.44 magnum handgun vs .357 carbine

[MaxP]

I don't have the time or inclination to go too deeply into this. I have written tomes on this stuff and it wears me out. As a handgun hunter I find myself defending the practice on a regular basis with those whoo hunt with rifles. I got lambasted in the Port Elizabeth airport (South Africa) by a hunter who learned we were there to hunt Cape buffalo with handguns that turned a bit ugly with the guy lecturing me that handguns are inadequate. Turns out he had never hunted with a handgun, nor had he hunted Cape buffalo. But these are the prevailing attitudes by many who cite ME as a determining factor in terminal effectiveness on game.

The whole minimum muzzle energy requirement on hunting dangerous game in Africa goes out the window when you introduce handguns into the equation. Why? Because on paper they look so anemic and yet they kill big and dangerous game with aplomb. The argument falls apart when you use ME as a measure of lethality. I would argue that it pretty much tells you nothing. Again, the .22-250 as an example. More ME than most .454 Casull loads, yet the .22-250 would be a piss poor choice on let's say moose, or elk, or eland. You cannot base your choice on this calculated (and not measurable) number as it does not take bullet type/construction into account (yes you mentioned this in your response and I'm not arguing it). I would put forth that -- depending on game (whitetail is easy to kill with just about anything), you would be better served choosing a sufficient caliber, a bullet matched to the velocity capability of the round, in a platform you can shoot accurately. ME wouldn't even come into play in my decision making paradigm. I decided to look beyond conventional wisdom the day I began hunting big game with revolvers exclusively. Again, ME doesn't tell you much of anything. JMHO

 

[mcb]

I agree kinetic energy does not directly equal lethality. For lethality shot placement is number one and bullet construction must be correct for the target. But you must penetrate to something lethal and for a given bullet penetration is proportional to kinetic energy at impact (barring bullet failure, again bullet construction is required information. It not a simple relationship since critter are not a monolithic material ).

I have spent years hunting deer with minimal cartridges (410 slugs a particular favorite) so I don't think you need massive amounts of energy to kill but I also no that I am not attempting a Texas heart shot or even hard quartering shot through a shoulder with my 410 slug gun, but with my 450 Bushmaster the Texas heart shot would be very possible due to bullet construction and knowing the bullet has the energy to penetrate deep enough even for such a questionable shot angle.

Again the only energy the bullet has to do anything once it gets to the target the kinetic energy it has at impact. That is a fundamental fact of physics.

 

[CraigC]

Again the only energy the bullet has to do anything once it gets to the target the kinetic energy it has at impact. That is a fundamental fact of physics.

So what??? The quantity of energy generated tells us nothing useful. We can have a more meaningful conversation about terminal ballistics without mentioning it. It never factors into my thinking whatsoever. Folks like yourself, especially you engineers, like to assume it's because we're ignorant of physics. Nothing could be further from the truth. It's because we KNOW from an understanding of physics PLUS the experience and knowledge of terminal ballistics that kinetic energy tells us nothing useful. It just doesn't work and is too easily dismissed. It places too much importance on velocity, which makes it a great tool for marketing high velocity rifle cartridges but little else. It assumes that you're gaining exponentially greater terminal effect by increasing velocity and it just simply isn't true. If it was true, no one ever would've killed an elephant with a revolver.

 

[MaxP]

FWIW - I have taken Texas heart shots on animals much larger than whitetail with my anemic revolvers and have experienced exits. ME had nothing to do with it, but my bullet choice sure contributed as well as the momentum carried by the heavy bullets I use.

I would simply implore the naysayers to go out and kill something big (not 200 lbs) with a handgun. It'll be eye opening when you see the damage a loafing projectile can impart.

 

[Varminterror]

the only energy the bullet has to do anything once it gets to the target the kinetic energy it has at impact. That is a fundamental fact of physics.

@mcb is confusing fundamental principles of physics. The above statement is incorrect. An over-simplification of the real-world system, and a misunderstanding of fundamental physics.

Kinetic Energy is only conserved in elastic collisions. Momentum is conserved even in inelastic collisions. Running a bullet into living tissue is NOT an elastic collision.

It’s also comedic he calls out TKO specifically, citing it as “empirically derived.” KE is calculated from mass and velocity, TKO is calculated from mass, velocity, and bullet diameter. The two are inherently related.

 

[Zaydok Allen]

I don't view energy as anything but an expression that combines bullet weight and velocity into one number.

If you hear high energy numbers and know the bullet weight is low, it must be moving very fast. The opposite is true also.

Without knowing anything about bullet construction, and its ability to stay together and penetrate, what does it tell you? Nothing in my opinion. A poorly constructed light bullet moving very fast can come apart on impact. It may still show high energy numbers but that doesn't mean it will be effective on big game.

 

[buck460XVR]

As a handgun hunter I find myself defending the practice on a regular basis with those whoo hunt with rifles.

yep....same here. I also find myself trying to explain why any handgun is way different than a rifle when it comes to hunting. This usually to folks that claim a .460 in a revolver is overkill on whitetails, while they have no problem with using a 30-06 rifle. I digress......

Thing is, the OP is not talking about a .44 mag revolver/handgun, but an adapter insert in his shotgun. Thus, not a revolver or a rifle.

 

[MaxP]

I'm aware of that fact, but then the muzzle energy "advantages" of the .357 out of a carbine were bandied about, hence the meandering of the thread.

 

[PapaG]

Past fifty yards, for accuracy I'll always take the carbine over the handgun. (unless I have a benchrest and I can use my Contender). I'm not a fan of the .357 for deer and up but have killed two with it with no problems. 158 grain g.c. at about 1300 fps (at impact range).
The days of my ability to shoot a handgun accurately past fifty yards are, I'm sad to say, gone. I have targets my brother and I shot back in the late 70s and early 80s at 100 yards with 6" model 27s and Super Black Hawks that were under 5", from a sandbag rest. No more.
Of course, I'd take either of my 94s, Win or Mar, in 44 and just exit the discussion.

 

[farm23]

I have said before that I have only used a revolver to hunt with for over 40 years and have taken every large animal in North America. Most with a 44 mag or 45 colt. some with a 454. How I wish the 475, 480 etc were around when I was more active. Now day I mostly use a 44 special and yesterday it took a doe at 80 yards in one of my fields. The doe went about 20 feet and dropped. I am just glad I can still see enough to still make the shot. Big holes let in air and blood out.

 

[mcb]

@mcb is confusing fundamental principles of physics. The above statement is incorrect. An over-simplification of the real-world system, and a misunderstanding of fundamental physics.

Kinetic Energy is only conserved in elastic collisions. Momentum is conserved even in inelastic collisions. Running a bullet into living tissue is NOT an elastic collision.

It’s also comedic he calls out TKO specifically, citing it as “empirically derived.” KE is calculated from mass and velocity, TKO is calculated from mass, velocity, and bullet diameter. The two are inherently related.

I have not confused anything. I have a fairly good grasp on the difference between kinetic energy and momentum. The two value are inseparably tied together K = P^2/2m but kinetic energy is the quantity that describes how much work can occur in any collision. Yes momentum is always conserved in a collision (Newton's Third Law) but how much work (penetration and other damage) is done in the collision is related to energy not momentum.

Energy is conserved in a perfectly elastic collision because none of the energy went into damaging the two objects involved in the collision. Both object elastically deform, storing energy in the deformation, and then returning that energy to the objects as they rebounds. There is no damage done to either object. In reality a perfectly elastic collision is not possible as there is always some energy lost to hysteresis (frictional losses at the atomic level) in the materials even if no damage occurs. Though we can get very close with some extremely hard materials. In an inelastic collision the energy is certainly not conserved as that energy is turned into the damage that occurs to the target and/or projectile in the collision.

The relationship between penetration and energy has been understood since the early 1700's when they used penetration experiments (along with others) to show that 1/2 m V^2 was the correct description of the energy of a moving object. Look up tables for anti-tank caliber weapons and how much homogeneous armor they can penetrate. Do the math, plot the armor thickness vs the kinetic energy (assuming AP not HEAT rounds) at impact. It will be a straight line on a graph. ie penetration is proportional to energy. Look up the ballistic gel tests of bullets and assuming no bullet failure (fail to expand or fragments) there is a fairly linear relationship between the energy at impact and its penetration in that idealize media.

To step back I am not an energy junky as I said earlier I am fond of hunting with marginal cartridges but I also understand the limitation of lower energy cartridges. No matter what energy level I choose to use I do not forgetting the projectiles construction. I still believe that shot placement is number one, with penetration being number two since you have to penetrate to some thing vital to be lethal. Kinetic energy comes to bear in that it is the only energy source for that penetration and expansion of the projectile (or failure of the projectile if not chosen correctly).

Kinetic energy and projectile construction is all you need to describe a projectiles potential, internal, external, and terminal ballistics.

 

[CraigC]

Experiments involving dropping balls into clay is completely inapplicable to terminal ballistics.

Let's test your theory. So a non-expanding bullet generating 1200ft-lbs is capable of what exactly?

 

[Varminterror]

Take a step outside of elementary physics and consider your own statements in terms of applied physics - Work is a measure of how Energy is transferred. Given bullets of the same kinetic energy, one large diameter and high mass, one small diameter and low mass, what is a driving mechanism for the difference in how the bullet transfers energy - aka, does work? Diameter. The fatter bullet is able to affect more of the receiving tissue, more quickly transferring more energy - aka, doing more work. As we’ve agreed, momentum and kinetic energy are forever linked, but if the diameter is an influencer for how Work is done, how quickly energy is transferred, then you really can’t throw mud at the Taylor KO factor. For all of his faults, measuring killing effectiveness via momentum and diameter isn’t a bad move.

And of course - all of it goes out of the window when you start wasting work by destroying the bullet - aka expanding - in an effort to transfer energy more quickly. In simple terms, an expanding bullet wastes energy trying to pretend it’s a larger diameter, heavier bullet.

 

[mcb]

Take a step outside of elementary physics and consider your own statements in terms of applied physics - Work is a measure of how Energy is transferred. Given bullets of the same kinetic energy, one large diameter and high mass, one small diameter and low mass, what is a driving mechanism for the difference in how the bullet transfers energy - aka, does work? Diameter. The fatter bullet is able to affect more of the receiving tissue, more quickly transferring more energy - aka, doing more work. As we’ve agreed, momentum and kinetic energy are forever linked, but if the diameter is an influencer for how Work is done, how quickly energy is transferred, then you really can’t throw mud at the Taylor KO factor. For all of his faults, measuring killing effectiveness via momentum and diameter isn’t a bad move.

And of course - all of it goes out of the window when you start wasting work by destroying the bullet - aka expanding - in an effort to transfer energy more quickly. In simple terms, an expanding bullet wastes energy trying to pretend it’s a larger diameter, heavier bullet.

I agree for the most part. My point was that for a given projectile if it has greater energy at impact it will achieve greater penetrations and that the amount of addition penetration (barring projectile failure) is roughly proportional to the amount of additional kinetic energy it has at impact. In simple monolithic targets that is fairly well established, in a target as complex as a critter that is much much harder to model or do experimentally. As you suggest when we change projectiles, especially of different caliber that comparison become significantly more difficult, hence my mentioning several times that you need both the kinetic energy and the projectile construction to have the complete picture.

As for TKO it over values caliber too much IMO. Modern bullet technology no longer makes "big bore" as important as the TKO equation put on it since many modern bullet are so much better at controlled expansion. As an example: a traditional 405gr 45-70 at 1330 fps has 1519 ft-lbs of kinetic energy and a TKO of 34. A 300gr 338 Norma at 2660 fps has nearly the same TKO value at 38 (12% higher) but over three times the kinetic energy at 4712 ft-lbs. Having played with both cartridges a fair amount, the kinetic energy number (assuming both cartridges have appropriate bullets) tell a story that matches my experience better than the TKO values. When I apply TKO to all the various cartridges I have used hunting over the years the only one it seems to reflect reality for me is 12 ga slugs.

 

[CraigC]

TKO was meant as a means of comparing big bore solids to each other. Not to high velocity small bores. In that context, it is a useful tool because it places more value on diameter and mass.

 

[Varminterror]

TKO was meant as a means of comparing big bore solids to each other. Not to high velocity small bores. In that context, it is a useful tool because it places more value on diameter and mass.

More value on those parameters than does kinetic energy. In effect, the TKO metric places equal value on velocity, mass, and diameter, whereas KE places greater influence upon velocity than mass, and has no mechanism to recognize the influence of diameter upon Work potential.

I have kept a calculator spreadsheet for many years which offers output of a dozen or so different common measures of killing potential for a given bullet; KE, TKO, Hornady HITS, Becker, etc etc. I’ve added to the worksheet over the years as I’ve discovered additional metrics. I’ve gone through these different metrics here in terms of how they are influenced by respective inputs. I’m convinced these metrics all exist because there has never been any satisfactory means of aptly comparing cartridges at opposing ends of the slow & heavy vs. fast & light spectrum. All of them have merit, within their context, and all of them have failings.

In the hunting field, I’m more prone to encourage folks to NOT ignore the wasted energy of an expanding bullet. The more we destroy the bullet, the more energy is wasted in doing so, such the more we have to invest on the front end to make up for the losses - meaning the smaller and faster we go, we have to tolerate more and more recoil just to keep the same performance down range. It works - and I can’t imagine ever suggesting a 22-250 as poor for prairie dogs, but when game weight increases, we can’t kill bison with the same mechanism for Work which we kill prairie dogs.

 

[CraigC]

I have a big spreadsheet to do the same thing.

Maybe there is something to this idea of "wasting" energy destroying the bullet. Energy used destroying the bullet is not used destroying tissue. Perhaps this is the biggest difference between light and fast, heavy and slow. Light and fast absolutely requires a lot of velocity and therefore, a lot of energy for it to work. Slow and heavy does not because it uses its energy/momentum/whatever to destroy tissue. As I've said before, unless we're able to determine how much is being used to destroy tissue and how much is wasted or absorbed by the target, the number is meaningless. The bottom line is that terminal ballistics is FAR too complicated for a simple solution like kinetic energy for quantifying terminal effect but people like simple. Even if it's inaccurate.

 

[Varminterror]

If you hear high energy numbers and know the bullet weight is low, it must be moving very fast. The opposite is true also.

Therein lies the problem with kinetic energy - the fact the above is not necessarily apt. Affecting bullet weight does not shift KE nearly as much as does affecting velocity. KE varies proportionately to mass, but proportionately with the square of velocity. Doubling one doubles KE, doubling the other quadruples it, and we know the Potential Energy of the system - the energy stored in the powder - does not change so much with bullet weight alone, such the shift in velocity as bullets change weight in s cartridge, the velocity change makes a much heavier counteraction on KE. A 180grn 44mag at 1850fps has greater KE than a 300grn at 1300. Increasing the weight by nearly 70% doesn’t make up for losing less than 30% in velocity - but which one does the better killing?

 

[gotboostvr]

The 44 carbine is the REAL winner!

Every deer I've killed with a gun has been with a 16" 44.

I don't drive em very hard, but I still managed to completely mangle the far side shoulder after punching a over half inch hole on the near side on a large doe. The pistol will deliver similar results especially with a decent length tube and driven a little harder.

 

[bearcreek]

I don't drive em very hard, but I still managed to completely mangle the far side shoulder after punching a over half inch hole on the near side on a large doe.

If you shoot them just behind the shoulder instead of in it you won't ruin a bunch of meat like that.

 

[ACES&8S]

The 44 Magnum kicks like h***##* because that is where the target is going when the bullet gets there.
Also for the 2'nd time this week I quote Slamfire = [ The answer is 42.] Because that's a good one.

 

[MaxP]

To step back I am not an energy junky as I said earlier I am fond of hunting with marginal cartridges but I also understand the limitation of lower energy cartridges. No matter what energy level I choose to use I do not forgetting the projectiles construction. I still believe that shot placement is number one, with penetration being number two since you have to penetrate to some thing vital to be lethal. Kinetic energy comes to bear in that it is the only energy source for that penetration and expansion of the projectile (or failure of the projectile if not chosen correctly).

Kinetic energy and projectile construction is all you need to describe a projectiles potential, internal, external, and terminal ballistics.

On paper, the handgun/load combination I used here was inadequate, or "marginal" as you refer to these lower kinetic energy producing cartridges. My first shot penetrated about 6-ft of animal including the rumen - that is like a giant speed bump that arrests forward motion. Would you consider my choice to be marginal in this instance? My load slings a 420 grain bullet right around 1,400 fps on the high side. I submit to you that ME doesn't tell you much of anything, but size actually does count particularly on really large game.



This is the bullet I used (left) but I've also successfully used the bullet on the right (CEB) on water buffalo in Argentina. Good bullet makes all the difference in the world.



Sorry for the thread hijacking.

 

[mcb]

On paper, the handgun/load combination I used here was inadequate, or "marginal" as you refer to these lower kinetic energy producing cartridges. My first shot penetrated about 6-ft of animal including the rumen - that is like a giant speed bump that arrests forward motion. Would you consider my choice to be marginal in this instance? My load slings a 420 grain bullet right around 1,400 fps on the high side. I submit to you that ME doesn't tell you much of anything, but size actually does count particularly on really large game.

View attachment 799836

This is the bullet I used (left) but I've also successfully used the bullet on the right (CEB) on water buffalo in Argentina. Good bullet makes all the difference in the world.

View attachment 799837

Sorry for the thread hijacking.

On who's paper is your choice of handgun/load marginal? The marginal reference I made up thread was to my choices of 410 slugs for deer hunting (I think few would argue that a 2.5 inch 410 slug is over-kill for whitetail deer) and was made to say that although I like using kinetic energy (along with bullet construction) as a good metric for examining a cartridge/projectiles potential I am not an energy junky when selecting my hunting cartridge (this year is likely to be sub-sonic 300 BO if I can find a bullet I like). I don't necessarily believe there is a blind amount of energy needed to kill critter X, certainly not in the absence of information about the projectile. But if I have the information on the projectile then the energy level tell me everything else I need to know to make my decision.

A 420gr non-expanding bullet (assuming .452 or .475 diameter) at ~1800 ft-lbs of kinetic energy at the muzzle, makes my wrists ache a little thinking about shooting it but given that information, the penetration and results seems reasonable. All the information is there, bullet construction and kinetic energy. Would you have made that same shot if your handgun delivered that same bullet at half the muzzle energy (900 ft-lbs or 1000 fps)? What about the original ~1800 ft-lb energy level but with a jacketed hollow point bullet of the same weight?

 

[ATLDave]

for a given bullet penetration is proportional to kinetic energy at impact

Is that true? For a fluid or mostly-fluid medium? When you say "proportional," do you mean in a linear fashion?

And is that true with similar geometry/material bullets, but different weights? I.e., the lighter, faster bullet (say a full wadcutter) will penetrate deeper than the heavier, slower one so long as the lighter, faster one is sufficiently faster to have more kinetic energy?

 

[MaxP]

On who's paper is your choice of handgun/load marginal? The marginal reference I made up thread was to my choices of 410 slugs for deer hunting (I think few would argue that a 2.5 inch 410 slug is over-kill for whitetail deer) and was made to say that although I like using kinetic energy (along with bullet construction) as a good metric for examining a cartridge/projectiles potential I am not an energy junky when selecting my hunting cartridge (this year is likely to be sub-sonic 300 BO if I can find a bullet I like). I don't necessarily believe there is a blind amount of energy needed to kill critter X, certainly not in the absence of information about the projectile. But if I have the information on the projectile then the energy level tell me everything else I need to know to make my decision.

A 420gr non-expanding bullet (assuming .452 or .475 diameter) at ~1800 ft-lbs of kinetic energy at the muzzle, makes my wrists ache a little thinking about shooting it but given that information, the penetration and results seems reasonable. All the information is there, bullet construction and kinetic energy. Would you have made that same shot if your handgun delivered that same bullet at half the muzzle energy (900 ft-lbs or 1000 fps)? What about the original ~1800 ft-lb energy level but with a jacketed hollow point bullet of the same weight?

Considering the minimum legal ME levels required by many African nations for dangerous game, these handguns don't even come close.

To set the record straight, it's a half-incher. Yes, I would and have used considerably "weaker" loads/cartridges on equally sized animals. The aforementioned water buffalo in Argentina weighed 1,500-lbs and was cleanly taken with a 340 grain CEB solid (in .480 Ruger) with an impact velocity of about 1,200 fps. That calculates out to 1,087 ft-lbs. Not a bullet was recovered. As far as a jacketed hollow-point is concerned, that would depend on the hollow-point. There are two expanding bullets that I trust and am fond of and they are the Swift A-frame and the Barnes XPB.

The aforementioned Argentine water buffalo.



This water buffalo (considerably larger than the one I killed in Argentina) was cleanly taken with a .45 Colt load that was slinging a cast bullet at about 1,100 fps of impact velocity. That's 1,088 ft-lbs....



Again, I don't think kinetic energy is that useful for measuring lethality. It sure doesn't seem to have mattered in these particular instances.