357 Magnum has become pointless... for me.
- Thread starter mcb
- Start date
- Status
Obturation
Member
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.
OP
OP
mcb
Member
Mcb,
You could always ream that 610 for 10mm magnum
Seriously considered it and probably would have had I not got the deal on the 44 Mag.
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.
Varminterror
Member
- Joined
- Jul 17, 2016
- Messages
- 14,888
22 Hornet used to be popular for polar bear hunting. I lump your assertions about practical versatility in with those hyped up legends.
OP
OP
mcb
Member
In a 10mm Revolver you can use 40S&W just like shooting 38 special in a 357 Mag. I bought my 610 initially as a revolver for USPSA. That old revolver probably has close to 20,000 rds of 40S&W through it over the 5 or so years I competed with it. It has only had a bit over 300rds of 10mm through it working up 10mm loads, practice and hunting.
Obturation
Member
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.
Zaydok Allen
Member
- Joined
- Feb 12, 2011
- Messages
- 13,274
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.
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.
I reached the same conclusion after buying a Smith 629. Prior to that I'd owned just about every possible 357 revolver type. The N frame 44 mag wasn't any heavier, nor bigger than the GP-100 or Smith 686's I'd owned. In fact I was able to use the same holsters. Unless I shot the hottest 44 loads recoil wasn't any worse. Mid range 44 mag or hot 44 Special loads are quite effective and mild recoiling with moderate muzzle blast compared to higher end 357 loads. And if more power was necessary I have the option to go there. I am able to get 44 factory loads for about 50 cents to $1 more for a box of 50. One or 2 cents more per round just wasn't a big deal for me.
I sold all of my 357's and didn't own one for a long time. Until I ran across a deal too good to pass up on a Smith 28.
I sold all of my 357's and didn't own one for a long time. Until I ran across a deal too good to pass up on a Smith 28.
OP
OP
mcb
Member
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.
Pudge
Member
This is a strange discussion. I enjoy most anything I shoot. Depending on how extensive your collection of revolvers is, you can certainly make the .357 magnum pointless for you. That's why they make vanilla and butter pecan icecream. The .357 magnum is like chocolate, you can find flavors you like better, but chocolate works so well so much of the time.
I shoot a bow with low KE, yet I blow through my deer most every time.
Shoot medium weight arrows w higher FOC.
People shoot way faster (higher KE) and don't blow through.
KE is just a measure of energy. Doesn't tell how that energy is used.
Easy to calculate, great for selling stuff............KE is easiest to understand.
Shoot medium weight arrows w higher FOC.
People shoot way faster (higher KE) and don't blow through.
KE is just a measure of energy. Doesn't tell how that energy is used.
Easy to calculate, great for selling stuff............KE is easiest to understand.
I do think longer (heavier) bullets can range through on intended line better.
There the 180's in a .357 might be pretty good.
Buddies like em.
Shot one deer w lighter bullet (140gr) so can't say from personal experience.
Where I shot my deer a .22 mag would have done same thing LOL
There the 180's in a .357 might be pretty good.
Buddies like em.
Shot one deer w lighter bullet (140gr) so can't say from personal experience.
Where I shot my deer a .22 mag would have done same thing LOL
LUCKYDAWG13
Member
Zaydok Allen
Member
- Joined
- Feb 12, 2011
- Messages
- 13,274
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.
I only view energy as a single number expression of mass and velocity. Without knowing bullet mass and construction info, it's just a number and gives no indication if a projectile is an appropriate choice for a given intent. I favor more specificity in descriptive language.
Like I said though, I understand your point.
CoalTrain49
Member
I have several 357 revolvers. I just load them light for range work, never carry them. If all I could shoot was factory loads I would probably just shoot 38 spl in those.
The truth is the 357 mag is probably the most versatile revolver cartridge ever developed. It works pretty well in lever carbines also.
You just have to be a reloader to take full advantage of it's versatility. It was the first cartridge I loaded around 1972.
The truth is the 357 mag is probably the most versatile revolver cartridge ever developed. It works pretty well in lever carbines also.
You just have to be a reloader to take full advantage of it's versatility. It was the first cartridge I loaded around 1972.
Last edited:
Jim NE
Member
- Joined
- Feb 28, 2011
- Messages
- 1,888
I traded my 586 a few months ago and don't really miss it. I don't feel the need for a .357, but still have a few. I won't ever get rid of the Highway Patrolman my dad gave me, and the Interarms Rossi .357 I have is a nice working gun as is the model 13 I have. The .44 Special and .41 Magnum are a little more intriguing to me now.
Varminterror
Member
- Joined
- Jul 17, 2016
- Messages
- 14,888
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.
Confederate
Member
Wow. That's a fascinating thing to say and one I certainly can't even imagine. It's like saying, "Water is the worst thing you can drink" and that it's become rather "pointless." And when you reach into the refrigerator to grab a beverage, you never grab water!
Now it's a free country (fer now) and you shoot what you want, but I love the .357 Mag. As a defensive round, it excels in the 125-grain JHP. 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!
The Ruger Security-Six .357 was the first gun I ever bought and so I have a soft spot for it. I mean, it's like saying you hate fresh air, and that you don't trust any air that you can't see!
And yet the nose profile of the bullet reigns supreme in determining penetrative ability.
Yeah, but that is misleading. .22LRs have been used successfully on all manner of game but that doesn’t make them a good choice. The fact of the matter is that deer aren’t hard to kill or penetrate. Moving up to bigger, tougher animals you should probably opt for more.
OP
OP
mcb
Member
That is a high school physics simplification, like I said this is a deep rabbit hole. EDIT PERFECTLY ELASTIC collisions do no exist in the real world or you could have a perpetual motion machine. Kinetic energy is not conserved in an elastic collision but energy is always conserved. All that kinetic energy gets converted/used/dispersed as tissues damage, plastic deformation of the bullet, hysteresis in elastic deformation, heat, vibrations, sound, etc.
Momentum is not really conserved any more than kinetic energy is. In an inelastic collision the instant before and after the collision momentum is conserved but that is only for those instant and under the simplifying assumption that for that instant friction is negligible (a good assumption in some cases). Friction is robbing momentum (and kinetic energy) from the bullet from the moment it leaved the barrel till the bullet and target come to a stop. If momentum was always conserved the bullet and target would never stop moving. The conservation of momentum in an inelastic collision is only conserved for that instant and only with the simplifying assumption friction is negligible for that instant.
Last edited:
Keep in mind that there are a lot more cases (read: statistical samples) of .357 use than let’s say .44 Mag use in personal protection or police shootings, therefore it is over represented. There’s nothing magic about the 125 grain loads for personal defense. Effective yes, but if more folks were able to shoot .454 Casulls well, no one would tout the 125 grain .357 loads.
There are better choices for bear protection and hunting backup than the .357 - much better choices that aren’t real hard to shoot and make the .357 look like what it is, minuscule.
JMHO
Varminterror
Member
- Joined
- Jul 17, 2016
- Messages
- 14,888
Wow - you've missed the boat. This is terribly misguided. You have it backwards - for perpetual motion machines to exist, you need perfectly elastic collisions (assuming you rely upon collision for your PMM, which I'm not sure would ever make sense). Inelasticity means some of the energy is lost, most typically via friction & heat.
Why doesn't a super ball bounce forever? Because in the REAL WORLD, the collision isn't perfectly elastic.
Last edited:
- Status
