[Kind of Blued]

First of all, there's nothing wrong with either, but I'd like to nitpick a bit.

From what I understand, some folks shoot .44 Special a lot better than .357. A bigger bullet is always nice, and big & slow can be just as effective as small & fast. Also, recoil "speed", muzzle flash, and noise are all tied to pressure in one way or another.

What else is there about .44 Spl. that makes it a great load to carry?

I'll admit, I simply like the idea of carrying a big-bore revolver, but I'm having a hard time imagining that I'd feel better-equipped with five rounds of .44 over six rounds of .357, or even six rounds of .44 over seven rounds of .357 in the same-sized gun.

Will I just "get it" once I shoot them both? :)

[EMT40SW]

Balistically .44 SPC is under .40SW & .357 mag in Ft/lb of energy 400 vs 450. If I had that choice I would take .357 mag everytime. You can tone it down with .38spc and you have an extra round just in case. I have shot both. Oh yeah ammo costs: .44 spc is $40/50 @ walmart vs. $28. Not to mention it is hard to find locally.

[Walkalong]

Meplat & weight.

[FoMoGo]

We got rid of .357s in favor of .44s.
The noise, blast, and sharper recoil go against the .357 in my mind.
I load my own .44s, and my loads have more actual recoil than the .357s... but its a different kind of recoil.
I would have no trouble putting holes thru the goblins with my .44s, so penetration is no better with .357s for me.
It is a bigger hole, does more damage, it easier for me to shoot fast and stay on target...
I saw no reason to keep the .357s around.
For carry pistols we nor have .44 special, .44 magnum, and .45acp.
The magnum will normally be stoked with specials.


Jim

[krs]

I pretty much go along with what FoMoCo has said with the addition of my saying that I enjoy shooting .44 Special more than most any other caliber.

I do however have .357's and will sometimes carry my modified Model 66 in favor of the larger N frames. I've also got an 8 round model 27 (.357) with 3 1/2" barrel that I like a lot loaded with as honkin' a load as I can cook up. The big guys absorb the magnum recoil just fine making the gun feel about like a J frame with wadcutter target loads.

IMO, lots of velocity only makes for overpenetration so big slow flying bullets make more effective SD platforms. So it's often either a 1911 or my M24 snubbie for me.

Might change my carry on the homestead if the bear we keep seeing eats my wife for breakfast when she comes out of hibernation in the spring and go for the penetrators if the bear seems to be still hungry. :)

[SwampWolf]

Years ago I bought a new S&W 696 .44 Special for self-defense. I was unduly enamored by the concept and the bore size (I've always liked calibers forty and up and still do). But as time went on I began to rethink my reasoning and came to the conclusion that an identical sized revolver (the Smith 686), carrying two more rounds (the Plus version) made more sense to me for its intended purpose, even if the caliber was shy a few hundreths of an inch in size-though not many informed people would deny the stopping effectiveness of the 125 grain, JHP, .357 Magnum round.

[ArchAngelCD]

Other than you has already been mentioned I can't think of anything else to say about the 2 different rounds.

I will suggest this.... If you shoot a .44 Special better than a .357 Magnum that's what you should carry because both will do a good job of SD.

[Landric]

I'd say that the .44 Special is a lot easier to shoot well than a .357 Magnum of the same size and weight. Plus there is just something comforting about those big, heavy bullets.

The .357 is probably more real world effective with equal shot placement, but the .44 Special is nothing to sneeze at.

[batmann]

First let me say that a .357 is a very, very good round, but the .357 has a lot more muzzle blast and felt recoil than a .44 Spl.
Buffalo Bore makes a .44 Spl load that might be the best all a round 'trail' load out there. I have a new Ruger special run 'Flat top' in .44 Spl on order and that is the load I will use in it.

[Doc Nonverbal]

I prefer the .44 Special for a number of reasons. First and foremost, it's easier for me to shoot. The .357 magnum has a very sharp report and recoil. The .44 Special feels much softer to me.

I doubt there is anything inherent to the cartridge, but my .44 Specials are substantially more accurate than either of the .357 magnums I used to shoot (a S&W Model 66 and a S&W Model 686).

For personal protection, the heavier bullet and broader metplat (as was previously mentioned) means a larger primary wound channel. In theory at least, this should stop the fight quicker. My personal opinion is that the extra energy of the .357 is wasted on over-penetration.

In sum, I can shoot better, faster, and make bigger holes. What's not to love?

[kmrcstintn]

.44 spl is in the 'fat-n-slow' group w/ .45 acp & .45 colt

.357 mag is in the 'skinny-n-fast' group w/ 9mm & .40 S&W

[ArchAngelCD]

kmrcstintn,
You said the .45 Colt is in the fat-n-slow group. I'm guessing you don't reload... Also, anything that starts with a "4" isn't usually considered a "skinny round" but that's the way you listed the 40 S&W.

[MCgunner]

I prefer the .357 for the power, 600 ft lbs out of a 3" barrel. But, I admit that the .44 special would be a lot easier on the eyes and ears indoors at night.

If I carry a "4", heck, I have a .45 ACP I sorta favor. For outdoor carry, I slide right on past the .44 and if I'm not carrying one of my .357s, I'll tote my .45 Colt blackhawk which I do handload for. 300 grain bullet at 1120 fps from a 4 5/8" barrel is more in the .44 magnum class than special. The .357 puts up just shy of 800 ft lbs in a 6.5" blackhawk, though, pretty impressive I'd say. It's pushin' a 180 grain XTP at 1400 fps.

[Logos]

I don't perceive any significant difference in recoil between the two calibers when they are loaded with heavy loads, so that's not a factor.

They both kick and make a very loud noise.

The .38 is preferable for small game.

If I only used it for self-defense I'd carry the .44......but there's a lot more to what I do than that......in fact, self-defense is so unlikely that it can ALMOST be factored out.

So, since the .38 is the greatest small game and trail round ever invented, and the .357 is not measurably less effective than the .44 in the self-defense application......and the K frame Smith makes for a nice, light and handy carry gun for trail or city......

My choice is the three or four-inch .357 in the K or even the L frame.

I should add that this choice is a close one and the primary tipping point is that the .38 is so perfect for small game and plinking.

The ability to use the .38 is what tips the scales for me.

[Walkalong]

If I carry a "4", heck, I have a .45 ACP I sorta favor.I know the feeling, despite how much I like the .44 Spl.

My only knock on the .357 is the shock and blast without ear protection. In my youth when we shot without ear protection, the .44 Spl and the .45 ACP, especially the .45, were the easiest to recover from more quickly. A sharp crack was much tougher on my head than the low boom of the .45. (The 32.20 was the frickin' worst :mad:)

Don't get me wrong, the .357 is a great caliber. I own a few. ;)

[steveracer]

.357 is cheaper, usually, than .44 special. That said, a 3" .44 is about the best revolver in the world.
Steve

[ChristopherG]

A .44 is, no doubt, a more pleasant caliber to shoot. However, a .357 can come in a K- or J- frame sized package. The difference between a K and L frame, for a gun that actually gets carried a lot, is substantial. And a J frame? Fuggedaboudit.

[SwampWolf]

In sum, I can shoot better, faster, and make bigger holes. What's not to love? Two less holes. ;)

[Kitt]

I have a couple of 357's and a S&W 624 but my favorite carry is a Taurus Titanium 44 magnum loaded with Hornady's 180 gr 44 Specials or CCI's 44 Shotshells. The revolver has a 4" barrel and the best grips I've ever got my hands on and Its so light you don't even notice it!
http://i368.photobucket.com/albums/oo130/LWKITT/IM000498a.jpg

[meef]

Might change my carry on the homestead if the bear we keep seeing eats my wife for breakfast when she comes out of hibernation in the spring and go for the penetrators if the bear seems to be still hungry.:scrutiny:

Your wife hibernates?

[Kind of Blued]

Your wife hibernates?

Might not necessarily be a "bad" thing if it's during the appropriate times... :scrutiny:

That means whatever you want it to mean. ;)

Anyway, back to guns. I'm convinced I NEED a S&W 696, even though I've never shot a .44 Special revolver. In theory, it sounds like my favorite handgun of all-time. My best guess is that a 5-shot .44 Spl. K-Frame Smith & Wesson with a 3" barrel is like looking into the eyes of God and hearing him say "Hey buddy, I made you something..."

[Generic Name]

I've been lucky to shoot a lot of different guns and calibers. I think either would work for you. I was very impressed with the 3" (4" ?) Bull barrel S&W K frame .357 revolver. Forgot the model number, but it was a pleasure to shoot. Hmm... looking at the S&W website it looked like the model 64, but they list it as a 38+P and I recall a .357. Whatever, it was a nice revolver.

Looks like they have a recent thread on it here:

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=425557

[Stainz]

Over six years ago, I bought a 296 & 696 new on the same day. My last .45 ACP bottom-feeders, a pair of AMT DAO Backups (My G21 had been gone then for a while.) had both jammed on me that day at the range. I cleaned them and traded them in that day. My metamorphosis to round guns was complete, leaving me happier, too.

The 696 followed my 629MG - which was replaced a bit later by a standard 4" 629, whose hammer/trigger/sights are better to me and match the 6"-er I have. I am not a .44M type - the 629s are .44 Russian/Special & mild .44M launchers here. The standard 4" 629 only weighs six ounces more than the 696 - and what a revolver! Plus, I've seen 696's priced at shows for the new 4" 629's MSRP! The X96 range, due to the thin front strap, have a paper-thin forcing cone - limits the 'level' of the .44 S&W Specials - if you want a long life. I like my 696 - but it will go long before my 4" 629.

I have .357Ms from 4"-6" - they have never seen 'real' .357Ms - just my .38-ish plinkers. My two snubby .38s, a 10 and a 642, are for carry - with +P 158gr LHPSWCs - plenty of oomph for everyday threats.

All of that said, and in the best of my retired teacher 'do as I say, not as I do', I carry that 296 - loaded with 200gr Gold Dots - in a Mika pocket holster just about 50-50 split with the 642. Bigger is probably better - at least I feel better protected. And - if five won't save your bacon, it was time for breakfast - and you were 'toast'!

I don't need .357M for protection.

Stainz

[Oro]

I'm convinced I NEED a S&W 696, even though I've never shot a .44 Special revolver. In theory, it sounds like my favorite handgun of all-time.

You will like the .44 Special. An all-time great round, I think Speer called it, in one of their manuals, the "best of the big-bore revolver rounds" period.

On the subject of gun choice, I thought a lot like you about the L frame a while back, but about the 686. I went and got a 2.5" variant to possibly replace my 19 and 66 snubs as a carry piece. If that worked well for me, I was considering a 696 then to replace my 3" N frame .44 (629-1) as a sometimes-carry piece. In urban environments, I felt that gun with the right .44 specials was better than the .357 as a carry round. But what I found was that the snubby L frame felt a lot more like an N frame than a K frame.

The L frame is sized much more like the N than the K - and when you add in the barrel lug, it ends up weighing the same as most N frames in identical barrel lengths. After packing that much weight, I went back to the 66/19, and decided to stick with the 629 when I wanted .44 Specials to carry. I don't think I have a photo of my 686 2.5" and 629 3" side by side to demonstrate the differences, but weight is about nill and size is fairly close.

These are my impressions, but what I suggest from them is that you also check out the 24/624 and the 29/629 as possible guns - you may find you like them as much as the 696. You will also likely find them much more easily and cheaper than a 696 (see Stainz's comments directly above about that, and also his preference for the 629). But if the 696 is what works for you, then have a ball!

[MCgunner]

I have a couple of 357's and a S&W 624 but my favorite carry is a Taurus Titanium 44 magnum loaded with Hornady's 180 gr 44 Specials or CCI's 44 Shotshells. The revolver has a 4" barrel and the best grips I've ever got my hands on and Its so light you don't even notice it!

Looks pretty sharp, too. I need to save up for one of those. Trail gun with an attitude. :D

[wcwhitey]

+1 for the .44 Specials out of the .44 Mag revolvers. Although not a carry gun my SBH 5" with my 255 SWCGC's special loads are thumping tack drivers. I have always like the concept of the S&W Mountain guns being used with .44 Specials. They make for a relatively light package for the .44 Magnum but should dampen the recoil for all but the hottest .44 Specials.

P.S. I don't even own a .357 Revolver presently. The last one I owned was a Colt Trooper. Great gun but it just sat in the safe and didn't get used once I bought a .44 Mag. I prefer the accuracy and the slow push of the .44's as opposed to the sharp blast of the .357.

[FoMoGo]

My .44s, the 629 isnt bad... to me... with factory magnums, but it is a dream to shoot with my special handloads.
Smaller .44 magnums make great Special launch platforms... :D
http://www.turbopinto.com/images/guns/44s.jpg


Jim

[babarracing]

:scrutiny:A 44 special has about a 20% bigger diameter which gives a 40% increase in area. Pretty good chance of hitting or nicking something that will help the terminal results.

[markallen]

Way back in time I used to own a Ruger Security Six. ( Wish I still had it some times).
But I never really warmed to the .357. Once I shot the .44 Mag, I sold the Security six. And bought a Ruger Super Blackhawk.I know dumb move, selling the Security Six. But like I said, I never warmed up to the .357.
when I started to CCW, I naturally leaned towards the small revolver, hence the SP101. Don't get me wrong I love my SP101, just not fond of .357.
The first of the year I bought a Ruger Alaskan, Heaven at last. It is my primary CCW now. I put the GP100 compact grip on it, bobbed the hammer, and load it with downloaded .44 mag. Hornady 200 gr.430 JHP/XTP bullets, in front of 9.1 grs of Unique. Don't have a chrono but by the math puts me in about the 950 to 1000 fps. Easy on the hand. But no slouch as a self defense load, just a rough estimate in the mid 500 foot lbs on muzzle energy.

http://i219.photobucket.com/albums/cc303/markallenfrancis/alaskancarry.jpg?t=1234028695

[Loyalist Dave]

Some folks have mentioned shooting a snubbie in .357 vs the .44. Either will do the job up close no doubt, and often gunfights are done at very close range, say at under 10 feet. I'm not sure you get as much out of full .357 loads from a 2" barrel as you would a larger handgun (reload data is often 4" or 6" barrels eh?) We're also NOT talking handloads, in any state where the civil lawyers run the courts.

If we are talking SD then recoil management is a factor, and magnums are tough to control for some people. If I was asking the question it would be a five shot 240 gr .44 spl vs. a 158 g lead +P .38 special load. The .44 out of a snubbie agains .38 +P's from a .357 snubbie. Both 5 shot. Up close, I think it's a wash, and since practice is important, the .357 is cheaper to train with...,

BUT..., if I was in situations where I might have to reach beyond 50 feet, to say 20 yards and maybe a bit beyond for SD, I'd opt for 125g jhp's in .357 from a minimum 3" barrel, and 6+ shots. (I have had very good results from .357 for accuracy.)

I think the .357 gives you more umph at distance, and gives it a good advantage over the .44 special.

(I like .44 spl and .45 Colt, and would like a compact five shot in either, but that's just personal preference, not really quantitative)

LD

[saltydog452]

Within reason, whatever that is, I'm convinced that platform trumps caliber.

salty

[SwampWolf]

Agreed, as you say, within reason.