357 Magnum has become pointless... for me.

Status
Not open for further replies.
I can't think of a revolver model in 357 Magnum that I desire

Despite that I poo-poo’d the .357mag as “jack of all, master of none”, and that I’m not a fussy collector and that I shoot L-frames better than N-frames, and that the list of guns on my bucket list is purposely kept very short, a vintage 3.5” Model 27 is one of the few guns on it.

Beyond that, I’m a 686 fan because I shoot it best. That it’s chambered in .357 is convenient for the rare occasion when it’s the best choice.
 
What uses for a handgun is the .357 inadequate for?

These sums it up pretty well:

Big-game hunting for starters... :)

Any more than a broadside deer at 50yds.

And I’ve expressed my own opinion about the under powered 357magnum a few times in this thread already:

what can you really do with a full size 357mag? At its best, it’s a paltry performer on anything but paper. Excessive recoil for small game as it is, but not enough oomph to take deer and hog sized game efficiently outside of the shortest of ranges, and only in the most ideal of circumstances.
 
I always wondered where little game stopped and big game began! I do feel a Cape buffalo is big game and a rabbit or squirrel is small game. But exactly where is the dividing line as related to .357 is inadequate!
Just curious?
For me, I would say, deer. When you get above that, you can certainly kill a black bear with a .357, but I wouldn't hunt them with one.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mcb
You don't see hunting game larger than a deer with a handgun as a fairly specialized role?

No. But then again, I’m a handgun hunter, not a hunter who happens to own a handgun.

You see doing ONE thing well, and sucking at ONE other thing as versatile?
 
No. But then again, I’m a handgun hunter, not a hunter who happens to own a handgun.

You see doing ONE thing well, and sucking at ONE other thing as versatile?[/QUOTE

"You see doing ONE thing well, and sucking at ONE other thing" I see that as being an apt description of a dedicated hunting caliber. Being sufficient, while not the best, at multiple roles is what I see as versitile. I think for dedicated handgun hunters the .357 can be a poor choice. I think that a .30-06 is a very versitile rifle round, (and WAY WAY more capable than the .357), but I'd want something bigger for some of the game I've seen harvested with a handgun on this forum. The .357 certainly has an upper limit, and I'd put it at deer sized game for me. There are rounds which are better suited for hunting large game than the .357, but often they are only employed for that task. A .357 can be effectively used for hunting in limited roles, concealed carry, competition, home protection, and as a duty/carry gun. It may not be the best for any of those roles, and maybe the .44 special (handloaded to its abilities, not what you buy off the shelf) can do all those roles better than the .357, but that doesn't take away from what the .357 is capable of. The .357 can be an objectively flexible round without doing a single thing you would want a handgun to do. There are PLENTY who see absolutely no place for a revolver in a self-defense role. Use your higher capacity automatics for what a .357 can do and large frame revolvers for the real work. And that's fine. But that doesn't mean that a lower capacity revolver can't be very effective in a self-defense role, just that many think that other weapons are better suited for the role.

I do like the .357, but no more than the .38 special, .44 magnum, or .22. I do like it better than those strange rimless rounds, but that's a different conversation.
 
The ONE thing it does well is shooting people, NOT hunting. It's a terrible hunting cartridge.

A .357 can be effectively used for hunting in limited roles, concealed carry, competition, home protection, and as a duty/carry gun.

This is the epitome of my issue...

"Concealed carry" = shooting people
"Home protection" = shooting people
"Duty/carry gun" = shooting people

A rose by any other name... Same, Same, Same...

Limited use in hunting, and limited use in competition, and shooting people - that's the extent of the "versatility" of the 357mag...
 
Very interesting thread. I have reloaded, carried and hunted with the .357 for many years. I have carried a .357 around the farm for almost 30 years and it's accounted for numerous rabbits, ground hogs, coyotes and other vermin. I have also used it to take a number of white tails.

I'm embarrassed to say over the last few years it's been replaced by one of several single action .45s. My Ruger Blackhawk 7.5 in .45 does a better job on deer. Even my EDC has changed to my Hipower or even a (gasp) 442. Still shoot the .357 some but maybe a tenth of what I used to do.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mcb
I have to wonder:

If the .41 Magnum had caught on as a law enforcement cartridge, just long enough to become popular and see manufacturers build a dedicated frame size specifically for it, would the .357 Magnum still be so popular or considered so "versatile"?

I think that if there were a larger selection of
guns chambered for it, with as many load options available as for .357 Magnum, the .41 Magnum would be the "versatile" revolver cartridge. Bullet weights ranging from 170-180gr HPs to heavier 265gr solids, and of course there's the option to shoot more recently developed .41 Special cartridge in the same guns.
 
The ONE thing it does well is shooting people, NOT hunting. It's a terrible hunting cartridge.



This is the epitome of my issue...

"Concealed carry" = shooting people
"Home protection" = shooting people
"Duty/carry gun" = shooting people

A rose by any other name... Same, Same, Same...

Limited use in hunting, and limited use in competition, and shooting people - that's the extent of the "versatility" of the 357mag...
I disagree. Correctly loaded it is a fine hunting cartridge on medium size game plus it is a competent HD/duty cartridge---I carried one for nearly 18 years.
A 125 gr SJHP is a 'yote's worse nightmare.
Not very good at CCW unless you can conceal a medium length barrel.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mcb
As Dirty Harry once said to the effect, "a man's got to know his limitations". This applies well to 357 Magnum and its uses.

Around 1980, I shot in some Second Chance bowling pin events in the early stages of the competition, at least in the New Orleans area, using a 357 Magnum revolver and full power jacketed soft point loads. I did ok but in thinking about it, I wish I had tried some mid level loads with 158 grain cast SWC. A slower moving bullet may have swept the bowling pin from the table better than a high speed bullet.

I'll admit, I was a bit quicker clearing the table with my 1911 in 45 ACP. A big, heavy, slow moving bullet swept the bowling pins from the table better than a high speed, lighter weight bullet.

For hunting, gun and ammunition performance is the main criterial. For self defense, other factors come into play besides ammunition performance such as gun size/conceal ability.

Different cartridges and calibers provide the gun enthusiast a choice to best fit the task at hand. One gun, caliber or cartridge will not work for all instances.
 
Last edited:
If I was gonna shoot IHMSA field pistol and groundhogs, and deer under 50 yards.........I'd look at a Smith 686 pre lawyer lock.
Colt Python aint a bad rig.....but too pricey these days.
Since my eyes are getting older........proly mandate a reddot or reflex.
That shifts what handguns I'd get.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mcb
The ONE thing it does well is shooting people, NOT hunting. It's a terrible hunting cartridge.



This is the epitome of my issue...

"Concealed carry" = shooting people
"Home protection" = shooting people
"Duty/carry gun" = shooting people

A rose by any other name... Same, Same, Same...

Limited use in hunting, and limited use in competition, and shooting people - that's the extent of the "versatility" of the 357mag...

Concealed carry is not shooting people. You can shoot people with a .480 Ruger in a Super Redhawk, but concealing and carrying it is another thing. Likewise using something that is designed to penetrate and kill an animal like the very large game shown on this site, is likely not what you want to use in defending a multi-occupant home, a home in an urban setting or an apartment, also a long barrelled large framed heavy caliber hunting revolver is unlikely to be what you choose carry day in and day out. The physical dimensins of the weapon matter.
 
I have to wonder:

If the .41 Magnum had caught on as a law enforcement cartridge, just long enough to become popular and see manufacturers build a dedicated frame size specifically for it, would the .357 Magnum still be so popular or considered so "versatile"?

I think that if there were a larger selection of
guns chambered for it, with as many load options available as for .357 Magnum, the .41 Magnum would be the "versatile" revolver cartridge. Bullet weights ranging from 170-180gr HPs to heavier 265gr solids, and of course there's the option to shoot more recently developed .41 Special cartridge in the same guns.
If more vendors were to carry a selection, or better selection, of 41 cal. bullets, it might make it more tempting to own such a gun. But that would probably come along if the cartridges became more popular.

Back to the 357, I don't shoot 38s through a 357. But if I want a soft shooter, I use 5 gr. of Titegroup or HP-38 with a 158 gr. SWC. Thank God for variety. :)
 
Comes down to the knowledge of the person using the firearm, it's simply easier to buy 6 or 7 different firearms. Keep seeing the "jack of all trades/master of none thing". That actually holds water for ever cartridge out there, my porridge is too hot, mine's too cold.

Keep seeing the 357 isn't for woods carry but yet the op uses a 4" bbl'd model 10 (that's a 38spl).
Too loud?? A 357,44mag & 10mm are all 160+db. I think I'll make reloads for the 3 calibers and use different powders for each caliber.
It's impressive to keep a cartridge around because it can be reloaded faster than another. I don't play too many games but when I do using the 45acp I typically grab a firearm that is pretty fast to reload & has been around since 1911.

Myself I find the 357 versatile enough it can accurately use anything from 110gr to 200gr bullets along with several different cartridges can be used/fired in the revolver/firearm. I've used a 357 to hunt deer with for decades, never had a problem or was "under gunned". Used to shoot nra bullseye with a 586 go back home and go rabbit & squirrel hunting later that day with the same firearm/ammo combo out back in the red brush. Never had a problem hunting groundhog or crows out to 150yds with a 357.

I have no problem using a 357 for sd/ccw, my favorite load in a 170gr bullet doing 1200fps in my snubnosed 357. Anyone that doesn't think that's good enough can bring their catchers mitt over. I'll let them catch a couple so they can get a real world/1st hand assessment of that load. I use the same load for woods carry in a 4"bbl getting 1300fps+ out of it. More than enough for my needs in the area where I live.

If you use the 357 fine, if you don' that's a good thing also. Myself I find a 357 versatile enough to use a wide range of bullets/bullet weights. Has the ability to be loaded hot or downloaded. Use several cartridges in the same firearm. Has the inherent accuracy of the 35cal's with that wide range of bullet styles/weights. It's nothing to find an accurate load using a 200gr bullet in a 357 but try getting a accurate load using a 110gr bullet in a 10mm for example. Good luck with that 1.
 
I love .357 Magnum it is one of my favorite calibers because it is so flexible in power level and bullet style.
1400 fps barn burners with jacketed bullets, to 700 fps mouse fart loads with lead wad-cutters and every thing in between. A range of revolver sizes and capacities.
.357 Magnum is hard to beat as a revolver round.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mcb
You guys keep comparing high pressure .357 to high pressure big bores and missing the point. Yeah, full loads in the .44Mag are nearly as loud as the .357. The point that has been made since the beginning is that the big bores don't have to run full pressure to completely eclipse anything the .357 is capable of. Do you really think a 250gr at 900fps is just as nasty as a 125gr at 1500fps??? Try it and see. Need more, you can push that 250gr to 1200fps or a 300gr to 1000fps. As far as "versatility", the .44's and .45's can be loaded to the same pressure and velocity range that is touted for the .357. Except that heavy loads in those cartridges have taken the African Big Six. THAT is versatility. The .357 may appeal to a lot of people because it's a very capable fight stopper than is also fun to shoot with .38's but seems to me that folks are being awfully loose with the term "versatile".


This is the epitome of my issue...

"Concealed carry" = shooting people
"Home protection" = shooting people
"Duty/carry gun" = shooting people

A rose by any other name... Same, Same, Same...

Limited use in hunting, and limited use in competition, and shooting people - that's the extent of the "versatility" of the 357mag...
Exactly! You can't use five different words to describe shooting people and call it versatility. Shooting people, be it concealed carry, home protection or duty, that's all the same purpose and that is the cartridge's range of application. Which is pretty narrow and ALL is in preparation for something that will probably never happen. IMHO, practicing for a purpose is not the same as actually using for a purpose. Out of all the guns I own, those that are only useful for shooting people get the least attention. I shoot them enough to be proficient but I practice with hardball and carry them with JHP's. Not a whole lotta doting or load development going on.


It's nothing to find an accurate load using a 200gr bullet in a 357 but try getting a accurate load using a 110gr bullet in a 10mm for example. Good luck with that 1.
Likewise, good luck finding an accurate 360gr load out of the .357. :confused:
 
After 240 posts I don't have much to add that hasn't been said already, except that I also prefer the tamer 38 Special over the 357 for 95% of my uses. Perhaps a poll would be a good next step to see people preferences.
 
Wow I found out that the .357 Magnum is a weak caliber and is ineffective on cars and people!
Funny how S&W specifically developed the round to penetrate car bodies (when they were made of heavy Gauge steel), and kill armed machine gun toting crooks back in the 1930's.

https://www.guns.com/news/2015/10/07/is-the-357-magnum-enough-for-deer-hunting

Who said it was ineffective on people?

It is a marginal hunting cartridge for big game. Deer aren't hard to kill but I still find the .357 a bit underwhelming.
 
I have to wonder:

If the .41 Magnum had caught on as a law enforcement cartridge, just long enough to become popular and see manufacturers build a dedicated frame size specifically for it, would the .357 Magnum still be so popular or considered so "versatile"?

I think that if there were a larger selection of
guns chambered for it, with as many load options available as for .357 Magnum, the .41 Magnum would be the "versatile" revolver cartridge. Bullet weights ranging from 170-180gr HPs to heavier 265gr solids, and of course there's the option to shoot more recently developed .41 Special cartridge in the same guns.
I'm guessing it would still exist in some form, and would likely have a following. Since it evolved from much older cartridges like many revolver cartridges in common usage today, someone at some point would have lengthened a 38 Special case and crammed it into the theoretical dedicated 41 magnum sized frame you describe. Then it would've been put in a J frame, or vice versa. However it's popularity would be diminished I'm guessing compared to the actual reality, and I imagine it sort of having a similar status to 327 Fed Mag. Given that this same "versatility" and appropriate usage debate would of course still exist, one would have to wonder if anyone would have bothered to lengthen a 32 H&R mag case to develop the 32 Fed mag. I find this theoretical pondering in this scenario interesting.

All in all the 41 magnum has a much wider window of effective and appropriate uses than the 357 does. The unfortunate part is the availability of revolver frame sizes. For me, I have a powerful hunger for an L frame 41 magnum, or a slightly larger and beefier framed revolver to house it. I've said this many times but if Ruger could find a safe way to cram 5 rounds of 41 mag into a GP100, I think it would jump to the top of the list for my next purchase. In fact it's probably a gun I'd be willing to sell a 357 magnum to pay for. But I do really like my 357s because they are fun.

If S&W were to put the 41 mag into an L frame, it may be the one situation where I'd be willing to entertain their two piece barrel design.

The Redhawk and N frames are more meat than that particular cartridge needs, and the size difference is the real killer for me. If I'm going to step up to that frame size, then I'm just going to go to a 44 magnum, as the appropriate application window widens even further.

Changing topics:
One aspect of this conversation that I think has been largely ignored in this thread, maybe I missed it, is simply the cost of ammunition. The cost of 357 ammo is quite a bit lower than 44 magnum and certainly 41 mag also. The reality is that in the vast world of handguners out there, many of them will shoot their guns very little, and many will not care about developing any real shooting skills. If they hit a soda can at 7 yards that'll be good enough for them. So the smaller price tag of the 357 is appealing. There are also a lot of people in the world who live paycheck to paycheck. A LOT of people do this. I recently heard a report on NPR that 40 million Americans don't have even $400 in emergency money saved. I found that startling. I also heard that the average 40 year old American in the workforce has less than $25,000 saved for retirement. Again, that really disturbed me as social security is going to be so heavily taxed in the future, I don't really know that my payments will amount to much.

However, I have no kids, I'm fortunate to have a decent job, and I don't live an extravagant lifestyle. My house is old, small, and wasn't very expensive, but I'm paying a mortgage alone. My truck is 13 years old, and I'm just trying to save for a new one as I'll hit that point of investing in repairs being a poor idea in the not too distant future. I work 7.5 to 10 hours of overtime a week to make extra money and save for retirement and other crap I want to buy. I know a lot of folks in my age range who are living so far outside their means it frightens me. I think I also heard that the average American credit card debt is like $10,000. Really? So my point is I think many folks are very happy with 357 because they can find the ammo, and it isn't costing them an arm and a leg to acquire.

Most shooters out there will never handgun hunt. I think that's a given. Many people out there will never leave the trail when they are in the outdoors, so their chances of encountering large or dangerous animals are diminished, so they see 41 mag and larger as cartridges that are not needed, and it skews their perception of what versatility is.

Most shooters out there will never reload or hand load either. I think this is critical to people's perception of versatility, and reasonable application of a certain cartridge. I started loading a year ago. In that time frame, my perception of versatility has so completely changed due to not being restricted by factory offerings it blows my mind. When you stop looking at what company x offers, and what company y offers, and instead start looking at load data to see what you can put together yourself, seeing the 357 as a versatile cartridge changes. That window narrows a lot, because suddenly you realize that big bore cartridges, especially revolver cartridges, have hugely varying bullet weights and velocities that can be achieved, that frankly the diminished case capacity of the 357 and smaller range of bullet weights just don't allow for. I never considered these things prior to loading my own, because I looked at my needs, what guns I had and what capabilities they had, and what company offers what. I was shooting 45 Colts out of an X frame because I couldn't afford to shoot 460 mags all the time. Now, I see no reason at all to do that, and sacrifice accuracy. I would shoot 360 grain loads from the same gun in 460 mag, and find them largely unpleasant because they were gassed up to high velocity. Guess what, if you aren't hunting big game at long distances, you don't need them gassed up that extreme. In fact now I'm considering 395 gr loads or 460 magnum at moderate velocities, because even if loaded at the low end, a bullet that heavy is likely to pass completely through a large animal.

So my point here is that definitions and perceptions are skewed a great deal based on application, activities, and dedication to the sport.

I agree with the folks asserting that 357 magnum is not terribly versatile, and has rather limited applications that are appropriate. I mean if you look at the numbers involved with load data, the contrast from 357 and larger caliber cartridges is pretty sharp. However, that's based on my interest in the hobby, and my perception. Another person's perception may be much narrower on versatility based on the needs of their particular gun and what it is chambered in. But let's be honest about it too, numbers don't lie, ballistics don't lie, and people who actually use big bores on living creatures are far more educated on the matter than paper punchers who just want a cheap range session.

For the record, I don't hunt............yet. But I do read, and I do consider the words of hunters carefully as their experience is wider than my own.
 
Okay, so what do you guys think about the .357 for deer? :rofl:

That absolute right bullet needs to be used and placement is critical as there is no margin for error. Better for 120-lb southern does than 300+ northeastern bucks.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top