357 Mag Vs 44 Mag

[spoonman72]

"Aren't most deer bigger than us..so while a .223 might work ok on people, it makes sense why they might not be ideal on a larger animal..I guess"

Wow don't know what kind of deer your breeding but the ones around here in the south run around 100 pounds give or take unless you hitting a monster buck, Altho it is true a deer's hide is harder to pentrate then human skin they are in no way bigger than we are.

 

[wickedsprint]

I was asking, I didn't know the average size. I think they might be bigger up here than 100lbs though.

 

[Ben Shepherd]

Nem, and others interested: I think one of, if not the best, for all-around use in a 357 rifle/revolver combo would be the hornady 180 xtp. Slightly overkill for urban ccw, but for anything else, enough. At least enough of a slug for anything you should use a 357 on. That slug starts expanding at 1100, and still holds together above 1800.(figured that out with the rifle and the 357 max awile back.)

 

[Evocatii]

I live in the Colorado Rockies and find that I am quite comfortable with carrying the .357 while camping and hiking. I believe the round is good medicine for local bear and other critters. Follow-up shots must be considered for the quicker critters like mountain lion. I consider myself a good shot, but lions are quick and stealthy. Moderate power with manageable single hand operation if things ever got to the point of the old rough and tumble.

 

[KodeFore]

When I used to volunteer with SAR in WA we relied on the buddy system for bear defense. In order for this system to to be effective it is imperative that you chose a buddy who runs slower than you do..... How likely is it that you are going to be attacked by a bear in the wild? The one time I have seen a bear in the wild, when we looked it, it looked at us, we all went about our business. Clearly a 44mag has more more critter stopping power than 357 mag. In my opinion between which is better for bear defense between 357 mag 44 mag is I say spend less money get more power and get a 12ga. ( If you are tough enough or dumb enough to go messing with bears, a little extra weight shouldn't bother ya... ) As for the sub thread of why the army chose the 5.56, I have no fact but an opinion on that as well... Its a flat shooting round easy to teach to young folks who more than likely than not have no previous shooting experience.

 

[hamourkiller]

To date I have shot no people and pray it stays that way!

I have shot multiple deer in the 80# to 130# live weight class with both revolvers and carbines in .357 & .44 mag.

In each case, the .44 has had more visible effect upon the animal than the .357. The .44 has a much larger wound track and exit wound. Bleed out is quicker and blood trail much easier to follow. The .357 is an adequate deer round while the .44 is a stone cold deer killing round @ woods range.

How will this relate to home defense? I suspect the .44 would perform in the same manner when compared to people. With the added benefit that if your enemy is a large 250# + man the 44 will punch his ticket as well.

A 180gr 44 hpt will be running the same speed as a 125gr hpt. A 240gr hpt will run the same speed as a 158gr hpt. In all cases the 44 has more of everything you need in a self defense situation.

Due to the size and weight of 44mag revolvers vs the 357's I carry the .357 most times. For a nightstand revolver I go with the 44 mag since I am not carrying it.

I like the S&W mod 29 and or the Ruger redhawk 5 inch models. I am sure both will pull the internals out of a bad guy just like they do on deer.

I do not feel under gunned with either choice. Each has its good points. The main one being that each will let me fight my way to my rifle!

 

[tourer]

357 magnum transfers it's energy much better than a 44 magnum.
The reason being is, with 125 grain JHP for the 357 and 240JHP for the 44 mag, the 357 mag is more likely to stay in the body ( of a human ) thus transfering ALL it's energy, whereas the 44 mag is more likely to go right through ( a human ) the body, not dumping all it's energy.
Both rounds will certainly kill what they hit but the 357mag will put them down quicker with more energy dump and greater trauma to the body.

 

[Ready2Defend]

I guess i have never warmed up to the recoil of the 44 mag. I do shoot a lot. 45acp, 357, 40s&w handguns; 30-06, 308, 223, rifles, 20 and 12 gage shotguns. Any of these I can go through 50-100 rounds at any range session. But with the 44mag (borrowed from a friend - several different sessions) It just isn't fun. If I had to I could build up to it. But would I develop a flinch/jerk? My thought is to bring as much gun as you can handle well. It probably take 100's of rounds (1000's?) fired through a gun to reasonably believe it can be handeled well by you. If I were goung to Bear country I would carry the 6.5" barred 357, and If my impression we I was at moderate to high risk a long gun as well.

Recoil comparison:
Cartridge (Wb@MV) /Pistol Wt. (lbs.) /Recoil E. (ft. lbs.) /Recoil V. (fps)
.357 Mag. (158 at 1250) /2.75 /8.7 /14.3
.44 Mag. (240 at 1450) /3.0 /22.5 / 21.9
(values from www.chuckhawks.com )

It's not just my imagination, both the recoil energy and recoil velocity are a lot more for the 44mag.

 

[AStone]

I guess i have never warmed up to the recoil of the 44 mag.

That's pretty much where I'm at, too.

.357 mag is stout enough for me (a smaller person), and feels like enough power for what I want.

I'd develop a flinch with .44 mag, and the double taps would be slower.

YMMV.

Nem, and others interested: I think one of, if not the best, for all-around use in a 357 rifle/revolver combo would be the hornady 180 xtp. Slightly overkill for urban ccw, but for anything else, enough. At least enough of a slug for anything you should use a 357 on.

Sounds like good reasoning, Ben.

I'm going to explore those rnds for both revolver and carbine.

When I used to volunteer with SAR in WA we relied on the buddy system for bear defense. In order for this system to to be effective it is imperative that you chose a buddy who runs slower than you do.....

One of the best laughs of my day.

 

[hamourkiller]

Exit wounds are very important in how fast some one or some thing bleeds out. The larger the exit wound the better. Handguns kill with bleed out or central nervous system damage or both. Please shoot some animals with each round and make your own decisions. Do not let paper theory blind you to the reality that the .44 mag has much superior terminal performance compared to the .357 mag. I have seen enough difference that I have learned to handle the recoil and keep a 44 by my bed. Yet I have great confidence in the .357 also. Either is a great self defense round.
In a rifle there is no room for argument, the 44 carbine has no objectionable recoil and is the same sized gun as the .357 carbines yet delivers much superior performance.
Once again I strongly urge you to shoot some animals with each type of cartridge and weapon.
In the ever ongoing battle of the 30-06 VS 270, I have no opinion as I can observe no difference in their game killing ability. In the .357 vs .44 mag comparison, the .44 mag is an obvious better killer in all platforms.

 

[Leadhead]

Pretty rare to be faced with a charging bear but if it happens then no doubt bigger is better.
The main thing when dealing with bears is confidence.....if you can maintain your composure facing a bear with a .357 mag and give the bear the space to leave you will be fine.
I've met lot's of black bears in the woods armed with only my wits and calm demeanor and have only had a few grumpy bears snort and hiss at me....most wanted nothing to do with me.
I think if you travelled back in time a couple hundred years with your stoutly loaded .357 you would be king of the hill!

 

[MCgunner]

I think if you travelled back in time a couple hundred years with your stoutly loaded .357 you would be king of the hill!

Yup, certainly tops the black powder loaded .44-40.

 

[JesseL]

357 magnum transfers it's energy much better than a 44 magnum.
The reason being is, with 125 grain JHP for the 357 and 240JHP for the 44 mag, the 357 mag is more likely to stay in the body ( of a human ) thus transfering ALL it's energy, whereas the 44 mag is more likely to go right through ( a human ) the body, not dumping all it's energy.
Both rounds will certainly kill what they hit but the 357mag will put them down quicker with more energy dump and greater trauma to the body.

And everyone knows it's far worse to be run over by a toddler on a tricycle than it is to be hit by a Mack truck. The tricycle will stop on your ankle and dump all it's energy, while the Mack truck will keep going like you weren't even there, hardly losing any energy.

1. The "Energy Dump" theory of incapacitation is seriously flawed at best. Energy doesn't kill or stop. Holes in vital organs do. The wider and deeper the hole the better.

2. Even if the energy dump theory made sense, a 44 that goes all the way through and only loses two-thirds of its energy may still deposit more energy than a 357 that deposits all of its energy.

 

[MCgunner]

Here we go again, another big slow vs small fast thread and a Fackler know it all....

Well, I can't agree that the .357 is better than the .44 mag, either. You gotta match your load to the job at hand. You don't go totin' the 320 grain hard casts for self defense and you don't tote 180 grain .357s either. The .44 has well over 1000 ft lbs, more energy to dump. Not a lot of street data on the round, though, since not many carry it, especially police, I mean, outside of Dirty Harry. I certainly don't. I don't often carry the .357, actually. Can't handle the weight of my SP101 in pocket carry.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

The .357 was designed in the 1930s as a police cartridge. It has primarily been offered in handguns that are designed for portability. It represents, in a revolver, the best compromise between being powerful and being easy to carry.

The .44 Magnum was designed as a hunting round. Almost all .44 Magnum revolvers are much heavier and bulkier than .357s, and for that reason, it never caught on as a police or self-defense cartridge (sorry, Dirty Harry.)

Given the different uses to which the two cartridges are put, their ammunition has evolved differently -- light, violently-expanding bullets for the .357, heavy, deep-penetrating bullets for the .44 Mag.

If you want a self-defense cartridge in a revolver, the .357 is tops. If you want to hunt deer, elk, and so on, the .44 Mag is the way to go.

 

[AStone]

If you want a self-defense cartridge in a revolver, the .357 is tops. If you want to hunt deer, elk, and so on, the .44 Mag is the way to go.

I agree with Vern if we limit the conversation to revolvers. (Which IS the main topic of this thread.)

However, if one is willing to consider adding a matching carbine to the revolver choice, then the options increase a bit.

Speaking only for myself, I want my revolver in the woods mainly for SD against biped predators; I'm not concerned about (griz) bears where I live. (And I'm not concerned about black bears at all. As I've said before, as a long time backpacker/mountaineer who's encountered black bear many times, they're just a non issue on my list.) Thus, my choice of .357 mag.

Yet, I also want to be able - in a pinch, if not on a regular basis - be able to take a deer. Hence, I also have the .357 mag carbine that's small, light and easy to carry on hikes or even on longer walks. (It fits completely inside my backpack, or even more conveniently, straps to the side of my pack.)

As one can learn in other threads, the .357 mag out of a carbine will readily take deer (even if not bear or elk) at reasonable distances (keep it inside 75 yds, it's ballistic performance is not much different from .30-30).

Energy dump or not, I feel fine with the combo.

Now, if I was walking in griz country, I might sing a different tune ...

 

[Fear Night]

Saying the .357 Mag is the "#1 one-shot manstopper" is kind of misleading. How many shots of a .50BMG can a man take?

What they are trying to say is out of the main "service calibers" the .357 Mag has produced the most amount of observed one shot stops. Since the .44 Mag isn't considered a viable service caliber it wasn't even in consideration.

 

[Huddog]

Aren't you glad you pay your money and you make your choice. So if you like the .44 or the .357 you can have either or both.

 

[saturno_v]

No thread off-hand but a couple guys did some math with .357 carbines and found ballistics approached that of 30-30's.

What they were smoking???......

With the same barrel lenght a 30-30 rifle runs circles around a 44 magnum, never mind a 357...

 

[AStone]

Where'd you get that quote, saturno?

Here's a thread that (favorably)
compares .357 mag w/ .30-30
for deer at 75 m or less.

With the same barrel lenght a 30-30 rifle runs circles around a 44 magnum, never mind a 357...

Of course it does.

That was never in question.

But it seems that
you missed the point.

Therefore, just to be clear,
inside 75 yds, the ballistic performance of
.357 mag is not much different from .30-30.

After 75 yds, .30-30 excels.
But that was never in question.

As an owner of
.30-30 & .357 mag rifles,
I'll put a 5-spot on that.

 

[saturno_v]

I got that quote from the first reply of this thread:

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=343008


What do you exactly means by "within 75 yards the ballistic performance of a .357 is not much different than a 30-30"???

If you mean that at 75 yards you drop a deer with both rounds and the deer will not notice much of difference I can agree with you...but that does not mean that they have the same ballistic performance....not even close....these are 2 totally different concepts...like saying that point blank in the head of a man the ballistic performance of a 9 mm are the same of a 375 H&H..;-)

Regards

I do not own a 357 but I do own a 30-30...this is my Marlin 336 in 30-30

 

[AStone]

Saturno, drop by the 336 club.

I think it'd be cool
to continue this discussion over there
so as not to drag this one too far OT.