40s&w or 357 mag

[old fart]

i forgot to asked this here when i was looking a while back, i made the decision to go with the cougar because of ammo was available there was no 357 in sight at the time and still isn't, and price of the gun. these were the only ones available at the time in my price range. here is my post, what would have ya'll done? hope i made a good decision, the cougar really shoots great. THE POST:i am looking to get me a gun to wear for self defense, i will use it in public as well as in the woods. right now i can only afford one gun so my choices at my shop are the 40 or 357 mag. the 357 is $100 more than the 40 so thats something to consider. the guns are a taurus 357 model 66 at $475 and a stoeger couger in 40 for $375 both are new. i will be using them open carry as i need a hiking gun, here where i live my biggest threat will be man then a rabid coyote there is a slim chance i may run up on a feral dog or hog too. thanks which would ya'll choose having only one choice?, i live in kentucky. thanks

 

[hardluk1]

For a dual use defence handgun there are other cost effective choice than ether and lighter in weight. But if those are the only two , flip a coin,. It easy to reload for the 357 and no brass to pick up.

If a carry pistol is wanted something light weight kahr TP series as the round count is higher than a 357 with 7+1 cap and faster reloads for all but Jerry Miculec. I use a underwood ammo 40sw 155gr hp ammo and it will meet or exceed the advertise velocity of 1300fps in a thin light 4" barreled 22oz pistol Kahr TP40

I used a 357 for a dedicated hunting /trail pistol for 20 years in my younger days but to hump around ether for basic defense both around people and game.

 

[Arkansas Paul]

With woods carry thrown into the mix, I would personally prefer a .357 magnum. However, I think for $475 you could do better than the Taurus 66. A nice used Ruger can be had for that price, which will last you a lifetime.

 

[Doug S]

I would have based my decision between those two calibers on the firearm types/brands I like best. That being so, I would have chosen a 357 over the 40 caliber. That said, I would not have opted for a Taurus. I would have looked at a S&W or a Ruger. In the semiauto choices that I like (Glock), I would have chosen 9mm over 40, but many today seem to like the bigger 40. I guess what I'm trying to say simply, is that I like 357 over 40, but your use may vary ;-)

Also, I've never owned the Stoeger Cougar, but I did own a Beretta Cougar. It was a nice gun. If the Stoeger is up to the Beretta standard, I think you picked a better gun than the Taurus. I've had too many problems with Taurus, and no longer buy Taurus. Maybe current production is better. I haven't bought one in probably 8 years.

Doubt anything I've said makes you feel better. I don't know if this is you or not, but it seems like a lot of new gun owners go through the doubting process (I've noticed in a couple of your threads). Take whatever gun you have to the range, put 250-500 rounds of your defensive ammo choice through it, and if it works well, stop worrying about your choice. Forum talk will most likely keep you guessing, and looking until you have a long list of firearms to chose from.

 

[420Stainless]

My personal preference for carry would be the Cougar. If there really is much chance of a hog/boar coming after you, then the .357 might be a better choice, but overall I think the .40S&W with 180 grain or 165 grain bullets ought to be quite good. I do love .357 Magnums and don't think it would have been a bad choice although I'm not familiar with larger Taurus revolvers (I have a couple small ones that seem to work well). I haven't shot a Stoeger Cougar, but I have shot the older version and thought it was just about perfect for the .40S&W.

 

[old fart]

thanks everyone, at the time as well as now there is no used ruger or smith in my area as i checked to try and save. used guns are nearly impossible to find here. and my nearest ffl that does transfers is 70 miles away as no local shops will do it. so after ffl fees gas and tax+ shipping buying local is about it. if they had been the same price i would have taken the 357 but i can't see giving $500 for a taurus when a new ruger was $560 but i didn't have that much and my saving time was up. how does the 40s&w compare to 357 to power?, i'm talking factory ammo as i don't reload. i have heard cor bon makes a outdoorsman round in 40 that has alot of punch. thanks

 

[Barry the Bear]

neither get a .44 mag and be sure of your defense lol

 

[jmr40]

Neither would be my first choice in handguns, but I'd pick the 40 S&W over the 357 mag for a couple of reasons. On paper the 357 should be more powerful and a better choice if you have to defend yourself from 4 legged predators. But those numbers come from 8" barrels. Once you start shooting 357 from 4" or shorter barrels you get more noise and recoil than raw power. The 357 will still be a bit more powerful, just not enough to sway me. From a 6-8" barrel used for hunting, yes, 4" or less, no.

The ballistics numbers you see published for semi-autos are from 4-5" barrels. What people actually use, so the numbers you see listed are what you will get.

You also have to consider realistic threats. Even in the wild 2 legged predators are far more likely to be a problem. A semi will be smaller, lighter, more compact and have at least 2X more ammo that has proven to be at least as effective as 357 mag loads on human threats. With heavier bullets it is still more than useable on wild animals.

 

[MinnesotaFats]

+1 on the ruger comment. up here a brand new .357 mag blackhawk goes for 479.99$ at gander mountain.

 

[SDGlock23]

I prefer the .40 as a dual purpose firearm. You've got the advantages of a semi auto and for power, the .40 will work just fine. I live in KY too and honestly there's not really anything typical factory ammo won't stop. If you want more Underwoods and Buffalo Bore is good, they have a 200gr hardcast at 1000 fps which will penetrate very deep.

 

[rswartsell]

Well, you need to go with what you shoot best IMHO regardless of the rest. Misses don't do a thing for you.

If you can hit with both, and you meant that about feral hogs, .40S&W leaves me a little cold. The boys pushing it for that application haven't hunted hogs. Those that have, know that there ARE hogs that have been taken with as little as a .22, BUT a pissed off and determined porcine headed like a hairy missile at you legs will need some convincing the .40 doesn't pack. You need 10mm in an auto to get anywhere near warm and fuzzy feeling and 180 gr .357 hard cast Buffalo Bore in a 6" Dan Wesson is my minimum.

Seems like for the majority of your uses you can do well with either. That hog thing calls for serious ballistics if you ask me.

 

[SDGlock23]

By serious business I think serious penetration is needed. It's a fairy tale for someone to think a 10mm is somehow way better than a .40, both have sufficient power and handguns in general seriously lack "power" anyhow. Placement and penetration is what you want, and the .357 Mag or .40 S&W will give you both. A 200gr hardcast .40 at 1000 fps may not be the fastest load in existence but it will punch a .401" hole clean through a feral hog.

 

[DrDyno]

i forgot to asked this here when i was looking a while back, i made the decision to go with the cougar because of ammo was available there was no 357 in sight at the time and still isn't, and price of the gun. these were the only ones available at the time in my price range. here is my post, what would have ya'll done? hope i made a good decision, the cougar really shoots great. THE POST:i am looking to get me a gun to wear for self defense, i will use it in public as well as in the woods. right now i can only afford one gun so my choices at my shop are the 40 or 357 mag. the 357 is $100 more than the 40 so thats something to consider. the guns are a taurus 357 model 66 at $475 and a stoeger couger in 40 for $375 both are new. i will be using them open carry as i need a hiking gun, here where i live my biggest threat will be man then a rabid coyote there is a slim chance i may run up on a feral dog or hog too. thanks which would ya'll choose having only one choice?, i live in kentucky. thanks

I find it interesting that the discussion is about caliber and not about the OP's choice between a semi-auto pistol and a revolver. If you want the fire power that multiple rounds give you, go with the semi-auto pistol. If you want to never have to worry about reliability, go with the revolver. (Even with a bad round in a cylinder, just pull the trigger again!)

With all that said, do yourself a favor and don't buy the Taurus. Every one of the four Taurus firearms I've owned over the years (because they're pretty and cheap) had to be sent back to Taurus for repair. Some came back repaired and some didn't.

If you would like the multiple rounds of a semi-auto with the ballistics of the .357, consider the .357 Sig caliber. My favorite semi-auto pistol is a Glock 31... .357 Sig.

 

[David E]

If you want to never have to worry about reliability, go with the revolver.

Ummmm.......

don't buy the Taurus. Every one of the four Taurus firearms I've owned over the years had to be sent back to Taurus for repair.

......were any of the four..........revolvers?

 

[ArchAngelCD]

The 40 S&W would not be my choice for woods carry and especially in a semi-auto. I feel a revolver will hold up better and be more reliable during rough service than a semi-auto. I like the .357 Magnum cartridge and feel it will protect you well under most circumstances.

Although not in stock right now Bud's Gun Shop online lists a Blue 4" GP-100 for $385 and a 4" Stainless GP-100 for $428, both brand new and shipped for those prices.

Just a note, there are no Taurus .357 Magnum revolvers available on Bud's either but at the prices listed above why buy Taurus when you can afford a Ruger?

 

[David E]

I feel a revolver will hold up better and be more reliable during rough service than a semi-auto.

How so? If you had a spill at the creeks edge in mucky mud that totally infiltrated the gun, which would be easier to get up and running? My Glock 35 could be swirled in the water until all (or enough) of the mud was cleaned out. A revolver, not so much. (Although the GP-100 would be the best revolver choice in such a scenario)

Or, for whatever reason, the gun gets dropped onto the rocks. Which would sustain more damage?

There's a reason the semi-auto has displaced the revolver in military forces around the world.

Carry a revolver if you prefer one, but it won't hold up better to rough service than a good semi.

I like the .357 Magnum cartridge and feel it will protect you well

Agreed.

 

[tarosean]

There's a reason the semi-auto has displaced the revolver in military forces around the world.

He wants to use it in Public and the Woods. Not go to war....

My votes for the .357

 

[David E]

He wants to use it in Public and the Woods. Not go to war....

Which changes nothing. The semi-auto is superior to the revolver when roughly handled... as is likely the case in the woods.

My votes for the .357

For which a great case can be made......but he specified the make and models of the choices he had. Would you still say .357 if its a Taurus?

One could debate why one needs/wants a gun in the woods, which may impact the choice, as well.

But he's already bought his gun, so it's a moot point

 

[hardluk1]

OLD FART It does depend were you live as to what "woods" animals you may have to defend your self against. In most of the lower 48 the baddest thing you may see is a bad off large cat or black bear. They are not hard to kill IF you are woods wise and half way quick on the draw. If not , a 44mag is worthless too. Even a pissed of elk may stomp you in the grouond with the 44mag.

We have over 450 bear a year taken in the seveal counties around around us and guys use 40sw, 357 mag, 44mags , 45acp and a few 9mm's and theres shotguns and rifles.

Ether rounds will work fine as a defence caridge for normal run ins with cats or bears , coyotes gone wild and the wigged out pot grower or meth maker. Carry what works for YOU for both woods and city carry that you can conceal and only YOU know that. Easy for some guys to say a 357 that have never hunted with one to say this or that's the best. I have lots of time hunting with a 357 and 44mags . I would be fine with my 40sw using some of the ammo avalible from Buffalo Bore, Double tap ,Underwood and Corbon for a bear or cat or messed up human. I know I can shoot more rounds on a close target quicker with a hot loaded 40sw than even mild loaded 357 and carry it more comfortably in both a city and woods setting.

 

[Yo Mama]

Would you still say .357 if its a Taurus?

Yup. My Taurus is excellent. Why you hate Taurus?

 

[Zaydok Allen]

I wouldn't buy a Taurus. I had a Cougar in 40. Good gun. Hated the 40 cartridge though.

Personally I'd save a bit longer and look for a Ruger SP-101 with a 3 or 4" bbl. Also, the Springfield XDs is a great dual purpose gun in .45 acp, IF you buy the extended magazine as well. Lots more $$$$$ though.

 

[Yo Mama]

I wouldn't buy a Taurus.

You're missing out on some great guns then. You can spend more if you'd like, it's your money, but Taurus has always treated me right.

Also, the Springfield XDs is a great dual purpose gun in .445 acp, IF you buy the extended magazine as well.

Wow! .445 acp, never hear of that one!

 

[David E]

Stories on problem Tauri (plural form) abound. Encountered another one in a recent class I held. Never read one negative thing about the Cougar. For the same money, I'd rather have a used Ruger or S&W over a new Taurus.

For most folks, protection against two- legged snakes is the greater concern. In that light, a compact, lightweight .40 caliber semi-auto is a great choice.

 

[Yo Mama]

I won't keep hijacking the thread, my point is you will find many many many other manufacturers, including Ruger and S & W that have problems.

Your Couger?
http://thefiringline.com/forums/archive/index.php?t-428205.html
http://www.zombiehunters.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=23367
http://www.survivalistboards.com/showthread.php?t=154641
http://www.survivalistboards.com/showthread.php?t=154641
http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=428205

These were just a few of the many problems reported with the Couger, depending also if you're referencing Beretta or Stoeger versions. Is it a great gun? Yes. Do all guns have a risk of having issues? Yes. Does spending more money on a gun help? NO.

 

[David E]

Do you really want to compare that to Taurus regarding number of problems reported?

As I said, the OP already made his choice, so it's moot.

The ".357 vs. .40" for a woods gun is another topic.