44 Magnum vs 357 Magnum

[Pat Riot]

Truth be told if I didn’t think my .357 was enough gun I would jump right to my 30-30. I have never liked firing .44 Magnums from either a handgun or a rifle. I would never hunt deer with a .357 handgun either. Those are my preferences.
I have a Winchester 94 .357 that is a tack driver out to 100 yards I also have a Marlin 1894CB .357 but I haven’t tested it out any any distance. I bought it for Cowboy Action Shooting but I need to wring it out with some other ammo to see how accurate it can be.
I know the OP can’t use 30-30 due to restrictions on cartridges.
It does sound to me like the .44 would be the better all around choice for what you’re looking for.

 

[Slamfire]

Out to 100 yards, it is the 44 Magnum.





I used to set up my 12 inch, 1/2" thick gong targets at 100 yards and bang at them with this Marlin 1894. My 240 grain bullets were going 1750 fps and they would wack that gong hard. The welds broke firing 303 British cast lead, but I am certain the 44 Mag loosened them up quite a bit.



You hit bone with a 44 Mag, the wound will be devastating.

 

[Macchina]

I've shot my last 4 firearm whitetails with either a .357 or .44 rifle. Most of my deer are taken during archery season. All were with handloaded XTP bullets over a max charge of H110. I shot 3 with a .357 (Ruger 77/357 and Marlin 1894 CSBL) and 1 with a .44 (Marlin 1894). These were all meat harvest deer on a special hunt we do every couple of years. All the deer went down fast (within 20 yards) except 1 doe with the 357 which was running in the rain at about 80 yards and I only nicked the windpipe on during a snap shot, definitely my fault all the way. I found her bedded about 50 yards away that night and finished her off.

My last deer was with a .357 mag out the 16" 1894 CSBL. I was shooting downhill at 50 yards (about at a 45° angle) and wasn't a great shot through the brush. I hit the neck but not the spine yet the deer ran less than 15 yards. This is a fun handy little gun. I carried it for a week this year and really enjoyed it.

The first deer I shot with a PCC was a decent 6-point with the Ruger 77/357. No picture unfortunately. Shot in the high chest and the deer dropped in its tracks. I actually couldn't find the deer at first because I assumed it ran and I was too excited to see it go so I was busy looking for blood in the direction it was faced instead of walking up to where I shot it...

The .44 I used to shoot a buck coming into a grunt call. I shot him head-on at 10 yards, the bullet travelled the whole length of his body and ended up in his rump. Perfect mushroom, blew the hear apart.

My last deer and my Marlin .357:

I was able to (poorly) record this shot: https://i.imgur.com/FADo04V.mp4

My ruger .357 (took 2 deer with this gun):


My Marlin .44:


Bottom line: there is no disavantage to going with the 44 Magnum that I can see. It certainly gives you more power and the recoil is nothing worse than most all rifle cartridges. If you can shoot a 20 gauge you can shoot a 44 rifle. The 357 is just more interesting to me in a rifle for some odd reason. I truly don't know why. Originally I bought my first 357 rifle to pair with my Ruger SP101 and while they both do shoot the same load I never once even came close to having to use ammo from one to feed the other. My handloaded 357 rounds do 1746 FPS for 158gr XTP's and while this isn't extreme, it is certainly a significantly different round than when fired from a handgun. It is a true deer round and my 2 imperfect shots with recovered deer prove to me you don't have to heart-shoot a deer with a 357 rifle to successfully harvest a deer. I'd love to say I make perfect shots all the time but the still hunting I do with a rifle is always surprising and interesting and I don't think I've ever made a textbook shot even though I am a great shot at the range. Don't hunt with marginal cartridges and 357 is certainly not one of them.

 

[Garandimal]

I found myself having to purchase a rifle in either of these calibers for deer season in Ohio, both will have around a 20 inch barrel.
I will also use this rifle around home for deer and black bear aswell, 99% of my shots will be taken under 50 Yards.
I know that 44 magnum has more energy but it also cost twice as much and from what i can tell has a considerable amount of recoil for a pistol caliber rifle.

Chose the .357 Mag., because already had a 6.5" RUGER NM Blackhawk in that caliber.

No regrets.

​

158 gr. Federal AE JSP ($15/50 box w/ rebate) seems to be loaded with a powder that takes advantage of the longer carbine Bbl.

At ~ 1840 fps at the muzzle, sighted in for 100 yards with the NEGC aperture and taller Williams front bead, it only gets a little over 1" high midway, and ~ 5.5" low at 150.

Energy is 720 lb-ft at 100 yards and 565 lb-ft at 150.

It still has 9mm Para point blank energy at 250 yards.

If known that the shots will be long, say over 75 yards, will switch to HDY Custom 158 gr. XTP-HP as they will expand reliably well past 125 yards where the AE becomes a FP solid.

​

If the game is big/tough, then 180 gr. HDY XTP-HP, handloaded to ~ 1800 fps, will give a little flatter trajectory, and add over 50 yards to a given 158 gr. energy.

And, at 5.5 lbs, it still shoots as soft as a squirt gun.
(well... super-soaker)




GR

 

[Dave DeLaurant]

My $.02:

Since you are talking straight-walled, rimmed pistol cartridges, this would be the perfect opportunity to dip your toe into handloading, regardless of which cartridge you ultimately prefer. I recommend you look at starting with a Lee Hand Press kit plus a set of Lee carbide dies for your preferred cartridge -- that's about a $100 investment. Also spend another $20 for Wayne Van Zwoll's excellent introduction to handloading -- I started ages ago with George Nonte's little book, but Van Zwoll's is better.

After this small investment, you'll just be spending on components. With a simple hand press and a little practice, expect to assemble about 50 loaded rounds per hour. Depending on type and source, figure .44 bullets at around 8-35 cents apiece, plus another 7-10 cents for powder and primer per round. .357 bullets will cost slightly less since they use less lead. If you have a big sporting goods store or gunshow locally where bulk cast lead bullets are available, you can get the per-bullet price quite low. You can also order bulk cast or copper plated bullets online from literally hundreds of big and small manufacturers -- check out Berrys Plated Bullets for an example. If you have a cheap source of lead, you can cast your own bullets, but that's usually a couple of steps further into handloading addiction. Powder is currently retailing in my neighborhood for about $30-35/lb., as are boxes of 1000 primers. Other guys may quote lower prices -- these are People's Republic of California going rates.

BTW, the hand press will still be useful if you get hooked on handloading and upgrade later to a bench-mounted press. I started back in 1983 with a simple Lee mallet loader for 8x57 and now handload over 40 different rifle and handgun cartridges. For me it's more about fun than savings now.

As to which cartridge to pick, consider that both Magnums are revolver cartridges. Once you choose, you will probably want a companion revolver. I love both. The .44 is an excellent nightstand gun, and can be loaded down so my 95 lb. wife is comfortable shooting our S&W 629 -- BUT it is much too bulky and heavy for regular carry for most folks. However, in a carbine-only role I'd take .44 over .357. You get similar velocities with greater bullet mass and cross section. FWIW, I currently own 3 handguns and two rifles in .44 Magnum, and 3 handguns (plus an Airweight .38 Special) and 1 rifle in .357 Magnum.

A light carbine in .44 Magnum can kick with surprising enthusiasm, but it's not a big deal.

 

[xphunter]

Either will work fine for your purposes.
Choose the bullet for the task.
The 357 will drop less and drift less in the wind than the 44...Lot of people don't realize that.
Get the one you want!

 

[labnoti]

Within 100 yards, why does the 44 have a meaningful advantage over the 357 for lightweight game like whitetail deer? If we use the prevailing theory of wound ballistics, neither cartridge is producing enough bullet velocity to result in temporary cavities large enough to tear most tissue types and therefore the wounding is limited to the immediate path of the bullet. Admittedly, the .429" bullet is a slightly larger diameter than the .357" bullet and this results in a corresponding larger permanent wound channel, but if this is really significant then we'd have to concur that 45 ACP wounds more significantly than 9x19mm also. In fact, we'd probably need to concede the 45 ACP wounds better or at least as well as 44 Magnum as long as we can make it penetrate deeply enough and that's not impossible on whitetail. Besides the small increase in bullet diameter, the 44 Magnum propels heavier bullets. Those heavier bullets carry meaningfully more momentum to drive penetration but achieving penetration on a target as shallow as deer is not difficult with 357 Magnum. We can predict the 44 would have meaningfully greater penetration on larger game like large bears, elk, and heavy bovines.

Does the 44 Magnum produce a meaningfully greater wounding effect on deer, enough to change the outcome of a shot on game, and if so, how does it do it?

 

[Goosey]

Within 100 yards, why does the 44 have a meaningful advantage over the 357 for lightweight game like whitetail deer? If we use the prevailing theory of wound ballistics, neither cartridge is producing enough bullet velocity to result in temporary cavities large enough to tear most tissue types and therefore the wounding is limited to the immediate path of the bullet.

[...]

In fact, we'd probably need to concede the 45 ACP wounds better or at least as well as 44 Magnum as long as we can make it penetrate deeply enough and that's not impossible on whitetail.

You can add the .45-70 to that too. Factory 300 gr loads advertised ~1850 at the muzzle and out of the Guide Guns up to a couple hundred less. I don't buy the "velocity doesn't matter as long as it's under 2000 fps" theory myself.

 

[earlthegoat2]

Maybe we should just use 327 mags then.

More seriously, a 44 mag, with equal shot placement and bullet type, is going to kill the critter faster than the 357. I don’t know how much faster but fast enough that I will still take the 44 every time.

The way many proclaim the virtues of the smallest caliber you can get away with I would think we all like trailing shot deer just as far as we possibly can.

 

[Slamfire]

More seriously, a 44 mag, with equal shot placement and bullet type, is going to kill the critter faster than the 357. I don’t know how much faster but fast enough that I will still take the 44 every time.

All things considered, the bullet that starts out larger diameter is better than one that starts out smaller diameter. The ain't no replacement for displacement!

 

[mcb]

All things considered, the bullet that starts out larger diameter is better than one that starts out smaller diameter. The ain't no replacement for displacement!

With "all things considered" larger diameter > smaller diameter would imply that 44 Mag is then better than 35 Whelen? It is not that simple.

 

[labnoti]

Ok, so there was an argument for velocity, and another for diameter. The 44 Magnum does not have appreciably more velocity than 357 Magnum in the most popular bullet weights for each. If velocity were the cause of the greater wounding, the .44 Magnum would wound best with lightweight-for-caliber 180 grain bullets at the highest speeds. Is that the case?

If the muzzle diameter increases wounding effect, wouldn't the standard-pressure 45 Long Colt or ACP be preferred to the 44 Magnum where either can achieve sufficient penetration?

 

[jmorris]

I would use a 357 carbine before I would a .223. As far as cost goes, lots of folks using rifles might use the same box of 20 for more than one season. Lots of costs will be much higher than ammunition. Same thing goes for recoil, even though pistol caliber carbines are “mild” as far as recoil goes, it doesn’t matter much for hunting anyway. Not like your going to be plinking or target shooting, sight in, one shot one kill, is the concept for hunting.

 

[brewer12345]

I own both. I would suggest the 44. Bigger diameter, heavier bullet, and you are going to be taking shots well inside 100 yards. The 44 will give you a greater margin of error.

I shot this year's doe at 50 yards with a 54 cal round ball out of a muzzleloader. On paper the ballistics are unimpressive. The ball made a big hole and wrecked the inside of the deer. Big caliber bullets drop deer.

Really, you could get both. I have lots of fun shooting the 357 and accurate 38 special loads are a ton of fun on small game.

 

[someguy2800]

In theory there is not that much difference between a .357” and .429” bullet, but in practice small increases in bullet size do make a difference. Tissue is elastic and will tend to stretch and close back up when lower velocity bullets go through it. In my experience with shooting deer with handguns, the tissue is elastic enough that it can basically close right back up around a 357 caliber bullet, whereas with a 45 caliber bullet at the same speed (I’ve never shot a deer with a 44 mag) the tissue just isn’t elastic enough to close back up around that big of a hole. This makes their lungs fill up with blood faster and thus they die faster. Just as importantly since the entrance and exit holes stay open they bleed externally much more so you can actually find it.

My experience is that with a 35 diameter bullet you can’t hardly even find the bullet holes and they barely bleed. With a 45 diameter bullet at similar speed you get a dime sized entrance and exit with plenty of blood. It’s like the difference between a field point on an arrow vs a broadhead. Now at rifle velocities a 35 caliber bullet wounds dramatically, as I have seen with my 357 maximum and 358 yeti, so obviously there is a crossover point where there is enough velocity to create tissue destruction from a pressure wave. I couldn’t tell you at what velocity that happens with a 357, but the bigger the bullet the slower it can be to get the desired result.

I’ll take a 44 with a 240 grain deep curl any day of the week.

 

[Dr T]

I would go for the 44 Mag. I find that the recoil is about like a 30-30, which is to say, quite manageable. Also, you should note that Hornady makes its Leverevolution ammo in 44 Mag. Its cost is quite reasonable for RIFLE hunting ammo. Disclaimer: I have not used this ammo in my 44 Mag Marlin 1894, but I have in my Ruger Bisley and found it to be quite accurate.

But there is another cartridge you may at least think about. You can get a 20 in rifle barrel with a peep sight for the T/C Encore in 460 S&W. The whole package weighs (I think) less than 6 lbs and is capable of taking anything that walks on the North American Continent. However, with full bore loads, it has a bit of recoil. Example: I shot mine with a not-to-hot handload with a 240 gr. bullet from the bench using a rigid fore end rest. The front swivel stud was just in front of the rest, and when I fired the gun, the recoil broke the fore end. This is basically a handloading only proposition since the factory ammo is very expensive ($33 for box of 20 and UP). But, it is an easy and forgiving cartridge to reload with H110 once you can get the cases. It would be interesting to see some rifle velocity data. Hornady has it with a 200 gr FTX at 2200 fps from an 8 3/8" barrel.

 

[xphunter]

I've shot my last 4 firearm whitetails with either a .357 or .44 rifle. Most of my deer are taken during archery season. All were with handloaded XTP bullets over a max charge of H110. I shot 3 with a .357 (Ruger 77/357 and Marlin 1894 CSBL) and 1 with a .44 (Marlin 1894). These were all meat harvest deer on a special hunt we do every couple of years. All the deer went down fast (within 20 yards) except 1 doe with the 357 which was running in the rain at about 80 yards and I only nicked the windpipe on during a snap shot, definitely my fault all the way. I found her bedded about 50 yards away that night and finished her off.

My last deer was with a .357 mag out the 16" 1894 CSBL. I was shooting downhill at 50 yards (about at a 45° angle) and wasn't a great shot through the brush. I hit the neck but not the spine yet the deer ran less than 15 yards. This is a fun handy little gun. I carried it for a week this year and really enjoyed it.

The first deer I shot with a PCC was a decent 6-point with the Ruger 77/357. No picture unfortunately. Shot in the high chest and the deer dropped in its tracks. I actually couldn't find the deer at first because I assumed it ran and I was too excited to see it go so I was busy looking for blood in the direction it was faced instead of walking up to where I shot it...

The .44 I used to shoot a buck coming into a grunt call. I shot him head-on at 10 yards, the bullet travelled the whole length of his body and ended up in his rump. Perfect mushroom, blew the hear apart.

My last deer and my Marlin .357:
View attachment 872824
View attachment 872825

I was able to (poorly) record this shot: https://i.imgur.com/FADo04V.mp4

My ruger .357 (took 2 deer with this gun):
View attachment 872826

My Marlin .44:
View attachment 872827

Bottom line: there is no disavantage to going with the 44 Magnum that I can see. It certainly gives you more power and the recoil is nothing worse than most all rifle cartridges. If you can shoot a 20 gauge you can shoot a 44 rifle. The 357 is just more interesting to me in a rifle for some odd reason. I truly don't know why. Originally I bought my first 357 rifle to pair with my Ruger SP101 and while they both do shoot the same load I never once even came close to having to use ammo from one to feed the other. My handloaded 357 rounds do 1746 FPS for 158gr XTP's and while this isn't extreme, it is certainly a significantly different round than when fired from a handgun. It is a true deer round and my 2 imperfect shots with recovered deer prove to me you don't have to heart-shoot a deer with a 357 rifle to successfully harvest a deer. I'd love to say I make perfect shots all the time but the still hunting I do with a rifle is always surprising and interesting and I don't think I've ever made a textbook shot even though I am a great shot at the range. Don't hunt with marginal cartridges and 357 is certainly not one of them.

Nothing like experience

 

[xphunter]

I found myself having to purchase a rifle in either of these calibers for deer season in Ohio, both will have around a 20 inch barrel.
I will also use this rifle around home for deer and black bear as well, 99% of my shots will be taken under 50 Yards.
I know that 44 magnum has more energy but it also cost twice as much and from what i can tell has a considerable amount of recoil for a pistol caliber rifle.

Did you come to a decision yet?

 

[Jason_W]

Going completely against the grain for the rifle forum, but if shots are unlikely to be longer than 50 yards and more likely to be 30 or closer and in brush, I’d be grabbing a shotgun stoked with premium slugs or even buckshot if legal.

For me, A shotgun that fits well will point naturally and get on close targets faster than any rifle I’ve ever shouldered and at close range, it’s hard to argue against the destructiveness of a good (brenekke, Ddupleks, etc) slug or a premium buckshot load (not El Cheapo off the bottom shelf at Walmart stuff).

 

[Bfh_auto]

your going to need a 44 mag for
black bear


about 20 cents more a round if you use 44 mag for target shooting yes its 20 cents more a round can add up, but how often would you do that? now for just hunting your not going to use more the 10 rounds per year so that$ not a big money deal..
https://www.laxammo.com/fiocchi-44-mag-200-gr-sjhp-50-rds-44b500-1-detail
https://www.outdoorlimited.com/hand...ge204340050-158-grain-hollow-point-50-rounds/

One of my neighbors used a 40s&w for black bear. Granted, he uses dogs.
I would prefer a 44. But it's not mandatory.

 

[illinoisburt]

Going completely against the grain for the rifle forum, but if shots are unlikely to be longer than 50 yards and more likely to be 30 or closer and in brush, I’d be grabbing a shotgun stoked with premium slugs or even buckshot if legal.

I completely agree this could be an easy choice but more than likely the OP wants to go with a rifle to get more accuracy and greatly reduce recoil.

Traditional slug states have been gradually changing their firearm policies over the past years starting with the introduction of handguns and modern muzzleloaders and progressing to allow those handgun cartridges in carbines. Just as bowhunters who replaced recurves and longbows with compounds are now moving to crossbows in droves, gun hunters are choosing to use the easier and more proficient tools. Certainly a 12 gauge slug works as decades of midwest deer seasons showed, but it generally means settling for pie-plate 75 yard accuracy and bruised shoulders. A carbine will be more accurate and easier on the shooter.

For just deer I would recommend the 38/357 carbine every time. With the stated purpose of deer AND bears, bigger is better. Bears have thicker skin and heavier bones than deer so it's better to give yourself more leeway for those possible less-than-perfect hits. I suspect this is why the OP posed the question in the first place as he was concerned with adequacy of the 357 should a black bear opportunity come up. I'm sure with a good 180+grain soft point hunting bullet (not a self-defense hollow point) the gun 357 will get the job done fine most of the time. The 44 just gives more insurance when the stars don't align.

 

[earlthegoat2]

Bears usually have a fatty layer that can make blood trails sparse. Bigger holes would be better in this instance.

 

[Jason_W]

I completely agree this could be an easy choice but more than likely the OP wants to go with a rifle to get more accuracy and greatly reduce recoil.

Traditional slug states have been gradually changing their firearm policies over the past years starting with the introduction of handguns and modern muzzleloaders and progressing to allow those handgun cartridges in carbines. Just as bowhunters who replaced recurves and longbows with compounds are now moving to crossbows in droves, gun hunters are choosing to use the easier and more proficient tools. Certainly a 12 gauge slug works as decades of midwest deer seasons showed, but it generally means settling for pie-plate 75 yard accuracy and bruised shoulders. A carbine will be more accurate and easier on the shooter.

If shots of 75 yards or greater are likely, then a rifle or revolver caliber carbine has an undeniable edge.

I was thinking more for super thick territory like cedar swamps, etc where 75 yards might as well be 1000 yards and you might have seconds to positively ID a deer and get a shot off before it disappears.

not that a carbine would be a handicap, I just know that personally I can get on target a lot faster with a shotgun.

 

[illinoisburt]

If shots of 75 yards or greater are likely, then a rifle or revolver caliber carbine has an undeniable edge.

I was thinking more for super thick territory like cedar swamps, etc where 75 yards might as well be 1000 yards and you might have seconds to positively ID a deer and get a shot off before it disappears.

not that a carbine would be a handicap, I just know that personally I can get on target a lot faster with a shotgun.

My old 870 wingmaster got me through 25 deer seasons in Illinois with aplomb. I don't recall every shooting over 50 yards, usually less than 20 but then my stands were always back aways into timber from the field edges.

 

[gotboostvr]

We mostly used riot barrels and rifled slugs and put plenty of deer on the ground where I hunt.

As handy and capable a 18" barreled Mossberg 500 is, I left it in the case the first year I was allowed to use my 16" R92 44mag and it is just a much better tool for the job.

It's lighter, more accurate and much smaller in hand. It's a blessing on a drive through the thick flora and fauna, scrub brush, thorns, and vines that you got to cut yourself out of.

As a driver, or a stander it's a better tool IMHO.