357 SIG compared to 1911
So far I have 2 handguns in my collection. The first being a Springfield 1911 and the other a .357 revolver. One thing I notice about the 1911 is the poor accuracy that at least I have when firing the gun. I have shot a friends Browning 9mm on several occasions with a lot better grouping on the target, especially during rapid fire. There as been conflicting information on the web in regards to the 357 SIG round on it's recoil and accuracy. For anyone who has fired both a 1911 and a SIG (I am looking at a Glock 31 for purchase), is there a considerable difference in recoil and accuracy of these two weapons? What about compared to a 9mm?
0
-
First of all welcome to the forum johnbo. Glad to have you aboard. Now as to your problem here goes: first you don't say what kind of revolver you have? next which gun have you shot the most ? You might be more used to your revolver and thats why you shoot it better. Usually revolvers are more accurate than autos, I said usually but this is not always the case. Your revolver may have better sights than your auto which again would give the edge to your revolver. I have a Browning Hi power and I can attest to their accuracy. Also remember you are talking about different calibers here (9mm vs .45). Less recoil. If you can be a little more specific, myself and others on the forum may be able to help you better. 0 -
A 1911 can be a very accurate pistol, but they usually need a little custm work to get that way. I have a couple of different 357 Sigs, and it does have a heavy recoil. I would recommend that if you are going to go with the 357 Sig round, that you buy a Sig pistol. They are heavier and will handle the recoil a little better.
"My faith, my country and my family will guide me; nothing more, nothing less" -Gen. Tommy Franks
Jess Hoffman
Mooseyard Precision
LE Supply & Firearms
NRA Certified Instructor
Shawano, WI 541660 -
Interesting stuff, this .357 Sig thing-
I like the the cartridge and its potential. Yes, I said "potential", because there is still quite a bit of research and "development" to be done with it to refine it to its full level of performance.
I have done a little bit of "play" with it in the 1911's high capacity conveyances, and it still needs work. More specifically, manufacturers have to address the issue with proper feeding magazines. The .357 Sig has been labeled as an "easy feeding bottleneck cartridge". Not so with 1911's single or doublestack magazines. Ocassionally one stumbles into one that feeds well this cartridge, while most do not. Don't ask me why, just try it. I have modified some magazines to work, but they did not come from factory that way, which is behind the times.
Once you get them to feed properly (in 1911's) and work some good loads, the cartridge shines very bright. Excellent performer, both in power and accuracy.
Another problem which will affect mostly "re-loaders" is the availability of bullets with the "right" geometry. When you stick them in for loads used in 1911's you will normally make them longer (OAL) to better occupy the space available in 1911 magazines, or otherwise put a spacer in the magazines to compensate for the nominal lenght, and this allows you to avail yourself of a bigger range of available bullets. But when you load them to the "normal" factory length, then a lot of bullets can not be used or "crimped" properly as the bullets "ogive" will not allow it. As I said, more manufacturers need to jump in the bandwagon and address the potential of this cartridge.
The .57 Sig was designed for "9mm. sized" guns, not for ".45 ACP sized" guns. While manufacturers have addressed the issue of using 9mm in 1911 sized guns, they are lagging behind with the .357 Sig.
1911's are usually (in the standard government lenght) bigger and heavier than other guns like Glocks and Sigs, and should be able to absorb the recoil dished out by hot .357 Sig loads better.
Demand, as they say promotes supply... So, speak up to the manufacturers and demand they deliver.
On the meantime, I will shoot my IPSC Open gun in .357 Sig with far better results than the .38 Super (other than maximum mag capacity) and smile. Yes, it works in 1911's and is very accurate.
As for accuracy compared to revolvers? Are we inhabiting the same planet?????? I also love revolvers, but... [:D][:D][:D][8D][8D]0 -
The G-rod (glock) is lighter than a comparable Sig, and will likely give you more recoil than a full-weight arm in the same caliber. All my experiences with the 1911 and its' clones have been expensive, frustrating, and inaccurate. The accuracy of the 357Sig is almost legend in the proper shooter's hands, and in a gun built to handle its' sharp, short recoil impulse. I've fired a Sig P220 in 45acp several times in informal shoots, and I'm convinced that Sig has a better gun than Mr. Colt's notoriously inaccurate paperweight.
(no bias here![:D])
Compared to the 9mm parabellum, the 357Sig is a little harder recoiling, has a distance advantage, and will shoot out of any gun designed for it. The bottleneck cartridge was designed to feed reliably from magazines made for it and the .40S&W; not the 45acp.
The 9mm has a few drawbacks compared to the Sig as well; most notable is the case capacity, along with the bullet weight range available.
Where the 9mm and 45acp drop to the ground; the 357Sig is still chugging along, an indication of its' accuracy potential at longer ranges.
In other words, 9mm and 45acp are belly guns; with the 357Sig, you can shoot across the lot.
By the way, welcome to the forum! If you do a search on 357Sig, you'll probably find more info, but none of it definitive.
Try a SigPro2340 and enjoy both 357Sig and 40S&W from the same gun (it'll be less expensive than that G-rod you're contemplating!)
"Qui non est hodie cras minus aptus erit" --OVID0 -
Thanks for the input. This is the kind of info I am looking for. In reference to the type of revolver that I own, it is made by Taurus, though I am not sure of the model. I got it about 15 years ago and I hardly take it out these days. It was the first gun of any type that I purchased, which is the main reason why I still have it. I am guessing that comparing the SIG to the 1911 gives a little better comparison than it would against a revolver. I am not necessarily more accurate with the revolver and I basically only mentioned it to express my lack of experience with handguns, being as I only have the two (more of a rifle person).
The main reason that posted this was to help on deciding whether to get a Glock 9mm or a .357 SIG, with mostly having experience with the 1911 to go by for comparison (I will be looking into the SigPro2340). I am starting to lean toward the SIG since there seems to be more pros than cons so far, here and on the web. There is no question that the SIG is a more powerful round than the 9mm, but so is the .45, at least over short distances. However, if there is no real advantage over the .45, then is it worth it for me to even get something that is pretty much redundant? This is where my interest in the similarities in accuracy and consistency during rapid fire to the 9mm comes in. Is this the SIG a good middle ground between a 9mm and the 1911? What has been posted in the replies so far has been very helpful with some of these questions.
Another concern I have is the longevity of the round. It seems like the .40 was more of a fad (could be wrong, but it's the impression I get), where I believe the SIG has been picked up by the FBI and the Secret Service among other agencies (then again, wasn't the .40 picked up by some government agencies at one point also? Maybe not).0 -
well you say 357 revolver which a sig and magnum round are two totally different things. the SIG round is built for use in an automatic. the magnum is built for the revolver. the magnum definitely hs more recoil than the 45 and more than the SIG auto round. I have the 357 SIG in a Springfield Armory XD. The round is hot. It is also accurate as far as rapid fire goes. It doesnt have bad recoil at all, but does recoil more than a 9mm. My buddy has a Kimber 45 stainless which is an very very very accurate pistol. It doesnt recoil very much, but it does recoil more than a 357 sig, but not much more. If all you want to do is see how fast you can empty a clip then go with a 9mm, they are much cheaper to buy (bullets and gun wise) than the 357 or the 45. As far as accuracy goes, I think it goes pistol to pistol, I have had ruger p-series 9mm pistols that will shoot with the best of them at 25 yards. Recoil wise, all you should really be thinking about is the first shot and for stopping power without total penetration you should look at a 40 s&w. the 1911 is a tried and true design for a long long long time. they are accurate and the recoil is able to be tamed. you can find them in a wide variety of price ranges. for the price of a new glock, you can probably get a Kimber for a little more. the kimber will shoot as good or better and you wont notice the recoil. if you just want home defense, get a shotgun. if you want a collector piece, get the kimber, glock, springfield, beretta, or S&W. forget the recoil.
When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.0 -
I once owned a Glock 357. I personally would stick with the 357 sig
round, but I would get it in a Sig Arms Pistol, or perhaps a Spring
Field Armory.
I have witnessed some pretty impressive accuracy with the 357 sig
calibre in a Sig Arms Pistol.
Spazzzzzzz0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
7 comments