The wimpiness of the .357 magnum

[35 Whelen]

Smith...Good to know.

The original loading can be pretty well duplicated with a cast bullet and 15.3 grains of 2400...but I strongly advise one and all who wish to venture into that neighborhood to exercise extreme caution and approach it slowly.

I also advise against using it in a K-Frame sized revolver...and even to use it sparingly in an L-Frame. N-Frame class and New Model Blackhawks are good to go as long as the pressure signs look good. At the first sign of a sticky case...back off. You're already into dangerous territory.

Incidentally, the original ammunition used small rifle primers. Whenever I venture above 14.5 grains...which is seldom...I do the same.

Also incidentally...14.5 grains with a 155-160 grain cast bullet is about as good as it gets accuracy-wise, gives up little in velocity, and it doesn't beat up the gun so badly...but even that one comes with a caveat in K-Frames.

To wit: For need-based use only.

Disclaimer:

Use the above data at your own risk. I've never unwrapped a revolver with it, but that doesn't mean that you won't.

Funny...as a teenager I read Shooting Times magazine religiously, and especially articles and columns by Skeeter Skelton. The load I remember him mentioning over and over was 15.0 grs. of (then) Hercules 2400 and a 158 gr. bullet. So at that tender young age I loaded who knows how many of this load and merrily banged away with them in my little S&W Model 13 with ne'er a problem.

Fast forward 10 years or so and I loaded my 4" Security Six with 14.5 grs. of the same powder under a 158 gr. Remington SJHP for 1346 fps. the same charge yielded 1364 fps with a commercial 158 gr. SWC.

Five or so years more, and I was loading the full 15.0 grs. again in my 6 1/2" Blackhawk and now getting 1538 fps with the 158 gr. SWC., 1450 fps with the Remington HP, and 1456 fps with a home-cast 165 gr. Keith SWC.

35W

 

[Barry the Bear]

Some great things are being talked about.

 

[1911Tuner]

Funny...as a teenager I read Shooting Times magazine religiously, and especially articles and columns by Skeeter Skelton. The load I remember him mentioning over and over was 15.0 grs. of (then) Hercules 2400 and a 158 gr. bullet. So at that tender young age I loaded who knows how many of this load and merrily banged away with them in my little S&W Model 13 with ne'er a problem.

And if you'll recall, Skeeter used the Model 27 for most of his hot .357 loads.

The original loading was the one tat prompted Bill Jordan to say:
"38s for practice and .357s for business."

And that was good advice. Many people either didn't get the memo or just ignored it and proceeded to shoot the K-Frames loose in short order. I was one of those. I figured if it says .357 on the gun, it's engineered to take it. Right?

Wrong. I stretched the frames on a Model 19 and a Model 13 pretty badly...and being the hard-headed type...did the same thing to a pair of Model 29s with the original .44 Magnum ammo or its handloaded equivalent.

Smith & Wesson threw in the towel and introduced the L-Frame for those of us who felt that we had to touch off a miniature thermonuclear device every time we pulled the trigger. Not long after that, the ammo makers dropped the hot SWC offering and replaced it with the more pedestrian 158-grain offerings that we have today.

Jacketed bullets likely also played into that decision because of higher frictional forces in the barrel inducing higher tensile forces on the frame.

So...still being the hard-headed type...I bought a Model 681 and banged away. At the time, I had a good supply of Speer's jacketed 160-grain jacketed SWCs, and stoked'em up with 15 grains of 2400...and proceeded to create a little endshake in the gun within a couple thousand rounds give or take. I conceded and switched to cast SWCs with 14.5 grains and ramped back on the shooting. So far, it hasn't gotten any worse...but the revolver is semi-retired and only sees about a hundred rounds a year.

 

[Woodsman!]

I agree with RC on this one.

 

[CraigC]

...when history proves otherwise.

It certainly does not!

When the .357Mag was introduced in 1935, S&W needed marketing and Major Wesson provided it. Handgun hunting was in its infancy in those days and we have learned a hell of a lot since then. Even Elmer Keith figured out in the late 1930's that for a factory cartridge, the .357 did very well but with handloading, it couldn't hold a candle to his heavy .44Spl load. In the 80yrs since, a lot of critters have been killed by a lot of skilled handgunners and it has been universally concluded that the .357 is at best a deer round.

 

[buck460XVR]

There was a time when the .357 mag was the most powerful production handgun available for use when hunting. It needed to be loaded hot for certain game because at that time nothing else was really available to do the job. Then came the .44 mag....same story. The reason it took over for the .357 as a primary large game cartridge was that it had what the .357 lacked. Nowadays, the .44 is over shadowed by many other viable and more powerful handgun calibers, that are more appropriate for really big and dangerous game. That does not mean the the .357 and .44 are dead or inappropriate, but just that in some scenarios, the option to go bigger is better than staying smaller and going hot. Better not only for the terminal performance on big game animals, but better for the longevity of the firearm.

 

[Deltaboy1984]

The rounds you buy today are nowhere as hot as the Factory 1960's Police Loads or the Super Vel rounds me and Dad still have.

Nothing I have shot with a 357 ever complain it did not hit hard enough.

 

[Stress_Test]

One thing I never did understand...

People will say the .357 mag is "inadequate" or "barely adequate" for deer...

But I don't think I've ever heard anyone saying that a .357 125gr at 1400+ fps is "barely adequate" for self defense against humans...

Yet deer and adult human males are in about the same weight class right??

So what's up with that??

 

[USSR]

One thing I never did understand...

People will say the .357 mag is "inadequate" or "barely adequate" for deer...

But I don't think I've ever heard anyone saying that a .357 125gr at 1400+ fps is "barely adequate" for self defense against humans...

Yet deer and adult human males are in about the same weight class right??

So what's up with that??

Simple, critters are tougher than people. Also, you ever seen a paramedic or doctor try to save a critter after it had been shot? And, have you noticed that the current U.S. service round is considered a varmint round in it's commercial configuration and is not legal for deer hunting in most states?

Don

 

[MCgunner]

Im not advocating the use of the .357 magnum as the "end all be all" round,but I would like to know why alot of people say it simply"doesnt have the power" when history proves otherwise.

Ya know, before everyone was a ballistics expert and Algore invented the internet for 'em to prove it, folks used to take big game and defend themselves from bear with the .44/40.

The .357 is still as good as it ever was if handloaded to its potential. But, aside from Buffalo Bore, it's hard to find factory ammo that can match what the .357 was intended to be. I think ammo companies cut their loads due to lawyers and perhaps the K frame guns which weren't up to N frame strength. My Ruger Blackhawk can take anything an N frame can, though. It pushes a 165 grain gas checked SWC out the barrel at 1470 fps. It's killed deer and hog. Don't got any bear or moose around here. Figure really, the .357 is all I need for revolver hunting, though I do want to take something with my .45 Colt Blackhawk.

 

[357 Terms]

but I sure ain't going to attribute power to it for hunting purposes that it doesn't have.

I don't think anyone here ( certainly not the people in the OP ) are lying about what they have succesfully hunted with a properly loaded 357 mag. I have taken whitetail with the 357 from a pistol and a carbine, and it killed em just as dead as my 44 mag.

Ain't nothing shot with one going to be any deader if shot with the other.

 

[Kosh75287]

My Police Service Six was the first large-bore revolver I owned. I still have it. While I've since retired it in favor of a .45 ACP or .45 Colt, I'd be far from unarmed, if my .357 was all that I had available. The firearm is robust, the round is powerful, versatile, and easy to master. I was glad to have it when I did, and if it's all I'm left with, someday, I'll count myself lucky for its presence.

 

[WestKentucky]

I PISS FARTHER THAN EVERYONE ELSE.

That means I win which is just as sensible as some of the arguments we see over topics such as these. 1930s critters are the same as today's critters except we killed off the dodo. Same critters have same reaction to same bullet at same speed. We don't have that situation unless we hand load or trade in our children at the buffalo bore checkout line, so to keep this simple...with factory ammo a .357 will easily kill most critters in North America, but it isn't as good at it as other, newer cartridges. That's where 44, 460, 480, and the current big boy in the .500sw come into play. They took what was learned with .357 and improved it...kinda. They went bigger at similar speeds with better bullets. If someone were to take the same approach with .357 today we would see very good bullets at screaming speeds doing wonderful things out of ridiculously strong guns...also known as the ruger and contender crowd.

So what was this thread about? Ford v Chevy? Green tractor v red tractor? Oh yeah .357 v everything else...as much as I love my .357s I have to pick "everything else"

 

[george29]

As been mentioned, not the same ammo however, it still is the most effective round against two legged critters bar none. In a 16" barrel it is still a great set round up to 125 yards although the best I can show is an engine block work a hole large enough to do a thick hotdog into. I will get a picture up as soon as I can.

 

[goon]

I think the .357 could get you out of some tough situations with large animals if you had just a little luck, but calling it adequate might be a stretch.

I can kill a deer with a .22LR, or even an Al Quaeda terrorist for that matter. But that doesn't make the .22LR the ideal medium game or service rifle cartridge.

IIRC, lots of people have come to view the early exploits of those who hunted dangerous game with the .357 as publicity stunts.


I will say though that for defense against human threats, the .357 has my full confidence. It's also what I carry outdoors in the Northeast, loaded with Buffalo Bore 180 grain hardcast loads, and I feel pretty safe with it and my common sense protecting me. Regardless of what other handguns come and go, I wouldn't be without a good .357 revolver.

So...still being the hard-headed type...I bought a Model 681 and banged away. At the time, I had a good supply of Speer's jacketed 160-grain jacketed SWCs, and stoked'em up with 15 grains of 2400...and proceeded to create a little endshake in the gun within a couple thousand rounds give or take. I conceded and switched to cast SWCs with 14.5 grains and ramped back on the shooting. So far, it hasn't gotten any worse...but the revolver is semi-retired and only sees about a hundred rounds a year.

My first .357 was a S&W 686.
I bought it used but it didn't seem to have been shot much. It was in great shape when I got it. At the time, circa 2002, ammo for .357 wasn't too expensive. A local gun store had just gotten a bunch of it on some kind of closeout deal. I was working and had no bills, so I bought and shot a hell of a lot of it. Then I reloaded the excellent brass and shot it a whole lot more. Eventually, I shot the 686 out of time. I never abused it and never snapped the cylinder shut by swinging my wrist, nothing like that. It was all just honest wear. I ended up selling it and the smith at another shop cleaned up the timing before they resold it. I also shot an older 6" M-28 out of time. I sent that back to S&W for repairs, then sold it and took a break from the .357 for awhile... but I kept the reloading dies. I knew I would buy another eventually.
These days, I'm using an SP-101. It's a stout little beast, but fortunately, between it being able to handle more .357 than I can and more than I can afford, it's holding up a lot better.

 

[35 Whelen]

Keep things in perspective, guys. The .357 Magnum in the OP didn't kill anything, rather, a 158 gr. with a muzzle velocity of around 1400 fps did.

Now, with that in mind, if someone were to post on THR he'd been using a lever action Marlin chambered in 35 Remington to lob 200 gr. bullets at 100 yd. moose, 130 yd. elk and 200 yd. antelope, and grizzly at any range, those of us here who are experienced hunters would tell him he was unethical, uninformed, under gunned or a little of all these. Yet the 200 gr. bullet from said cartridge is not only heavier and more aerodynamically shaped than the stumpy little 158 gr. bullet, it's MV is over 65% faster than that of the 158 gr. bullet. Before someone accuses me of comparing a handgun to a rifle, remember, mine is a comparison of two similar projectiles because cartridges don't kill anything.

As someone else mentioned, this was nothing more than a publicity stunt by one of the cartridge designers in an effort to sell the cartridge and its platform. What Mr. Wesson would never have divulged is how many head of game were lost and/or missed during the testing of his new Wonder Cartridge.

35W

 

[1911Tuner]

What Mr. Wesson would never have divulged is how many head of game were lost and/or missed during the testing of his new Wonder Cartridge.

Of that we can be assured. He had a dog in the fight.

I'll side with the crowd that doesn't feel that the .357 is a big game cartridge. My personal feeling is that...if we're taking to the field in pursuit of a noble beast...we owe it to him to deliver the quickest, most humane death that we can manage...and for that, the .357 falls short.

Yes, it will kill. Will it kill quickly and cleanly? Yes...with precise placement. With less than near-perfect placement, the result is too often a crippled animal that we may not find for hours to deliver the Coup de Grace. Unacceptable, IMO.

Just because we can doesn't mean we should.

 

[huntsman]

What Mr. Wesson would never have divulged is how many head of game were lost and/or missed during the testing of his new Wonder Cartridge.

Wanton waste? wouldn't surprise me, neither would having rifle back up as a CYA.

 

[shafter]

While I am a fan of the 357 magnum I have to recognize that it isn't quite the same cartridge as yesterday. The magnificent feats of the round which were shared by the OP were accomplished with the old 357 magnum by expert shots and expert hunters. The casual shooter/hunter with any old box of magnums probably can't expect the same results.

 

[Zaydok Allen]

With less than near-perfect placement, the result is too often a crippled animal that we may not find for hours to deliver the Coup de Grace. Unacceptable, IMO.

Just because we can doesn't mean we should.

Exactly. Use it as it was intended, as a defense cartridge. That's what it was originally designed for (or rather to compete with the Super 38 from Colt, which was designed for defense and to defeat auto doors and glass). Sure, at modest ranges in a longer bbl, on medium sized to small game, it is good for hunting too. But there are better options out there for hunting. I don't think anyone would say it is a weak round, though many say it is obnoxiously loud for what it does.

Personally I love the 357, but IMO it has certain uses that should be adheared to.

 

[1911Tuner]

Use it as it was intended, as a defense cartridge.

It was originally intended to be an outdoorsman's sidearm and cartridge. The use as a defensive round came later.

I don't think it was actually mean to be a big game hunting arm, though. Wesson's hunting trip was a PR stunt to demonstrate its power and penetration.

 

[Zaydok Allen]

It was originally intended to be an outdoorsman's sidearm and cartridge.

Hmmm,

It was my understanding that when organized crime became more and more of a problem, criminals became more willing to have a shootout, and cartridges such as the 38 special (the dominant law enforcement cartridge?) did not have enough penetration power, due to slower speed, to defeat auto bodies and even glass in some situations. Colt came out with the Super 38 because it could penetrate these barriers, and in response S&W came out with the .357 magnum which can achieve better performance since longer barrels can be utilized.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.357_Magnum

I realize Wikipedia is not a definative source of information or anything though. So, is this incorrect?

I'm asking for education if so, not telling you you are wrong. Do you have a more reliable source of information on the development of the cartridge, because I really would like to read it. This topic facinates me.

 

[CraigC]

It was probably a bit of both. The .38-44 had come about primarily as a police cartridge during the prohibition. Outdoorsmen and sportsmen quickly flocked to it for their purposes. Elmer Keith, Phil Sharpe and others worked heavily with high pressure loads that eventually evolved into the .357Mag. By this time, the .38-44 had strong followings for both sporting and police purposes. I just don't think it came to dominate law enforcement use until it was crammed into the K-frame and Ruger Six series.

 

[Water-Man]

I'd say both also. It was developed primarily because people were not satisfied with the power of the .38spl..

 

[Kosh75287]

The old adage I remember for hunting (small) deer (ONLY) with a pistol is:
1.) No smaller than .40 caliber.
2.) No less than 200 grains bullet weight.
3.) No less than 1000 f/s from the muzzle.

The first criterion cannot be amended for the .357, but the other two are well within the reach of a strong frame .357 with judicious (approaching INjudicious) handloads. If my alternative to shooting a white-tail with a 4" .357 is certain starvation, I WILL "hunt" with it, and if I'm in the woods, starving (worse still, without scotch), then I've said goodbye to "optimal conditions" quite a way back, so the admonition to await their arrival before firing a shot goes out the window.
I agree that, just because we CAN do a thing, doesn't make it prudent, wise, and certainly NOT necessary. But it shouldn't prevent us from pondering the possibility of such emergent conditions when loading, shooting, and practicing with our .357s. If I never bag a whitetail with my PS6, I'll give thanks to God and the good sense given me to avoid such situations. If I ever MUST do so, my odds of success will be increased for having explored such a possibility before it came to the fore.
BTW, 8.0/Herco/158SWC just breaks 1300 f/s in my revolver. I back it off to 7.2/Herco/158 SWC for practice. To ask for better ballistics from a barrel less than 6" is redolent of the mentality which keeps lottery tickets sold by the bushels.