Need help with caliber

[Kates]

Im looking to my first revolver.  Im looking for a gun to keep with me most of the time while working on the farm.  I will be using it mainly on coyotes, groundhogs, and an ocassional deer hunt.  How much more range will you get with a .44 over the .357.  I know it has alot to do with the shooter.  Any and all help would be appreciated.

[cattleskinner]

You would probably get somewhere in the neighborhood of 25-40 extra yards distance that you could use on deer using a 44 mag over the 357.  If it was me though, in your situation, I would get the 357.  If the primary purpose is coyotes and ghogs, the flatter trajectory of the 357 will be nice for a bit longer shots, and add to that, they make the 125 gr bullets that should expand great in something that size.  Lastly, you can find 357 revolvers that weigh less, and are a bit less noticeable if you are working all day on the farm.  Then if you want to hunt deer, just put heavier bullets in it.  JMHO.

~~~Amos

[jhalcott]

kates, you are looking at a short barreled revolver,correct.? This means to me,anyway, 4 to 6inches of barrel.Considering the .357 might throw a 158 grain bullet at 1300 fps with a heavy load! The 44mag will throw a 240 grain that speed with a "lesser" comparitivly, load.The lighter 357 bullet will lose velocity quicker than the heavier 44 slug.The drop of both slugs are close enough to not worry you,BUT the energy at all ranges is much higher with the 44.You need to practice a LOT with either gun to be consistent at longer ranges(100 yards+) The 357 comes in lighter weight guns than the 44.Recoil could be a factor if you are sensitive to it.Adding all this up it sounds like the 357 mag is a better choice TILL YOU get used to the gun,THen go for the 44 mag.H#@$, by then you'll be tired of the 357 anyway!

[Redhawk1]

I would go with the 44 Mag for the choices you gave. I could shoot 44 specials and then full house 44 Mags for the big game. In my opinion there are a lot better bullet selections for the 44 Mag.  

[Darrell Davis]

Hey Kates,

Back again on this end.

I agree with the last poster about the .44 being the way to go, and for all the reasons he stated and more.

However, if you choose the .357, I would personally go with the GP100 in a 4" stainless model.  

It carries very well. In a left side/butt forward holster it is out of the way for right handers - even if you are carrying a rifle/shotgun/shovel/posthole digger etc. on the right side.

As I told you in the post about Blackhawks, Super Blackhawks etc., I have owned and used those models in times past.  

Now however, I own only Double actions - other then autos - and am very well satisfied.  The Ruger double actions are tough guns.  My regular load in my Redhawk is a 310gr LBT cast bullet ahead of 19grs. of AA#9.

As Timex used to say, " they take a lick'in and keep on tink'in."

I carry my 5 1/2" Super Redhawk .44 in a left side Butt forward holster just as I do my well used 4" Security Six .357.

Because of the size and carryability/concealability of the GP 100 it would be something to keep even when you advance to the .44.

If you haven't done so already, you need to do some reading/thinking about some quality reloading and casting equipment.  Cast (WW cast bullet cost is very low) and load your own and you can shoot a bunch more for the same money and quickly pay off the investment of equipment.

Keep em coming! :-)

[S.B.]

Get the largest caliber you think you can handle. Then, you'll be able to handle larger game animals. But, learn to shoot it proficently. You didn't say how much experience you have with handguns, or if you currently reload? And practice, practice, practice.

[jeager106]

Hate to split hairs here but your useable effective range is going to be about the same with either caliber.
If you are using a 4 or 6" barrel revolver with factory issued sights the effective range is going to be how far you can consistantly hit the target.
If you can hit a groundhog offhand with an open sighted handgun then you are one hellofa shot!
The .357 ctg. will kill groundhogs further than you can accurately shoot the weapon.
This is going to be a hunting weapon to use occasionally for deer.
Then I'd go the .44 magnum in 6" barrel.
The 2" longer barrel of the 6" won't even be noticed in a hunting holster but the added 2" of sighting plane might make the difference in being able to hit the target.
If you reload you can load light .44's to practice with.
If you don't reload I'd think about starting.
Generally if you can hit with the .357, you can to the same with the .44, won't make any difference on small game at all which caliber but I'd go the bigger bore for deer.
The problem you are going to have is hitting anything as small as a groundhog offhand at anything past 25 yards or so.

[S.B.]

Ijeager106, I  think he wants to use it for all game animals he listed?

[BlkHawk73]

Sinc ethe original inquiry seems to have been answered, I'll give my slightly of question thoughts.  While the .357 and .44 mag both are quite adequate for what what originally listed, don't overlook the .41 magnum and .45 Colt.  The .41 can pretty much match the .44 and with some loads the .45Colt will surpass the .44 mag.  Both can be loaded will "lesser" loads for smaller game animals.  Remember the mighty .44 mag is really a .429 magnum and not aually .44 caliber.  
  Ok, personally, I'd go with the .357 here.  Plenty for what's mentioned if the shooter does his/her job correctly.  Also it's not overkill on the smaller aminals.  You can load a variety of .357 loads from mild to wild and even drop a bit to .38 special loads for casual plinking while still being able to use them for small game.  Easier on the shooter as well which for a beginning handgun shooter, is pretty important.

  Now for the gun, I'd maybe opt for the Ruger BH BN-36X.  6 1/2" blued model with both a cylinder for .357 magnum which again can use .38 specials) and an extra cylinder for 9mm.  That gives you a wider choice of ammo and a cheap fun plinker with the 9mm cylinder.  the longer bbl as compared to the 4 5/8" model gives a bit longer sight plane for a bit easier accurate shotting yet won't be too heavy to carry.

[jeager106]

Kates says "occasional deer hunt" so I'd opt for the .44 magnm.
That said I agree the .41 and .45 Colt would be excellent choices also but if Kates is new to handgun hunting the .41 could be a problem as factory ammo is expensive and not always available.
The .357 and .44 mag. ammo can be had at Wally World and cheaper there than most places.
I think I paid 26 bucks per hundren for .257 Remmie 125 grain h.p. and 20 bucks a box for 50, of 240 soft point Winnie stuff.
I do reload and will but I'm building a new loading bench so I'm out of the reloading business for a little while.
The .45 Colt is my personal favorite. If you choose to reload you can build ammot to slightly surpass the .44 magnum or use factory duplication original loads to get familiar with the weapon.
The .45 Colt or .44 magnum are both entirely adequate for any deer in any woods at handgun ranges.
I still maintain NO HANDGUN is a 200 yard hunting propostion and hunters should get that crap out of thier heads quickly.
Even a .460 revolver with scope sight is still not a 200 yards weapon my any stretch.
With open sights it takes a very good shot to hit a deer in the vitals at 100 yards under field conditions with any handgun.

[jeager106]

Deleted by jeager in the interest of the forum. :roll:

[Redhawk1]

I still maintain NO HANDGUN is a 200 yard hunting propostion and hunters should get that crap out of thier heads quickly.
Even a .460 revolver with scope sight is still not a 200 yards weapon my any stretch.
With open sights it takes a very good shot to hit a deer in the vitals at 100 yards under field conditions with any handgun.

Here we go again, I know for a fact the 460 will work well at 200 yards. Just because you physically can't do it does not mean others can't.  The accuracy is there and the power is there. Some of us have the ability. Some times the smartest things you can say is nothing if you don't know what you are talking about.  :roll:  Your comment is just an opinion backed by NO FACT. Instead of trying to draw others into a disagreement, why not try to help in the area you have experience with.

[BlkHawk73]

I agree with redhawk1.  Just becasue one individual cannot make the shots cleanly doesn't make it a set in stocne undisputable fact.  100yd and even 200 yd handgun shots ARE made and can be accuarte.   It all depend son the gun, the load and the shooter.  Granted not all guns and shooters can accomplish this, but to say that

NO HANDGUN is a 200 yard hunting propostion and hunters should get that crap out of thier heads quickly.

is foolish.  
   




"Born in the crucible of 200-500 meter handgun metallic silhouette competition, the BF Hunting Pistol has proven itself as THE champion of accuracy and power in hunting handguns! Shot by 8 of the top 10 competitors, capturing 1st through 6th, 8th,and 9th places... "







  Yes sir, there ARE long range handguns. [/i]

[jeager106]

I completely agree that there are handguns that are capable of 200 yard deadly accuracy. Probably even much longer ranges than 200 yards.
There is no doubt about that.
Read a little more carefully what I said.
I said a revolver ( r e v o l v e r ) as in 5 or 6 shooters with issued factory sights under field conditions.
Following me?
A factory revolver with issued sights, no matter the caliber is not a viable 200 yard hunting handgun even in the hands of a good shooter.
Perhaps under ideal circumstances under the control of another Elmer Keith type?

BlkHawk73: I didn't see a single revolver in the pictures you posted.

So before you guys get all emotional please read what I said carefully.

RedHawk: I read with more than passing interest your post on your .460.
I have no doubt that monster has the power to kill game at 200 yards.
But didn't you say you equipped the thing with a red dot sight?
How much target will your 'dot' cover at 200 yards?

Please, if you are going to condemn me, then condemn me for what I said, not what I didn't say.

BlkHawk: Those single shot pistols pictured in your posts.
How do you compare those with the REVOLVERS with issued sights I spoke of?

Now in my humble opinion most of those single shot handguns you posted were traget handguns.
I spoke of hunting revolvers. Get it?
I'm not talking about sihlouette shooting at marked, known yardages, I'm speaking of revolvers with issued sights under field conditions.
There, now I've clarified my statments at least three more times very clearly.
If I wasn't clear am I clear enough now for you guys to stop barbequing me?
Now I'm gonna post my issues with my obvious lost skills over the pat 11 years of inactivity on a new thread. Perhaps I can get the advice I asked for?

[Redhawk1]

I still maintain NO HANDGUN is a 200 yard hunting propostion and hunters should get that crap out of thier heads quickly.
Even a .460 revolver with scope sight is still not a 200 yards weapon my any stretch.
With open sights it takes a very good shot to hit a deer in the vitals at 100 yards under field conditions with any handgun.

OK jeager106, here is your quote, notice the bold statement. Are you following me? You now say a revolver with open sights, which one are you talking about here. Stick to one thing or the other.

If you read my posts I have three 460 Mags. Two have red dot sights and one has a 2X6X32 scope. As for my red-dot's. I have Match-dot sights. So I will explain them to you so you will have a little education on handgun hunting. The match dot sights have an adjustable dot size, from 2 MOA to 8 MOA. The 2 MOA covers 2 inch's at 100 yards and 4 inches at 200 yards. Not bad for a red-dot. For long distance shooting the 2 MOA dot is the preferred dot size, for close shooting the 4,6 or 8 MOA dot can be used.

Now through your own admission, you say you have never handgun hunted, what makes you think that you can make a statement like you do without creditable background in handgun hunting. Some of us have been hunting with handguns for 20 plus years. I speak from personal experience not what I think or read.  You have made several posts here with your background in law enforcement and you current lack of handgun proficiency, and them want to tell others how to and what to use for handgun hunting or what won't work. Sorry but your logic and lack of experience with handgun hunting leaves little to be desired.

[jeager106]

Redhawk:
You make some very good (insulting but good) points.
You might be the only person I've ever seen post in writing that you can kill big game at 200 yards offhand, under field conditions, with a revolver.
You sure have my admiration.
My hats off to you sir!

[PaulS]

Redhawk:
You make some very good (insulting but good) points.
You might be the only person I've ever seen post in writing that you can kill big game at 200 yards offhand, under field conditions, with a revolver.
You sure have my admiration.
My hats off to you sir!

jeager,

read up on "Hunters Pistol" competition. It began with rams at 200 meters (that 220 yards) and used revolvers with iron sights.) There was a different class for the single shots and another class for optical sights. Lots of 220 yard rams fell to 44 mags. I competed in the half range with a 357 revolver and tied with a guy shooting a TC Contender with a 6x scope for the range record. If you practice six days a week it gets easy to hit targets at extreme ranges with a pistol and iron sights. I don't think I could do it today but I wasn't wearing glasses back then.

[Redhawk1]

Redhawk:
You make some very good (insulting but good) points.
You might be the only person I've ever seen post in writing that you can kill big game at 200 yards offhand, under field conditions, with a revolver.
You sure have my admiration.
My hats off to you sir!

My points were not meant to be insulting. As far as shooting off hand at 200 yards, I would use my shooting sticks or a tree limb or something to steady my shot. I always carry shooting sticks while hunting and I even practice with them at the range. I owe it to the game to make my best shot possible. My off hand shooting is done if I am walking though the woods and a shot presents it's self , and I don't have time to use a rest. Almost all of them shots are under 100 yards. Also anytime I am hunting, it is field conditions. I am not saying I make all my shots off hand, but I do practice a lot doing so, I will always look for a good rest if time permits or if  I am just glassing an area. My first option is shooting sticks, my last option is off hand shooting.

[Qaz]

Kates, for what you will be using this pistol for there are better choices. Since you will be carrying this as a sidearm. You really need a small frame pistol with the longest barrel length you feel comfortable carrying. When you cross the 357 line you are now in hunting hand gun territory. A 38 is all you really need. I have killed ground hogs and fox out to 50 yards with a 22 pistol on the farm. After 50yds the front post starts blocking alot of the target. When you are working on a farm, ground hogs, fox and coyotes become targets of opportunity, so you are just slinging lead because non of them present a target at pistol range for long.

[jeager106]

Qaz:
In my oft times not so humble opinion if one is going to spend the bucks on a handgun why limit oneself to a .38 special?
Why not at least the .357 and shoot the thing with .38 spl. ammo and have the stronger round as an option?

PaulS. Thanks so much for the sincerely worded explaination of long range shooting.
I read you post with appreciation and interest.
I still maintain there is a long way between offhand target shooting and hitting, and long range hunting and wounding.
I, sir, don't doubt your words for a second.
If you say it, it's so. Period. And I appreciate your experience.
It gives me something to aim for. (pun intended! :-D )

Lest anyone think I'm a long range imbacile let me explain.
I never hunted much big game with the handgun.
Unless you count the two legged variety and that's another world entirely.
I practicaly grew up with a Ruger Super Single Six and could do some utterly amazing things with it.
I worked for a farmer and part of my wages was a brick of Federal .22 solids he bought for 5 bucks at the feed mill.
I killed groundhogs at 75 paces with that little .22 and could hit rocks in the dry lake beds at well over 100 yards, one hand, offhanded shooting.
I could pluck small targets tossed into the air going away or left to right and vs. vs. with hardly ever a miss.
I'll bet I put 20,000 rounds thru that little gun before I got poor and had to sell her.
When I became a copper and got into competition we would often do informal 'target' shooting at rocks about 12" to 20 " around in the dry lake beds and hit them at 200 plus yards with the old .38spl. 158 grn. round nose standard load.
I fully understand that you can hit at long range if you shoot enough.
But then ethics and averages come into the picture.
If I could hit a gnats ass at 200 yards I would not shoot at a deer that far in a hunting situation nor would I ever encourage anyone else to do so.
By the way. I was one a very, very, good pistol shot.
The years and multiple injuries have hurt me badly.
I could probably still be formidable in a gun fight but I'd rather pass thank you very much. :-D  :-D  :-D
Now how do I hit a breadbasket at 50 yards?