Just some random thoughts on the subject. I've never considered the 357 the equal of the 44 for a hunting tool. It just don't have the same umph. That said, I've not shot a deer with a 357 Magnum either, so I can't quantify my thought on the subject with anything other than book data. I have shot deer with the 357 Max, and the result there was impressive to say the least.
But what I really want to speak to is the rifle/pistol combo thing. To me it is nonsensical. Not that having a handgun/rifle combo that shoots the same ammo isn't a common sense thing, it has it's own rational, but most of us don't live in a place or way that the rational makes sense.
The rational is to have common ammo for a handgun and a long gun. The problem with the rational is that in using handgun ammo in a rifle length barrel, one is still left with handgun level performance.
Now before ya go nuts and start hammerin' on me about the velocity gain of long barrel over a short one let me say this..... the velocity gain is never as great as that of the same bullet pushed by a case with more powder capacity.
For a moment let us look at the 357-158 and 170 grain bullet. Max you'll get from these in a rifle barrel is 1800 for the 158 and 1600 for the 170. There is a bit of fudge factor and you might beat that by 50 fps or so, but I bet you'll more often come up a touch shy.
Now look at the 30-30. It drives a 150 grainer to 2300 fps and 170's to 2100 fps. A significant velocity advantage over the 357 but what the velocity advantage gives us is not a harder hit as much as it gives us range. And range is what we want a rifle to give us.
A handgun is a short range tool and primarily a tool of opportunity. When I handgun hunted, I never set out to shoot anything at 100 yards. I set out to have both hands free, and to be unincumbered by the extra length of a rifle. A walk in the woods is a lot simpler if you ain't carrying something that snags on everything sticking out in your path. And in the woods, 50 yards is along shot, but with a handgun was easily enough in my range ability.
A rifle on the otherhand will do what a handgun does, but when the shot gets out to bee 100 yards and greater, the rifle offers us not only extra power at range, but stability as well. Which can you hold free hand to hit better with? And it the game of opportunity show up at 100 yards, which would you rather hit it with, the 357 or the 30-30? And the greater the range becomes which tool gets the nod?
I no longer carry a handgun when I hunt. My eyes aren't what they were, and I don't find the attraction to handguns I once had. But when I did, it was as often taken as a tool to shoot a deer at 30 feet from a stand, even though I had a long gun. I could have the revolver in my lap and use it without near so much movement as a long gun would need.
I think handguns and rifle go together, but I think the performance should be such that the rifle truly extends our range of opportunity, not mearly allowing us to hit harder in the same range.
I probably did not make as good an argument for my case as I would like, and I certainly don't mean that you should give up a rifle/pistol combo. It's just that we don't live in the bush or in pioneer conditions where the need for two different ammos can be a disadvantage. And I don't think such thinking give us the best performance available from the investments we make.
All that and a dollar will buy you a cup of coffee. Enjoy a 357 combo. If you reload, look to the Hornady XTP's, they are great bullets that perform well in excess of their size.
