.357 Sig for Open Glock ...

[Radical Precision Designs]

I have been building these Open "things" for a while now, both in "alphabet" guns and in "plastic fantastic' (Glock) ...

But ... I have a few questions ... as to "practical" likes and dislikes, where selecting an Open Glock "base" in the Small frames.

I have fired a few Open Glocks both based in 9mm Major and .40 S&W. The 9 mm has the obvious capacity advantage, while the .40 S&W can often make major with factory ammo but at the sacrifice of capacity. Now comes the question/comparison: both the 40 S&W and the .357 Sig can make major easily out of the box (factory) and share the same mags and capacity. Handloading can be done for both cartridges to further make them shine even better. So why don't we see more .357 Sig's in Open Glock ?????? And, what handloading formulas do you have for this cartridge for use in Open Glocks ??????

Keep in mind that while factory ammo can sometimes be slightly more costly with .357 Sig, quite a few of us prefer to "concoct/invent" our own loads for various reasons. Once fired brass is readily available for both the .357 Sig and the .40 S&W, and costs about the same.

Time to share ...

[L9X25]

Venry,

My only insights would be 115gr projectiles over N-105. My guess would be between 10 & 11grs would give you a nice flat major load. In 9x25 N-105 makes the gun feel like a well mannered .38 Super and less like a 9x25. This includes feel and noise.

[Radical Precision Designs]

Venry,

My only insights would be 115gr projectiles over N-105. My guess would be between 10 & 11grs would give you a nice flat major load. In 9x25 N-105 makes the gun feel like a well mannered .38 Super and less like a 9x25. This includes feel and noise.

Hmmm !!!!

The Speer reloading book lists a load with 11.2 grs of VV N-105 and the "125" gr. bullet for a 1400 fps. The usually list loads that are within SAAMI specs. Now, if you loaded the same charge with the 115's you should have even higher speeds, with even "lower" pressures. I guess this is something you can not do with a 9 mm Major... or with a .40 S&W !!!

Edited to ask: But, can the Glock handle this load ??????

Edited July 1, 2007 by Radical Precision Designs

[L9X25]

Hmmm !!!!

The Speer reloading book lists a load with 11.2 grs of VV N-105 and the "125" gr. bullet for a 1400 fps. The usually list loads that are within SAAMI specs. Now, if you loaded the same charge with the 115's you should have even higher speeds, with even "lower" pressures. I guess this is something you can not do with a 9 mm Major... or with a .40 S&W !!!

Edited to ask: But, can the Glock handle this load ??????

As you said, the 115 load would be making less pressure than the 125 load, so I can't see where it would ever be a problem for the glock.

Leo

Edited July 1, 2007 by L9X25

[mlmiller1]

Interesting idea. HMMM. Venry, you are always thinking, aren't you? I believe if the glock frame can handle constant .40 factory ammo that makes major, why wouldn't it be plenty stout enough for the .357 mpf?

One thought, the bottleneck cartridge throws most of us reloaders that are used to conventional pistol ammo into a tailspin. The whole idea of reloading brass with a bottleneck is intimidating. Potential trimming of the brass is another concern. Plus the short contact area between the brass & the bullet makes it very critical to get just right. In other words, more potential problems. It is very possible & maybe a good idea but you still have the capacity handicap that you have with a .40.

Now, the question might be why doesn't someone design a triple stack mag extension that will work so you can have 170 mags with more rounds? That would make the 357 or 40 much more viable in open. Seems some genius could do that effectively. Perhaps a follower & double spring that only rises to the bottom of the factory mag, then stops pushing there allowing the conventional spring & follower to do their magic the rest of the way up. Now that would be an accomplishment! Let's see--30rd .40s. HMMMMM. There is no limit to the diameter of a mag, only length. If you could make one of those for a 9mm glock, maybe getting 34rds in the mag?????? More than enough for the uspsa 32rd limit.

Sorry for the rabbit, Venry, just that silly idea of mine is running around in my head & your question brought it out.

[TKJ]

Im shooting open with 357SIG glock and i like it. Smaller mag capacity doesnt bother me because long stages always have so much movement where you can chance it. My mag capacity in 170mm is 26rounds and 140mm 21rounds.

Load that im currently using is 124grs bullet with 9.8grs VV N105 and it shoots really flat givin 168PF.

Only thing bothering me in glock is the selection of bullets you can use in it and its because the mag size you have to load them short.

[L9X25]

One thought, the bottleneck cartridge throws most of us reloaders that are used to conventional pistol ammo into a tailspin. The whole idea of reloading brass with a bottleneck is intimidating. Potential trimming of the brass is another concern. Plus the short contact area between the brass & the bullet makes it very critical to get just right. In other words, more potential problems. It is very possible & maybe a good idea but you still have the capacity handicap that you have with a .40.

Now, the question might be why doesn't someone design a triple stack mag extension that will work so you can have 170 mags with more rounds? That would make the 357 or 40 much more viable in open. Seems some genius could do that effectively. Perhaps a follower & double spring that only rises to the bottom of the factory mag, then stops pushing there allowing the conventional spring & follower to do their magic the rest of the way up. Now that would be an accomplishment! Let's see--30rd .40s. HMMMMM. There is no limit to the diameter of a mag, only length. If you could make one of those for a 9mm glock, maybe getting 34rds in the mag?????? More than enough for the uspsa 32rd limit.

With the modern carbide dies, resizing or forming bottleneck brass is as simple as resizing normal straightwall brass. The brass does not need to be trimmed. While you do have additional restrictions on projectile selection, you can usually find several options that work well.

The only limit to creating triple-stack mags is the person's ability to wrap their hands around it. Most people find the double-stack mags wide enough already.

[uscbigdawg]

First off, as discussed in other places on this forum, by the numbers, the reduced round capacity is not a true handicap in Open in choosing a .40 over say a .38 Super/9mm. The REALITY is that you can get 24-26 rounds in a 40 big stick and that handles 90% of long stages quite well. Anything longer than that, has plenty of places to reload (usually multiple) and done correctly, reloads on the move, do not an appreciable amount of time.

Venry - I've though about this for a while. Back when I shot a lot of GSSF matches, I had built up a 9x25 Glock just for fun, more than anything else. It was a lot of fun to shoot, if only for the fireballs coming out of the ports. That said, the only real downside I see to running a .357 SIG is two fold.

First, is brass availability. I'm sure somewhere you can find once fired brass affordably, but without knowing where, I'm hesitant to say that it's as affordable. Too, shooting an oddball caliber means a lot more brass hunting than I'm willing to do. Watching the guys run around after their .38SC is painful enough (I still shoot Super).

Second is the reloading. Less experienced loaders, as stated above, could find reloading a bottle neck pistol cartridge a little intimidating and all things KISS says that a straight wall is easier and allows for more variation. This fortunately (or unfortunately for the sake of this discussion) is where both the 9mm and 40 shine.

I say it's a completely viable option. With light bullets, 115's, I'd say you'd have one flat shooting pistol on your hands. Like the 9x25, you have a light projectile with a WHOLE LOT of gas behind it from a slow burning powder to work the comp/ports that much better. It'll be loud to say the least, but it'll definitely be flat.

Rich

[JFlowers]

Rich,

Brass availability is really not an issue. I put .40 SW in one side of my 550 and 357SIG come out the other. The resulting brass is shorter in the neck than true 357SIG. This could result in setback issues but for an Open gun you are loading full cases of powder (I am using 10.x of 3N38 under a 115gr JHP) it has not been an issue.

I have never found reloading the 357SIG to be much of an issue. With carbide dies and no need to lube, it loads like any other cartridge.

James

[mlmiller1]

The only limit to creating triple-stack mags is the person's ability to wrap their hands around it. Most people find the double-stack mags wide enough already.

I was speaking only of a triple stack extension on the regular double stack mags, not increasing the grip size but merely the bottom of the mag. Of course it is probably a crazy idea but still, the thought entered my mind. If you had an extension that was triple stacked & made 170mm mag length requirements, how many rounds would it hold? If you guys that are shooting 40 open are getting 26, you might make up all the difference in capacity with a triple stack extension. Sounds like a winning idea if it was possible.

If the extra mag capacity isn't all that big a deal, why are the top guys not shooting 40 open? Maybe some are, but it seems most are still using the small caliber guns & working the mags over to get every available round in them. I agree there are plenty of places to reload in almost every circumstance but still, the small calibers prevail.

I guess I'm just playing the devil's advocate because I agree, you don't lose any time with a 140 mag if you plan your reloads properly. I just wonder why the top guys don't see it that way?

MLM

[mike cyrwus]

I would think bigger holes, increased mag cap, and tested major loads are the advantages of 40 over 357;

-but, Id think that the smaller bullet with all that gas behind it woiuld make the 357sig more of a compensatable cartridge, right?

[uscbigdawg]

James - Yeah...thought of that after I wrote it that you could just form your own.

Mike - Hole diameter...non-issue. There is no mag capacity difference between 40 & 357 Sig and as Venry mentioned, MPF loads are available from the factory and therefore, we (handloaders) can make them quite easily and do so tuning them to the gun. But you are right in that with more gas, it makes it a more open friendly cartride (i.e. increased gas volume = more port pressure in the comp).

MLM - If you do a triple stack mag for the 40 to increase mag capacity to get on par with the 9mm calibers, don't you think the 9mm calibers would just do the same thing? Too, the reason the top shooters are using 9mm based rounds over the 40 is basically cheaper shooting (not everyone has a bullet sponsor), flatter shooting (less inertia to overcome in the bullet = less torque) and there is an issue of increased magazine capacity. That said, a 170mm magazine can get around 26 rounds of 40 in it where my 170's, shooting Super get 28-29. That 3 rounds has NEVER made a difference in a long field course, since again, there's always a place to reload.

If I was a Glock Guy and was uncomfortable hot-rodding 9mm to major then I'd DEFINITELY consider shooting 357 Sig.

Rich

[Radical Precision Designs]

Interesting idea. HMMM. Venry, you are always thinking, aren't you? I believe if the glock frame can handle constant .40 factory ammo that makes major, why wouldn't it be plenty stout enough for the .357 mpf?

One thought, the bottleneck cartridge throws most of us reloaders that are used to conventional pistol ammo into a tailspin. The whole idea of reloading brass with a bottleneck is intimidating. Potential trimming of the brass is another concern. Plus the short contact area between the brass & the bullet makes it very critical to get just right. In other words, more potential problems. It is very possible & maybe a good idea but you still have the capacity handicap that you have with a .40.

Now, the question might be why doesn't someone design a triple stack mag extension that will work so you can have 170 mags with more rounds? That would make the 357 or 40 much more viable in open. Seems some genius could do that effectively. Perhaps a follower & double spring that only rises to the bottom of the factory mag, then stops pushing there allowing the conventional spring & follower to do their magic the rest of the way up. Now that would be an accomplishment! Let's see--30rd .40s. HMMMMM. There is no limit to the diameter of a mag, only length. If you could make one of those for a 9mm glock, maybe getting 34rds in the mag?????? More than enough for the uspsa 32rd limit.

Sorry for the rabbit, Venry, just that silly idea of mine is running around in my head & your question brought it out.

Whooaah!!!! Stop right there! There is no way I'm going tackle that challenge ... You would need a "caddy" soon enough to carry your mags. Might as well just go for a "beta" kind of snail system.

But as has been mentioned, there is no difference in capacity between the .40 S&W and the .357 Sig.

Bullet selection for handloading the .357 Sig (or 9X25 Dillon) has always been a concern, as bullets with a shorter "ogive" are preferred. I have done considerable loading of the .357 Sig for use in S_I's and Para's, and with the greater cartridge length clearance it is a little bit easier to ustilize more bullets design geometry. But with the Glock you must load them short. No way around it. Since we are talking Open here, it usually means a "chockfull" of powder, which in essence has been the problem with loading the .357 Sig:>> "bullet set back" upon feeding. As "J Flowers" puts it, it is normally not a problem when you use full case (sometimes compressed) loadings as needed with some of the slower, bulkier powders. While the .357 Sig is "supposed" to space in at the case mouth, it has been my finding along with others. ( I even discussed this a few years back with Guy Neill) that it really spaces at the shoulder, which makes it possible and a "non issue" when resizing .40 S&W into .357 Sig. But, most of the commercial suppliers of once fired brass usually carry plenty of "empties".

The big issue here is its use and recommendation for regular use as a "contender" in Open Glocks ... as opposed to a .40 S&W or even a 9mm Major.

[L9X25]

In my experience, the worst thing about .40 for Open (or 10mm for that matter) is the poor choice of projectiles. Light .40's are expensive and hard to find. I know of nosler 135's but would hate to pay for those all of the time.

.357 Sig solves the projectile problem and uses loads comparable to a .38 super with cheaper brass but holds a few less rounds.

People who feel restricted by the powder limitations of major 9 might trade off a few rounds for a better choice of powders with the .357.

I agree that there are very few instances where my 26 rounds in the gun feels like a significant disadvantage. When only having 26 rounds is a significant disadvantage, it is a monumental couse design flaw that must be causing it.

I stick with the 9x25 despite all of the comments and feel that the only advantage of 9x25 (over the Super or 357) is the ability to load N-110 while the .357 Sig or Super can go no slower than N-105 . The 357 Sig does have an abundant supply of cheap brass that I can only dream of.

[ryucasta]

While at first it sounds enticing to use 357 SIG the amount of extra work one has to do when reloading far exceeds the benefit. For example I normally have to size them with a 40 S&W die like Lee or EGW to remove the potential fat round that forms with that brass especially if its been fired from a G31 or its equivalent. After going through that step (Using a 650) I then resize (using a 1050) it again with the Dillon 357 SIG Die (To my knowledge thats the on Carbide die available for this cartridge). That in my opinion is way to much work I would rather use a 40 S&W or 9x19 Major. BTW I own two 9x19 Major Open Glocks from SJC and Novak.

Edited July 1, 2007 by ryucasta

[eric nielsen]

At brassmanbrass.com the 357sig brass costs less than 9x19 for mixed, a little more for single headstamp brass. I hadn't thought about "what if" it came out of a G31, although I size twice anyway to tumble the crud out of the primer pockets .

A G22 slide would make for a better Major PF slide than the G17 slide. The G17 slide cycles very very fast at 170pf & might be a little too lite for shooting say 100K rounds of Major.

Might even work OK with a G35 slide although i'd ask Johnnie at SJC because he's seen some cracks in the narrowed-out part of 9Major Open G34 slides. G35s are less hollowed-out compared to G34, but still...

If you don't want to reload, 357sig looks pretty good, though I would ONLY shoot it out of a short action like the Glock, no thank you to experimenting on another short round in S_I.

With a 9Major glock you're giving up a quicker trigger to the STI's and giving up some comp gasses to the the Super & Supercomp people. With a 357sig you're back on top of the supers for working the comp & you're making them cry on brass cost. My $.02

Edited July 2, 2007 by eric nielsen

[shred]

IPSC is pondering allowing .357 Sig for major in Modified, but apart from that there seems to be very little interest in it.

As an ex-9x25 shooter-- it holds almost as many rounds, is almost as easy to load, and has almost as many bullet choices.

The combination of all those makes it almost competitive. Almost. At the local level, go to it and have a good time.

[Flexmoney]

I don't see a problem shooting 9 Major out of the Open Glock? Why give up the capacity, cheap/available brass, easy of reloading...?

Sure, you increase the powder selection...but, to what end ?

[Skywalker]

Flex,

I guess one of the main reasons (stated by Venry in his opening post) is that .357 SiG makes major with factory ammo.

Lotsa less headaches when travelling with airplane.

[RobMoore]

I have thought of turning my Glock 31 into a open gun if I ever want a change of scenery from production.

The 125g Gold Dot ammo I have tons of makes 168PF.

[ctgun]

I am not sure how many people know this but there is a triple stack 9mm mag already in existance. The mag is for the Finish (I believe it is Finnish) Sumoi sub machine gun of WW II. They have a 50 round they call a coffin mag and they can be found on the surplus market. If someone had the needed skill and ambition they may be able to cut one down to the 170mm limit.

The thing that makes it great is also its downfall. The width and I am not sure what it would take to make a handgun except the mag and it may make it a proposition that is shootable by only people with large hands like myself but it is an idea to make a better mouse trap and would make the capasity issues irrelavent for the 40 & .357 Sig unless they decide to up the round count limit per stage. In 9mm though you may be able to get as many as 35-37 rounds in the mag + 1 in the hole.

Edited July 3, 2007 by ctgun

[Skywalker]

I am not sure how many people know this but there is a triple stack 9mm mag already in existance.

FWIW, during the 80ies, an italian firm manufactured The Spectre, a 9mm submachine gun with quadruple stack 50-rounds magazines.

http://world.guns.ru/smg/smg21-e.htm

Edited July 3, 2007 by Skywalker

[TKJ]

I am not sure how many people know this but there is a triple stack 9mm mag already in existance. The mag is for the Finish (I believe it is Finnish) Sumoi sub machine gun of WW II. They have a 50 round they call a coffin mag and they can be found on the surplus market.

It is for Suomi sub machine gun and its actually drum magazine, can be found in surplus places and costs about $15.

[ctgun]

I am not sure how many people know this but there is a triple stack 9mm mag already in existance. The mag is for the Finish (I believe it is Finnish) Sumoi sub machine gun of WW II. They have a 50 round they call a coffin mag and they can be found on the surplus market.

It is for Suomi sub machine gun and its actually drum magazine, can be found in surplus places and costs about $15.

Thanks for the spelling correction. It is true the Suomi does take a 72 round drum but there is also a 50 round stick type magazine that they have nicknamed a coffin mag. check out the link below and it will show you the mags and how much they are selling for.

http://www.stonycreekarmory.com/store/cata...42a0181303779d6

Edited July 3, 2007 by ctgun

[Radical Precision Designs]

I am not sure how many people know this but there is a triple stack 9mm mag already in existance. The mag is for the Finish (I believe it is Finnish) Sumoi sub machine gun of WW II. They have a 50 round they call a coffin mag and they can be found on the surplus market.

It is for Suomi sub machine gun and its actually drum magazine, can be found in surplus places and costs about $15.

While we are "drifting" a little bit on the subject, this goes to emphazise our preocupation with super high capacity and round count. Not much of it is really relevant should we continue with the present rules and guidelines for stage design, for parity's sake and common sense. I like high round count, heck I even own a few "big sticks". But, frankly I don't find their use that necessary other than for peace of mind when doing long courses where a lot of "steel" targets are used, and I want the guarrantee of having plenty of ammo, including "dead weigth" when/if the magazine is dropped during a reload. Most times we like the use of a "big stick" when doing a high count short steps, long course, to avoid "static reloads". Even then, most shooters prefer the reliability of two "20 round 140's", which will give you the security of 40 rounds (more than enough for any legal course of fire), which is more than any "legal" big stick wil deliver. The one or two (when properly tuned) rounds capacity difference between these cartridges is indeed insignificant when in the hands of a shooter with a "game plan".

The real question and issue is the ability of the specific cartridge and possible performance potential and actual delivery during the expedient run of a stage. In other words "winning" the stage, or at least running it the best possible. Some shooters prefer the .38 Super/comp (or even the 9X25), etc. because of the actual delivered performance advantage, over smaller capacity siblings. If you are to choose the slightly smaller round capacity, it would behoove you to choose the one with the most favorable attributes.

When addressing the "alphabeth guns" there is no question, but when considering the "small frame" Glocks in Open ... then its a whole new "ball game". I for one/myself, am building a new Open Glock based on an G-32 using a five inch barrel and a Hyper-Jet Comp, topped with a slide mounted Docter.

How 'bout y'all ??????