357 on deer at 100 yards?

[ANATION]

Just as the title says. Would you trust a 357 magnum on a broadside shot on a whitetail at around 100 yards? Let's say a rifle with a 20 inch barrel or a pistol with 6 inch barrel. Would like to hear from those who have used it on whitetail.

 

[skeeterfogger]

Would rather a 44mag 240g JSP. Better impact energy carries better.

 

[WestKentucky]

Rifle, yes. Contender pistol, yes. Revolver, probably not. 357 really builds speed in longer barrels so it still has the momentum at the point of impact to drive deep, expand, and do a reliable job at killing the critter. Revolvers in the 6” variety will be much slower and may still do the job but not nearly as reliably. I am assuming that the shooter is good enough to make a hit, but that is more difficult most of the time with a more traditional handgun. Having shot deer with a .357 in 4, 6, 10, and 16 inch varieties, at extended range I would absolutely not trust the 6” to 100 yards.

 

[ApacheCoTodd]

With a scope and a trusted load... Sure.

I did a whitetail with irons and supported at something around 85 meters with my dan Wesson once. Everything was perfect for an excellent quartering shot and my confidence was high in the pistol but even then, I was grateful for a single shot, 10-12 second death.

With a scope, I'd have more confidence and would stretch it out a bit.

I believe that was my 8 inch but I had a 10 inch+ custom that built into an 8 inch shroud too.

I'd have to comparison test against 6 inch though it never occurred to me to use a shorter barrel having a D.W.

In a lever-rifle? absolutely.

Todd.

 

[JTHunter]

Just as the title says. Would you trust a 357 magnum on a broadside shot on a whitetail at around 100 yards? Let's say a rifle with a 20 inch barrel or a pistol with 6 inch barrel. Would like to hear from those who have used it on whitetail.

While I agree with WestKentucky about a revolver's deficiencies, I think it also depends on the type of bullet you are using. I reload for my .357 and I'm using two types of bullets, both of which weigh in at 158 grains. Those bullets are "jacket hollowpoints" (self-defense) and "jacketed SOFT points" (exposed lead tips). The latter can be used for SD/HD or hunting on small to medium sized game (groundhog/woodchuck to deer).
You can try using them on feral hogs but the hogs might be too tough.

 

[js8588]

Out of a long gun? Absolutely

 

[Varminterror]

If I owned the .357mag for some other purpose and wanted to try it once or twice? Sure, been there, done that, ate the venison. However, I certainly wouldn’t waste a dime buying a .357mag with this purpose in mind.

 

[Budshad]

Killed4 with my Henry rifled in 357 mag at 100 yes and maybe a little further. It was a +P load but I think a regular load would drop a deer at that distance.

 

[Huntolive]

First, can you actually Make that Shot Consistently at 100 yards from a 6" revolver my friend?
I doubt it, especially without a scope.
I'd limit 357 revolver hunting to 60 yards.

44 mag or 454 Casull far. Better, but you're talking about shooting thousands of rounds in training before you can make that shot.

 

[cfullgraf]

Inside 100 yards, I feel a 357 Magnum from a rifle is a viable option. But as Dirty Harry said, "a man's got to know his limitations".

 

[Varminterror]

Most Ruger, Taurus, and S&W revolvers I have bought or worked of for others have been capable of 2.5-4moa. Delivering that at 100 is a matter of optic selection and support. I’ve put many first timers behind a scoped revolver on a field support at the end of a handgun class and coached them into first round hits on a 6” plate at 100 yards - far too many for me to pretend it’s some nearly-unattainable skill.

But the facts remain - A) the price gap between a 357mag and 44mag rifle or revolver, respectively, is null and B) the 44mag is hitting harder at 100 than the 357mag at the muzzle. The performance in the field reflects that gap. Such buying s 357mag for this purpose is a mistake.

 

[Random 8]

I own such a rifle, a Henry Single shot with 22" barrel. I recently installed a scope and the accuracy is there. Haven't tried it on game, unfortunately the youth hunter I got it for never got an opportunity. Looking over the numbers, I would consider 100 yards the absolute maximum for the 158 Speer Soft point I'm running over a max load of H110. Agree with others, that a .44, or better yet .30-30 (assume your talking levers) would be a better option.

In my case, I went with .357 for a few reasons. Already load the round and .38s can be loaded very cheaply. Lots of inexpensive practice for the young lady in question. Dual ammo between the rifle and handguns I already own. Adequet for my ranges, generally less than 50 yards in thick cover. If I had the need to push it farther, it would have been a different caliber.

 

[Newtosavage]

Keith Warren took "the high road" and killed a deer with a .40 cal Glock on his show. LOL

I'd have no reservations about hunting deer with a .357 carbine inside 100 yards. Deer aren't that hard to kill so long as you make a good shot in the vitals. I wouldn't try it with a revolver beyond bow range though.

 

[shootbrownelk]

I use a handgun for hunting on occasion. I've taken deer, antelope and cow elk with my Ruger SRH using hot .45 Colt loads and my S&W .41 magnum using warm handloads. All were shot at ranges between 20 and 75 yds with a red dot on the Ruger and Irons on the S&W. I won't shoot at an animal over those distances, but those are my limitations. I'd never try a shot at 100 yds with a .357. But that's just my opinion.

 

[Newtosavage]

I should have added that I shot numerous feral pigs in the 100-150# range with a Colt .357 back in the day, and they all died pretty quickly. I found the .357 Magnum to be the least powerful handgun that I could rely on for reasonably quick kills. Anything with less power saw pigs running off before they died. Sometimes quite a ways. Tried some .38 +P stuff and it was just "okay." Nothing like testing on live critters in my experience.

 

[Speedo66]

With the right ammo, say some hot Buffalo Bore, you’re pretty close to .30-30 ballistics out of a rifle.

 

[Varminterror]

With the right ammo, say some hot Buffalo Bore, you’re pretty close to .30-30 ballistics out of a rifle.

Let’s not let ourselves get THAT excited. A mild 30-30 load will be 300-400fps faster than a super hot 357mag load with similar bullet weights in similar barrel lengths.

 

[Speedo66]

Let’s not let ourselves get THAT excited. A mild 30-30 load will be 300-400fps faster than a super hot 357mag load with similar bullet weights in similar barrel lengths.

Buffalo Bore’s site says their 158g .357 loads goes 2153 FPS from an 18 1/2” barrel, yes, about 250 FPS less than a Winchester brand box of 150g 30-30. Not sure if going to a 20” barrel would increase or decrease that.

 

[Old Stumpy]

Buffalo Bore’s site says their 158g .357 loads goes 2153 FPS from an 18 1/2” barrel

Hand loads using Hodgdon H110 typically max out around 1830 FPS and 38,400 CUP in a 20" barrel.
(Source Lyman 48th Reloading Handbook)
H110 is usually one of the best powders to achieve this velocity within reasonable chamber pressures.

How Buffalo Bore achieves these uber-high velocities in an 18 1/2" barrel, I don't know.
But, even if they use a special commercial powder not available to hand loaders it seems to me that a steady diet of such loads would be hard on some carbines.

 

[gotboostvr]

Buffalo Bore’s site says their 158g .357 loads goes 2153 FPS from an 18 1/2” barrel, yes, about 250 FPS less than a Winchester brand box of 150g 30-30. Not sure if going to a 20” barrel would increase or decrease that.

Let's not ignore the fact the 30cal bullet has a significantly better ballistic coefficient and thus will retain velocity downrange compared to the 358cal bullet.

 

[Random 8]

I don't think anyone would argue that the 30-30 is not a superior deer cartridge to the .357 Mag out of a similar barrel length. Only that the .357 loaded to the max may be approaching close range 30-30 level ballistics, especially compared to pre-1930 loadings that cemented it's reputation in the deer woods.

 

[army_eod]

The accepted rule is that you need to generate 1000 foot pounds of energy at a minimum to have a humane kill on a deer. Do the math. I doubt you are getting that ever from a 357 mag.
Get more gun.

 

[Varminterror]

The accepted rule is that you need to generate 1000 foot pounds of energy at a minimum to have a humane kill on a deer.

This “rule” is certainly not “accepted” by anyone who has done much deer hunting. So many of these silly things keep kicking around simply because folks are too polite or too lazy to challenge them. Would a guy who regurgitates this 1,000ft.lb. “rule” really defend that a 45acp held against the flesh of a deer would be incapable of humanely killing a deer? When a guy says a .357mag carbine “comes close” to a .30-30, do they really believe a 158 grain bullet at 1800fps is close to a 170 at 2300fps? Even running with the ridiculous Buffalo Bore published numbers - their 158grn .357mag load claims 2153fps, a sectional density of .177, while their 190grn - note: 20% heavier bullet - .30-30 load is published at 2116, touting an SD of .286... I’m not particularly a fan of the Dirty Thirty (although I can’t seem to rid myself of them for some reason), and I don’t believe I have ever been inconsistent in expressing my disdain for .357mags for deer hunting, but I simply can’t understand how silly things like these statements continue to propagate among shooters and hunters - or at least internet gunners. It just doesn’t make sense to me.

 

[army_eod]

Chuck Hawks is the source for the 1000 ft lbs.

Many places will not allow hunting with 223.

Same idea.

 

[mcb]

The accepted rule is that you need to generate 1000 foot pounds of energy at a minimum to have a humane kill on a deer. Do the math. I doubt you are getting that ever from a 357 mag.
Get more gun.

Where does this come from? You don't need any near that to ethically take deer. I have killed a fair number of deer with less than 1000ft-lbs at the muzzle let alone at the deer.