posted 05-24-2003 11:56               

They recently shot an old Ford Taurus daily during a week of firearms inservice. He said that not a single .40 Speer Gold Dot (don't know what weight) penetrated the car door. He said the .357 sig (don't know what round, but it was a "duty round") routinely penetrated the door.

I don't know that this proves anything as the different areas of the door are not the same, and there was no medium behind the door to check the performance after it passed through the door.

posted 05-24-2003 14:01            

I believe you will find your answer here:
http://64.177.53.248/ubb/Forum1/HTML/000432.html

"The statement that the .357Sig, “has the ability to defeat hard targets better it can expand more with an equal bullet type.”, is not supported by either our research or that of the FBI FTU Ballistic Research Facility in Quantico, VA. When firing through heavy clothing, automotive steel panels, automobile windshield glass, interior wall segments, exterior wall segments, and plywood, both the .357 Sig Speer 125 gr JHP Gold Dot and 9mm Speer 124 gr +P JHP Gold Dot exhibited nearly identical penetration and expansion results THROUGH ALL THE DIFFERENT BARRIERS. Several .40 S&W and .45 ACP loads offered superior terminal performance through barriers compared to the 9mm and .357 Sig loads."

In this same thread, SSA Boone from the FBI FTU describes how LE agencies can get the data from their testing.

posted 05-25-2003 16:14               

I know that David DiFabio makes no claims one way or the other, but he did report on one of his threads that in 214 GoldDot shootings and another 100-125 shootings with Rangers and Federals, that the 357SIG had zero failures to stop in 4 rounds or less.

posted 05-25-2003 19:18            

1. The 357 Sig is a modern cartridge benefiting from the latest engineering concepts. As such, the bullets loaded with it have generally all been designed and tested using the latest FBI, IWBA, etc... testing protocols. This results in less failures to expand and thus greater tissue damage.

2. The 357 Sig has only recently been adopted. For most agencies, adoption of a new weapon system frequently necessitates more intensive training and instruction than might typically occur, thus officer's shooting skills might be at a higher peak than normal.

3. Since according to data from Fackler and others, approximately 50% of shooting victims are incapacitated by psychological mechanisms, it is possible that the increased blast, flash, and noise of the 357 Sig enhances psychological perceptions of being shot.

posted 05-26-2003 13:46               

I read that post and I have the FBI's data. From the FBI data it appears that the .357 sig has deeper penetration after passing through certain barriers.

posted 05-26-2003 23:34               

We tested as follows:
Test Panel #1
1999 Ford Taurus Hood (w car attached)
Distance to target: 3 yards
Angle to target: Approx 30 degrees (estimated height for a 5'10" male to be standing in front of the car firing at it aiming at the rear 1/3)
Result:
Load 1: Semi-round crater/hole w/partial penetration and impact with the windshield in the lower 1/4 of the glass. RW=114grs
Load 2: Oblong crater w/full penetration through the hood and interestingly enough we found a small perfectly circular metal disc matching the hood material and color about 12" from the point where the round struck the engine. RW=146grs
Load 3: Almost circular crater/hole just slightly larger then 9mm, no metal disc, and a slightly deformed bullet. RW=118grs

Test Panel (s) 2:
1992, Chevrolet C1500, 1991 C2500, and 1996 C1500 windshields in perfect condition (the model years do not match but they were free and it was the best we could come up with).
Fired at directly in front of the front bumper of the truck(s) at 3 yards distance to the hood using the steering wheel as the aiming point on each one.
Result:
Load 1: complete penetration with a slightly oblong entry hole. RW= 98grs
Load 2: complete penetration with a virtually circular hole. RW= 134grs
Load 3: complete penetration with a slightly oblong entry hole. RW= 107grs

Test Panel 3:
1998 Chevrolet Suburban C2500 one piece fold down rear lift gate (split type with upper glass window and one opening handle).
Distance to target 3 yards.
Aiming point upper 1/3 of the lift gate but all impacts occurred 4-6” below the top edge.
Result:
Load 1: Complete penetration with a torn/deformed bullet stopped within the outer vinyl layer of the rear (3rd) seat. RW=112grs
Load 2: complete penetration with a non-expanded but heavily deformed bullet stopped by the center layer of the 2nd (middle) seat. RW=137grs
Load 3: Complete penetration with a moderately deformed bullet lodged in the center console of the front row seats (driver and passenger). The bullet appears to have collapsed in on itself in effect becoming an fmj flat nosed projectile. RW= 116grs

We did not have the ability due to scheduling constraints and sheer luck in getting the owners to agree to do the tests on what were otherwise good “salvage” parts to prepare and bring calibrated ordnance gelatin to capture the bullets in after they passed through the barriers so I cannot comment as to the penetration/expansion/performance in tissue stimulant.

posted 05-27-2003 11:12               

It appears to me that there just might be something to the statements of increased penetration of the 357SIG round.

posted 05-27-2003 13:23               

In test #3 in particular the .357 Sig bullet very closely resembles an fmj semi-flat point loading.

The cavity clearing ability of the 180gr .40S&W Gold Dot bullet was a more impressive result IMHO as in all three tests the 40 caliber bullet was able to shed the barrier debris and penetrate as was necessary with little deflection.

Shooting through two rows of bench seating is probably not the most ideal of conditions for any bullet and I had thought that the performance of the 9mm loading was actually quite good all things considered.

posted 06-16-2003 09:55               

We've discussed this briefly before, in regards to unclassifiable factors (such as perpetrator psychology) playing a role cartridge effectiveness, but I am wondering if you, David, and Shawn have seen any increase in effectiveness in actual shootings.

posted 06-16-2003 10:29            

I am grateful that the 357 Sig issuing agencies are satisfied with their weapon system performance. By the same token, every single agency that I am aware of that has acquired reliable pistols, dilligently emphasizes frequent realistic lethal force training and tactics, and uses good quality service pistol ammunition in 9 mm, .40 S&W, or .45 ACP are also very happy with their shooting results.

Good Training and Proper Psychological Preparedness coupled with Reliable Weapon Systems and followed by Frequent Practice is what will win the battles.

posted 06-19-2003 21:34               

quote:

---

Originally posted by tetchaje:
It seems that the Secret Service and several other agencies are extremely happy with the results of the 357SIG cartridge in their use, but I don't know if those agencies have a statistical sample size large enough to gain any reliable data in terms of actual shootings.

---

Your healthy skepticism of the conclusions reached by any agency, due to the small sample size for incidents, says it all. When someone says that his agency is "happy" with a given round, could it be that

• they are happier with a newer gun than with an older, otherwise identical gun in a different caliber?
  
• they are happier with the new make/model of gun that happens to be chambered in this caliber?
  
• they are having fewer reliability issues with the new round in the new gun than with the old round in the old gun?
  
• they feel that the new round is more powerful, and therefore reassuring, because it makes more noise and flash?
  
• the agency had a recent successful shooting with the new round (perhaps their only one), and had had at least one poor result with the old round (perhaps also their only one)?
  
• the organization has no opinion, but the speaker has a strong one and has found agreement among a subset of her coworkers?
  
• the speaker was involved in the gun/round selection process and has a psychological need to validate his preferred choice?
  

I would probably try to rule out all of the above before even attempting to engage even a professional LE trainer in a substantive discussion about terminal ballistic performance; unfortunately, you may well find that you can't rule (sometimes any of) them out, so it becomes a challenge to find any signal in the noise.

I guess that's why we talk about these things here--thanks to all for making this an excellent forum!

posted 06-20-2003 01:46               

It is food for thought- but perhaps improved accuracy and higher hit ratios are also contributing to the reported success of the P229/.357 Sig combo?

posted 06-20-2003 12:25            

Nonetheless, as I noted above, for many agencies, adoption of a new weapon system frequently necessitates more intensive training and instruction than might typically occur, thus officer's shooting skills might be at a higher peak than normal and qualification scores and hopefully officer involved shooting hits might increase.

posted 06-26-2003 00:03            

They even went so far as to compare training in 45 in one group and 357 SIG in another and then switch.

In each case the 357SIG scores were better.

RE: CHP better shoots with 40 vs 357 Mag. Is that the ammo or they are shooting better now that they use "instinctive","point" shooting or what ever it is being called this week?

The question is, is the shooter doing better or is the ammo doing better. And where can I get the raw data.

Thank you.

Fred

------------------
Semper Fi

posted 06-27-2003 05:38            

Thanks for your response.

Where or who has the data of the delta between the two rounds as related to actual shootings and effectiveness.

RE: 357Mag Vs 40S&W. Also what was the brand and weight of the 357 Mags used by CHP. I once thought I read that they used the 158gr JHP Remingtons.

Or again, where is the data available.

Thank you