.357 Sig, Can't find info

[Fail-Safe]

I am not aware of anyone who has measured penetration and expansion of a large number of bullets so these measures are less useful because the numbers do not exist.

I'm aware of many people who have "measured penetration and expansion of a large number of bullets". In fact this particular section is moderated by one of those persons.

When you claim that penetration and expansion of the 147 grain 9mm is superior to the 125 grain 357 SIG, it is purely speculation on your part unless you have test results on the 357 SIG and then you need to specify the bullet.

Basically you want me to do the leg work for you. OK, you caught me at a good time, I'm kinda bored and your posts arent making any sense, so I'll help you out.

http://www.winchester.com/SiteCollec...law_bullit.swf

Click on that link. In the pull down menu I want you to select 9mm "T" Series(147gr Ranger T), 9mm+P "T" Series(124gr+P Ranger T), 9mm+P+ "T" Series(127gr+P+), and .357sig "T" Series(.357sig Ranger T).

The link will allow you to compare those 4 rounds. Tell me what you see.

I wouldn't compare 125 grain 357 to 147 grain 9mm, I would compare 147 to 147. The beauty of the energy measure is the ease with which it can be calculated.

I merely compared the loads because you claimed FPE was everything. All I did was prove to you that FPE isnt a wounding factor, and that a round with less FPE can, and does, offer far superior terminal ballistics.

You like energy because you are lazy. You want a mathematical equation to yield real world examples. It doesnt happen that way.

Reliable statistics on penetration and expansion may some day be available for many bullets and loads, until then, energy is a useful, if limited measure.

River Tim, stop posting so much and start reading. You dont have to go far either. Pertinent info can be found on this very site, in this very forum, in the "stickied" selections at the top.

Sorry but your are 100% inaccurate in regards to this topic.

[Longhorn]

LOL!

Its weird. Perhaps they have two contracts. I've spoken to treasury folks who referred to the .357sig Ranger T loading as the new "treasury load" because of its lessened penetration. Same with the 115gr+P+ rounds they used in their 9mm SIGs previously, as well as the 110+P+ .38spec loads before that.

It's possible the USSS and UST have different contracts...I dunno. Like I said, I'm basing it on some-what older information so they very well could have updated their ammo supplier in recent years/months.

Lessened penetration?! Wow...that's a first!!. (I know what you're getting at tho.)

[Fail-Safe]

Lessened penetration?! Wow...that's a first!!. (I know what you're getting at tho.)

Its one of the reasons they went with the 5.7x28.

Proof-positive that just because a LEA does it, doesnt mean you should

[Longhorn]

Its one of the reasons they went with the 5.7x28.

Proof-positive that just because a LEA does it, doesnt mean you should

Oh come on! That's just insane! They're a major LEA...they have to know what they're doing, and what they're doing is right! lol.

And have/do you see any "benefit" so to speak of the Rangers over the XX918 load? (outside of the reduced penetration, as I said I know where you're going with that.)

I can't remember if it was one of Doc's tests or an ATK page where I saw this, but I wasn't too impressed with the Ranger tested. I want to say the Ranger load was better in bare gel, but when you started adding barriers (denim, steel, glass etc) the penetration and expansion both suffered while the XX918 load offered more uniform and consistant performance.

[Fail-Safe]

Check out that link I supplied to Suawannee Tim. Thats Winchesters own data.

[Ed L.]

http://www.winchester.com/SiteCollec...law_bullit.swf

Wow, the 147 grain Ranger T 9mm does outperform the .357 Sig in penetration and matches it if not exceeds it in expansion. It also does as well as the 9m +P and +P+ loads.

It may be worth a switch to the 147 grain ranger from the +P and the +P+ versions as it is less recoil and muzzle jump which means a faster shot to shot recovery time.

[Longhorn]

F-S, here's the document I'm referring to with the USSS GDHP test.

https://869789182725854870-a-armsmas...www/357sig.pdf

For those who don't care to open it

Test - Avg Pen - Avg Exp - Avg Weight

Bare Gel - 14.70 - .64 - 125.1
Heavy Clothing - 17.35 - 0.51 - 125.1
Steel - 16.45 - 0.50 - 123.0
Wallboard - 14.15 - 0.56 - 125.6
Plywood - 15.25 - 0.54 - 125.2
Auto Glass - 14.80 - 0.56 - 96.3
Heavy Clothing @ 20 - 17.80 - 0.53 - 125.3
Auto Glass @ 20 - 15.15 - 0.53 - 106.0

[Ed L.]

Thats not USSS. Thats FBI-FTU.

[Longhorn]

Thats not USSS. Thats FBI-FTU.

I'm aware of who administered the test, but look at the Notes section.

[kmrtnsn]

It's possible the USSS and UST have different contracts...I dunno. Like I said, I'm basing it on some-what older information so they very well could have updated their ammo supplier in recent years/months.

Lessened penetration?! Wow...that's a first!!. (I know what you're getting at tho.)

Not sure about this "treasury load". USSS is not part of Treasury but part of DHS. DHS ammo is purchased through DHS-ICE NFTTU at Altoona, PA. USSS specs their own stuff, NFTTU buys it for them.