Some 357 loads have more blast but I have never thought they recoil more than a 40. Both are pretty tame and have never seen the big deal about 40 recoil. I carry a 200gr 40 load at 1100fps and it no big deal to shoot.
.40 S&W is more difficult to control/has greater perceived recoil.
357 SIG is more difficult to control/has greater perceived recoil.
They are just about the same.
They are similar but different. Hard to say which has "more" recoil
Some 357 loads have more blast but I have never thought they recoil more than a 40. Both are pretty tame and have never seen the big deal about 40 recoil. I carry a 200gr 40 load at 1100fps and it no big deal to shoot.
Not to drift the thread too bad, but did it ever get any easier to reload 357SIG? I recall tales of woe.
Ignore Alien Orders
Nope. The bottle necked case presents two problems:
1) The .357sig has a very small crimping area relative to the caliber size. So, there is less brass to grip the bullet and keep it in place. As the caliber gets bigger and heavier, you need more crimping area to keep the bullet stationary, and a .355" 125gr bullet needs more security.
2) There is no foundation to the brass crimp. For example, when you seat a bullet in a straight walled case like the .40S&W the base of the bullet is cradled in the resized smaller diameter section of the brass(below), and the stretched section of brass above the bullet base. This gives the bullet just one more element of security to prevent setbacks.
Most reloaders of .357sig depend on a either a brass/bullet cannula with a tight crimp, or even glue/adhesive to keep the bullet from moving around.
A friend and I tried to do a blind comparison of my Glock 22 and 23 with 40 vs 357Sig using Storm Lake and Lone Wolf conversion barrels with one setting up the gun and loading it then the other shooting it in a round robin kind of format. It was easy for both of us to tell which was which by the sound and recoil. We both agreed the 357 was snappier in recoil impulse rearward and to a minor extant upward in muzzle flip with a louder report than the 40. However it was not bad or significantly more than the 40 which we both had been shooting comfortably for years. This was using 357Sig ammo in 125gr and 40 cal ammo in 135 Corbon and 165gr Speer Gold Dot.
I find .40 S&W has a bit more push, but 357 Sig has more blast; I personally prefer a 180 gr .40 to a 125 gr 357 Sig...
Facts matter...Feelings Can Lie
Short answer- what Doc said.
Longer Answer-G34 v G35 v G35 with a Lone Wolf Drop In .357 sig barrel
9mm - some snap upward
.40- more snap upward, some push inward, more blast
.357 sig-more snap upward than a 9 or a 40, a pronounced torque/rotation as well with more blast than a 40.
I was intrigued by the possible feed reliability maximization potential when one puts a 9mm bottleneck into a .40 caliber chamber. For me, while accurate as all get out in my set up, the juice is not worth the squeeze and now only shoot .357 sig when I am training with an agency that issues it as their ammo. If it going to be an all day training day, I often switch to 9mm the first break after lunch and finish the day that way.
YMMV Greatly.
It is a Double Tap ammo loading. I clocked the ammo out of a Glock 35 and a 5 shot average was 1090fps. No longer have the Glock and now have 5 inch M&Ps and a 5 inch 1911 in .40 caliber.
It is expensive and I shoot enough to make sure each pistol runs it fine but fire hand loads for most range days.