hand, I also want to buy an auto. My personal preference choice that I have been looking at is Glock.    I want a round that I can take to the range and not spend a lot of money on ammo, but I also would like the caliber to do some damage to the things I would shoot at. Personally I narrowed the choice down to the 357 sig  40 s+w  and the 9mm, although I will take anyones suggestion on their caliber of choice and brand of company for these reasons. Price range around 700-800  is what I was expecting to pay.

I would like to thank everyone in advance for their opinions and time.

[jro45]

I like my Glock 22 in 40 cal. It is a fun gun to shoot. I just recently got another 40 cal. barrel for it and all the bullets go in one bullet hole at 15 yds.
 I also have a 357 Sig barrel for it and a 22 cal. slide and barrel for it. This gun handles all three cal.

[K.K.]

for pure economy, it's tough to beat the 9mm.  cheap ammo abounds.  However, you stated that you like power, too.  It's true that new 9mm personal defense loads are far better today than they were years ago, but they aren't in the same league as the .357 Sig and .40.  

Both the Sig and .40 S&W are great rounds, but I have never seen inexpensive .357 Sig ammo.  However, Wal-Mart sells very cheap 9mm,and .40 S&W lead reloads, which is about all I shoot at my club indoors.  Your choice, but if were me, I'd eliminate the .357, and go with either the 9mm or .40, not because I dislike the .357 Sig, but simple economy as well power and flexibility.  Just my 25 cents!

[Beekeeper]

Wal-Mart is selling .357 Sig ammo in the Winchester White box--at least around here they are. I'm going to get a Glock 31 for CCW in a few days. I'll just buy the Winchester white box for general shooting and woodchucks that invade the soybeans.

[Ahab]

I got em all. Really like the Glock 22 with a .357 sig barrel by Jarvis. Shoots better than the others. Never a hang up. Use Winchester white box ammo.

[uz2busmc]

If you get the glock 20 in 10mm, you will have an auto that is more powerful and more versatile than the calibers you initially asked about, and you can also hunt with it. www.doubletapammo.com provides ammo for the 10mm that is loaded to what it should be at great prices to boot. The g20 holds 15+1 and is in the price range you set.

The only down side is the cost of rounds, it is a little expensive... about the same as the .357 sig, but then again, you'd be saving money by not having to buy the .41 to hunt with.

Last note, the 10mm is addicting :twisted: [/url]

[M-4 shooter]

Man, go with a .40S&W its cheap to shoot and you get the best of both worlds, in terms of bullet speed and energy. 357 sigg with a 124 grain bullet will go about 1200 to 1300 FPS fast but still a light and 35cal bullet, 9mm same bullet just slower, 40S&W will shoot a 180 grain bullet at a 990 FPS has a bigger bullet and will match a 357 sigg in FPS when shot with a lighter bullet (like a 124 grain).

[JeffG]

Great advice here!!

[azmike]

Personally, if I were looking at a Glock, I would go with a 9mm, just because I have a personal preference for a fully supported chamber, and in a Glock, you can only get that in 9mm.  

Not that there is anything wrong with the 40 or 357 rounds, or Glock pistols chambered for them.  I only prefer the 9mm (in Glocks at least) for my own peace of mind.  Besides, with modern bullets, the 9mm is no slouch for personal defense, plus ammo is still cheapest in 9mm, and nines are more fun to shoot, for me.  

That said, the only auto I currently own is a 40 (a Steyr, with traditional rifling and a fully supported chamber), and I carry a Beretta 96 daily at work.  However, my next centerfire pistol will either be a Glock 17C, or a 1911 in 9mm, and I would not feel handicapped in the least if my agency issued a 9mm pistol instead of the 40.  

Best of luck with the decision before you.

[Savage]

azmike,
You pretty well verbalized my feelings on the Glocks. I have a 17, 21, and a 36. The nine is for sure the flagship of the Glock line, for exactly the reasons you stated.
Savage

[poncaguy]

I have a Glock22 in 40. Do you have to change anything besides the barrel to go to 357 Sig? How is recoil compared o the 357?

[Savage]

The .357 Sig and the .40 use the came case. A barrel swap is all that is required to convert your 22. Neither caliber is a "kicker", I'd say you probably won't be able to tell much difference. The .357 is a little
snappier, but less actual recoil energy due to the lighter bullets.
Savage

[K.K.]

If you are new to handguns, the 9mm offers a good blend of stopping power (with good, modern loads), low recoil and magazine capacity.  It is also less expensive to shoot than the others, so you are more inclined to practice more, which is always a good thing.

I don't have much experience with the Sig round, though I also carry a model 27 40 S&W and like that very much as well.  Some don't like Glocks, but mine have proven accurate and reliable.

[oso45-70]

Soggybottomboys,

You can't go wrong with the glocks,just like timex takes a licking and keeps on ticking. [/b]My choice would be the mod. 22 for an all around carry gun .........Joe..........

[jro45]

Man, go with a .40S&W its cheap to shoot and you get the best of both worlds, in terms of bullet speed and energy. 357 sigg with a 124 grain bullet will go about 1200 to 1300 FPS fast but still a light and 35cal bullet, 9mm same bullet just slower, 40S&W will shoot a 180 grain bullet at a 990 FPS has a bigger bullet and will match a 357 sigg in FPS when shot with a lighter bullet (like a 124 grain).

My 180 bullets go 1065 fps in my 40 Glock. The Sig 357 can shoot the 147 gr bullet at 1275 fps

[Old Griz]

:cb2: Like Joe and others, I'd go with the Glock 22. The .40 is just a cheap to shoot these days as the 9mm—usually just a few cents higher per box (less than a dollar for sure)—and it's a more efficient stopper. Just ask all the LEO that are switching from the 9mms to the .40s. Heck, it's cheaper to shoot .40s now than .38s!

As for the price, around here they are about $525 new, and $600 if you want night sights (a good idea!).

Oh, and by the way—smart choice on the .41 mag!

[azmike]

My brother was struggling with the same decision recently, only over SIG pistols instead of Glocks.  Being a velocity junkie, he went with the .357 Sig.  Then he went looking for ammo.  Whoops!  In his area, .357 is about 4-6 dollars more per box, and he is now looking at dumping a chunk of change on a reloading setup, or getting a .40 barrel for the gun, so he can have access to plentiful, relatively cheap ammo.  Nothing wrong with the .357, IMO, but why spend more when the other two will serve?  

Shoulda just got the nine and shot 124 grain +p's if he wanted velocity.  Oh well, it's only money.