.357 Mag vs. 10mm for woods/ hunting duty?


PDA






phantomak47
February 7, 2008, 10:05 PM
Say you wanted a sidearm for woods carry or a gun for close to midrange hunting with open sights, we are not talking a dedicated hunting pistol, so lets keep it between these calibers.:neener:


What are the advantages/ disadvantages of each caliber?

If you enjoyed reading about ".357 Mag vs. 10mm for woods/ hunting duty?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Jimmie
February 7, 2008, 10:08 PM
Handloading or factory?

ChristopherG
February 7, 2008, 10:19 PM
The rounds are both perfectly capable of what you propose; I'd say the choice is about which gun you want. For me, the job you outline is one for a revolver--in my case, a 4" mid-frame .357; but I could certainly respect someone's choice to use a 10mm bottomfeeder.

'Course, S&W has reintroduced the 610, too--so if you don't mind a heavy-barreled N-frame, you could have it all!

Starter52
February 7, 2008, 10:25 PM
I would go with a revolver in .357 magnum. 100% reliable and a wide choice of bullet weights and types.

campbell
February 7, 2008, 11:19 PM
You going to be doing much casual shooting? If you're buying factory ammo, .357 is way, way easier to come by. If you reload then no big deal.

If I were to get an auto for woods defense, it'd be loaded with these.

10mm 200gr WFNGC Ballistics : 1300fps/ 750 ft./lbs. - Glock 20 (http://www.doubletapammo.com/php/catalog/product_info.php?cPath=21_25&products_id=105)

mbt2001
February 8, 2008, 11:34 AM
I would suggest the .357 (preferably from a 6" barrel, as the velocity drop off on a 4" is big) since this is a "compromise" gun having a 4" .357 is acceptable; it also lets you shoot .38's and .38 +p's. It is a good addition to your SHTF arsenal, as both .38 and .357 ammo are easy to come by.

From a view of ballastics, the 10mm would work well, but ammo availability isn't in your favor, but it is a good excuse to by a .357 later.

Take a look at your budget. If you are on a budget, as most of us are, it makes sense to buy with a view to SHTF type scenarios. At least, it usually helps me from getting to esoteric, as I love guns and have never found one I didn't want.

MCgunner
February 8, 2008, 01:34 PM
More a preference as to whether you like revolvers or autos. Me, for outdoor use, I'll pick the accuracy of the revolver every time. There is no need for more "firepower" than a revolver has, not in the woods on game. If your hikes take you into drug growing country, you might have a point on the firepower thing, but still, I like revolvers for woods carry. Now, if I had an auto that was as accurate as my Ruger P90 and in 10mm, I would be in a bind to make the choice, I guess, but one thing I like about revolvers is the ability to shoot very light ammunition on small game and heavy loads for big stuff and defense with a simple sight elevation change. An auto isn't as versatile on the trail IMHO.

BTW, with heavy bullets, the velocity drop from 4" to 6" is minimal. I get about 100 ft lbs drop on my 158 grain load, not enough to worry all that much about, still over 600 ft lbs. On my 180 grain load, I'm getting pretty much what Buffalo Bore's 180 advertizes. I get 1400 fps/785 ft lbs out of my 6.5" Blackhawk and 1306 fps/662 ft lbs out of a TWO AND A QUARTER inch barrel of an SP101. The SP101 still has enough umph with a 2" barrel for the trail. I haven't chronoed that load in my 4" gun, plan to , figure about 700 ft lbs just taking the split. The 4" gun is a LOT handier on the trail and just as accurate as my 6.5" gun. It has enough sight radius to allow this. Given the choice of a 34 ounce gun or a 42 ounce gun, I pick the 4" gun for trails and hiking.

There is much more velocity drop in a 125 grain hot load due to barrel length, but nobody in his right mind would carry a 125 grain load for the woods. The heavier bullets in the caliber are much more efficient, I postulate, due to the greater amount of time they are in the gun, slower acceleration rate. They are able to use more of that slow burning powder's pressure peak.

Reyn
February 8, 2008, 02:50 PM
Id take the 10. I like the higher capacity myself. I carry a G20.

Kingcreek
February 8, 2008, 02:56 PM
My 4" model 66 S&W has served me well in that role so far, but only about 30 years of experience to base that on.
I wouldn't want the extra weight of the 10mm.

MCgunner
February 8, 2008, 03:00 PM
BTW, on the 610 N frame. If I'm going to tote that, I'll get a M29 and blow their heads clean off....:evil:....with the "most powerful handgun ever made (30 years ago). I won't mess with the 10. A mountain gun in .44 is pretty handy.

ArmedBear
February 8, 2008, 03:55 PM
Ask a simple question when making the decision about anything to carry in the field.

"Would I want to rely on this gun to protect me from a dangerous animal after I dropped it in a pile of dirt?"

jmr40
February 9, 2008, 03:13 PM
For primarily hunting purposes I like a revolver. I use Smith .44 mags, but nothing wrong with the .357 in my opinion. For a hiking in the woods, primarily self defense and hunting as a secondary option, I like my Glock 20 in 10 mm.

rcmodel
February 9, 2008, 03:20 PM
Make mine a revolver.

The most dangerous thing in the woods around here are Timber Rattlesnakes & Copperheads, followed closely by drug-crazed commy pinko freaks.

Speer & my reloading bench make those handy dandy shotshells in several calibers, including .38 & .44 Special/Mag & .45 Colt.

Unfortunately, they don't make them in 10mm.

http://i81.photobucket.com/albums/j219/rcmodel/KTOG/1224.gif
rcmodel

MCgunner
February 9, 2008, 04:36 PM
I got snake boots for Christmas, no longer fear the viper so much. I never shoot 'em, anyway, just side step 'em and move on. Besides, snake boots are a fashion statement in south Texas, and mossy oak camo, woohoo, ready for Saturday night! :D

nitestocker
February 9, 2008, 05:48 PM
Ive been thinking about this same thing i live here in wa and want to walk the trails and stuff i have a ruger redhawk 44 its a little heavy plus in this day and age its not just the 4 legged critters we have to worry about there is a you could be attacked by a human out in the woods its happened lots of times probably a better chance of that happening than a cougar getting you that is why i chose the glock 20 im going with the 200 gr. double taps they put out around 750 foot pounds of energy 15 round per mag i can put it in my pistol fanny pack and have my camel bac on my back just me and the out doors the glock is a very dependable fire arm

wheelgunslinger
February 9, 2008, 07:40 PM
A Glock 20 is just a tick under 40 ounces loaded
A GP100 is about 35 ounces unloaded

6 shots versus 15

I'm not sure you could make a case for a modern auto being less reliable than a revolver in the woods.

It really boils down to that whole thing about personal preference. Would you prefer a wheelgun or a pistol?
there are 357 magnum pistols and there are 10mm revolvers.

As far as the round, take your pick. Either can handle the woodland creatures you might encounter. Seems like the platform is the real question.

Stinger
February 10, 2008, 09:44 AM
Neither, get a 41 magnum. :)

There always has to be "that" guy. I guess I'm him.

MCgunner
February 10, 2008, 10:45 AM
I have a .357 or four. I want a .41. :D

Charles S
February 10, 2008, 11:28 AM
I have a .357 or four. I want a .41.

If you have 4 357's then you need a .41. A great caliber that has a cult following!

MCgunner
February 10, 2008, 12:07 PM
That's mainly why I want it, the cult appeal. LOL I have a 4 5/8" Stainless Blackhawk in .45 Colt, can do anything a .44mag can do. But, the .41 can, also, and it's a really cool caliber IMHO to reload for. For hiking, the ammo ain't as big and bulky as the .45, either. I think I want it in a 4 5/8 or maybe a five and a half (if I could find on) inch blued Blackhawk.

Charles S
February 10, 2008, 12:11 PM
I think I want it in a 4 5/8 or maybe a five and a half (if I could find on) inch blued Blackhawk.

I personally think that would be a perfect platform.

Of course I want...really baddly a S&W 657-4 Mountain Gun..... I know I know keep wishing.

http://www.cylinder-slide.com/images/masterpiece/pic4.jpg

Harley Quinn
February 10, 2008, 12:48 PM
The 10mm would be my choice and yes it is expensive to shoot.
The 357 Sig is very comparable to the lighter bullets in the 357s range, (why I shoot both the 10mm and the 357 Sig) in Glocks.

I went to a gun dealers location to look around and the heft and size of some of these Revolvers is truly amazing, and your ability to get a second or third shot off with any accuracy is not as good, as I have found the Glocks to be.

I am surprised the Desert Eagle (44/50 combo) is not mentioned more (price is brutal for original purchase I guess;)

Regards,

:uhoh:

MCgunner
February 10, 2008, 03:21 PM
Well, who wants to haul a Desert Eagle around on a hike? :rolleyes: I'd as soon carry my .357 carbine, personally, lighter, handier, easier to shoot out to 100 yards off hand. My 20 gauge coach gun would be handier, too, and a 20 gauge slug is pretty powerful at 50 yards. Can't hit a running rabbit, or at least I never have, with a handgun, either.

and your ability to get a second or third shot off with any accuracy is not as good, as I have found the Glocks to be.

I have no problems with my medium frame Taurus M66 4" getting off a second quick shot, no worse than my .45acp Ruger P90. Even my Ruger SP101 ain't THAT bad, and my .357 Blackhawk barely kicks even with 180 grain stuff puttin' out near 800 ft lbs. I mean, not that you NEED full auto in a hunting handgun or outdoor gun. One shot and the deer is normally outta here. The idea is to hit the target with ONE, that's why I often hunt with a .30-30 Contender single shot. Normally, for hiking, I take along my Taurus 66, very accurate, easy to tote, and 1" at 25 yards accurate for small game with .38 wadcutters. That's what I like about it, versatility, small game to big or humans. I don't live or hike in Alaska, so I really think .357 is all I need.

ArmedBear
February 10, 2008, 04:43 PM
I got snake boots for Christmas

http://www.cowtownboots.com/images/808-50.jpg

Scratching my head, trying to figure out how wearing these would impact my caliber choice...

BIGR
February 10, 2008, 05:48 PM
.357 magnum is a good choice

xring44
February 10, 2008, 06:13 PM
A little story for you to consider. Last fall while scouting for a stand site for deer hunting, I rounded the conner on an old abandoned logging road. Standing in the road ahead of me was a huge black bear, I've spent alot of time in both Alaska and Canada, this was a 400# plus black bear, instead of the usually hasty retreat, he bounced on his front legs and huffed at me. I was carrying a .45 ACP in a shoulder holster, the bear was less than 30 yards and in less time than it has taken to describe the incident it was over, he decided to run, but it took him a couple of seconds to decide, enough time for me to realize how puny the .45 ACP was in comparrison to the threat.
I recently purchased a Colt Delta 10MM for my ventures in bear country. I will feel much more able to defend myself if need be.

Before I get any feed back about a concealed handgun, I am a CCHL holder, and CCL instructor and it was legal to be so armed.

Get the 10 MM;)

MCgunner
February 10, 2008, 08:12 PM
ArmedBear

Them ain't snake boots. We call them "roach stompers" cause the pointy toe can reach into the corners after a roach. :D

mbt2001
February 10, 2008, 09:30 PM
Chuck Taylor advises in The Gun Digest Book of Combat Handgunnery 4th edition, that when the .357 barrel length "goes below 6" the round loses it's magic". I make it a habit to never dispute Chuck...

That being said, I think a 6" pistol is a hunting gun and the 5 or 4" gun is a self defense gun. The 4" can do some cross over hunting, but that is just my $0.02.

TAB
February 10, 2008, 09:38 PM
whats the min barrel lenght to hunt with in texas? If it is over 5", unless you get a long slide, its going to have to be a revoler.

Dilbert
February 10, 2008, 10:01 PM
I like a 3" S&W model 60 for a woods gun. In the spring and summer the first round is a shot shell to deal with any snakes:uhoh: (I hate snakes), then 4 125 grainers to deal with any rabid critters, two or four legged. Maybe a lite bullet for some areas of the country, but there are no bears around Savannah, Georgia:).

ArmedBear
February 10, 2008, 10:14 PM
What about gators?

BTW do your strip clubs still have amateur nights with cash prizes in Savannah?

miestro_jerry
February 10, 2008, 10:26 PM
I would carry L Frame in 357 with a 6 inch barrel and have the rounds loaded to the gills. Not sure if they make +P 357 Mag ammo, or is that call 357 Max ? I think maybe that would be a 353 Casulls, if I remember correctly.

A 45 ACP is great for killing people, but not so good for many forms of hunting. If it was for self defense against a large animal that frequents strip clubs, a 45 ACP would probably do, or at least scare them away.

My middle son who is also has a CCW License, carries a 22 pocket pistol in his pocket, but also carries a P7. He says that he would shoot who or what ever in the balls, when that who or what bends over he then will shoot them in the ear with his P7.

I hunt deer with 44 Mag, bigger animals may require bigger guns.

Jerry

Harley Quinn
February 11, 2008, 12:35 AM
Chuck Taylor advises in The Gun Digest Book of Combat Handgunnery 4th edition, that when the .357 barrel length "goes below 6" the round loses it's magic".

I would second this thought also. I was looking at an "Alaskan" in 454 this weekend and it looked about useless to me, 3" barrel, (looked like it anyway) a large grip (felt good but I did not shoot it:eek:) It would be painful to the max and not really something I would own.

That being said I am sure someone will tell me how good they are and now with the new powders out, it has all the power as its 6 to 8 inch cousin:what:

Is it going to do the job? What is its job? $800 dollar show piece that 99% of the people who shoot would not last one cylinder :neener:

Most need to step back and read about the origins of some of these rounds and see why they evolved. When they did and see why they have been replaced.:uhoh:

The 10mm is in line with the 41 not the 357 imho, and the 44 is somewhat better if you can shoot it. So with all that BS I'll still stay with the 10mm:rolleyes:

MCgunner
February 11, 2008, 11:07 AM
Chuck Taylor advises in The Gun Digest Book of Combat Handgunnery 4th edition, that when the .357 barrel length "goes below 6" the round loses it's magic". I make it a habit to never dispute Chuck.

Chuck Taylor is full of crap, about as much as any gun writer "expert" I know of. My 2.25" SP101 will put a 180 grain load out the barrel at 1306 fps/662 ft lbs. It's true enough that a short barrel neuters the 125 grain load a bit, but the heavier the bullet, the longer it resides in the gun to utilize the pressures. If the bullet leaves the barrel too soon, it loses the meat of the pressure peak which occurs after the bullet leaves the barrel as evidenced by the fireball that 125 grain loads produce and the forcing cone erosion they cause. Now, my 6.5" Blackhawk only produces 1400 fps/785 ft lbs with that very same 180 grain load! You loose all of 94 fps by dropping down over 4" off the barrel!

Anyone with a chronograph can prove this to themselves. Believe only half of what you see and none of what you read in the gun press. Some folks have agendas, some to sell magazines, some to promote big, slow bullets over small, fast ones (an idiotic reason for an agenda, but one Taylor seems to have), and some to boost advertising dollars for the magazine, but danged few seem to care much about the truth. :rolleyes:

The 10mm is in line with the 41 not the 357 imho,

In energies, my Blackhawk in .357 will do anything a 10 of the hottest flaver will do and the 4" ain't far behind, check out the chronographed data above. If that don't do it for ya, go to buffalo bore's site. A .41, however, is capable of making .44 magnum energies out of a 6" barrel, OVER 1000 ft lbs, and way out of the 10's league. The ten is hampered by the delay blowback guns it is chambered in. To get to .41 mag energies, it needs more case and more pressure and that can only happen in a gas operated gun or a revolver.

http://www.buffalobore.com/ammunition/default.htm#357

http://www.buffalobore.com/ammunition/default.htm#41mag

Harley Quinn
February 11, 2008, 11:31 AM
Just to be argumentive, I believe your own figures prove Chuck is right with his mention, considering the amout of energy you have lost. More than 15% right off of the top. I could get a calculator and show the exact but no point:uhoh:

That alone tells you quite a bit, look at the number of gunmakers and people who pay big bucks for that extra 5% or less for increase:confused:

So the fact is much is lost and the lighter and faster the bullet which 357 was known for, 125 being the biggie means a lot :p

HQ

MCgunner
February 11, 2008, 11:41 AM
The 125 grain load is worthless in the woods. I carry at least 158 grains. I've never shot game with less.

My example was to show that even in a 2.3" barrel the "magic" is still there witha heavy bullet. My own carry load for the SP101 involves a 140 grain bullet at 1335 fps/551 ft lbs. I don't mess with less. Besides, that Speer bullet is really accurate.

Buffalo Bore's listings give their 180 1375 fps (I've yet to chronograph my 180 in a 4" gun) from a 4" Smith and Wesson. By my calculation, that's 755 ft lbs, right there with a 5" 10mm in hottest renditions. Now, we're talking apples and apples, 4" revolver vs 5" auto for portability in the field. No practical difference in power yet the .357 has the capability to go small game hunting with .38 wadcutter. That's why I prefer the .357 Revolver to the 10 or ANY autoloader in the field and for hunting purposes, that and I've found few autos can equal a good revolver's accuracy. I get 4" groups at 100 yards with iron sights out of my Blackhawk from the bench shooting those 180 grain loads. Beat that with your Delta! :D

MCgunner
February 11, 2008, 11:56 AM
BTW, if you just love the hype around the 125 grain load, Buffalo Bore is still getting 604 ft lbs out of it in their loadings in a 3" barrel. I probably could do better than 550 with the 140 in my SP101 if I switched to AA#9 from 2400. I use AA#9 in my 180 load. However, I feel 550 ft lbs is plenty for self defense against a human attacker and the load has less flash/bang than the 125 grainer and is very accurate. In the woods for hunting, I switch to the 180 or a 158 grain cast load. 140 is too light for deer and hog, not enough penetration to suit me.

JesseL
February 11, 2008, 12:02 PM
When I wanted a woods/hunting gun, I picked a 4-5/8" Blackhawk in .41 Magnum. 10mm and 357 are probably adequate from packable sized pistols, but who wants to settle for adequate?

If you're really stuck on 10mm or 357, I'd say to go for the 357. Wheelguns just seem more right in the woods and being able to plink with cheap 38s is nice.

MCgunner
February 11, 2008, 12:12 PM
When I wanted a woods/hunting gun, I picked a 4-5/8" Blackhawk in .41 Magnum. 10mm and 357 are probably adequate from packable sized pistols, but who wants to settle for adequate?

I like the .41, don't have one. But, I have a .45 Colt 4 5/8" blackhawk in .45 Colt that makes 1000 ft lbs with a 300 grain .45 caliber bullet for bite. Why did you "settle" for a puny little .41? :D I mean, .41 is probably adequate, but...........

Seriously, I like the big Blackhawk, but my medium frame .357 is a lot lighter on the hip and will get the job done. I don't hunt with it, just my hiking choice. Hunting, I have a couple of blackhawks and a scoped Contender in .30-30 Winchester.

HOWEVER, the Blackhawk is no heavier than a 1911 like the Delta and the G20 I fired seemed a might large, too. Before I'd carry that bulk, yeah, I'd go with the Blackhawk and the power for sure. :D

JesseL
February 11, 2008, 12:23 PM
I like the .41, don't have one. But, I have a .45 Colt 4 5/8" blackhawk in .45 Colt that makes 1000 ft lbs with a 300 grain .45 caliber bullet for bite. Why did you "settle" for a puny little .41?:D I mean, .41 is probably adequate, but...........

I was awfully tempted to get a .45, but I've also got a thing for slightly oddball chamberings. Besides, I can get 1000 ft lbs from a nice flat shooting 170gr .41 caliber bullet too.:neener:

MCgunner
February 11, 2008, 12:26 PM
I'm with ya on the .41, just couldn't resist the barb. As for flat shooting, .30-30.....:neener:

I do want a .41 in a Blackhawk JUST FOR THAT REASON, the cult appeal. I'll get one one of these days. I got the .45 in lieu of a .44 mag for the same reason and because I didn't want the bulk of a superblackhawk. Ammo cost doesn't matter to a handloader, either. :D The .45 does have a little bit of a loopy trajectory past 50-75 yards. A house brick at 1200 fps don't have much of a BC. LOL

mbt2001
February 11, 2008, 12:27 PM
Chuck Taylor is full of crap, about as much as any gun writer "expert" I know of. My 2.25" SP101 will put a 180 grain load out the barrel at 1306 fps/662 ft lbs.

First off, thems fighting words. Chuck Taylor is not your run of the mill gun writer like Boddington or Skeeter. He is a professional and trains our professionals (cops, military etc...) in weapons craft.

Second off, the GENERAL ADVICE I GAVE is sound. There are exceptions to every freaking rule and debating exceptions is a waste of time for one reason, exceptions are in fact recommendations, not advice. So your exception is actually a recommendation on what ammo to use to negate the above effect as much as possible. Physics is Physics and the above stands until disporven by Stephen Hawking or the like.

I hereby amend my statement by putting an * at the bottom wherein I note that Buffalo Bore has a 180 grain .357 (verified) that will perform well, but certainly proves the over all point that coming from a shorter barrel it still loses approx 8% of it's velocity. All items contained herein should be independtly verified by a panel of experts and yourself before the results are accted upon. My views are expressly my own, I make no warranty, gaurantee or promise for statements made and cannot be held legally liable for your interpretation of, or actions taken as a result of the above. Please consult an attorny to discuss your legal rights and options when taking advice off the internet. See offer for details. Exclusions apply.

happy?

:neener:

ArmedBear
February 11, 2008, 12:34 PM
coming from a shorter barrel it still loses approx 8% of it's velocity.

8% is "losing its magic"?

Sounds more like a rational and quite reasonable trade-off between velocity and carry convenience and draw speed.

....which is what handguns are about. Want a 165 grainer that goes 3000 fps? Easy. Carry a 24" barrel centerfire rifle.

I'd definitely say that the statement about the round "losing its magic" is indeed, a load of ****.

MCgunner
February 11, 2008, 12:45 PM
First off, thems fighting words. Chuck Taylor is not your run of the mill gun writer like Boddington or Skeeter. He is a professional and trains our professionals (cops, military etc...) in weapons craft.

Well, I'm not a fighter over words. :D However, he's no ballistics expert. I've seen him tout some GOOFY algebra to "prove" his .45 is better than my .357 Revolver. Now, the "Taylor (not Chuck) Power Factor" was dreamed up by a non-ballistician back in the 19th century by an elephant hunter to explain why a 1000 grain 600 nitro express was better than a .45 caliber bullet for downing elephant in the black powder age. Well....DUH! It has no application to modern handguns and is goofy in the first place. Yet, he wrote this drivel. I lost any and all confidence in the man's intellect after reading that STUPID article. I've known a lot of cops, no offense, but some didn't have the brains to be a physicist, that's why they were cops. :D I don't profess intelligence, either, just making observations. Just because a guy was a cop or in the military, doesn't make him a rocket scientist. If you LIKE to follow cops and their writings, Evan Marshall was a cop. He does seem to have a penchant for statistics.

Second off, the GENERAL ADVICE I GAVE is sound. There are exceptions to every freaking rule and debating exceptions is a waste of time for one reason, exceptions are in fact recommendations, not advice. So your exception is actually a recommendation on what ammo to use to negate the above effect as much as possible. Physics is Physics and the above stands until disporven by Stephen Hawking or the like.

Special load? You're going to HUNT with a 125 grain bullet? We're talking HUNTING and OUTDOOR use here. The vast majority of .357 loads are for self defense and consider things like recovery time after a shot, excessive penetration on a human and subsequent collateral damage, etc. There is no such thing as excessive penetration on game and all those walmart .357 loads are not designed for hunting. You HAVE to go to buffalo bore if you don't handload (like the rest of us) to get your deer hunting rounds if you hunt with a .357. With the 10mm, every load is special because they're so hard to find! Now, if you handload, it's just like any other round, load what works and in the field that's heavy bullets hot as possible. It's not a special round, it's the proper round for the application.

Taylor, to his credit, is right about common 125 grain .357 loads intended for self defense. Most of 'em, you put 'em in a 2" barrel gun, they're going to drop down in the 450 ft lb range. The 180 grain loads used for hunting and outdoors don't, however, and are the ones relevant to this discussion. Too, Taylor's arguments are likely about dropping to snubs. The average .357 125 grain hot load can put up 600 ft lbs from a 4" gun. That's plenty for self defense as law enforcement has proved on the street.

Dilbert
February 11, 2008, 12:51 PM
For a woods gun I (as in me, in Georgia/Alabama woods) see nothing wrong with a 125 JSP or JHP for that matter. Bears are far away in them there hills and I've never bumped into a gator that didn't want to pose for pictures. I have run up on a racoon with a very bad attitude, and a fox that I believe had rabies. I have also sent some opossums away. None of these critters seemed to need a heavier load. I would venture to guess that I could have made do with a .22, but that's not the stuff of an exciting story.
Pick your gun and load for where you live. If no are bears around your woods gun can be your carry gun.
If you are hunt with the gun, then get a hunting gun and leave the 4" and less guns at home. An over looked gain of the longer barrel is the longer sight radius, and that helps MOST PEOPLE shoot better.

MCgunner
February 11, 2008, 01:03 PM
.357 Mag vs. 10mm for woods/ hunting duty?

That's the original post. Now, for woods bumming around here (except that I might get a shot at a hog, they're so boomin' thick around here) a 125 grain load is okay. However, HUNTING, I'll choose something in the 158 grain and up in the caliber. I've killed three deer with a 158 SWC, seemed to work well. The 180 load I worked up for my Blackhawk and have hunted some with, but haven't taken anything with it.

mbt2001
February 11, 2008, 01:24 PM
:neener:

Harley Quinn
February 11, 2008, 02:06 PM
Yes the OP is about the 357 and 10mm. I believe to put yourself into the single action shooter is ok if you want that, in respects to the revolver class.

The problem I am looking at is what is the overall best package between the 10mm and the six shot wheel gun. In CA all we are allowed is the 10 round mag. But in other parts of the country the higher mags are allowed.

With that in mind I would still prefer the the 10mm. If you go with the Desert Eagle, I would say the 8"/10" 357 would be real hard to beat. But it is a heavy brute. And expensive piece of goods.

Take your pick and enjoy, been a lot of information for you to digest. Good luck.
HQ

dsdanger
February 11, 2008, 02:16 PM
.357 for many of the reasons stated above. Furthermore, if you're really worried about bears, try Corbon's 200 gr. HC (1150 fps/587 ftlbs)... with all the benefits of a revolver.

https://www.dakotaammo.net/shop/product_info.php?cPath=22_53&products_id=81&osCsid=e7fe03748d4f30212842886afa03f2f7

sm
February 11, 2008, 02:24 PM
phantomak47 wrote in original post:


.357 Mag vs. 10mm for woods/ hunting duty?
Say you wanted a sidearm for woods carry or a gun for close to midrange hunting with open sights, we are not talking a dedicated hunting pistol, so lets keep it between these calibers.

My take is simple since your are in Texas, get whichever one fits you after shooting some varieties, and can afford, and afford to feed with factory or by reloading.

Everyone, again my take is simple, it always boils down to the same factors:

-What is legal for your jurisdiction, and this includes what Game & Fish Regulations may stipulate as well.

-What is the gun going to be used for?
Each environment has its own critters, and therefore dictates what one might be asked to do with a sidearm.

-Gun Fit to shooter, and I mean actually shooting a variety of guns, and loads to know what you can use to get quick effective hits with.

-Budget, including ammo costs, loads to choose from, and reloading costs and considerations.

-Investigation and verification of loads for tasks, and you and the gun being able to place these loads quickly and effectively if called upon to do so.

Some that have years of experience in areas, are those to ask for suggestions, as they know habitats and critters, and can assist in preventing trouble showing up/ you stumbling onto and loads that have proven themselves when no other option was left.


Interesting thing is, critters , just like humans, do not know they are supposed to react to gun makes, platforms, calibers, bullet weights and configurations.
They do not read Internet, Gun Magazines, Hunting Magazines, Mfg literature of guns an ammunition.

Down on the farm folks still carry a 38spl for instance, and put down cows.
Not long ago a 1929 Colt Detective Special and Old S&W Model 36, using the same load, the "Widow Maker" it is called, just a standard pressure 158 gr LRN , put down two cows.

Kel-Tec P-11 did the same thing, using that Win 115 STHP that gets such bad postings from its use in a tragic event.

Bone Stock Gov't Model of 1911 using 230 gr JHP felled a deer, nice six point.
Now this gun has always run JHP, the old boy is just as happy with hardball, just Game & Fish says, "no FMJ". So his farm, ranch, property gun is loaded with JHPs.

One of his other property guns is a Model 19 with 158 gr loads.

If he needs something bigger, that is what the 12 or 20 ga shotguns with slugs are for, or the Lever Actions in 30-30, or the bolt gun in '06 are for...

P-11 being tested to see if some of the classic guns he and they have, need to be put back into the safe and the P-11s tossed in trucks, barns, tractor tool boxes ...like others in his business have done.
Guess so, he has six coming...

These will work for what some might encounter on his property, yes some single action .44s will stay in use, still, concerns of two legged varmits are more of concern than a bear, or hog where he and his are.

One heckuva of a lot fun when used for ground hog hunting too...*snicker*
"Pest permit means the bbl don't have to be 4" min" so sayth the Regs unlike for Hunting as falls under Game & Fish Regs.

CSA 357
February 11, 2008, 04:43 PM
Give Me The 357, It Has Always Worked For Me And I Have Plenty Of Brass!

The_woodsman
February 11, 2008, 05:01 PM
10mm is fine for the woods.
.357 is fine for the woods.
.41 mag is fine for the woods.
.400 cor-bon is in a very similar category as the .41 and 10...
9x23 winchester is nearly = .357 S&W.


Personally, I like an autoloader, and there are a few available in 10mm. I plan on purchasing a witness p carry which is available in 10mm for this very thing (only it may surprise you to learn that I am ordering it in 9mm).

I would prefer the 9x23 winchester over the rest for a woods caliber, but there are still very few pistols that chamber the round. I may be able to purchase a .38 super conversion for the witness and run 9x23 through it - not sure about that...

Shoot what you want. Most of those rounds are too expensive for my wallet.

CoRoMo
February 11, 2008, 05:47 PM
Say you wanted a sidearm for woods carry

Wanted one and bought one. Here she is...

http://www.ruger-firearms.com/Firearms/images/Products/100L.jpg

or a gun for close to midrange hunting with open sights

Yep... see above.

we are not talking a dedicated hunting pistol...

Sure we are, and she fits the bill nicely.

I never hike though the woods without it.
It comes along on every hunting trip too.
Dying to fill a tag with it rather than my rifle.

sm
February 11, 2008, 07:02 PM
That is a secret, and one is not supposed to share that old, old secret. *wink*

MCgunner
February 11, 2008, 08:17 PM
There's just something about the 4 5/8 inch barrel on the blackhawk that just looks right. :D Never seem to tire at looking at 'em.

CoRoMo
February 12, 2008, 12:52 PM
I opted for the 4 5/8" barrel when I bought the blackhawk because it's main use would be for hiking in the woods and I wanted to save weight.
If I could do it over again, I think I would up it to the 6 1/2" barrel to give me a little better hunting gun.

glock21detroit
October 15, 2008, 11:36 PM
i carry the glock 20 with the 200gr going 1300fps with 16rds of firepower. that seems to be capable of bringing anything down the woods have to offer. how could you compare a 158gr to a 200gr?

unreal45
October 18, 2008, 11:19 PM
I want to get a Glock 20 but I am waiting for the short frame, it should be available in a couple months.

Art Eatman
October 19, 2008, 11:55 AM
That short-barrel Rugilator's a neat gun. I bought one in 1966, although I disremember if it was 4-5/8 or 5-1/2. Even my memory gets fuzzy from time to time. But, BossLady let me take it out and play, grudgingly. 2400 was the common powder for full-house loads, back then. At night, that doofer would definitely light up the sky.

The Delta Elite's a good 10mm. I did a trigger job on mine, and the usual ramp polishing. I added a beavertail to it. MMC sights, IIRC. A buddy of mine kept drooling and slobbering over it, so to avoid rust I let him trade me out of it...

GJgo
October 19, 2008, 12:42 PM
I actually went throught this same dilemma this morning. I'm about to go up in the hills and cut firewood with some friends all afternoon. I have a 44, a 357, and a 10mm in the safe. The 44 with its 7" barrel is too bulky since we're working all day. The 10mm was my first thought, but I keep thinking about how it sometimes jams on feeding. (Have to work that one out still- new gun.) Since anything that works less than 100% is a toy as far as I'm concerned, I grabbed my 3" 7 shot Smith 686.

Plus, it's Elk season, so I'm more concerned about some idiot shooting at anything that moves than I am about seeing an angry bear today..

Dr. Tad Hussein Winslow
October 24, 2008, 03:53 PM
10mm

Because the cylinder gap blast on a revolver with full-power loads is very hard on the unprotected ears. But if you have a Coonan or LAR grizzly, then .357 mag! :)

nickE10mm
October 25, 2008, 01:10 PM
Get whichever you shoot best. I, personally, shoot my Razorback better than any other pistol I own. I can keep five shots in a 5" circle from FIELD positions at 50 yards, every time. I hunt from a climber and rarely get a shot farther than maybe 30 yards. For me, the choice is simple. 10mm (loaded usually with a 200gr XTP at about 1280 FPS or a good 200gr Beartooth at 1330 FPS)

Here's a photo of me last season walking in from being on stand all morning in 5 degree weather. A good morning, I might add.

http://img123.imageshack.us/img123/1861/img11271oq7.jpg

darkknight
October 26, 2008, 03:39 PM
You cant go wrong with either. Its all about personal preference. I personally would get a kimber eclipse in 10mm but i already own a .357mag and I like semis better. just my .02

nickE10mm
October 26, 2008, 04:05 PM
glock21detroit- hey man, I didn't know if you're last post (#57)was rhetorical or not in regards to 158gr .357 being compared to 200gr 10mm since they share close to the same sectional density which would make then about equal penetrators.

thejetman
October 26, 2008, 08:13 PM
.357 MAG.
Thats all you need.

wep45
October 26, 2008, 09:07 PM
the .357 magnum will get the job done everytime

Encoreman
October 27, 2008, 09:07 PM
I tell ya'll what I find interesting is that Phantomak who started this hasn't made any comment since he started this Feb 7th, 2008. My 2 cents is 10 mm in a S&W 610 revolver 180-200 xtp's for protection/hunting, and .40 S&W for target shooting. The 10mm is close to .41mag in knockdown power. A 357 will also fill the bill. What do ya say Phantom?? Mac

If you enjoyed reading about ".357 Mag vs. 10mm for woods/ hunting duty?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!