357 vs. 44 Spl. For CCW


PDA






kwhi43@kc.rr.com
October 11, 2011, 02:18 PM
Got a good one you guys can toss around for awhile. Which would be better
for CCW the 125 gr full house 357 mag such as Federal 357B or the Blazer
200 gr JHP Gold Dot 44 spl? Or the Buffalo Bore 255 gr at about 900 fps in
44 spl. This being in a short 2.5 barrel in the 357 and a 3 inch barrel in 44 spl
I'm not interested in the engery figures for both calibers, energy never stopped anybody, it's the holes and damage in the target. Well, what do
you all think?

If you enjoyed reading about "357 vs. 44 Spl. For CCW" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Paladin7
October 11, 2011, 02:42 PM
For CCW, given the two choices, I vote for the 44 Special.

Larger, heavier bullet, less pressure which equals less noise and flash. The 200gr Gold Dots were specifically made to perform in short barreled 44's, so that is what I carry when I carry a 44 Special.

When I'm thinking about CCW with a 44 Special, I'm thinking about cold weather, or field carry and having to have it close by in the bedroom at night. I'm also thinking about low light conditions and the possibility of having to shoot in an enclosed space, like in my car or bedroom, hence my choice.

I want to avoid the much higher operating pressure and resultant hearing damaging crack of the 357 and the blinding muzzle blast (I realize that some of the newer 357 defensive rounds have less flash), and want the bullet to perform even through heavy clothing.

YMMV.

Tony_the_tiger
October 11, 2011, 02:58 PM
If you can spring the cost, the Corbon DPX round in .44 special seems excellent for CCW purposes. A 200 gr copper bullet @ 950 ft/s.

http://www.hipowersandhandguns.com/Corbon%2044%20Special%20DPX%20Report.htm

This is what I carry about 75% of the time. I also carry .38 special and .357 depending on what I can get away(conceal) with and where I am going.

Sam1911
October 11, 2011, 02:59 PM
Whichever one fits in the gun you'll be carrying. ;)

They'll all do fine. Practice until your sidearm is an extension of your body and don't worry too much about what the numbers on the gun say.

A solid hit with a .357 is just as good as a solid hit with a warm .44 Spc. If an extra 0.038" of bullet diameter makes the difference in a shooting, well...guess you should have aimed 0.038" better.

pendennis
October 11, 2011, 04:34 PM
I can't make up my mind, so I carry both in rotation. The Model 65 is carried with .38 Special 158gr LSWCHP +P (the FBI load), and the Model 696 I carry with 200gr Winchester STHP.

http://i661.photobucket.com/albums/uu331/pendennis1947/APairofThrees.jpg

cougar1717
October 11, 2011, 06:08 PM
Big and slow vs small and fast has been a plague to forums ever since Al Gore invented the internet.
Which ever gun/caliber combination you are more proficient with is the one that I would CCW. It's six dozen one way, 72 the other.

Walkalong
October 11, 2011, 07:16 PM
They are both excellent choices. Which do you prefer?

http://www.thehighroad.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=78882&d=1211730972

mavracer
October 11, 2011, 07:27 PM
Have both, love both. Either will work fine.

DennisE
October 11, 2011, 07:32 PM
I perfer the 44 special! Dennis

Lawdawg45
October 11, 2011, 08:01 PM
.44 spl hands down.;)

LD

nonseven
October 11, 2011, 08:36 PM
Most people carry a snub nose in a 357. 357 doesn't do so well in a 2" barrel. So it's more like big n slow vs smaller n slow.

My vote is for the 44.

mdauben
October 11, 2011, 08:50 PM
In a full size service pistol I might go with the .357, but in a short barreled CCW gun I'd probably go with the .44

Shienhausser
October 11, 2011, 10:18 PM
Paladin I was VERY inmpressed by Hornady's .357 125gr critical defense. Very low flash and low recoil (to me).

Owen Sparks
October 11, 2011, 10:42 PM
Another concideration is NOISE. A three inch .357 can do perminant damage to your hearing if fired in a confined space. The .44 Special operates at much lower pressure and while still loud, would not be nearly as bad on the ears.

bsms
October 11, 2011, 10:55 PM
If it penetrates 12+ inches (I'd prefer 15+) and you can control it, it will do the job as well as anything else in a handgun. Where penetration is marginal (38+p), I prefer heavier bullets for greater sectional density. Where penetration is excessive (357/44 mag), I prefer lighter bullets for LESS penetration. Expansion is nice if it happens, but not worth a lot of bother.

All of which is just IMHO.

I'm happy with 357 ammo in my 686, but tend to use 38+P with my Model 60. For 44 special, I'd probably use one of the higher power loads available, with around 500 ft lb of energy. In my Ruger Alaskan, that would have mild recoil and plenty of penetration.

Paladin7
October 12, 2011, 09:20 AM
Shienhausser, thanks for the tip, I'll definitely check out the Hornady offering...

azgunner
October 12, 2011, 10:23 AM
I own both calibers. Taurus 431 / Rossi 720c and Ruger Speed Six. All three I rotae as my CCW. I never feel under gunned with what i carry. The 357 is stoked with the Federal 357B in 125grain. And the 44's are stoked with Blazer 200 grainers. I know that if I have to face a threat, and have to use my weapon. The gun/and bullet choice I have chosen will work just fine. I just need to do my job and make bullet placement count.
I like the look and feel of all three weapons. The Rossi is a great carry piece. It is K-Frame on and J-Frame grip. The Taurus is an awesome weapon as well. It is a very intimidating looking weapon. Especially with the GoldDots looking back at you.
The Speed Six is super slick. I would not want to get hit with one of the 125 grainers. All three see carry use. All three are life time keepers.

You would not go wron with a 357 or a 44.:)

brnmuenchow
October 12, 2011, 10:40 AM
That is hard I like both. So, no help here I say either one!

Dave T
October 12, 2011, 03:31 PM
This is nothing more than my personal opinion. It's based on over 40 years of handgunning, a good chunk of which was professional (LEO and Training Business). Any time I can accomplish the same thing at lower operating pressures, with less blast and flash I prefer to go that route so my first response to the OP is, the 44 Special.

That raises the question of carrying compatibility. 44 are best in N-frame revolvers. Many people can't, or at least won't, carry that big and heavy a gun. I'm willing to if necessary, recognizing the necessity of dressing around the gun vs going the other way and down sizing the gun to fit beach wear (LOL).

Another point in my consideration, I don't like anything shorter than a 3" bbl for the Magnum and 3.5" is even better. The introduction of the L-frame gives you a combination of control and concealablity that is an improvement over carrying the larger N-frame. Still, the blast and recoil of the Magnum makes the 44 more to my liking. The 44 just shoots better for me.

YMMV,
Dave

rodinal220
October 12, 2011, 04:56 PM
.357 produces alot of muzzle blast,especially in shorter barrels.It has sharper recoil with stiff loads,slower to shoot multiple shots.I would load .38spl +P rounds in a .357.
44 spl is pretty mild and easy round to shoot.The .44 special is a great old cartridge and is very accurate.Big and slow and gets the job done.I wish their were more .44 special options on the market.

Frank V
October 12, 2011, 07:52 PM
KW
The .357 is a fantastic defense cartridge, it's the one all defense cartridges are judged by. The .44 Special is a great defense cartridge too, especially with Buffalo Bores offerings. They have the load you mentioned & they offer a 200gr lead wadcutter at 900fps that's ok (by their information) for the smaller Charter Arms Bulldog. In fact some of their velocity was taken with a Bulldog.
Both can be had in small easily concealable guns, the .357 probably in just a bit smaller guns. I'd hate to have to pick only one, but it'd probably be the .44 Special. Especially if I could have different guns for different circumstances. A smaller CA Bulldog for summer & a larger N frame for winter.
It's an interesting debate, & either would be a great choice. The .44 Special could be pressed into a wider range of uses than the smaller .357 especially handloading. I'd hate to be limited to one cartridge for all purposes. If I did have to choose either the .357 or the .44 Special, it'd be the .44 Special by a wide margin!
Frank

MachIVshooter
October 12, 2011, 09:57 PM
.44 Spl. Love my Bulldog Pug, and a handloaded 210 gr. SJHP at 980 FPS (yes, from the 2.5" barrel) should definitely do the trick.

Nothing against the .357, and I still have 3 of them. I just like the disproportionately large holes glaring from the front of the Pug.

Stainz
October 13, 2011, 06:42 AM
I've carried my AirLite Ti 296 loaded with 200gr Gold Dots from GA Arms in my Mika pocket holster off and on for years.

http://s171.photobucket.com/albums/u307/Stainz_2007/IMG_3867-1.jpg

Over the last few years, however, the majority of the time I have carried a 642 loaded with +P 158 gr LHPSWCs (Remington R38S12), simply because it is a bit smaller & lighter than it's big brother, the 296. While I have some .357M revolvers, they either plink with my mild reloads or are loaded for HD with those same Remington +P's, as I have never bought or loaded 'real' .357 Magnum loads. I suppose that makes my answer to the OP's question simple - the .44 S&W Special would be my choice.

Stainz

harmon rabb
October 13, 2011, 01:14 PM
a 5 shot 357 is smaller than a 5 shot 44spl, and can be loaded to superior ballistics. 44spl is a good round and all, but, uh, when has the "stopping power" of 357 ever been an issue? it's about as good as you can get from a pistol cartridge without the thing being a pain to shoot.

MCgunner
October 13, 2011, 09:39 PM
I'll pick the .357 in a K frame sized gun over a slow, weak big bullet every time. I hunt deer and hogs with .357, wouldn't do that with a standard .44, though some of Elmer Keith's concoctions leading up to the .44 mag were pretty stout. I've seen the damage from the .357 and I don't care about the recoil/blast. That will be background noise in a gunfight with the adrenalin pumping. However, I admit to loading .38 special for home defense. :D Let's face it, .38 special is a good defense round, so .44 special is, too. Just in a one up comparison, I'll take my .357s. They will fire .38, too, though I do have 3 revolvers chambered in .38 special. I have plenty of respect and confidence in the .38, myself, let alone .44 special or .357 magnum, at least for self defense.

Super Sneaky Steve
October 13, 2011, 09:50 PM
I prefer the .357 but I think we can all agree that gun makers need to produce more .44 special revolvers. It's nice to have an option. Maybe the new Taurus will catch on.

MCgunner
October 13, 2011, 10:05 PM
I'm kinda wanting the new .40S&W snub, M405, myself. Hard to find, though. Close to .357 in horsepower from a snub barrel and less flash/bang. I like the moon clips, too. :D

mdauben
October 13, 2011, 10:38 PM
I think we can all agree that gun makers need to produce more .44 special revolvers.
Of course you can fire .44 spl in any .44 mag revolver but they tend to all be on the large size.

I'd love it if S&W would come out with something comparable to the CA Bulldog. Say a K frame 5-shot(?) .44 spl. with a 2 or 2.5 inch bbl and alloy frame. I think that would make a great carry gun that I would actually trust. ;)

MachIVshooter
October 14, 2011, 10:09 AM
without the thing being a pain to shoot.

I personally find airweight .357's unpleasant.

Most .357 loads also suffer horribly in snubs, barely making more energy than .38 +P. It's a great round, but like other magnums, needs some barrel length to realize it's potential. Of the heavy loads that do exceed 500 ft/lbs in a 2.5" tube, I'd love to hear how those feel out of a 640 (or 340).

I'm going to stick with the .44. Loads (published and safe) that make 450 ft/lbs from the 2.5" Bulldog with a 210 gr. bullet are still controllable, are not painful and have very little flash.

DM~
October 14, 2011, 10:58 AM
I have guns chambered in both of these cartridges, and the problem is, i wouldn't use the 357 load you have chosen. I also prefer a 4" bbl in both...

IF i can choose the load that goes in my 357, it would be my first choise!

DM

ultramag44
October 14, 2011, 11:49 AM
Try a S&W model 22. It's an N frame, fix sight 4-inch barrel gun. The front sight is a snag proof 1/2 Nickel style. Easy to control, uber-accurate.

CraigC
October 14, 2011, 01:22 PM
.44Spl any day of the week and twice on Sunday.

NMGonzo
October 14, 2011, 01:56 PM
Ruger has not returned my email asking about a 5 shot .44 special on a sp101 frame.

CraigC
October 14, 2011, 03:19 PM
SP is not large enough.

RX-178
October 15, 2011, 03:13 AM
For a snubby intended for CCW, I'm going to also recommend the .44spl.

I wouldn't particularly say you're GAINING any effective power, but you're LOSING significantly less power than a .357mag does out of a short barrel. Either one is going to do the job perfectly fine, but the .44spl is going to do it with a lot less blast and less recoil.

And as you (the OP) said, if it comes down to making a big hole in something, the .44spl does it better than the .357.

Stainz
October 15, 2011, 07:09 AM
ultramag44,

Perhaps you meant S&W model 21, like the '04 introduced 'Thunder Ranch' model in .44 S&W Special. Actually, that would be the 21-4. The 22-4 was introduced the next year as a similar TR special - in .45 ACP. The 21 was somewhat difficult to match ammo/distance with the original height half moon front sight for any accuracy making the 'uber accurate' label difficult to visualize. Being a steel 4" N-frame makes it a bit difficult to envision as a CCW. Great idea, however, for an open carry sidearm - that includes the TR 22.

Stainz

Frank V
October 15, 2011, 02:46 PM
Some have said that the .357 is loaded to higher levels than the .44 Special. Ten years ago that was quite true, today I know of at least two manufacturers who load the .44 Special to where it should have been. One is Buffalo Bore, The other is Double Tap. Just Thurs. I saw a couple of boxes of Double tap .44 Specials on a dealers shelves that listed the 250gr Keith style bullet at over 900fps. That's an effective load. Not taking anything away from the .357, but it now has a very effective competator. Now if we are talking handloads & say an "N" frame, the .44 Special is clearly ahead. I've experienced both in the game field & I'll take the .44 any day.
Frank

MCgunner
October 15, 2011, 04:09 PM
Well, out of a 2.3" SP101, I've clocked a 180 JHP XTP at 1302 FPS/662 ft lbs. Is there a .44 Special that can reach 662 ft lbs out of a 2.3" barrel? My 140 grain Speer shoots 550 ft lbs from the same gun. Not ALL .357 loads don't perform from short barrels, mostly just the 125 grain and lighter stuff.

kwhi43@kc.rr.com
October 15, 2011, 04:53 PM
Yes, mine can. If you want to talk energy figures which I don't buy.
My little 44 spl shows 750.

MCgunner
October 15, 2011, 04:58 PM
Yes, mine can. If you want to talk energy figures which I don't buy.
My little 44 spl shows 750.

So you're a facklerite. I'm not.

From what gun are you getting that number? Not sure I'd wanna push a .44 slug (or .43 slug as it were) from a Charter Bulldog at those energies, or anything short of a .44 magnum handgun, actually.

kwhi43@kc.rr.com
October 15, 2011, 05:22 PM
Lets just say I've been at this for a very long time and I know exactly
what I am doing and talking about. I'm not just another armchair expert.

MCgunner
October 15, 2011, 05:31 PM
Okay, well, this guy ain't, either. http://www.btgresearch.org/

But, to get those numbers, you'd have to use an N frame like old Elmer. Not exactly a pocket revolver. Neither is the SP101, actually, but a lot more svelte than an N frame. I'm not really into those 12 ounce .357s, that's why I carry a .38. Just sayiin'..

Frank V
October 15, 2011, 05:45 PM
Isn't it interesting how some discussions can get heated? Heck fella's it was just a question. Not many are going to be swayed from their beliefs either way. It's just a discussion, let's not get snippy, it'll become something ugly.
Frank

MCgunner
October 15, 2011, 07:49 PM
Who's heated? I still want a Taurus 405 in .40 S&W eventually. Ain't got the money at the moment, but in a year, perhaps. I like the idea of the .40 because it has good energy, near .357 magnum snubby energy in some loads (500+ ft lbs), is an efficient cartridge so shoots fast powders which don't have the flash/bang of the magnum powders, and yes, TAAAADAAAAAH, has a bigger bullet to boot. :D Of course, the moon clips are cool. I used to have a 1917 Smith in .45 which I stupidly sold or I might wanna make a carry project out of that. It was old and kiinda ragged out, though.

Okay, damn, I probably turned this thread into a Taurus bash. You think caliber wars are bad? :D

Drail
October 15, 2011, 11:06 PM
.44 Special. It's been doing the job since 1907 and it's still here. If we could only get Ruger to make a proper Bulldog Pug. Here's some irony, the guy that designed the Charter Bulldog used to work for Ruger and left to make his own designs. (and yes, the SP platform is too small) But a GP snubbie would be very easy to shoot. And then get the ammo companies to make realistic loads for it. 240-250 at 850-900 fps is a very good CCW caliber.

MachIVshooter
October 16, 2011, 04:14 PM
Neither is the SP101, actually, but a lot more svelte diminutive than an N frame.

There.

Sorry, I just can't stomach anyone calling a Ruger product "svelte", especially compared to a S&W. Rugers are sturdy and functional, but relatively unattractive and unrefined.

And quiet frankly, I'd have to see with my own eyes a .357 loads that exceeds 1,300 FPS with a 180 from a snub before I buy it. I've played with the round quite a lot, and in my experience, that kind of performance can only come with loads (significantly) in excess of max.

Frank V
October 16, 2011, 04:18 PM
I kind of like the Ruger products too. Some of them aren't what you'd call real pretty. The 50th anniversary SAs are beautiful, but I don't think there's a tougher gun out there. About the only thing stronger is an anvil!:D:D:D
Frank

MCgunner
October 16, 2011, 04:24 PM
Sorry, I just can't stomach anyone calling a Ruger product "svelte", especially compared to a S&W. Rugers are sturdy and functional, but relatively unattractive and unrefined.

In your opinion. I'm particularly fond of my Rugers and this one pees on .44 mags, let alone specials.

http://i50.tinypic.com/2j4sqxx.jpg

And quiet frankly, I'd have to see with my own eyes a .357 loads that exceeds 1,300 FPS with a 180 from a snub before I buy it. I've played with the round quite a lot, and in my experience, that kind of performance can only come with loads (significantly) in excess of max.

Always nice to be called a liar. :rolleyes: My chronograph is my proof, but hey, buffalo bore seems to have achieved a similar result. My load is 13.8 grains AA#9 and a 180 XTP if you are interested. It's full power/pressure. I developed it for hunting in my 6.5" .357 Blackhawk. It clocks just over 1400 fps/785 ft lbs in that gun. I just decided to quit listening to the armchair experts one day when I got the little SP101 and went and chronographed a bunch of loads in a bunch of barrel lengths.

I must say, BB got way more out of the 125 grain load in the snubby than i did. I have a feeling that I could get more with a faster powder. My load is 18 grains 2400 with a 125 Sierra JHP. It was somewhere in the mid 1100 fps range IIRC, rather unimpressive since my +P 9 from a 3" barrel slightly betters it with much less flash/bang. Not sure how BB got a 125 grain load to perform in all barrel lengths as they did. But, hey, they have the resources and the desire. I got 550 ft lbs, 1330 or something out of a 140 Speer JHP so that's what I carry. Heavier the bullet, the slower it accelerates down the bore and the more of the pressure peak it catches. That's my theory, anyway.

http://www.buffalobore.com/index.php?l=product_detail&p=100

1. 3 inch S&W J frame

a. Item 19A/20-180gr. Hard cast LFN = 1302 fps
b. Item 19B/20-170gr. JHC (jacketed hollow cavity) = 1299 fps
c. Item 19C/20-158gr. Jacketed Hollow Point = 1398 fps
d. Item 19D/20-125gr. Jacketed Hollow Point = 1476 fps

2. 4 inch S&W L frame Mt. Gun

a. Item 19A/20-180gr. Hard cast LFN = 1375 fps
b. Item 19B/20-170gr JHC = 1411 fps
c. Item 19C/20-158gr. Jacketed Hollow Point = 1485 fps
d. Item 19D/20-125gr. Jacketed Hollow Point = 1603 fps

3. 5 inch S&W model 27

a. Item 19A/20-180gr. Hard Cast =1398 fps
b. Item 19B/20-170gr. JHC = 1380 fps
c. Item 19C/20-158gr. Jacketed Hollow Point = 1457 fps
d. Item 19D/20-125gr. Jacketed Hollow Point = 1543 fps

4. 6 inch Ruger GP 100

a. Item 19D/20-125gr. Jacketed Hollow Point = 1707 fps

5. 18.5 inch Marlin 1894

a. Item 19A/20-180gr. Hard Cast = 1851 fps
b. Item 19B/20-170gr. JHC = 1860 fps
c. Item 19C/20-158gr. Jacketed Hollow Point = 2153 fps---- Can you believe this?!!!
d. Item 19D/20-125gr. Jacketed Hollow Point = 2298 fps---- Or this?!!!

CraigC
October 16, 2011, 04:47 PM
Nearly the definition of "svelte" and "elegant". ;)

http://photos.imageevent.com/newfrontier45/sixgunsiii/large/IMG_7120e.jpg

Though on the DA side, I would have to agree.

MCgunner
October 16, 2011, 04:48 PM
And, yes, I'd call it "svelte" compared to an N frame. WAY stronger than a K frame, too. It's a little heavy for its size, but that and the grip I put on it tame the hot loads down quite well.

http://i48.tinypic.com/2rhbszo.jpg

That's a pretty gun there, Craig. :D

SharpsDressedMan
October 16, 2011, 05:06 PM
On this one, I have made my decision. I have a nice Ruger "Sheriff's" model .44 Special, 3 3/4" barrel, and am waiting on a Sparks HSR holster for CCW. I favor the tradition single action grip of this model over the birdshead style of the earlier .45 Ruger, and the shorter barrel makes it a nice compact and well balanced package. Loaded with a 250gr SWC @900fps, it will have all the smack it needs, and far less "blast" than a full power .357.

Stainz
October 16, 2011, 05:08 PM
A .44 S&W Special 240gr bullet at 950 fps, pretty much well in the 'Keith zone', energy wise, only produces 480 ft-lb of K-E - and getting that out of a 3" barrel will require some fast powder and near .44 Magnum pressures. I'll bet quite a few commercial 158gr JHP/SP loads in .357 Magnum - from a 3" barrel - will top that energy (It would take 1,170 fps!). My 696, bought new nearly nine years ago, will never see such energy levels while I own it - that dimunitive forcing cone doesn't inspire one of the revolvers longevity under such use. My 4" 629 will - but it's a .44 Magnum. Actually, I find the 240gr LSWC over 3.5gr Titegroup in .44 Russian cases, which boogies on down the range 692 fps, to be more my speed - big and slow. Cute cartridge, too. Oddly, while an all day popper, oft compared with ferret flatulance, it does make 'major' power factor, ie, >165.

As the years have marched by, I found myself buying more .357 Magnum revolvers. But - that was because of availability. For example, I don't know of any 8-shot .38's... but I have several 627's. Face it - plinking doesn't require a lot of KE. And... 125gr .38 lead cost less and takes less powder than 200/240gr .44 lead. Economic considerations are more important nowadays. Years of .454 Casull, .44 Magnum, etc, have taken their toll on my hands and wrists - and for personal protection, I need nothing more powerful than .38 +P. In the OP's choice - I'd still take .44 Special.

Stainz

MCgunner
October 16, 2011, 05:15 PM
oft compared with ferret flatulance

:D Like that one. :D

My most fired round is 2.7 grains of B'eye under a 148 Lee cast WC from .38 brass. Ain't my carry load, but it's accurate and fun.

Walkalong
October 16, 2011, 05:45 PM
I think my Redhawks (http://www.thehighroad.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=150985&stc=1&d=1318801201) are svelte, sturdy, but svelte. :)

I like the both the .357 and the .44 Spl. (http://www.thehighroad.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=78882&d=1211730972) I am not going to carry anything trucking out at 1300+ FPS from a snub anyway, so for me, either will do.

I shoot my 696 DA a little better than I do my 686, and I like large diameter heavier bullets, so I lean towards the 696. I carried a CA Bulldog a lot back in the day. Small, light, accurate, and I had some stout loads for it. :)

MachIVshooter
October 16, 2011, 05:58 PM
Though on the DA side, I would have to agree.

That is what was meant, since S&W hasn't offered a single action cowboy style gun like a Vaq/BH ummmm........ever.

That said, I find the Uberti and new Pietta guns to have much nicer actions than a Ruger as well. Colt or USFA? No comparison.

I have many Rugers, 3 revoolvers right now (Single-Six .32 H&R, .32 H&R SP-101, SRH .454), and have owned many others, both SA and DA. Good guns, but they just don't compare with a S&W or Colt for overall quality. The SP-101 is quite similar to my Charter Bulldog in terms of fit and finish (though the bulldog has a smoother action).

Super Sneaky Steve
October 16, 2011, 06:44 PM
On this one, I have made my decision. I have a nice Ruger "Sheriff's" model .44 Special, 3 3/4" barrel, and am waiting on a Sparks HSR holster for CCW.
I'd really like to see your CC rig for this one.

MCgunner
October 16, 2011, 07:26 PM
That said, I find the Uberti and new Pietta guns to have much nicer actions than a Ruger as well. Colt or USFA? No comparison.


An opinion I cannot fathom. :rolleyes: I do like my new Pietta '58 Remmy, but it's got a lot of trigger creep the Rugers don't have. Not so bad on my .51 Navy, but still, no Ruger.

I love the looks of that '58 Remmy, though, 5.5" barrel. It has cured my desire for a '73 colt, I find it more appealing. YMMV. It's tight, flawless action, just a lot of trigger creep. However, if it shoots well (not even shot it, yet, just got it), I'm going to, at the very least, get a couple of spare cylinders for it and would like a .45ACP cylinder for it, perhaps, though that costs as much as the gun did. Would be kinda cool to have a Remmy that shoots .45ACP, though, and the really cool thing is you can order these and the cylinder and big brother has no clue. Any time I can get a gun without paperwork, it's a good thing.

I don't really have the desire anymore for a '73 colt clone. Only reason I ever did was that I like the looks, but the Rugers are better, much better built revolvers. The Colt or its clones are rather fragile by comparison. My Rugers are outdoor working guns.

sidheshooter
October 16, 2011, 08:01 PM
On this one, I have made my decision. I have a nice Ruger "Sheriff's" model .44 Special, 3 3/4" barrel, and am waiting on a Sparks HSR holster for CCW. I favor the tradition single action grip of this model over the birdshead style of the earlier .45 Ruger, and the shorter barrel makes it a nice compact and well balanced package. Loaded with a 250gr SWC @900fps, it will have all the smack it needs, and far less "blast" than a full power .357.

I'd be curious to see how your sparks rig treats you as well, since I have the exact same gun (and similar loads).

MCgunner
October 16, 2011, 08:06 PM
Dang, guys, well, .357 nor .44 Special is as effective as we all thought. Apparently, it will NOT kill zombies.

http://www.hornady.com/ammunition/zombiemax

sidheshooter
October 16, 2011, 08:07 PM
Somewhat OT, but we need to start fining Craig every time he posts that Ruger pic of his... the drool is taking its toll on my keyboard.

CraigC
October 16, 2011, 10:01 PM
I have to do action jobs on all my single actions, be it Rugers, Colts or Uberti and Pietta replicas. Except USFA's, which only need new springs. Although the new flat-tops and New Vaqueros are quite smooth out of the box.


Somewhat OT, but we need to start fining Craig every time he posts that Ruger pic of his... the drool is taking its toll on my keyboard.
:D

gofastman
October 16, 2011, 10:11 PM
Of the choices presented, .44spl for sure! stoked with DPX ammo.

I think I would rather have a LCR in .38+P
I'm a fan of the light, small guns you can have on you all the time.

Not to say a Charter Arms Bulldog is big, but the smaller the better, IMO.

mavracer
October 17, 2011, 07:38 AM
I think I would rather have a LCR in .38+P
you know in that 2nd ammendment thing arms is plural. just sayin'

gofastman
October 17, 2011, 12:01 PM
you know in that 2nd ammendment thing arms is plural. just sayin'

Touche, however sometimes the disposable dollar signs in my bank account aren't. :p

Frank V
October 17, 2011, 01:34 PM
Lots of ways of measuring terminal ballistics have been discussed. One is glaringly missing. I think it's actually as important, if not more important & useful than the rest, it's momentum. The momentum from even a moderately fast, big heavy bullet has to be seen to be believed. It's one reason the .45 Colt at original BP velocities of 900 - 1000fps was so effective in it's day. They will also penetrate an almost unbelievable distance if most any substance.
It's unlikely we are going to change anyone's mind in this discussion, but momentum should be considered.
Frank

corpsmanup!
October 18, 2011, 09:27 AM
I kind of like the Ruger products too. Some of them aren't what you'd call real pretty. The 50th anniversary SAs are beautiful, but I don't think there's a tougher gun out there. About the only thing stronger is an anvil!:D:D:D
Frank
I'd have to agree. My 50th anniversary .44 is buttery smooth and just pretty as far as six-guns go. If anyone would care to hear what the god-father of modern sixgun loads would say- Mr. Keith said go with the .44 not the .357.

MCgunner
October 18, 2011, 08:10 PM
A lot more .357s have ridden in the holsters of law enforcement. The .357s rep is such that Sig Sauer named an auto pistol cartridge after it hoping for sales from law enforcement transitioning to autos from their .357s to rub off. :D

Frank V
October 18, 2011, 11:05 PM
Corpsmanup
I agree, those are beautiful six-guns. Well balanced, & accurate. I think you have a nice gun.
Frank

CraigC
October 19, 2011, 08:20 AM
Yep, the 50th .44 Blackhawks are good sixguns!

http://photos.imageevent.com/newfrontier45/sixgunsii/large/50th%20.44%20-%20002.JPG

Drail
October 19, 2011, 08:43 AM
There is a lot to be said for momentum. Consider a VW driven into a concrete wall at 25 MPH. Now consider a Kenworth driven into the same concrete wall at 25 MPH. Which to you suppose will do more damage to the wall? In a handgun (which is a pretty weak firearm) I have always preferred large dia. heavyweight bullets at whatever speed they're going.:rolleyes:

lloveless
October 19, 2011, 10:19 AM
I just sold my Charter 2000 in 44 spcl. I am now carrying my 3 inch sp101. The .44 was wider through the cylinder(that makes a difference with IWB carry!) As for blast and kick, I find them to be equal. I carried 165 gr corbons in the .44 spcl and 125gr jsp in the .357. My general outdoors load for the .357 is 13.5 grs of 2400 topped with 158 gr lswc. I don't feel undergunned with either, but the .44 seems to give me more confidence. Why oh why don't the gun compamies give us more DA guns in 44 spcl? Taurus makes a light snub .44 mag.(I can't stand the porting) Why doesn't Charter give us a light .44 mag also(then we could use hot .44 spcl or .44 mags)?
ll

Frank V
October 19, 2011, 11:47 AM
llovesess
I know it's an "N" frame & maybe just a little big for IWB carry, :) but check out the S&W 329PD, it's light & handy. It'd be nice with .44 Specials & probably not so nice with .44 Mags. Small they are not.
Frank

MCgunner
October 19, 2011, 12:55 PM
There is a lot to be said for momentum. Consider a VW driven into a concrete wall at 25 MPH. Now consider a Kenworth driven into the same concrete wall at 25 MPH. Which to you suppose will do more damage to the wall? In a handgun (which is a pretty weak firearm) I have always preferred large dia. heavyweight bullets at whatever speed they're going

Consider the house sized asteroid smashing the Arizona desert at 5 miles per second. Do you think it was momentum that cause solid iron to vaporize and blow a 1 mile wide hole in the ground? I mean, if you're going to get crazy with analogies and all....

A .44 is no Kenworth and a .357 is no asteroid and the human body is no brick wall nor is it solid earth. Also, that kenworth is packin' a lot mroe energy than a VW because its mass is a lot higher and it's velocity is the same.

If you enjoyed reading about "357 vs. 44 Spl. For CCW" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!