357 Magnum has become pointless... for me.

Fryxell’s opinion is one man’s. You need to go way back in time to research this properly. I did say purportedly did I not????

I will say it again with more conviction. Elmer Keith was a Hunter, not a handgun hunter. Meaning, he occasionally (when opportunity presented itself) used a handgun. If all you use is a handgun, you are a handgun hunter.

Why does Elmer Keith trigger such emotional responses???? Did I touch the irrational defensive Elmer nerve?

Actually the "sharpe" bullet would be one of my last choices for hunting/plinking/dirt clods @ 10 paces with anything using 35cal bullets.Some of the common swc's for the 357. lyman 358477 & 358439 cramer #26 h&g #51 (sharpe design).

The shpare/h&g #51 has the lowest velocity out of those bullets pictured above with head to head testing (same load/firearm). All of them had good accuracy, it's the small bottom drive band/bullet base that accounts for the poor performance. The cramer #26 on the other hand with the largest bottom drive band/bullet base was always the best performer/highest velocities.

Any semi-wadcutter is pretty much the last bullet I would use hunting. There are much better choices out there. If you insist on lead, look no further than LBT...

MaxP said:

Fryxell’s opinion is one man’s. You need to go way back in time to research this properly. I did say purportedly did I not????

I will say it again with more conviction. Elmer Keith was a Hunter, not a handgun hunter. Meaning, he occasionally (when opportunity presented itself) used a handgun. If all you use is a handgun, you are a handgun hunter.

Why does Elmer Keith trigger such emotional responses???? Did I touch the irrational defensive Elmer nerve?

Click to expand...

Perhaps it's you that needs to go "way back in time" and research this properly.

Sharpe developed the 357 cartridge. He also designed a bullet for that 357 cartridge. The 357 cartridge was developed in +/- 1934. Kind of hard to design a bullet in in the 20's for a caliber that wasn't around or even thought about to the early to mid 30's.

You asked about a early copy of a lyman catalog. I merely showed you a copy of a 1929 catalog. If you or anyone else bothered to look at it you'd see that there's no sharpe or keith bullet listed for sale in the 35cal's. There's no swc bullet period in the back/end of the book showing any 35swc in the "special order molds section" either.

I could actually care less what anyone says about keith. It's well documented with what he hunted with and what he didn't hunt with.

Last I heard it was actually Charlie O'Neill who designed the 429421. He was the "O" in OKH.

Keith was not a handgun hunter. He did most of his hunting with rifles and viewed the sixgun as a weapon of opportunity. He killed a good many critters with handguns when presented with opportunities but he did not set out hunting with only a handgun.

Newsflash, he did not design the .357Mag or .44Mag either!

I really do wish that forrest r could participate in these discussions without the snark and condescension. It's not productive. It's not warranted and he's not exchanging with idiots.

Not only that but some of us have shot more animals with a revolver than he ever did........last year. Much better choices than keith style bullets.

Max has fired more heavy loads in two or three range sessions than Keith would have done all year. By his own admission.

I use a 357 for deer, but it is out of a lever rifle not a revolver. Very effective but the rifle makes a big difference vs a revolver. For handgun hunting I leave my 357 revolvers at home and use my 44 mag SRH. Use XTP’s for both calibers. Iowa allows handguns during late muzzleloader, the rifle gets used during shotgun season which now allows the straight wall cartridges.

Pudge said:

This is a strange discussion. I enjoy most anything I shoot. Depending on how extensive your collection of revolvers is, you can certainly make the .357 magnum pointless for you. That's why they make vanilla and butter pecan icecream. The .357 magnum is like chocolate, you can find flavors you like better, but chocolate works so well so much of the time.

Click to expand...

I feel the same way. I enjoy shooting all the guns I have or the ones others let me shoot.

mcb said:

So what are you big bore revolver hunters using for bullets? I probably fall into that part-time handgun/revolver hunter category. I am too much of a tinker to stick with just one gun for too long. XTP bullets have been my choice for deer and smaller and have proven sufficient so far but that has only been a few tactical possum (armadillos) with .357 cal 158gr HP/XTP from the old 38 Speical Model 10. Two ~130 lb does with 200 gr 40 cal XTP/Mag and sort of two deer (one 200+ lb buck and a yearling doe) with 300gr 45 cal XTP/MAG though the 45 XTPs got launch from a 58 caliber muzzle in a sabot not a revolver.

Click to expand...

Barnes xbp, swift aframes, solid copper flatnose and speer deep curl

Alright sorry it took me a while to get back to you on this, first a few notes.

I'm sorry for how long this reply is about to be but I felt a need to address the the various points of CraigC's reply. Feel free to skip this if that's of no interest to you.

Secondly I have no problem with big bore rounds if that's the impression I'm giving. I'm just under the impression that the lower limits of a cartridge seem to be irrelevant to many in this discussion and it is has turned into more of a:

"this round can kill the biggest thing, it can kill anything below that biggest thing, therefore it has the most versatility"

Which I personally feel is a poor way to define versatility.

Lastly, thanks to CraigC for the discussion, hopefully I manage to convey my ideas in a way that draws less backlash. The 357 Magnum's versatility lies in that it is more suitable for small game and equally suitable (with trade offs on both sides) for medium targets (deer/person sized) than a large bore handgun (which swaps small game for large game).

CraigC said:

Here we get into extreme and exaggerated examples. It proves nothing but the inexperience of the person making the statement.

Click to expand...

First off, ouch. Next, you yourself later go on to propose a custom tailored 45 load for killing small game. Following your same standards of versatility we can down load a 500 magnum which has the higher upper limit which is the only relevant factor.

CraigC said:

I've only been hunting with handguns for 30yrs so maybe I've missed something but if I were hunting small game with a big bore, I'd be using cast bullets at low velocities and not be wasting as much meat as a hyper velocity .22LR. Not "blowing away" anything or irresponsible in the least. Of course, this is purely hypothetical, no one actually does this.

Click to expand...

No one actually does this, exactly. Yet many of the arguments present in this thread are only taking into account the upper limit of what a cartridge can do while theory crafting that these cartridges can be specialty loaded to perform like smaller cartridges.

CraigC said:

FACT: A .44Spl launching a 250gr cast bullet at 900fps will kill any deer that walks deader than fried chicken. It does this without expansion, from any angle and without eardrum shattering blast. I am fairly certain that this does not constitute "overkill". In fact, it will result in less bloodshot meat than a rapidly expanding, high velocity .357 load.

Click to expand...

You're talking about shooting a medium sized animal with a big bore handgun. It's hardly overkill, it's just a step down compared to what you could do with a .429 bullet. The larger the animal the less this sort of overcompensation matters. There's no practical point with something the size of a deer where you're wasting a relevant portion of the animal.

Along the same lines though a .429 bullet might be a little much for smaller game unless we're going back to theory crafting ways to lob a chunk of lead to minimize damage.

CraigC said:

.I'm also fairly certain that .500's have not been submitted as a viable alternative to the .357.

Click to expand...

That's very true but again our idea of versatility for the 44 Magnum is that it's upper limit is higher than the 357 Magnum with theoretical lobbed chunk of lead representing our lower limit. So by these standards I fail to see how the 500 Magnum isn't superior to both of those rounds, I'm sure it can also be loaded for small game.

CraigC said:

Versatility is not subjective at all. It is purely objective. How it applies to the individual is subjective.

Click to expand...

I completely disagree with you here unless there is a formula for versatility that I am unaware of. Kinetic Energy is objective. Momentum is objective. Versatility only exists in how it applies to an individual. We could make some system to measure versatility, and while operating within said system versatility would be entirely objective, but to the best of my knowledge this has not happened.

CraigC said:

I have NEVER had a shortage of appropriate bullets for the .44's and .45's as compared to the .357. FACT is that one can literally hunt everything from rabbits to elephant with three or four different bullets.

Click to expand...

zanders said:

3. Even if you reload the 357 magnum has an absurdly more diverse component selection than any big bore handgun.

Click to expand...

I'm hardly arguing that a more diverse selection of components is crucial. I'd say it's more novel than anything. It's not even an indicator of the capabilities of a cartridge, it's more of a byproduct of the popularity of a cartridge.

Thanks again CraigC I look forward to learning from you about big bore handguns (I'm a bit new to them)

MaxP said:

If all you use is a handgun, you are a handgun hunter.

Click to expand...

I pretty much consider myself a handgun hunter when it comes to deer hunting from a stand or blind, cause that's all I have with me.......altho I do hunt them also with bow/crossbow. Very similar hunting tactics. That said, I do use rifles/carbines when sneak hunting/still hunting for deer because of the high incidence of jump/running shots. So, IMHO, I consider one a handgun hunter anytime their primary or only weapon, is a handgun.

Now to get back to the just of this thread. I live in Wisconsin. Big hunting state because of tradition, plenty of game and lots of hunt-able land, both private and public. Most everyone I know owns at least one handgun. Out of all of those folks I know, I'm the only one I would consider a "handgun hunter". While many might carry a handgun into the woods with them, it is probably no their primary weapon, or hunting is not it's primary intended use. Out of all of these folks, most of them own 9mms, .45ACPs or a revolver capable of using .38s and .357s. Very few own .44s, almost none own .45 Colts and even fewer own any of the other calibers mentioned in this thread. Is this because of where I live or who I am? Nope....this is what you will find most anyplace you go in this country. One only has to look at ammo sales and gun sales to see which are bought the most. Easy to do.....just GTS. Most sources mirror the same percentages. In handgun calibers 9mm is tops, nuttin' else is even close. Then comes .45ACP, followed by 40S&W and then a virtual tie between .38/357 and .380. .44s/.44 mag is next followed by .45 Colt. But numbers show that there are three times the amount of .38/.357s sold as is .44sp/.44mag. When you get to .45 Colt the amount is more than 6 times. Ammo and gun sales also virtually mirror themselves as for rank and percentages. None of this is antiquated date, but recent sales data. What this tells me, is that to the majority of handgun owners in the U.S. of A. don't think like the OP about the .357 being pointless, and they don't think like me and have no desire for a 9mm. Folks like what they like for reasons above and beyond my comprehension. Good for them, as they should only have to justify their choices to themselves. Trying to dis or praise the .357 solely on it's hunting values is pointless because the majority of folks with handguns are not handgun hunters. Maybe if this thread was in the hunting forum, it might in itself be not so pointless.....I dunno

That said........I have killed deer with 357s, .44 mags and the .460 S&W. Killed just about as many with all the different calibers. Those killed by the .357s did not show any sign that the gun was pathetic or even marginal, nor did they go any relatively farther distance before collapsing. Biggest difference for the most part was distance of the shot. I resisted shooting past 30-35 yards with the .357 revolvers. But within those parameters, it worked very well. Many times where I hunt, it is not my first choice because of a high incidence of shots farther than 30-35 yards. When I hunt stands where shots could be farther than 80 yards......even the .44s are not my first choice. But that's me and how I hunt with handgun. I'm gonna tell ya......it's pointless to try and convince me otherwise.

I like going through Elmer's old articles, so here is one on the current topic: http://www.elmerkeithshoot.org/AmericanRifleman/Keith357.pdf

don't forget his skills with a shotgun. he was the ultimate 3-gun hunter!

murf

forrest r said:

...Sharpe developed the 357 cartridge. He also designed a bullet for that 357 cartridge. The 357 cartridge was developed in +/- 1934. ....

Click to expand...

The .357 Magnum of 1935 was primarily significant for the sales of S&W "Registered Magnums," essentially custom guns. It was indeed in the 1920's that people began to throw off the dogma of loading the .38 Special to no higher than the pressure levels that would be developed with a full case of black powder. With the widespread availability of smokeless powders, why wouldn't they? If you had the case, and you had the powder, and nobody ever put them together, then there were no red-blooded American men. But men did put them together, and S&W even produced revolvers that could shoot them safely as early as 1930. The Model 20 was available in 1930 and the Mod. 23 in 1931. Extending the case length 0.135" was mostly a formality, and as I wrote, an opportunity to sell prestigious custom guns. But there were certainly .357-.358" bullets being flung out of revolvers at supersonic speeds in the 1920's.

labnoti said:

The .357 Magnum of 1935 was primarily significant for the sales of S&W "Registered Magnums," essentially custom guns. It was indeed in the 1920's that people began to throw off the dogma of loading the .38 Special to no higher than the pressure levels that would be developed with a full case of black powder. With the widespread availability of smokeless powders, why wouldn't they? If you had the case, and you had the powder, and nobody ever put them together, then there were no red-blooded American men. But men did put them together, and S&W even produced revolvers that could shoot them safely as early as 1930. The Model 20 was available in 1930 and the Mod. 23 in 1931. Extending the case length 0.135" was mostly a formality, and as I wrote, an opportunity to sell prestigious custom guns. But there were certainly .357-.358" bullets being flung out of revolvers at supersonic speeds in the 1920's.

Click to expand...

Smokeless powder certainly changed everything. Because both 38 and 44 cartridges were being used a lot before smokeless powder is a testament to their usefulness. With supersonic velocity they have become even more useful. Given the cost and availability of ammo these days 38 (357) has to be the most versatile. A 38/357 revolver is an excellent choice for SD and a 357 carbine is an excellent choice for a <100 yd. deer rifle. Most deer are shot within that distance anyway. I'm not sure how we got hung up on revolvers to begin with. Might be because some people here don't shoot carbines and like to drive every conversation toward hunting and revolvers to the point we get sidetracked.

If anyone thinks versatility is pointless than 1/2 ton pickups are pointless.

mcb said:

We are in the revolver subsection and hunting was mentioned in my original post so it's not surprising we have focused a large portion of the thread on it. From a previous thread I already new the forum had very few members shooting revolvers competitive in practical pistol sports, so the skew towards hunting and self-defense is not surprising.

A pickup truck is as bad at cornering as 357 mag SWC are at fast reloads.

Click to expand...

Well, if you're going to discuss a pistol cartridge for hunting you might want to consider it's use in a carbine given that more people are going to use a carbine to hunt with than a revolver. You said you found the cartridge pointless but I think that might be because you don't truly use it as "a tool to do a job" like most people would.

I'll try to stay on scrip with your posts going forward.

If you want fast reloads get a bottom feeder. Revolvers, no matter the bullet or cartridge, never did excel in that area.

CoalTrain49 said:

Well, if you're going to discuss a pistol cartridge for hunting you might want to consider it's use in a carbine given that more people are going to use a carbine to hunt with than a revolver. You said you found the cartridge pointless but I think that might be because you don't truly use it as "a tool to do a job" like most people would.

I'll try to stay on scrip with your posts going forward.

If you want fast reloads get a bottom feeder. Revolvers, no matter the bullet or cartridge, never did excel in that area.

Click to expand...

Have you not seen video of mcb reloading a revolver in competition? He’s pretty darn fast.... it’s rather impressive.

SteadyD said:

Have you not seen video of mcb reloading a revolver in competition? He’s pretty darn fast.... it’s rather impressive.

Click to expand...

No, I don't know who he is, sorry.

Faster than Larry Vickers with a Glock?

murf said:

I like going through Elmer's old articles, so here is one on the current topic: http://www.elmerkeithshoot.org/AmericanRifleman/Keith357.pdf

don't forget his skills with a shotgun. he was the ultimate 3-gun hunter!

murf

Click to expand...

Nice article but from what the best handgun guys say on this website, Keith was not a handgun hunter. He did most of his hunting with rifles and viewed the sixgun as a weapon of opportunity. When nothing could be further from the truth.

That article has keith doing the same thing with the same people that he's done in the past. EK like the king sight out of NC, had 3 brass lines in it for hold over. For some odd reason s&w uses 3 points of adjustment on their silhouette front sights to this day. Croft who designed the hp pin for his 357 bullet was from the east. He didn't believe in long range handgun shooting/hunting and in 1926 went to ek's Oregon ranch and showed him he could repeatedly hit a 4' sq piece of wood @ 700yds with several handguns. They became life long friends and croft had connections back east. Interesting ek didn't hunt with a handgun but he had no problem testing the 357 @ 500yds and shooting a couple hundred jack rabbits during that testing with most shots being +/- 100yds.

Anyway Brian Pearce did an article (#287/DEC 2013) about EK & how he developed the 429421 mold. Who was involved and how go the 1st molds made to test. Pearce is now in possession of the 2nd 429421 mold lyman ever made. Odd that Pearce never mentioned anyone other than ek designing that bullet.

Sharpe is rather arrogant IMHO in his 1937 book he wrote on reloading there is he mentioning the "sharpe's 357 bullet" in it 20+ times in 2 chapters. He clearly didn't like EK & in his book he hinted nothing good, wouldn't even mention his name. I find it odd that Sharpe never mentioned that he actually designed the swc and ek copied his design. Sharpe had no problem talking about & taking credit for anything he did but there's not 1 peep out of him about how ek used his bullet design.

Now Skeeter Skelton who was born on the same year ek perfected the 429421 put down his 44spl when he got his hands on a 357. Jack rabbits out to 200yds were common along with coyote's, javelin & other critters. He did an excellent article about the 357 in the March 1960 issue of guns magazine. In that article Skeeter Skelton praised EK saying "Real sixgun men like the old master Elmer Keith" And how he led the way with long range handgun hunting.

The times they are a changing, in 1960 Skeeter praises EK for his long range hunting skills with a handgun. Fast forward to 2019, Ek didn't hunt with a handgun & 100yds is a lllloooooonnnnnnnggggggggggggg shot with a handgun

murf said:

I like going through Elmer's old articles, so here is one on the current topic: http://www.elmerkeithshoot.org/AmericanRifleman/Keith357.pdf

don't forget his skills with a shotgun. he was the ultimate 3-gun hunter!

murf

Click to expand...

Murf, Thanks for the Elmer link! I loved it!
Catpop

You can talk about calibers, bullets, loads to the cows come home. The reality of it is that there are very few people that have actually shot revolver/pistols at long ranges. Nor have the skills to be able to do so. Couple that with most of the firearms put out today are not capable of long range accuracy.

The 357 is extremely flat shooting & accurate enough for target work out to 500yds and small to medium sized game 200yds and in. Skeeter found this out after 10yrs of testing/shooting the 357 he switched over to a 44mag when they 1st came out. Skeeter switched back to the 357, it simply had a flatter trajectory the 44mag couldn't equal.

EK's measure of a shooter that is proficient with a handgun is someone that could shoot 90 or above on the nra slowfire targets, consistently hit a grouse or jackrabbit @ 50yds and repeatedly hit a man sized silhouette target @ 300yds. When you could do that you were now trainable/ready to learn how to fast draw a revolver and do the same thing.

Weed thru these 12 pages of what the "modern" handgunner knows & does with their handguns. It has everything to do with where they live & how they live. If you live in a city you're limited to what the local ranges provide & to the times you can get there. As a kid growing up on flatland farms there was always a firearm around and enough distance to keep it more than interesting. When I moved back from texas I put in 50yd pistol/smallbore range, a 500yd pistol/rifle range and a 1500yd rifle range. Burned up a couple bbl.'s along with a bunch of ammo back then. But you also walked around with a revolver on your hip all day, thought nothing about shooting vermin. You saw something you could eat, the revolver came out and it went in the pot. Years later I live in a city and go to a local range where the longest shot is only 100yds.

forrest r said:

Nice article but from what the best handgun guys say on this website, Keith was not a handgun hunter. He did most of his hunting with rifles and viewed the sixgun as a weapon of opportunity. When nothing could be further from the truth.

That article has keith doing the same thing with the same people that he's done in the past. EK like the king sight out of NC, had 3 brass lines in it for hold over. For some odd reason s&w uses 3 points of adjustment on their silhouette front sights to this day. Croft who designed the hp pin for his 357 bullet was from the east. He didn't believe in long range handgun shooting/hunting and in 1926 went to ek's Oregon ranch and showed him he could repeatedly hit a 4' sq piece of wood @ 700yds with several handguns. They became life long friends and croft had connections back east. Interesting ek didn't hunt with a handgun but he had no problem testing the 357 @ 500yds and shooting a couple hundred jack rabbits during that testing with most shots being +/- 100yds.

Anyway Brian Pearce did an article (#287/DEC 2013) about EK & how he developed the 429421 mold. Who was involved and how go the 1st molds made to test. Pearce is now in possession of the 2nd 429421 mold lyman ever made. Odd that Pearce never mentioned anyone other than ek designing that bullet.

Sharpe is rather arrogant IMHO in his 1937 book he wrote on reloading there is he mentioning the "sharpe's 357 bullet" in it 20+ times in 2 chapters. He clearly didn't like EK & in his book he hinted nothing good, wouldn't even mention his name. I find it odd that Sharpe never mentioned that he actually designed the swc and ek copied his design. Sharpe had no problem talking about & taking credit for anything he did but there's not 1 peep out of him about how ek used his bullet design.

Now Skeeter Skelton who was born on the same year ek perfected the 429421 put down his 44spl when he got his hands on a 357. Jack rabbits out to 200yds were common along with coyote's, javelin & other critters. He did an excellent article about the 357 in the March 1960 issue of guns magazine. In that article Skeeter Skelton praised EK saying "Real sixgun men like the old master Elmer Keith" And how he led the way with long range handgun hunting.

The times they are a changing, in 1960 Skeeter praises EK for his long range hunting skills with a handgun. Fast forward to 2019, Ek didn't hunt with a handgun & 100yds is a lllloooooonnnnnnnggggggggggggg shot with a handgun

Click to expand...

What particular item in Keith’s extensive body of work leads you to believe he was a handgun hunter? Seriously, point us to it. In handgun hunting circles, Keith is not considered a handgun hunter (do you hunt with handguns Forrest?). He is considered influential on the endeavor but not a handgun hunter.

I see you are a bit emotional about this topic. I don’t hunt with a handgun to shoot animals at long ranges. Nope, for me it is an up close and personal proposition. I know Brian Pearce and wrote about his Keith shot recreation in my first book.

Try to post without the histrionics and the subtle insults.