quote:

Originally posted by GataGunner:
As I just bought an Aim Surplus LEO trade-in P226 in .357 Sig, this thread interests me. Hopefully this means we get more cheap .357 Sig pistols.

The federal government destroys their old guns.

quote:

Originally posted by jljones:

quote:

Originally posted by GataGunner:
As I just bought an Aim Surplus LEO trade-in P226 in .357 Sig, this thread interests me. Hopefully this means we get more cheap .357 Sig pistols.

The federal government destroys their old guns.

Oh I thought that was just a meme.

quote:

Originally posted by spunk639:

quote:

Originally posted by HCM:

quote:

Originally posted by spunk639:
I thought the USSS would’ve gone to the P-228/M11, as they had before.

Besides the fact that the 228 is out of production and the 228 did not hold up to high volume shooting why they do that ?

It’s like asking why wouldn’t they just go back to the .357 revolvers they had before the P228s ?

I like 228s enough that I own one but time marches on and the era of metal framed hammer fired guns as issued LE duty guns in coming to an end. They are not cost effective for agencies or manufacturers.

Last I checked the M11 is still made, same trigger system, same holsters and magazine pouches, same manual of arms.

Last you checked must have been in the 90s. The P228/M11 has not been made in decades.

The M11A1 is a rail-less P229 meant to sell bad on nostalgia.

The fact that military M11s are worn out and is a headache for SIG to do repairs is one of the reasons for the MHS project. It wasn't just to replace the M9 (M17), but also to replace the M11 (M18).

I think you may be missing what dude is trying to say. A rail-less 9mm 229 would be a wise choice.

It was a choice that was actually floated by the firearms instructors for the FAMS, in their quest for a new pistol. No new holsters or training, but buy all new 9mm P229s because they are happy with them. But the head shed wants striker, and seem to have their minds made up on what they want.

quote:

Originally posted by jljones:
I think you may be missing what dude is trying to say. A rail-less 9mm 229 would be a wise choice.

It was a choice that was actually floated by the firearms instructors for the FAMS, in their quest for a new pistol. No new holsters or training, but buy all new 9mm P229s because they are happy with them. But the head shed wants striker, and seem to have their minds made up on what they want.

Let me guess, they want Striker because / USSS....

quote:

Originally posted by GataGunner:

quote:

Originally posted by jljones:

quote:

Originally posted by GataGunner:
As I just bought an Aim Surplus LEO trade-in P226 in .357 Sig, this thread interests me. Hopefully this means we get more cheap .357 Sig pistols.

The federal government destroys their old guns.

Oh I thought that was just a meme.

Required by law since the Clinton administration.

quote:

Originally posted by spunk639:

quote:

Originally posted by HCM:

quote:

Originally posted by spunk639:
I thought the USSS would’ve gone to the P-228/M11, as they had before.

Besides the fact that the 228 is out of production and the 228 did not hold up to high volume shooting why they do that ?

It’s like asking why wouldn’t they just go back to the .357 revolvers they had before the P228s ?

I like 228s enough that I own one but time marches on and the era of metal framed hammer fired guns as issued LE duty guns in coming to an end. They are not cost effective for agencies or manufacturers.

Last I checked the M11 is still made, same trigger system, same holsters and magazine pouches, same manual of arms.

But costs more. Not to mention the increased QC problems trying to make metal framed guns at competing price points.

I’m aware of several agencies that were willing to pay the premium to stick with metal frame TDA SIGs and gave up due to repeated, large scale QC problems with newer SIGs.

quote:

Originally posted by HCM:

quote:

Originally posted by jljones:
I think you may be missing what dude is trying to say. A rail-less 9mm 229 would be a wise choice.

It was a choice that was actually floated by the firearms instructors for the FAMS, in their quest for a new pistol. No new holsters or training, but buy all new 9mm P229s because they are happy with them. But the head shed wants striker, and seem to have their minds made up on what they want.

Let me guess, they want Striker because / USSS....

I don’t know where the influence was but they are presently testing the 19 and the 320.

quote:

Originally posted by YVK:
Nobody wants to discuss a rumored 6,000 round service life of current .357 SIGs

I've got a friend who's been with the FAMS almost from the point of them being put under the DHS umbrella...According to him, Agency SOP is to replace their 229's at the 35K round mark...He's on his fourth or fifth pistol--As an Instructor, he shot quite a bit for several years--And he's only had one gun that needed to be replaced before the 35K point--That one pistol where the group's opened up to around eight inches at 25yards, upon examination it was determined that the Frame had cracked--This was at about 32K IIRC--FWIW, he says the rank-and-file FAMs are quite pleased with their 229's and that the push for change is coming from "On High"...

Personally, I think if you want a lighter gun, 9mm is the way to go, and in my opinion, it is better at stopping people than .45 ACP and .40 S&W. Why do I say thi?

There was a study in my state were a police officer/trainer collected data on actual gunfights over the course of a decade attending many of the autopsies himself to compare the ballistics of the various calibers. He had data from about 1,800 bodies in actual gunfights which is better than gel tests any day of the week in my opinion.

The most important metric in my view was the failure to incapacitate rate. I'm going by memory, but I recall them being as follows:

.25 ACP = 35%
.32 ACP = 40%
.380 ACP = 16%
.38 Special = 17%
.45 ACP = 14%
.44 Mag, .40 S&W, and 9mm = tied at 13%
shotguns (80% being 12 ga.) = 12%
Centerfire rifles and .357 Mag & .357 SIG = 9%

The interesting thing about 9mm was that, out of 9mm, .40, .44, .45, .357 Mag/SIG, 9mm was the only one where MORE THAN HALF THE BULLETS WERE FMJ.

Think about that.

Now, whether .357 SIG is superior or not, in my opinion, rests on whether you believe hydrostatic shock was/is a myth as reported by the FBI in the 1980. Some subsequent studies claim that the FBI and the Vietnam era doctor who said it was a myth didn't have the equipment to measure the effects in the CNS. I am not claiming to know one way or another, but the consensus I found in forums is that people still think it's a myth and anything other than 9mm is a waste of time at this point. Of course, those beliefs aren't mutually exclusive and opinions vary greatly.

At the very least (rounding up), the study showed that 9mm, .40 S&W, and .45 ACP each required three rounds on average to incapacitate someone. .357 SIG, on the other hand, required two (again, rounded up).

Personally, I believe if 9mm didn't have quite the mix of FMJ it very well may have been very close to .357 SIG. However, the study didn't keep track of the specific ammunition (only the caliber). I did an analysis a few years ago of the average muzzle energy of the various rounds. In other words, I found all the commercially available rounds I could find (within reason) and averaged them out. The results were as follows:

.25 ACP = 72 ft. lbs.
.32 ACP = 143 ft. lbs.
.380 ACP = 217 ft. lbs.
.38 Special = 260 ft. lbs.
9mm = 379 ft. lbs.
.40 S&W = 447 ft. lbs.
.45 ACP = 447 ft. lbs. (yes, they tied exactly)
.357 SIG = 526 ft. lbs.
.44 Mag = 964 ft. lbs.

The reason why .44 Mag didn't stop people any better than 9mm is likely due to over penetration.

What we also have to remember is that this is muzzle energy, so by the time the bullet reaches the target, it's going to be less than this (and often considerably less).

The study I read on hydrostatic shock, if it can be believed, mentioned that for it to be effective, the concurred with another study that the bullet must deliver a MINIMUM of 500 ft. lbs. of energy.

Since the study of the 1800 bodies didn't provide specifics, I merely use this statistic in an attempt to unscientifically fill in the blanks. Let's assume, and it's a big assumption, that on average these averages for muzzle energy were similar to the ammunition (again, on average) that was collected in the data.

If this were true, and argument could be made that the .357 SIG ammo, though resulting in a modest 4% improvement over 9mm, .40 and .44 mag, was not powerful enough on average to show much in the way of hydrostatic shock (again, if you subscribe to that theory).

So we can look at 9mm and I don't think it's a stretch to say that, if it had a similar mix of hollow point ammunition, it would have beat .40 S&W and .44 Magnum (along with .45 ACP) in its ability t incapacitate an individual.

Likewise, if the .357 SIG ammunition was warmer on average, it may have produced an even small number of failures to incapacitate (keeping in mind that it already beat out shotguns and tied centerfire rifles).

We also have to understand that .357 SIG is a 9mm bullet (both are .355" diameters with similar weights). A .357 SIG can do anything a 9mm can do, but you can't say the opposite is true.

Yes, you can fit a couple of more rounds into a 9mm magazine, but is that statistically relevant? It wasn't in the case of this study because .357 SIG exceeded 9mm and required fewer rounds. In fact, if you do the math, the difference in incapacitation rate vs capacity is essentially a wash.

So if we can assume either 12+1 of .357 SIG or 15+1 of 9mm coming out of a SIG P229 can get the job done, then what is the benefit of 9mm over a .357 SIG?

One could argue that .357 SIG is designed to feed more reliably (though I don't have a problem with 9mm). One can also show that .357 SIG is more accurate than 9mm (according to the study of 1800 bodies). For people who prefer 9mm, there is no reason why .357 SIG loads can't be loaded identically. But for ensuring better penetration through barriers or to dispatch dangerous animals, .357 SIG leaves 9mm far behind with loads capable of 2100 fps and 636 ft. lbs. of energy. The advantage over 10mm is arguably bullet weight (specifically reduced recoil and less chance of over penetration).

I think what it may come down to is price. There is a reason why .357 SIG and all modern combat rifles are chambered in cartridges using the bottleneck design. Dumbing it down (for me), Energy = 1/2 mass x velocity squared. This means that velocity builds energy faster than mass, and since less mass kicks less, there is an obvious benefit to fast calibers, and the .355" diameter bullet seems to be the ticket. .380 ACP was a significant improvement in teh study over .25 ACP and .32 ACP, and it uses a .355" diameter bullet just like 9mm and .357 SIG.

In other words, I believe the superior caliber is more about the superior diameter of the bullet which gives us the best of both worlds (mass & velocity) to achieve its purpose. Only the .357 SIG, however, can do everything a .380 ACP and 9mm can do while also providing a much more powerful load than either of those calibers are capable of producing.

Anyway you slice it, we don't have enough information for sure, but I certainly am not ready to get on board with the Secret Service and abandon the .357 SIG. In truth, I carry guns chambered in .357 SIG, 9mm, and .380 ACP, so I don't have a dog in the fight. I like the .355" diameter pistol round, and I think size & weight of the pistol dictates the caliber (for me). I had a Glock 33 chambered in .357 SIG, and I can't say that I loved shooting it, but I love my SIG P229 (which mine is chambered in .40, .357 & 9mm). For my Beretta PX4 Storm Compact, it is strictly 9mm, and my Ruger LCP II is obviously a .380 ACP. The difference between .380, 9mm and .357 SIG is essentially velocity, and I for one don't see the value of limiting rounds by doing away with .357 SIG so long as we can keep that caliber alive. I'm not sure why they are so expensive considering the first semi-automatic pistol rounds were in fact bottleneck designs, but this also came at a time when nations were trying to do away with hollow point ammunition, and I can't help but think that might be related to the surge in straight walled popularity.

Anyway, those are my thoughts for what they're worth (which isn't a whole lot, I admit).

Sheepdogged has a good point. I recall the dark ages when the revolver, using the 125 grain .357 load, punched a lot of bad guys tickets. Since the the .357 Sig is pretty much the equivalent of that load, I am inclined to trust its efficiency. I will say that, thanks to the recent design improvements that ammo has undergone in the past few years, I believe that caliber now is less important than bullet construction and performance.
And placement is important, of course!
And I still carry .45ACP. 9mm may expand, but 45 doesn't shrink.

quote:

Originally posted by Sheepdogged:
Personally, I think if you want a lighter gun, 9mm is the way to go, and in my opinion, it is better at stopping people than .45 ACP and .40 S&W...

No disrespect intended but I can say that most of this so-called “study” doesn't make sense on its face. If such a study exists, it sounds like a classic climate change study where there is a predetermined result because of bias.

Not too long ago, it was accepted knowledge that 9mm was the bare minimum for SD. As far as I'm concerned, it still is despite the chorus of people who claim that bullet advancement (that seemingly has been exclusive only to 9mm) has made the 9mm the ultimate man-stopper.

Agencies going to 9mm are doing so because of cost and because it's the mildest round available for their personnel that's still somewhat effective.

quote:

Originally posted by pessimist:

quote:

Originally posted by Sheepdogged:
Personally, I think if you want a lighter gun, 9mm is the way to go, and in my opinion, it is better at stopping people than .45 ACP and .40 S&W...

No disrespect intended but I can say that most of this so-called “study” doesn't make sense on its face. If such a study exists, it sounds like a classic climate change study where there is a predetermined result because of bias.

Not too long ago, it was accepted knowledge that 9mm was the bare minimum for SD. As far as I'm concerned, it still is despite the chorus of people who claim that bullet advancement (that seemingly has been exclusive only to 9mm) has made the 9mm the ultimate man-stopper.

Agencies going to 9mm are doing so because of cost and because it's the mildest round available for their personnel that's still somewhat effective.

Bullet construction has come a long way since the 80's. The 9mm 147gr was once a dog and to be avoided at all costs. Now its a viable defensive round. I'm old enough to remember what was being said as LEOs transitioned from 357 to 9mm to 40, and then back to 9mm. INMSHO there is a direct correlation between a 357\9mm sized round moving at around 1,300 FPS, and good terminal ballistics.

I've seen two shootings with 357 Sigs. One was a P226 with Gold Dots and the other was a P229 with Winchester Ranger. Nothing spectacular happened in either one. In fact, the suspect shot with the Gold dot (in the shoulder) made it back to the Station for booking from the hospital before the end of my shift. No magic bullets, shot placement.

Rumor is the armed pilots will also getting new guns. Be interesting to see if they get what the FAM’s get or something else.

quote:

Originally posted by pessimist:

quote:

Originally posted by Sheepdogged:
Personally, I think if you want a lighter gun, 9mm is the way to go, and in my opinion, it is better at stopping people than .45 ACP and .40 S&W...

No disrespect intended but I can say that most of this so-called “study” doesn't make sense on its face. If such a study exists, it sounds like a classic climate change study where there is a predetermined result because of bias.

Not too long ago, it was accepted knowledge that 9mm was the bare minimum for SD. As far as I'm concerned, it still is despite the chorus of people who claim that bullet advancement (that seemingly has been exclusive only to 9mm) has made the 9mm the ultimate man-stopper.

Agencies going to 9mm are doing so because of cost and because it's the mildest round available for their personnel that's still somewhat effective.

No disrespect taken, but if you're going to say something like "most of this so-called 'study' doesn't make sense on its face", it would follow that you would explain why you feel that way. In other words, saying something doesn't make sense doesn't mean it's true. You have to offer evidence. Neither of us is going to provide "proof" per se, but you have to do better than likening something to climate change. So tell me, what doesn't make sense?

quote:

Originally posted by SgtGold:

quote:

Originally posted by pessimist:

quote:

Originally posted by Sheepdogged:
Personally, I think if you want a lighter gun, 9mm is the way to go, and in my opinion, it is better at stopping people than .45 ACP and .40 S&W...

No disrespect intended but I can say that most of this so-called “study” doesn't make sense on its face. If such a study exists, it sounds like a classic climate change study where there is a predetermined result because of bias.

Not too long ago, it was accepted knowledge that 9mm was the bare minimum for SD. As far as I'm concerned, it still is despite the chorus of people who claim that bullet advancement (that seemingly has been exclusive only to 9mm) has made the 9mm the ultimate man-stopper.

Agencies going to 9mm are doing so because of cost and because it's the mildest round available for their personnel that's still somewhat effective.

Bullet construction has come a long way since the 80's. The 9mm 147gr was once a dog and to be avoided at all costs. Now its a viable defensive round. I'm old enough to remember what was being said as LEOs transitioned from 357 to 9mm to 40, and then back to 9mm. INMSHO there is a direct correlation between a 357\9mm sized round moving at around 1,300 FPS, and good terminal ballistics.

I don't even know if that is really true about construction like everyone says. Perhaps that was just a meme because in the study, like I mentioned, more than half the 9mm's were full metal jacket, and it still performed as well or better than most of the other calibers (only being bested by .357 Mag/SIG); and like I also said, if the 9mm's had as many hollow points as the other calibers, it likely would have beaten .40 S&W and .44 Mag. Right? I mean if more than half were hollow points while the other calibers were using mostly hollow points, how much can we blame or credit improvement in technology? Perhaps powders are creating more velocity? I would think greater velocity might work against FMJ's, but then again, there is a lot we don't know about the particulars.

Remember also that the military switched to 9mm 34 years ago long before these alleged advances took place. I'm sure they had a reason. In my opinion, 9mm (.355") gives the right balance of mass and velocity to lessen the chance of over penetration which is likely why larger calibers often fail despite delivering greater energy. All things being equal, heavier bullets penetrate more and faster bullets build energy quicker than mass.

quote:

Originally posted by 10round:
I've seen two shootings with 357 Sigs. One was a P226 with Gold Dots and the other was a P229 with Winchester Ranger. Nothing spectacular happened in either one. In fact, the suspect shot with the Gold dot (in the shoulder) made it back to the Station for booking from the hospital before the end of my shift. No magic bullets, shot placement.

That's true, but by posting .357 SIG had a failure to incapacitate rate of 9% compared to 13% (.44 Mag, .40, and 9mm), I know I wasn't implying some kind of magic. Just slightly better performance that, if delivering in excess of 500 ft. lbs. of energy without over penetrating, might be even better.

quote:

Originally posted by Sheepdogged:

Remember also that the military switched to 9mm 34 years ago long before these alleged advances took place. I'm sure they had a reason.

Yes. NATO.

What the military did isn't very relevant, given the role that the pistol plays in military service.

quote:

Originally posted by sns3guppy:

quote:

Originally posted by Sheepdogged:

Remember also that the military switched to 9mm 34 years ago long before these alleged advances took place. I'm sure they had a reason.

Yes. NATO.

What the military did isn't very relevant, given the role that the pistol plays in military service.

Who do you think controls NATO??? Sorry, but the U.S. Military didn't adopt the 9mm to conform to NATO. Nor did they believe it was unimportant. And from the results of 1800 bodies, it seems to be the best performer (short of .357). If you have evidence better than 1800 bodies involved in actual gunfights, I'd love to hear it.