MCgunner
Member
Ya know, i've never shot a human with it, so can't say. I've killed several deer and a dozen or more hogs with it and, well, I can say.
The wimpiness of the .357 magnum
- Thread starter Barry the Bear
- Start date
- Status
Ya know, i've never shot a human with it, so can't say. I've killed several deer and a dozen or more hogs with it and, well, I can say.
Buck13
Member
Underwood also sells some ammo advertized as producing velocities worthy of the good old days, and at a more reasonable price.
http://www.underwoodammo.com/357magnum.aspx
I haven't tried it, but YouTube is littered with test that validate Underwood's velocity claims.
USSR
Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by 357 Terms View Post
Handloading is the way to go to get "true" 357 ballistics, that, or spend $2 a round (or more!) from Buffalo Bore or Double tap.
The shortcoming of the .357 Magnum in a revolver on deer-size game and larger is not velocity. The only thing a slight increase in velocity does is improve the exterior ballistics which allows you to "reach out" a bit further. The problem lies in lack of bullet diameter and mass. Having shot deer with both the .357 Magnum and .45 Colt, even though my handloaded .45 Colt is traveling at ~300fps less, it is a MUCH more effective deer round.
Don
Originally Posted by 357 Terms View Post
Handloading is the way to go to get "true" 357 ballistics, that, or spend $2 a round (or more!) from Buffalo Bore or Double tap.
The shortcoming of the .357 Magnum in a revolver on deer-size game and larger is not velocity. The only thing a slight increase in velocity does is improve the exterior ballistics which allows you to "reach out" a bit further. The problem lies in lack of bullet diameter and mass. Having shot deer with both the .357 Magnum and .45 Colt, even though my handloaded .45 Colt is traveling at ~300fps less, it is a MUCH more effective deer round.
Don
MCgunner
Member
My 300 grain .45 Colt is loaping along at 1200 fps to my 180 grain .357's 1400 fps. BUT, energy is MASS x Vel ^2. There's two parts to it, velocity and mass. The .45 is making 1000 ft lbs, the .357 is making 785 ft lbs.
If it was all about frontal area of the bullet, why is it my .257 Roberts with a 100 grain bullet always gets bang/flops?
USSR
Member
Energy is nothing more than a mathematical equation - it never killed a thing. What kills is a large hole destroying tissue and going completely through the animal, causing a rapid loss of blood and resulting in a loss of BP and oxygen to the brain. This is why a large, heavy bullet kills all out of proportion to its energy calculation. Also, if the mathematical calculation called "energy" mysteriously killed, then there would be no different result from using a FMJ or a softpoint bullet as long as they weighed the same and were driven at the same velocity. One of my favorites is when guys say "My bullet didn't exit, therefor it expended all it's energy in the animal".
The Brits did extensive research into the effect of hydrostatic shock in regards to rifle bullets. They found that it only came into play at velocities of about 2400fps and above. That, combined with a well constructed bullet accounts for your "bang/flops". There is no hydrostatic shock resulting from a handgun bullet being driven at the velocities we are talking about, so as I said previously, raising the velocity of a .357 Magnum mostly just results in improved exterior ballistics.
Don
35 Whelen
Member
Energy is nothing more than a mathematical equation - it never killed a thing. What kills is a large hole destroying tissue and going completely through the animal, causing a rapid loss of blood and resulting in a loss of BP and oxygen to the brain. This is why a large, heavy bullet kills all out of proportion to its energy calculation. Also, if the mathematical calculation called "energy" mysteriously killed, then there would be no different result from using a FMJ or a softpoint bullet as long as they weighed the same and were driven at the same velocity. One of my favorites is when guys say "My bullet didn't exit, therefor it expended all it's energy in the animal".
Don
OH.....MY.....GOSH!!!!!! Someone else GETS IT!! You saved me from typing what would have been word for word what you said.
35W
OP
OP
Barry the Bear
Member
Regardless if those hunts were for marketing purposes the fact remains the .357 did take that game.As stated animals are no tougher tthan they used to be. To the people stating that they had to be percise shots, I say so you dont take a good shot with bigger calibers? With the right loads the .357 has and will take large game, call it publicity ,I call them proof.
CraigC
Sixgun Nut
I call it wishful thinking. You don't seem to understand that you're taking 80yr old marketing as gospel. We only have the part of the story those doing the marketing wanted us to hear. Now, if you don't want to look any further than that, that is fine. However, to ignore what we have learned in the 80yrs since is a little silly. No, the critters haven't gotten tougher but we have gotten a lot smarter. You won't find a single authority on handgun hunting who will agree with you and Doug Wesson.
OP
OP
Barry the Bear
Member
Like I said , Im not advocating its regular use for large game but to deny its accomplishments is even sillier.
peacebutready
Member
How about through a lever-action carbine? It's a good amount more powerful.
I wish more people thought like this on planet earth.
Buck13
Member
I'm not arguing whether or not you should hunt with them, just pointing out that some slightly spicier ammo then WWB is available for a bit below the worst boutique prices.
JRH6856
Member
My .02: When the .357 was introduced and was the most powerful handgun cartridge, it was loaded hot and pushed to the limit (and sometimes beyond). When the .44Mag replaced it as top dog, the .357 no longer had to be pushed that far. Ammo makers could back off a bit (or a bunch, take your pick) so that the .44Mag would be the unquestionable choice as a hunting round. It probably wasn't the lawyers that drove the decision so much as the marketing types. And when it's turn came, the .44Mag got the same treatment.
1911Tuner
Moderator Emeritus
The original .357 loading was never backed off. It was dropped from the catalogs in the late 70s, about the same time that the original .44 Magnum offering (240-grain gas checked SWC) was discontinued. Both rounds were...brisk.
Remington and Winchester were the only manufacturers loading the originals in both calibers. Remington discontinued both about a year before Winchester. They stuck it out as long as they could, but jacketed hollow points pretty well drove the last nail in the LSWCs coffins.
If I'd known, I'd have bought 2 cases of each.
The SuperX .357 round was loaded with their Lubaloy bullet.
Jim Watson
Member
One of the old timers, maybe Whelen or Hatcher, said that it was very strange. A revolver firing a 158 grain bullet at 1510 fps was announced as suitable for all manner of big game. A rifle shooting with the same ballistics is a reduced load, suitable only for plinking and grouse. As 35 Whelen covered in post 46.
My first handgun deer kill was with a .357, 25 yd neck shot. Deer got up and tried to go away. After butchering found the shot was t&t and actually clipped the spinal column. Decided it was inadequate and went to the .41 Next 4 deer were 1 shot kills, neck and heart/lung at up to 100 yd.
I know the .357 will do it, but.
I know the .357 will do it, but.
CraigC
Sixgun Nut
One of the things we've learned since 1935 is that handgun cartridges and high velocity rifle cartridges kill differently. What they did not understand then but we do now is that you can't make a revolver into a rifle. When you combine high velocity with a relatively light (compared to a rifle) expanding bullet, you have to give up penetration. We've learned that controlled expansion jacketed bullets or flat nosed cast bullets work much better and much more consistently. We've learned that cast bullets don't need high velocity to be effective. Truth is, despite the drop in operating pressures, Doug Wesson would've been better armed with a 180gr Gold Dot or LBT at today's pressures than anything available from the factory in 1935. He would've even been better served with Keith's .44Spl load.
1911Tuner
Moderator Emeritus
They didn't alter the ammunition. They discontinued it because it didn't sell...but it was hard on the K-Frames, and the standing advice was to use .38s for casual practice and limit the .357s for when maximum power was needed. The advice was largely ignored, and a good many fine Model 19s were rendered useless.
rswartsell
Member
Anyone who said the .357 is a "big game" cartridge IS certainly incorrect. The argument that it is the "best" at "medium game" is also misguided.
I will ask (and answer) a more pragmatic question. Can it be useful in the "medium game" application? From me, an unequivocal yes. Using the optimum round to kill anything more than a fly might lead you to a thermo-nuclear tipped tactical rocket. I don't find them practical, economic or obtainable. Likewise, other choices will bring a tradeoff of strengths vs. weaknesses.
IF you (not can but) will hit within say a 4" circle at the guns practical range (for me under say 60 yds., maybe less nowadays- for anyone under 100), you limit the animal to say less than 250 lb. gross weight, the bullet was correctly matched for either penetration or expansion, then you may expect what I have experienced. A clean kill.
Put a .300 Win mag fully jacketed through a deer's hip joint or the lower abdominal cavity, it wil also produce what I consider an unethical result.
Are .45 Colt, .44 Mag and above better handgun hunting rounds? You betcha. I don't have one and cringe at the thought of the cost of feeding them. With my DW 15-2 and correct ammo can I? Again, you betcha, and it's a damn sight better choice than my .45 acp Kimber. That's what I thought the question was.
I will also note that no-one is questioning it's man-stopping properties. When someone employs a .44 mag, .454 etc for THIS purpose, well I think you are just as silly as I appear to you.
regards
I will ask (and answer) a more pragmatic question. Can it be useful in the "medium game" application? From me, an unequivocal yes. Using the optimum round to kill anything more than a fly might lead you to a thermo-nuclear tipped tactical rocket. I don't find them practical, economic or obtainable. Likewise, other choices will bring a tradeoff of strengths vs. weaknesses.
IF you (not can but) will hit within say a 4" circle at the guns practical range (for me under say 60 yds., maybe less nowadays- for anyone under 100), you limit the animal to say less than 250 lb. gross weight, the bullet was correctly matched for either penetration or expansion, then you may expect what I have experienced. A clean kill.
Put a .300 Win mag fully jacketed through a deer's hip joint or the lower abdominal cavity, it wil also produce what I consider an unethical result.
Are .45 Colt, .44 Mag and above better handgun hunting rounds? You betcha. I don't have one and cringe at the thought of the cost of feeding them. With my DW 15-2 and correct ammo can I? Again, you betcha, and it's a damn sight better choice than my .45 acp Kimber. That's what I thought the question was.
I will also note that no-one is questioning it's man-stopping properties. When someone employs a .44 mag, .454 etc for THIS purpose, well I think you are just as silly as I appear to you.
regards
Last edited:
lobo9er
Member
This seems thread sounds like some have their ego tied to their caliber of choice. Lets not pretend the 357 is a 44. A 357 can be used for hunting... a 44 has more power. Its shot placement.
1911Tuner
Moderator Emeritus
.44 Magnum nominal bullet diameter is .429 inch.
This. While a .357 Magnum will kill a deer, the chances of killing it cleanly are lower than with something larger and more "powerful" if you want to assign that term. I don't like tracking cripples. I want the deer to crash with the least fuss possible, and won't use a lesser caliber so I can establish bragging rights if and when a better choice is available. i.e. It's no harder to carry a .44 Magnum revolver than it is to carry a .357 into the field. The lager/more powerful gun is no guarantee. There are no guarantees. There is only stacking the deck in favor of a successful outcome.
The .30-30 has killed more deer than any other cartridge with the possible exception of the .44-40. What we don't hear about is how many deer were crippled and never recovered when hit solidly with both cartridges.
The main reason that the .30-30 carbine is America's deer rifle is because they've historically been affordable and prolific and gave the "poor man" the means to hunt with a relatively effective caliber...not because it's ideal. Its niche is in heavy cover where the ranges are short.
Nothing is everything. Everything is something.
Salmoneye
Member
1911Tuner said:
So you're saying that SAAMI lowering the max pressure specs on .357 and .44 mag in the 70's had nothing to do with it?
1911Tuner
Moderator Emeritus
A few factors were involved in lowering pressures and velocities.
One what that jacketed bullets place more stress on revolver frames than lead, and K-Frame Smiths were hugely popular with hunters and outdoorsmen because they carried easier than the larger, heavier N-Frames.
Even the downloaded ammunition proved to be a problem, and Smith countered with the L-Frame in the mid-70s, hoping to lighten their warranty repair load. They also beefed up the N-Frame .44s in key areas. The Model 29s didn't present quite the same problem because not many people are willing to shoot full-throttle .44 Magnum in the same volumes that they would with the .357s...but not even the L-Frames could avoid stretching when the handloaders discovered that their factory loads didn't produce the velocities they'd hoped for.
We have to remember that the .357 Magnum cartridge was developed for use with lead bullets in an N-Frame revolver, with its heavier top strap and thicker cylinder walls.
Not too long ago, I looked at a nice older Model 19 that by outward appearances didn't appear to have been shot very much by the original owner, who had sold it to the guy who brought it to me. It had a lot of endshake and the headspace was excessive...but that wasn't why the guy brought it over for me to look at. Four of the six chambers had bulges near the case head area that locked up fired brass so solidly that it had to be removed with a hammer and a dowel rod.
We got around to his handloading practices. He'd found a sizeable lot of the discontinued Speer 160-grain jacketed SWC bullets and stoked'em up with Skeeter's 15 grain 2400 load...and proceeded to ruin his gun in fairly short order.
Salmoneye
Member
Thanks for that...
I have a 'few rounds' of 60's vintage .357 and .44 from some of the big name manufacturers, and when I get the itch, I touch off a couple...
The difference to current 'max' loads is striking...
I have a 'few rounds' of 60's vintage .357 and .44 from some of the big name manufacturers, and when I get the itch, I touch off a couple...
The difference to current 'max' loads is striking...
- Status
