357 vs 44 for versatility

Status
Not open for further replies.
tbob38 said:
I think I'd at least look at one of those little 5 shot 44's.
Click to expand...
Would you define "little" tbob38?
What I mean is, because I'm a handloader, I would say the 44 is the hands down winner over the 357 in terms of versatility. Yet I would hardly call one of those "little" 5-shot Charter Arms Bulldogs (or whatever they're called) "versatile" at all. Yet I consider my 5-shot, 4" barreled L-frame Smith (Model 69) one of the most "versatile" handguns I've ever owned. But it's hardly "little" compared to my EDC gun - a Smith, 5-shot J-frame 38 snubby.:)
 
44 is a more versatile cartridge, however 44 ammo has a much more limited selection and is more expensive. Even for reloaders 38/357 is easier, cheaper and there's a better variety of bullets available.

You can get J, K, L, N frame sized .357's. You can get L & N framed sized 44's.
 
Based on my recent foray into reloading both .357 and .44, I'm finding the .44 to be much more versatile than I ever imagined it was.
So if I had to choose, it'd be .44, and I'd get a S&W model 69 or GP100-44 for a lighter weight option.

But do you really need to choose? You can have both and enjoy both. Then you can decide for yourself which one is more versatile.
 
Imho.
Imho, the .357 is light, med bore and maxxed out on deer sized critters.
I hung my hat on .357 for years. I bought revolvers and carbines in that caliber. The more i used it.....the less i liked it. I finally gave up on it for deer.(and thus sd). I think it is well suited for medium sized game, if you hsve your ear plugs in.
Again...my opinion. I still like my .357s. They are versatile for targets and small to med game. Just fine for illinois. Not my choice for Alaska.
 
Good question. I've always owned and loaded for 357. It's pretty versatile. Never ventured into the world of 44 because the 357 did everything I needed. I don't hunt with a revolver but 44 would be my choice if I did. That's about the only advantage as I see it. Ammo costs are a bit less with 357 so you could shoot it more. Other than those two things I don't see a lot of difference.
 
D.B. Cooper said:
This is going to be a wandering question. Forgive me.

Which do you feel is the more versatile caliber-357 or 44 magnum?

How does the 44 compare to the 357 for a broad range of use? From a handloading standpoint, I know that 38 spl can be loaded way down for plinking and small game and that 357 can be loaded way up for self defense and deer hunting. Would 44 spl make a useful/practical cartridge for hares or is just way too much overkill. (As my teenage son says: "There's no kill like overkill.)

My purpose in asking is I'm thinking about buying a 357 revolver. I own lever guns in both calibers and a revolver in 44. Obviously, I carry the 44 as a bear defense gun. Because I already have the revolver in 44, I'm wondering if it will have that range of use or should I be looking at a 357. This would be a gun I would attach to a pack, possibly carry in the truck (highly unlikely), etc.

My concern is the 357 isn't big enough for a bear and the 44 is too big for almost anything else.
Click to expand...
38 Special is also a bit much "for a hare". To really have a distinctive niche in your stable of guns, you might want to look at a 327 Federal, with its wide range of load capabilities and meat-saver hunting application. You have your bear gun, and a .357 doesn't really fix anything.
 
Wow. Thanks for all the replies.

I have to say, I'm a bit surprised by the number of folks giving their nod to the 44. I thought it would go the other way.

I wasn't very specific on intended use. I spend a lot of time outdoors and off-grid in the summer and fall. I never seem to have the right gun in hand. When I cross a hare or grouse on the trail, all I have is a 30-30 or 44 magnum rifle. Come upon a black bear while grouse hunting and all I have is a 20 ga. etc. I've recently been carrying a 32-20, and have taken a few grouse with it, but it's a family heirloom. It also would be useless against anything other than small game.

I've taken to carrying a 44 revolver for the brown bears, but I also don't want to carry 4 different guns. Then again, the fallacy in all of this is that I can't keep the same gun loaded for different purposes at the same time. Am I going to unload the 305 grain bear loads and reload with 200 grn to shoot a rabbit I come upon? I doubt he'll stand around and wait for me. That applies in reverse if I cross a bear.
 
RealGun said:
38 Special is also a bit much "for a hare". To really have a distinctive niche in your stable of guns, you might want to look at a 327 Federal, with its wide range of load capabilities and meat-saver hunting application. You have your bear gun, and a .357 doesn't really fix anything.
Click to expand...

I think you might be right, at least in the latter part of your sentence. As I mentioned above, I have a 32-20 and have had some success with that, so I likely wouldn't buy another 32 cal. (Although, I'm always on the lookout for a Win lever gun in 32-20)
 
There were several comments on gun size. I was looking at a GP100 earlier today...that thing is every bit as large as my Redhawk. It's nearly as heavy. I like the SP101 package, but in 357, it's a 5-shot gun. I think the Security Six would be my pick, if I went that route.

The other half of my thoughts on this is what is a gun I can just leave on my pack all the time and not really know it's there. (I even looked at the 357 LCR.)
 
A lot of this is influenced by recoil tolerance. I bought a 4" GP100 because I'm getting old and weak and can't even consider lighting off full power .357 mag in smaller guns. So if you're not troubled by recoil, something like a LCR 357 might be great. I just ordered a 3" LCRx 38 special and I'll probably use 38 short colt equivalent loads in it 90% of the time. .357 in such a gun is simply not happening with me.

As well, if recoil is not a factor 44 mag is a real consideration - again it's not for me. And just the same, if you actually need 44 mag power, exactly how its versatility compares to that of .357 isn't really important. If full-house .357 is enough there's no lack of versatility and the economy of purchasing 125-158gr. bullets rather than 180-240gr. reduces reloading costs substantially.
 
D.B. Cooper said:
There were several comments on gun size. I was looking at a GP100 earlier today...that thing is every bit as large as my Redhawk. It's nearly as heavy.
Click to expand...

A loaded side-by-side comparison of the two will likely make you feel differently.

If you're really in a situation where you need defense against bears, and the ability to hunt opportunistically, you may just have to carry multiple firearms. So with large animals considered under the .44 mag, a .327 Federal in a lightweight package, might make a good pairing.
 
It sounds like what you need is a kit gun to pair with your .44 bear gun - the 3-inch Ruger LCRx in .22LR is light and handy and enough for small game.
 
Sergei Mosin said:
It sounds like what you need is a kit gun to pair with your .44 bear gun - the 3-inch Ruger LCRx in .22LR is light and handy and enough for small game.
Click to expand...

Could you expound on "kit gun." The only time I've heard this is in the context of CVA muzzleloaders that come incomplete and have to be finished before use.
 
A "kit gun" refers to a small lighweight revolver in a smaller caliber intended to be carried in your "kit" or tackle box. The Smith & Wesson "kit gun" was a 22/32 or a .22 on a .32 frame.
 
WrongHanded said:
A loaded side-by-side comparison of the two will likely make you feel differently.

If you're really in a situation where you need defense against bears, and the ability to hunt opportunistically, you may just have to carry multiple firearms. So with large animals considered under the .44 mag, a .327 Federal in a lightweight package, might make a good pairing.
Click to expand...

So the idea of 327 has come around a couple times. I must say that my main concern would be the question "What does a 327 do that a 38 spl does not?" As I mentioned earlier, I have a vintage 32-20. I've taken birds with it. I could use it for PD if no other option were available. The drawback is cost and availability of the ammo. Commercial ammo is nearly $1/round and only available at certain camo box stores. (32-20 dies are on my soon to buy shopping list.) My concern is that 327 will eventually go the same way. 38 is far more venerable and more likely to be cheap and easy to find 20 years from now. (But this is an entirely different discussion.)

Additionally, a 44 mag in a chest holster, a 32 (of some sort) in a hip holster plus ammo for both...I'm trying to lighten my pack not add to it.
 
Rio Laxas said:
A "kit gun" refers to a small lighweight revolver in a smaller caliber intended to be carried in your "kit" or tackle box. The Smith & Wesson "kit gun" was a 22/32 or a .22 on a .32 frame.
Click to expand...
So..."packed away" not carried accessibly, as in a holster?
 
Last edited:
D.B. Cooper said:
So the idea of 327 has come around a couple times. I must say that my main concern would be the question "What does a 327 do that a 38 spl does not?" As I mentioned earlier, I have a vintage 32-20. I've taken birds with it. I could use it for PD if no other option were available. The drawback is cost and availability of the ammo. Commercial ammo is nearly $1/round and only available at certain camo box stores. (32-20 dies are on my soon to buy shopping list.) My concern is that 327 will eventually go the same way. 38 is far more venerable and more likely to be cheap and easy to find 20 years from now. (But this is an entirely different discussion.)

Additionally, a 44 mag in a chest holster, a 32 (of some sort) in a hip holster plus ammo for both...I'm trying to lighten my pack not add to it.
Click to expand...

There's no reason to go for a .327 Fed Mag in particular. However, it punches above its weight, and a gun chambered for it can shoot other .32 caliber cartridges. Per round it probably weighs less than a .38 SPL, and in most cases I would imagine shoots flatter.

But as has been mentioned, a .22LR could do some of that same work.
 
I would think a combo 22mag over 20 or 12 gauge with a 44 on the hip would pretty much cover everything.
 
Rio Laxas said:
Right. It is also not strictly limited to a revolver. Skeeter Skelton advanced the Walther PP in .22LR, among several others, as a good "trail gun" that serves essentially the same purpose as a "kit gun". Skeeter also mentions the .32-20 as being a good choice for a kit or trail gun.

http://www.huntertradertrapper.com/whats-the-best-trail-gun-for-you-by-skeeter-skelton/
Click to expand...

Thanks for sharing. I enjoyed reading it.

Funny, the one gun in 32 cal he suggests is the exact gun I already have.

However, when all is said and done, he suggests the 38 spl as the end-all be-all trail gun. Which brings me back to something like an SP101 in 357.
 
D.B. Cooper said:
Additionally, a 44 mag in a chest holster, a 32 (of some sort) in a hip holster plus ammo for both...I'm trying to lighten my pack not add to it.
Click to expand...

Weight is why I suggested the LCRx - the 3-inch .22LR only weighs 17.3 ounces. That's probably as light as you're going to get, and it doesn't necessarily need to be packed away. I don't know what .44 you're carrying, but you might be able to switch to a lighter model if you need to compensate for adding a small game revolver.

Alternately, I guess the one gun solution would be one of the .410/.45 revolvers from Taurus or S&W.
 
Sergei Mosin said:
Weight is why I suggested the LCRx - the 3-inch .22LR only weighs 17.3 ounces. That's probably as light as you're going to get, and it doesn't necessarily need to be packed away. I don't know what .44 you're carrying, but you might be able to switch to a lighter model if you need to compensate for adding a small game revolver.

Alternately, I guess the one gun solution would be one of the .410/.45 revolvers from Taurus or S&W.
Click to expand...
Ruger Redhawk 4.2" at 48 oz empty. I'm willing to carry the heavier gun for the long term durability and the ability to handle much heavier loads.

I almost always go for durability/reliability first.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

N
  • Locked
.357 vs .44 - Bear Hunting vs Woods Survival
Replies
24
Views
23K
rolltide
R
K
  • Locked
Merits of .44 Spl. over .357 for Carry?
2
Replies
31
Views
2K
SwampWolf
S
K
  • Locked
357 vs. 44 Spl. For CCW
2 3
Replies
72
Views
4K
MCgunner
M
Garandimal
  • Locked
Charter Arms 5-Shot Bulldog (.44 SPL) and Mag Pug (.38 SPL/.357 Mag) 4.2" Bbl. Target.
Replies
9
Views
906
Buckeye63
Buckeye63
H
  • Locked
.44 magnum stopping power? Also what is .44 special?
2
Replies
26
Views
6K
goon
G
Back
Top