The wimpiness of the .357 magnum

[35 Whelen]

I wouldn't call it "silly" so much as sarcastic. But, if you followed the sarcasm, I made my point, i think. Energy DOES matter, otherwise my .30WCF pistol which makes 1200 ft lbs at the muzzle while firing .308" diameter 150 grain Nosler BTs at over 2000 fps from it's 12" compensated hunter barrel wouldn't be as effective on deer as I can claim it is after shooting five deer and a couple of hogs with it over the years. It makes every bit the energy the .43...okay, </sarcasm>,,,.44 magnum does, but has far less frontal area. Don't tell me energy is irrelevant even at handgun levels. I know better.

That said, the .357 is working with only 760 or so ft lbs, 785 with my best Blackhawk load, so it's not the gun the .44 or the .30WCF is, obviously. But, in 1935, the .44 and .30WCF pistols weren't around. The .357 WAS the most powerful handgun on earth at that time. It may not be up to the originaal sales hype, but, out to 50 or 60 yards, it'll kill a deer just as dead as the .44. I've done it a couple of times, myself. It really needs handloads, though, to perform the way it was originally intended, as I think 1911Tuner has pointed out.

And, BTW, 14.5 grains 2400 behind a cast, gas checked 165 grain SWC hasn't hurt that Blackhawk after 20 years of shooting. That thing is stout. Not sure why outdoorsmen think they need a DA. I can't see the "better trigger" argument, either. My Blackhawks have great triggers out of the box. But, that's another thread.

1) ENERGY IS IRRELAVENT in regards to killing power. Energy is a mathematical figure whose use is limited to the comparison of similarly sized and shaped bullets. Period. End of story. If energy mattered, then a sharpened cedar limb, pushed slowly through a mans chest would not kill him because there's little energy due to the very low velocity of the piece of wood. Like someone already mentioned to you, if energy were all that mattered, then a FMJ bullet would kill exactly as efficiently as a soft point bullet of exact diameter, weight, and velocity.

2) Your 30-30 does have less frontal area than a .44 Magnum, or for that matter a .357 Magnum UNTIL the projectile out of your 30-30 strikes flesh and bone and begins to expand. Expansion of the bullet increases the frontal area.

35W

 

[goon]

I think it might depend on the deer being hunted. An "average" deer in Michigan may be a very large deer in Texas. So a .357 may be entirely effective on deer in one state but only marginal in another.

I've seen them killed in PA with a .357, and a .357 does have more power than a flintlock .45 caliber rifle, which is the minimum for deer hunting in my state. And even though "power" isn't everything, a scoped 6" .357 revolver is less likely to misfire and probably easier to make a hit with at 75 yards than an open-sighted muzzleloader (again, open sights are required during the PA late muzzleloader season).

But as ya'll say, a .357 ain't a .44. And hunting a medium sized deer isn't the same thing as hunting a moose.

 

[Peter M. Eick]

Having taken a nice deer with my 357 Python at about 25 ft, I can tell you that the deer just stood there while I aimed and fired the round double action. I figured it would bolt but it just stood there staring at me while I raised the handgun up and took the shot. Sometimes animals just don't spook when they should.

Back to the topic at hand.

I am one of the few that "in general" wants to shoot my 357 Magnums "Flat out" going for full 1930's level of ballistics. Most (better than 90%) of my loads are at least 14.5 grns of 2400 with a 158 LSWC which I call plinkers and my hot loads go up from there. They key though is I tend to keep them in my big Pre-27's and Pre-28's and I have enough of them that any one of them does not take the abuse for long so I am not really worried about it.

I will add with a bit more age and wisdom, I now back off loads for the Python's and keep them at 13.5 grns of less. The Pythons just can't (and should not be forced) to take the power that the N frames can.

This spring I plan to get out some week day my my 357 Redhawks and work up some more loads with the goal of 1515 FPS with a 158 LSWC out of an 8 3/8" Pre-27. This to me is the gold standard for 1930's 357 Magnum velocities. While I have seen some data saying 1550, I am going to aim for 1515 as it seems more common.

 

[1911Tuner]

Not sure why outdoorsmen think they need a DA.

When the .357 Magnum and its parent revolver were developed, few outdoorsmen considered a revolver to be a primary hunting arm. It was thought of in more of a defensive role, in case they were caught flat-footed by a large irate animal when they were too far from their rifles for them to be of any help. Double action gave them the option of firing fast...or firing a quick followup shot when the first careful shot fired single-action didn't do the trick and things were about to become informal.

Also...not all outdoorsmen were hunters...at least not all the time. They also fished, hiked, and camped...and carrying a rifle along wasn't always an option.

 

[1911Tuner]

Guys...we've strayed a bit too far from the thread topic.

You'll doubtless notice that several posts are missing. You don't have to wonder why.

Let's just try to agree that the trigger finger rule sometimes gets a bit of latitude when we're in a stand and a Boone and Crocket buck steps out of the treeline. I've held the trigger while cocking the hammer on a Model 94 to avoid spooking close game. It never got to be a habit, and if the hammer had slipped my thumb, no harm would have been done other than to my pride.

Enough with the bickering.

Carry on.

 

[1911Tuner]

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.

This.

Back in the day...in most smaller agencies and even a few of the larger ones...officers bought their own sidearms.

When the .357 arrived with a flash and a boom, the ones who could afford one probably bought one because of the stories of the raw power...then when they discovered that the gun was a back breaker by the end of the day, and went back to their .38 Specials.

When my uncle joined the Coeburn, Va police department, he bought a Smith .44 Special hand ejector and used it to kill himself with 20 years later...long after he'd left the department. I remember him saying that by the end of his first 6 months on the job, he wished that he'd bought a smaller gun.

When Bill Jordan got his request for a K-Frame .357 revolver...it really took off with law enforcement. Ruger countered with their Speed/Service Six series and made it affordable for even the smaller departments.

The NY State Police contracted with Smith for an N-Frame .357 revolver called the Model 520...basically a Model 28 with fixed sights...then changed directions in mid-stream and went with the Model 13. The 520 was heavy, despite the tapered barrel. I suspect that the weight had something to do with that decision.
It's one thing to pack an N-Frame revolver on a hike or a hunt. Carrying one all day long...day in and day out...turns it into another critter.

 

[benzy2]

I love when people bring ethics into hunting. One look at bow hunting removes that idea completely. I'm not against bow hunting or any form of hunting, but let's not act as if we're doing the game a huge favor.

.357 is fine for medium sized game. You must place your shot but I've seen plenty of deer taken effectively with it. The key was taking a shot within the shooters capability. As long as you stick to that rule, most any firearm with an appropriate bullet will be effective. Some cause more damage. Some penetrate deeper. Some expand or fragment more. For deer, a well placed 357 at approproate distance will drop the deer effectively, certainly as well as any bow would do.

For game that fights back I'd want all I can handle in a round. For areas outside of the firearms effective range, I'd want more firearm. For a lot of the woods hunting I've seen in Ohio, 357 was in its effective envelope and within a shooters ability, taking many deer cleanly.

 

[1911Tuner]

I love when people bring ethics into hunting. One look at bow hunting removes that idea completely. I'm not against bow hunting or any form of hunting.

I can't speak for anyone else, but I'll always bring ethics into it...which is why I don't bow hunt...even though I support it for those who make that decision. It's a moral question.

but let's not act as if we're doing the game a huge favor.

We are doing game a favor by hunting. Thinning the herd and keeping populations down is good for the herd. Overpopulation leads to disease, starvation, and ultimately...underpopulation.

No, we're not doing the individual animal any favors, and that's why we should strive to deliver a quick death.

My 2% of a buck.

 

[buck460XVR]

Not sure why outdoorsmen think they need a DA.

I prefer DA Smiths because of how they feel in my hand and how they recoil. Many I know prefer SA Rugers for the same reason. It might just be in my head, but I have always been more accurate with them than the SA revolvers I owned and handled in the past. Kinda like the Glock vs 1911 thing.

 

[buck460XVR]

I love when people bring ethics into hunting. One look at bow hunting removes that idea completely. I'm not against bow hunting or any form of hunting, but let's not act as if we're doing the game a huge favor.

IMHO, the majority of modern hunting here in mainland U.S. is all about ethics. It's all about taking game fairly, and legally, using methods that result in quick humane kills. I have been hunting with firearms for 48 years, and with a bow for 47. Over those years I have taken my fair share of deer with both. Overall, the bow kills were just as quick, just as ethical and just as humane as any firearm kill. In most cases, the animals were less stressed and more relaxed during bow seasons as they were during gun seasons. Claiming bow hunting is any less ethical than firearm hunting is just plain foolishness. A .357 is just as ethical as a .500 mag for taking deer, when used within it's legitimate parameters. It's not the gun/bow that is incapable or unethical, but the hunter behind the trigger/string.

 

[CraigC]

Not sure why outdoorsmen think they need a DA.

Historically speaking, when the .357 was introduced in 1935, the single action was almost dead. Colt and S&W double actions were the cream of the crop at that time so it is only natural that they were what was used by outdoorsmen back then. Nowadays, it's strictly a personal choice. Some are more familiar or comfortable with one more than the other. Has little to do with the application of DA mode while in the field. I'm primarily a single action shooter. I also love a good S&W but they are second place in my heart and mind. I'm sure that if I had bought a K-22 instead of a single action .22 at age 12, their roles in my life would be reversed.

Claiming bow hunting is any less ethical than firearm hunting is just plain foolishness.

I don't know why this would even come up. Firearms and bows kill differently but to imply that a bow is any less lethal is a little disingenuous.

 

[1911Tuner]

IMHO, the majority of modern hunting here in mainland U.S. is all about ethics. It's all about taking game fairly, and legally, using methods that result in quick humane kills.

Yep. As was once wisely put:

"You're not a hunter until you've passed up a shot."

With the implied message that you don't take a shot unless you're 99% sure of a clean kill. That includes distance...cover...or a running animal unless you're adept at hitting a target moving at an unknown speed and at an unknown distance. Few of us are.

 

[GP100man]

With ANY firearm it`s shot placement !!!!

This little swamp buck (163#) meandered up to the corn pile a 3rd time & I let go with a Lyman 358429 dressed out at 178gr. solid 12.5gr. of 2400 load accurate (even for me)going just over 1k out of a 6" GP100.

The deer jumped as if I missed em , then turned around , no big exit (as needed to save meat)but the blood was pouring out like Niagra falls , by this time the rest decide to blast off, he followed em & crashed `bout 38 steps from the spot I shot em thru the ribs , low just above the heart.



I was raised in the swamps, farming, hunting going to school was always in the way!!
Handgun hunted when it was`nt KOOL !!

Anyways when it comes down to it I don`t even want someone shooting spitballs at me !!!

Word of advise : don`t shoot tree rats with 44s Russian,Special & Especially Magnum !!

 

[Zaydok Allen]

You know guys, I could easily kill a dear right outside my door most nights with a claw hammer. Not exaggerating. Completely serious.

So that renders the entire discussion irrelevant as a .357 is definitely better than a hammer. So there it is.





Seriously though, I could. Thought we could use a little comedic relief. Anyway....... Carry on!

Hmmm. That would be a great slogan form a T-shirt. ".357 magnum: it's better than a claw hammer."

 

[GP100man]

I could to, If primers keep going up Im gonna put a longer handle in my hammer !!

 

[Drail]

I don't believe that I would drop a hammer on a deer with a .357. The State I grew up in did not allow its use on deer and I never understood its popularity given there are so many better choices out there. But I suppose it is better than a spear. 460Kodiak, I also have deer on my porch every night (and some days). I have found them inside my garage in the daytime also. One of the reasons I stopped riding motorcycles was there were just too many on our roads. A lot of bikers have hit deer. I have killed 2 with a Jeep Wrangler. This is in Indiana. They're like rabbits down here. Turkey are even worse. I counted 30 one morning in my front yard. I don't think hardly anyone hunts down here anymore.

 

[benzy2]

1911tuner, if you don't bow hunt due to ethics then I completely understand ethics being an issue for pistol selection as well. I was referring to the public who doesn't have an issue with bow hunting and then questions the .357. Your consistency is logical and I can't argue with it. I may not agree fully with it but it's a viewpoint that I can understand and respect.

I don't know why this would even come up. Firearms and bows kill differently but to imply that a bow is any less lethal is a little disingenuous.

The point was, if the hunting population is going to accept bow hunting as ethical how would a .357 be too little? Bows are plenty lethal. No question there. My point was more towards if they were ethical as well if a proper .357 load wasn't ethical. I'm for using any weapon which you are competent as long as you only take a shot you know is effective. More trying to point out the hypocrisy of many who find bow hunting perfectly fine, but the same shot with a quality .357 load as unethical.

Neither are going to act like a rifle round. Short of hitting the CNS, both are going to kill by lack of oxygen, caused the same reasons, damaged lungs, a damaged heart, or no blood to pump. Unless I'm missing something here (and I do leave that as a possibility as I'm not the avid hunter up on all the current tech/theory) a pistol round seems to work in a similar function to an arrow. If it works better or worse than a given arrow head is another debate.

I'll still stick to a .357 being ethical if you are competent with it and take shots that are effective. That goes for any weapon. The .357 will limit the opportunities compared to a different pistol/rifle round. The question is if those limits are or aren't enough to choose the caliber for your given use.

 

[CraigC]

Nobody said it wouldn't work under nearly ideal circumstances, the bigger cartridges just work better and under less ideal circumstances.

 

[Drail]

Well said sir.

 

[Zaydok Allen]

Exactamundo!

 

[buck460XVR]

Wimpiness is just a relative term. Back in 1940, I doubt that anyone considered it wimpy. Many probably considered it "overkill" and recoil way to harsh for most folks. Still, 77 years after it's inception, it still performs very admirably within it's parameters.

 

[gspn]

Chuck Norris hunted the Bigfoot to extinction armed with nothing but a .357 snub and a pouch of chewing tobacco.

Seriously though…I really like my Model 586.

 

[USSR]

Seriously though…I really like my Model 586.

And I really like my Model 686. But, I'm not going to try to convince myself or anyone else that it's suitable for more than it really is.

Don

 

[rswartsell]

Then choose something different, no sweat off my b**ls,

The only people I will contend with in this thread are those who will claim;

1- It can't reliably be done (within it's parameters)
2- I'm irresponsible to do so

I have made a sub-conscious decision to look into marketing those tactical nukes. I see a market to exploit.

 

[gspn]

And I really like my Model 686. But, I'm not going to try to convince myself or anyone else that it's suitable for more than it really is.

Don

Did you think I was serious about Chuck Norris hunting bigfoot to extinction?