357 vs. 44 Spl. For CCW

[Super Sneaky Steve]

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]

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.

 

[mdauben]

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]

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~]

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]

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]

.44Spl any day of the week and twice on Sunday.

 

[NMGonzo]

Ruger has not returned my email asking about a 5 shot .44 special on a sp101 frame.

 

[CraigC]

SP is not large enough.

 

[RX-178]

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[[email protected]]

Yes, mine can. If you want to talk energy figures which I don't buy.
My little 44 spl shows 750.

 

[MCgunner]

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.

 

[[email protected]]

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]

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]

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]

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. 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?

 

[Drail]

.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]

Neither is the SP101, actually, but a lot more [strike]svelte[/strike] 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]

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!
Frank

 

[MCgunner]

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.

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. 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]

Nearly the definition of "svelte" and "elegant".



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

 

[MCgunner]

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.



That's a pretty gun there, Craig.