Author Topic: .357 vs. .44 (Read 4420 times)

skarke · « **Reply #30 on:** March 11, 2009, 04:15:17 AM »

Cull hunters in texas routinely use 22-250 and other smaller projectile buttets. Traditional muzzleloaders have terminal impact balllistics way lower than the 357 in all but the heaviest loads. The 357 within 50 will do the trick (has done for years in lever guns), but I agree that pistol hunting beyond 50 requires different equipment. That's why I hunt a lot with a 14" contender in 3030. It blows big holes out to my longest shot of 140, and probably further if I was a better shot. It'll outperform a 44 in every way except repeat shots.

One good shot, after all. FWIW.

Badnews Bob · « **Reply #31 on:** March 11, 2009, 06:45:07 AM »

I don't argue with fellas who want larger calibers, But I really can't understand the statement that a .357 is marginal, I think Its BS. I know for a fact (not a opinion) That a 180 hardcast LFNGC .357 out of a 6" revolver will blow a roughly dime sized hole clean thru a 200LB buck at 65 paces. I did it, What more could you ask for? I have hunted with .44s also and the same type shot produced the exact same results.
One shot one dead deer. Granted with smaller calibers you should close the range and take good shoots. A good hunter will do that anyway. (I not saying anyone here isn't a good hunter, Just the oppisite in fact.)

I have had a doe hit with a good broadside @60yards shot act like she wasn't hit until she just fell over about 45 yards later and that was with a .45-70, You never know what a deer is gonna do till you put a hole in one.

BTW all that being said I am gonna be hunting with a RBH 10.5" scoped .357 maximum this year, First time with a scoped handgun and first time with a maxi pistol, I am really looking forward to it.

hunt-m-up · « **Reply #32 on:** March 11, 2009, 06:56:11 AM »

I'll throw the .41 in the mix. I had a Ruger BH and loved shooting it, factory ammo is not quite as common, but does offer a compromise of recoil and energy. I got rid of it because I didn't have the time to become as proficient with it as I wanted to be.
Otherwise I would have to agree that the .357 would my choice for all-around duty and the best way to start. Throw in some .38's and it's fun to shoot on small game.

Redhawk1 · « **Reply #33 on:** March 12, 2009, 10:34:18 AM »

Quote from: Badnews Bob on March 11, 2009, 06:45:07 AM

I don't argue with fellas who want larger calibers, But I really can't understand the statement that a .357 is marginal, I think Its BS. I know for a fact (not a opinion) That a 180 hardcast LFNGC .357 out of a 6" revolver will blow a roughly dime sized hole clean thru a 200LB buck at 65 paces. I did it, What more could you ask for? I have hunted with .44s also and the same type shot produced the exact same results.
One shot one dead deer. Granted with smaller calibers you should close the range and take good shoots. A good hunter will do that anyway. (I not saying anyone here isn't a good hunter, Just the oppisite in fact.)

I have had a doe hit with a good broadside @60yards shot act like she wasn't hit until she just fell over about 45 yards later and that was with a .45-70, You never know what a deer is gonna do till you put a hole in one.

BTW all that being said I am gonna be hunting with a RBH 10.5" scoped .357 maximum this year, First time with a scoped handgun and first time with a maxi pistol, I am really looking forward to it.

Seeing how I made that statement "a .357 is marginal" and I stand behind that statement with my experience not just my opinion. Like I said, the 357 Mag is effective within it's range, and I consider 50 yards the absolute max anyone should use it. And I would not consider the 357 Mag for any black bear as the original poster said he might be using it for.

The 41 Mag and up is the way to go when not just deer are on the menu. I too have kill deer with my 357 Mag, but I never took a shot over 50 yards either.

The 357 Max is a big difference than the 357 Mag.

Badnews Bob · « **Reply #34 on:** March 12, 2009, 11:22:58 AM »

Redhawk I am not argueing with you or trying to belittle your opinion, I've read a lot of your post and you certainly seem to know your stuff, And I am sure you know what they say about opinions, So please don't take me wrong here.

As for the Max yes its a way diffrent animal I have used it in rifles for several years now but this will be the first out of a handgun and I am looking forward to this season and useing it.

Redhawk1 · « **Reply #35 on:** March 12, 2009, 11:50:12 AM »

Badnews Bob, I am sure that 357 Max will smoke them..

mattmillerrx · « **Reply #36 on:** March 12, 2009, 11:53:38 AM »

I am with GB's early post. I had not shot revolver before getting a 686 ( .357). I tried 38 special to get use to it and become a better shot with it. Well to make a long story short I got a model 17 .22 LR (as recommended here by GB and others many times) to practice with and my groups with full house .357 have improved and it is by far my best shooting handgun. Lets just say it does not take long to develop a flinch even with the .357. When my wife showed some interest in hunting and had shot my dads Marlin 1894 in .357 very well, I thought I would get her one. I found a .44 mag in great shape and a got it thinking the recoil would still be easy. Well it was to much for her, and frankly it is a lot. I have not shot a .44 mag revolver, and am not sure I want to after shooting it in a rifle.

There has been much debate on the .357 being enough, I agree with some of the earlier post to know its limits and your own limits. I plan to use my 686 this year with open sites, but out of my bowhunting setups. I may extend my range to 30-35 yrds as I am shooting it pretty well at 50 yrds now but that is under ideal conditions at the range with unlimited time ect and under hunting situations I would back off several yrds. My bowhunting setups should normally give me shots around 20yrs so I don't expect shots at that range but that would be my max and I will make sure I can hit very well at that range in less than ideal conditions.

As you can see my thoughts are to get a .357 for starters. And maybe a .22 LR if you have not shot a revolver much.

efremtags · « **Reply #37 on:** March 12, 2009, 12:55:59 PM »

I think when refering to the 357, marginal is a bad choice of words. Less than optimal is better. There is a difference. anyone who argues it is in-effective is stupid, it will kill deer. A bow kills deer, but I would not compare it to any gun in terms of ease of use an capability.

A 357 takes a higher degree of mastery to hunt with. hollow points penetrate less, so angles and range need to be really scrutinized. Hard cast leave pretty small wound channels.

A 44 is not that big of a deal to shoot. A 240gr bullet will take any deer or black bear at longer ranges and less than optimal angles. Step it up, 280gr hardcast, and you have serious capability (still relative to revolver terms). On a scoped revolver 100yds, quartering away is no prob. If recoil is too much, get a ported model.

I've shot with a 140lb woman who shoots and hunts with 454 un-ported without issue. Recoil is no excuse,.... pansies. lol.

Redhawk1 · « **Reply #38 on:** March 12, 2009, 04:11:02 PM »

Quote from: efremtags on March 12, 2009, 12:55:59 PM

I think when refering to the 357, marginal is a bad choice of words. Less than optimal is better. There is a difference. anyone who argues it is in-effective is stupid, it will kill deer. A bow kills deer, but I would not compare it to any gun in terms of ease of use an capability.

A 357 takes a higher degree of mastery to hunt with. hollow points penetrate less, so angles and range need to be really scrutinized. Hard cast leave pretty small wound channels.

That may very well be your opinion, but to call anyone stupid is a relative term. So be very careful how you choose your words!

A 357 Mag take no more to master than any other round, shot placement is key no matter what you shoot. A hollow point bullet is a poor choice for hunting, a jacketed soft point or hard cast is far superior to any hollow point. Not matter the size of the hole, if you put a hole in both lungs the animal is going to die.

And please do not bring in the old arrow vs bullet comparison. Anyone worth there salt know how each works.

teamnelson · « **Reply #39 on:** March 12, 2009, 04:51:49 PM »

Who here has shot a black bear with a 44 or 357 revolver?

Redhawk1 · « **Reply #40 on:** March 12, 2009, 05:11:53 PM »

44 Mag, yes, 357 Mag No...

I would not use the 357 Mag. I want 2 big holes to let blood out. The coat of a black bear will soak up blood like a sponge, and makes for not so good blood trails. I want a bullet that will go through bone and exit the animal. The 357 Mag does not meet my requirement of a big hole with the power to accomplish what I expect out of my hunting handguns.

I don't see a reason to use a smaller round, when I have bigger and more suited rounds for the job. If all I hunted were deer, and I kept my shots under 40 or 50 yards, I say sure go with the 357 Mag.

I am not saying a 357 Mag will not kill a deer or even a black bear. Heck a well placed 22 L/R round will with a well placed shot, but that does not make a 22 L/R a good choice either. What I am alluding to is, I want and expect my round to be able to kill my game as quickly as possible. I want a round that will case the most damage and bust through bone if need be.

Mohawk · « **Reply #41 on:** March 13, 2009, 04:51:07 AM »

If the shot is through vitals, the .357 does fine for deer. Any animal larger then I go with the .44 and up. The .357 is very effective deer medicine and the deer, after shot, acted the same as being hit with a .243 and .280, they trot 40yds and fall over dead. Any projectile that penetrates both lungs will have the same effect down to and including an ice pick.

efremtags · « **Reply #42 on:** March 13, 2009, 02:13:11 PM »

Redhawk1, don't get your knickers in a twist.

First off, didn't make comparisons in lethality or effectiveness or anything beteeen guns and arrows. I used the analogy of skill set and ease of use. It is relevant.

Rifles are easier to use than shotguns, shotguns than handguns, handguns that archery. etc etc etc.

Also, made no reference to letahlity, or preference to which ammo is best. Merely stated facts. many, many people use hollow points. The XTP is one of the most referenced bullets in any caliber. Fact is they penetrate less.

Also, made no reference about poor or good short placement. A deer shot in the flank on a hard quartr with a good 44 or larger heavy hardcast is good enough shot placement relative to the fact the bullet will end up in the vitals. I would not take that shot personally on n unwounded nimal, but have done so on already wounded animals and have dropped them on the spot.

Don't mince words or read into what others write.

And stupid is relative term. but fits some of the ridiculous commentary people make when they get too far off topic.

Redhawk1 · « **Reply #43 on:** March 13, 2009, 03:35:51 PM »

I don't see anyone getting off topic here.

I don't find any method I choose to use easier or harder to use. I just know each has there limitations, and people should know them as well as theirs.

tc scout · « **Reply #44 on:** March 14, 2009, 02:34:55 AM »

Quote from: efremtags on March 12, 2009, 12:55:59 PM

I think when refering to the 357, marginal is a bad choice of words. Less than optimal is better. There is a difference. anyone who argues it is in-effective is stupid, it will kill deer. A bow kills deer, but I would not compare it to any gun in terms of ease of use an capability.

A 357 takes a higher degree of mastery to hunt with. hollow points penetrate less, so angles and range need to be really scrutinized. Hard cast leave pretty small wound channels.

A 44 is not that big of a deal to shoot. A 240gr bullet will take any deer or black bear at longer ranges and less than optimal angles. Step it up, 280gr hardcast, and you have serious capability (still relative to revolver terms). On a scoped revolver 100yds, quartering away is no prob. If recoil is too much, get a ported model.

I've shot with a 140lb woman who shoots and hunts with 454 un-ported without issue. Recoil is no excuse,.... pansies. lol.

I would have to assume by that statement that anyone who doesn't shoot a 44mag
or larger is a PANSIE.

I would also suggest that not everyone (including myself) because of medical,age or other reasons
can not endure the pounding of large bore hanguns.

Recoil is an issue with many shooters.

teamnelson · « **Reply #45 on:** March 14, 2009, 11:42:15 AM »

Reason I asked earlier question was because if I'm HUNTING bear, I'd go big. If I am going to be in bear country I do not go as big. I shoot big bore silhouette with a .44 mag Bisley so I'm not recoil sensitive, but I am way more confident of shot placement with a 627-5 in 357. Guns are tools, an extension of the shooter - better to carry the one you'll use than the biggest you can find - even on bear. Dude bought a 460 bear kit, 200 rds not one on paper at 10 yds. If we were in bear country the safest place would be standing in front of the bear.

Redhawk1 · « **Reply #46 on:** March 14, 2009, 12:09:54 PM »

Quote from: TeamNelson on March 14, 2009, 11:42:15 AM

Dude bought a 460 bear kit, 200 rds not one on paper at 10 yds. If we were in bear country the safest place would be standing in front of the bear.

Either the guy has never shot a big bore gun or is just a poor shot. Not everyone shoot that bad. 10 yards, I will make one ragged hole with my 4 inch 500 Mag with 5 shots.

Hook686 · « **Reply #47 on:** March 16, 2009, 10:25:23 PM »

No brag, just fact.

teamnelson · « **Reply #48 on:** March 17, 2009, 08:46:00 AM »

Quote from: Redhawk1 on March 14, 2009, 12:09:54 PM

Quote from: TeamNelson on March 14, 2009, 11:42:15 AM
Dude bought a 460 bear kit, 200 rds not one on paper at 10 yds. If we were in bear country the safest place would be standing in front of the bear.
Either the guy has never shot a big bore gun or is just a poor shot. Not everyone shoot that bad. 10 yards, I will make one ragged hole with my 4 inch 500 Mag with 5 shots.

Yep, I can hit a steel turkey at 200 yds 10 out of 10 with a .44 Bisley 7.5". But I never recommend someone go big just because I can. And I never recommend they go big just in case (of bears, martians, or the North Koreans) because everyone is a lousy shot when threatened, unless they've trained alot under those conditions. I would argue that 6 well placed shots of smaller caliber are far more effective than 5 loud noises and maybe one not so well placed shot of larger caliber, if that's all you can handle effectively.

Redhawk1 · « **Reply #49 on:** March 18, 2009, 04:36:52 PM »

The 44 Mag is small by my standards.

odoh · « **Reply #50 on:** March 20, 2009, 08:21:51 PM »

Years ago, I knew several hound men that packed 357s for our CA blackies. In that they had to move rapidly w/the dogs to the tree, handguns were lighter and the 44Mag was then still new in the wilds. Our then Pastor, who guided bear hunters didn't think much of the 44Mag as a one time experience in the hands of his inexperienced client cost several expensive hounds. Years later, I got to hang a bit w/another generation of bear hunters that were still running hounds and many were packing 357s. In those cases, treed bear, the action is close and fast ~ few are up to it w/the bigger revolvers. As a young man, I wanted to run w/them but a pack-treed anything larger than fuzzy-tailed tree-rats ('quirrels) just wasn't my forte'. To each his own ~ ~ ~

In those early yrs, the words '44Magnum' was uttered w/fear and awe. Now, it seems that its an entry level magnum and the 357 is a plinker.

Yankee1 · « **Reply #51 on:** April 03, 2009, 03:26:40 PM »

Hello Everyone
My personal preference is the Ruger Super Blackhawk in .44 magnum. I'm 76 years old and have been shooting one since they first came out. I am very used to the gun. It has the original plow handle grips and the trigger pull is two pounds even. I shoot the Keith type semi wad cutter 245 grain hard cast bullet over a just under max load of 296 with a mag primer. My holster is a safariland boned holster with a suede liner. It fits the gun very well and does not look as large as most. It also has a nylon front sight track inside the holster.
I reload and cast my own bullets so ammo is not a problem. When in recoil because of its plow handle grips it tends to rotate some when fired.
I think this reduces some of the felt recoil. I am a large man over 300 pounds so that has something to do with it also. I live and hunt in both bear and lion country so I like this particular caliber. I also like its outstanding accuracy.
It groups one inch at 25 yards with iron sights. Oh I did paint the front sight with a nylon based very bright paint. It helps in poor light.
Yankee1

jwp475 · « **Reply #52 on:** April 09, 2009, 05:02:50 PM »

A 44 mag can be used with 44 Special ammo in oreder to learn to shoot the gun and as skill progresses they can then move up to the 44 mag ammo. The 44 will have enough punch. The 41 mag is another good choice. The 357 can be made to work, but IMHO it is less than ideal

1sourdough · « **Reply #53 on:** April 10, 2009, 01:40:39 AM »

Sorry, just skimmed through the many replies. A big issue is weight, most 44 mags are rather heavy to carry very long. You have a greater likelyhood of other dangers on the trail than an angry 'she-bear'. Not that those dangers are all that high. I'd go for a lighter gun. If I wanted all I could get out of a 357 I'd load up some max power 180 grn hardcast lead. I have both guns but would rather carry a 357.

jk3006 · « **Reply #54 on:** April 10, 2009, 04:36:58 AM »

Do what I did. My first hand gun was a .480 Ruger. I immediately stoked it with 412 grainers at 1200 out of the 7.5 barrel. I actually shot it fairly well. Ok, so don't do what I did. But, my point is that I think the .44 isn't all that bad on recoil, and I'd take that any day as a trail gun over a .357. The weight of a SA 5.5 barreled .44 doesn't bother me at all.

mcwoodduck · « **Reply #55 on:** April 10, 2009, 05:26:51 AM »

Actually the weight of a 44 SAA is less than a 357 SAA as the hole is bigger and more metal is removed.
Not sure once you fill it with bullets but i guess if you take the 180 44 vs the 180 357 than the 357 will weigh more.
not enough to be noticed but more.

SHOOTALL · « **Reply #56 on:** April 10, 2009, 10:30:31 AM »

don't forget to add weight of bigger case and powder .

SHOOTALL · « **Reply #57 on:** April 10, 2009, 10:31:29 AM »

oh yea and small vs. large primer .

1sourdough · « **Reply #58 on:** April 15, 2009, 11:39:16 AM »

Yes you can buy a 25-30 oz 44 mag but I don't think most will want to shoot many full power loads in it. The larger guns with more weight will absorb recoil but you won't hike very long without feeling it in the average belt holster. I was with a guy shooting his new 7.5" Redhawk the other week. He was glad he had some 44spcl ammo to go with the 44mag. I also think there is more to think about than the full on bear charge. Of course it depends where you are.