.44 magnum handgun vs .357 carbine

Depends a lot on bullet weight and the 44 barrel length. Shooting a handloaded 200 grain 357 against a 200 grain 44 in a 4" barrel handgun and the 357 is gonna win. But a 158 in the carbine and a 300 gr buffalo bore in a 10" 44 mag, well, no contest 44 all the way. 357 and 44 are both amazingly versatile cartridges, so pick what you want to shoot and shoot it.

Power is a subjective term and if the measuring stick is kinetic energy, you're already barking up the wrong tree. There's no replacement for displacement. The .44 has more mass and greater diameter and you can't push a .357 fast enough to make up for that.

I can scarcely think of any reason that i would rather have a .44 handgun over a .357 carbine. Ease of carry maybe.

Armored farmer said:

I can scarcely think of any reason that i would rather have a .44 handgun over a .357 carbine. Ease of carry maybe.

Click to expand...

Bigger holes...

id still have the 44

Assuming both are firing hardcast bullets, i would think the .357 would penetrate more. Just speculation. In my rossi 92 carbine i get a little more than 300 more fps with the 16” barrel vs. the 5” barreled ruger. Thats in a .454 not .357 though.

Shot placement and penetration are much more important than bullet diameter. .357 bullets on the heavier end of the spectrum (180-200 gr) will give better penetration than mid range 44 bullets (200-240 gr) and most shooters will be more accurate with a rifle.

Barrel length on any magnum revolver is also important. If you're talking about a 4" barreled 44 handgun vs a 16" barreled 357 rifle then the edge easily goes to 357. If the 44 has an 8" or longer barrel then it is a close call.

What you're shooting matters too. Either will easily take a deer, nether will kill it any deader than the other. But as you move up in the size of the animal you're hunting then things start to matter.

For hunting purposes the carbine is limited in range by the effective range of the cartridge.

It's easier to aim, and therefore connect on a target.

The 44 will still be enough cartridge out past that which I'd safely say most of us are capable of hitting anything at.

The 357 needs high velocity to work, the 44 practically just needs to get there eventually with a good hardcast bullet comparatively. It'll still punch a hole just as big as the 357 JHP that smacked into it at 1500fps and do a better job if bone is encountered.

thamilton said:

I'm just curious what would have more power at closer ranges with typical factory loads. A .44 magnum round out of a handgun or the obviously weaker .357 round but out of a rifle or carbine barrel.Might be a dumb question, just curious though.

Click to expand...

An interesting question, and a good first post.
Welcome to THR.

Close range. Are we talking 20 feet or less? A 44 magnum revolver and 357 carbine are probably going to get rounds off at about the same rate. The 44 with full power loads has pretty stiff recoil. But only needs a pull of the trigger to fire again. I am assuming a Smith 29. Not a single action like the Blackhawk, that is much slower.
The carbine is probably a lever like the Rossi 92 or Winchester 73. You can run them fast but they do require two separate motions.
I personally would go with the 357 as others have said. Penetration is the most important. A hard cast bullet will get in far enough to hit vitals with either and the carbine holds more ammo

http://www.ballisticsbytheinch.com/

Here ya go- enjoy! WARNING! Be prepared to spend several hours entranced by their awesome data!

Interesting question. I would choose the 357 solely on the basis I prefer the use of a rifle to a handgun simply because I operate a rifle more effectively. Not to mention I do not like 44 Mag handguns because of recoil issues. Bottom line... if they both do the job you want them to do... What difference does it make?

Here's another good link. I posted it a few times now. I can't help it,good read and can learn alot from it. Key take away, fat and flat at a moderate speed do a damn good job.

http://www.beartoothbullets.com/tech_notes/archive_tech_notes.htm/61

Edit to add: didn't answer your question I suppose.

Its a tough call since you didn't give much back ground. we talking hunting under 50 yards? General purpose woods bumming? Hubting up to 100 yards? At close range (35 yards or less)with factory ammo I'd take a 44 mag because that would be my skill limitation with open sights on a handgun to humanly take game , anything further than that I would want a .357 carbine for ease of shot placement BUT with proper ammo. It depends on what factory loads you're talking about. Stuff from buffalo bore and Underwood that are flat nose non expanding change things. I wouldn't even try a hallow point out of a carbine on meduim game because those bullets are not designed to go that fast,they may come apart too soon and not penetrate adequately. At least with a hallow point or jsp from a 44 mag handgun, you are using the bullet as it manufactuer intended, not 300fps+ faster than typical handgun velocity which is what you may get out of a .357 carbine.

I would personally opt for the .44 Mag. You can load the .44 Mag with heavy bullets like the Punch or monometal solid bullets and take elephant if you are so inclined, not something I would do with the miniscule .357 no matter what the platform is. There is great flexibility in the .44 for hunting varmints on up. Not taking anything away from the .357.

Alaskan Ironworker said:

Assuming both are firing hardcast bullets, i would think the .357 would penetrate more. Just speculation. In my rossi 92 carbine i get a little more than 300 more fps with the 16” barrel vs. the 5” barreled ruger. Thats in a .454 not .357 though.

Click to expand...

Bullets of comparable construction, shape and sectional density will have comparable penetration. The .357 poops out with a 200gr at 1200fps. A 300gr .44 beats that with greater velocity. What the .357 does with a 200gr, the .44 does with a 355gr and gains penetration all along the way. The .357 and .41 suffer from the same malady. They simply don't have the real estate to utilize very heavy bullets. An advantage that everything from .44Mag on up has over them. The .44 is a bigger hammer, no doubt about it.

If I spent all day in the woods and wanted one gun to cover small and large game and various targets of opportunity I'd take the 357 carbine without hesitation. That's right up its alley.

If we're talking which one can take the biggest game? The 44 wins.

If we're talking which has a longer useful range the question becomes "how good of a pistelero are you from field positions?" Elmer Keith showed very famously the range and killing power of the 44 from a pistol properly loaded and in the right hands.

Edited to add: They're both fantastic firearms with respect to their own limitations. They'd make a great Primary/ Sidearm combination.

CraigC said:

The .357 poops out with a 200gr at 1200fps

Click to expand...

.....from a carbine?

CraigC said:

The .357 poops out with a 200gr at 1200fps.

Click to expand...

I don't see that Buffalo Bore loads a 200g .357, but their charts show their 180g hard cast moving out of an 18.5" carbine at 1850fps. I can't imagine if they loaded a 200g it would be much less, certainly not 650fps less.

thamilton said:

Looks like the .357 out of a carbine has a slight edge.

Click to expand...

Only if you're looking at energy, which is kind of meaningless without considering bullet construction, penetration potential of that bullet, permanent wound channel diameter, etc. Energy can fool ya.

Some pistol bullets that hold up fine out of a handgun start to come apart at carbine velocities. So choose your bullet wisely.

The Carbine will likely be easier to aim at distance and if shooting 357 you obviously extend your effective range. But a 44 magnum is still going to punch a bigger hole and may penetrate deeper than a 357 even if the 357 is fired from a carbine.

It's just a matter of what you're trying to accomplish.

I love my Henry 357 lever gun but I wouldn't use it on anything bigger than a white tail or mule deer personally. The 357 only has so much wounding potential.

thamilton said:

I guess I’m just trying to figure out which would be more effective for larger game up to black bear size. I know the .44 in a carbine would be for sure, just wasn’t sure if the same would be so with the shorter barrel. I ordered an 8 inch shotgun adapter in .44 mag for my 12 gauge single shot because i hear shooting slugs through a fixed full choke is hard on the gun, and being a cheaper shotgun (a khan arms k-100) I don’t want to push its limits too hard so I figured a .44 mag adapter would be a decent compromise.

Click to expand...

I concentrate on not being anywhere near black bear, but if that were to change I would not want a shotgun with an adapter in it as my primary means of offense, much less defense. Maybe you have a red dot on it, but I'd still wonder about the practical accuracy. How long for a follow-up shot or two? I would think the sights, capacity and rate of fire of a .357 levergun would seriously increase the chance of a killing hit occurring, but maybe you're a lot better with a shotgun than I.