Just as i mentioned. Just because others are versatile as well doesnt make the old 357 mag a one trick pony. Dont get me wrong, there are many calibers i prefer but the 357 is a known effective killer of men and men sized critters. Not my observation, but a fact going back over 70 years. Thats not hearsay. 357 is flatter shooting than a vast majority of other handgun calibers, since shot placement is most important i would consider a flatter trajectory more desireable than a large diameter with a steep trajectory. There is no north american game that hasnt been taken with the 357 either, cant say the same for most other handgun calibers. You can consider the blasr and recoil excessive for mininal returns, i say youre shooting the wrong gun. Scale down any platform to meet size goals and they become unpleasant, if you consider the recoil of a full house 357 round from a 6" gun unpleasant then you need some perspective. Like i said, not my all time favorite but no slouch by any stretch of the imagination.So what’s versatile about it?
Mcb,
You could always ream that 610 for 10mm magnum
No matter what you think about .357 Magnum as a caliber, there are way too many cool .357 Mag revolvers out there not to own one or two.
There is no north american game that hasnt been taken with the 357
Coonan even makes a respectable 1191 in .357 Mag. But a 10MM has slightly better ballistics, and similar bullet sizes.
I find the fact the .357 fires .38 Special attractive, and while I sometimes shoot 38Spl, I don't have a
separate pistol in that caliber. But my 357 snubbie is extremely handy, and gets the ride-along more often than not. I guess different strokes for different folks.
Thats ok, i dont think natives shooting polar bears with their do all rifle makes the practice popular- its just what they had for crestures of all sizes . would you lump all cartridges with similar energy to the 357 mag together as not formidable? We arent talking about the new whiz bang caliber here, were talking on a cartridge from the 1930s, even after all this time we havent seen very many mainstream production cartridges best it- maybe 10 if not less. Seems relevent to me.22 Hornet used to be popular for polar bear hunting. I lump your assertions about practical versatility in with those hyped up legends.
The 357 certainly has some practical uses, but we really just need to keep in mind what they are. Deer or man sized targets can certainly be put down with it at reasonable distances with a reasonably heavy bullet.
But there are bigger hammers out there that will do the job on bigger animals, and do it better. Those bigger cartridges don't rely as heavily on velocity to thump hard at distance.
I find it a fun round but I don't expect it to be more than what it is.
PS. Energy doesn't actually mean anything. Mass, bullet construction, and application do.
22 Hornet used to be popular for polar bear hunting. I lump your assertions about practical versatility in never mind
Granted and I understand your point. However every projectile has kinetic energy. I just don't put much stock in energy numbers with handguns because they just aren't fast enough to cause hydrostatic shock or real cavitation damage. Maybe a few of the ultra fast ones can but not most common cartridges.Kinetic energy is another potential rabbit hole we can fall into but its a pet peeve I cannot let go. An excerpt from a post I made on this subject in another thread we had a few months ago. Kinetic energy is the only energy source the bullet has to do work when it reach the target (assuming your not lobbing HE rounds or other projectiles with their own energetics on board) The ability to perforate tissue is a result of exchanging kinetic energy for tissue damage. The ability to cause the bullet to expand or fragment is the result of exchanging kinetic energy for deformation to the bullet. Whatever the bullet does at the target is powered by the only energy source the bullet has and that is kinetic energy.
The ability to perforate tissue is a result of exchanging kinetic energy for tissue damage.
- 357 Magnum is my worst revolver cartridge and has become rather pointless for me.
- It is certainly NOT obsolete or ineffective it is still very much a jack-of-all-trades (master-of-none IMHO) cartridge.
- It has become pointless in my revolver collection.
Am I the only one that has no love for 357 Magnum?
- When I reach into the gun cabinet for a revolver, a tool to do a job, any job I might employ a revolver for, I never grab a 357 Magnum.
- I always have a revolver/cartridge that will do any particular job as well or better than 357 Magnum.
- If I were to buy a new revolver right now I would buy a revolver in just about any other cartridge possible before I buy another 357 Magnum.
Penetration is about momentum
There is no north american game that hasnt been taken with the 357 either, cant say the same for most other handgun calibers.
Kinetic Energy is only conserved in elastic collisions. Bullets impacting tissue are NOT elastic collisions. Momentum remains to be conserved in inelastic collisions.
In the class of revolver cartridges, the 357mag is incredibly lack-luster. If versatility is a measurement of range of capabilities, out of all common revolver cartridges, the 357mag is a gangly kicker on a pro-football team.
In fact, I don't think there's another handgun round out that beats it. For a backup hunting round, it also is hard to beat. With 158-grain JHPs and heavier, the bullet drills through tough muscle and bone and can be a good defense against bear, cougars and others for hunting or camping. For recreation the .38 Special is fun to shoot and it's a great gun to use for home defense. I can't think of a single use that the the .357 doesn't do well. Not just okay, but superb!]
Inelastic collisions do no exist in the real world