Does 357 Mag offer anything 44 Mag doesn't?

[eldon519]

This really isn't hard to understand, it simply depends on your baseline. There is no cloudiness to it beyond your understanding of what is being stated.

If you are comparing the fuel economy of a Toyota Tundra and a Prius, does one consider the fuel economy to increase or decrease? Well if you are driving the Prius and looking at going to the Tundra, then the fuel economy decreases (lower MPG). If you drive the Tundra and are looking at going to the Prius, the fuel economy increases (greater MPG). Both are right.

Also, maybe this is lost on you, but the OP is asking about going from the .44 magnum to the .357, not the other way around. Those presenting the costs as a savings or decrease are actually presenting the figures consistent with the OP's question. By contrast, your insistance that we view the cost as an increase going from .357 to .44 is presenting the figures converse to the original question. So ask yourself, who is really spinning what?

 

[Zaydok Allen]

If you are comparing the fuel economy of a Toyota Tundra and a Prius, does one consider the fuel economy to increase or decrease? Well if you are driving the Prius and looking at going to the Tundra, then the fuel economy decreases (lower MPG). If you drive the Tundra and are looking at going to the Prius, the fuel economy increases (greater MPG). Both are right.

Also, maybe this is lost on you, but the OP is asking about going from the .44 magnum to the .357, not the other way around. Those presenting the costs as a savings or decrease are actually presenting the figures consistent with the OP's question. By contrast, your insistance that we view the cost as an increase going from .357 to .44 is presenting the figures converse to the original question. So ask yourself, who is really spinning what?

Exactly.

Well, as long as we are talking numbers, I think the conversation has hit a point of diminishing return. It seems there is an impasse on the acknowledgement that there is a different perceptions and interpretations of these numbers based on our viewpoints. I feel both standpoints are relevant based on the context. Other folks think only one way of looking at it matters and is relevant. That's fine. I'm not going to expend any more energy on the topic because we are getting nowhere.

The OP can read through the thread and consider the numbers that are most relevant to him. Eldon, I think your last statement there makes a whole lot of logical sense based on how the OP framed the question.

Take care all.

 

[CraigC]

For starters, I did not skew the numbers, intentionally or otherwise. I figured them in the context of how much the .44 shooter will SAVE with the .357 and in that context, the numbers are accurate. Done the other way, it would show how much more the .357 shooter would spend with the .44. Since the OP is a .44 shooter contemplating a .357, my numbers are appropriate for HIS perspective and forrest's are only appropriate from forrest's perspective. If someone had a question about the numbers I posted, there would've been a better way to handle it, rather than accusing me of "clouding the truth".

Yup & now that the 460's, 480's & 500 are on out there how much longer do you think the 44's will dominate the only shooting sport they have a toe hold in??? For some odd reason of the 4 main mold makes only redding sells a wc mold for the 44cal's. But redding also sells 4 different wc molds for the 35cal's. These company's are in the business of making $$$, rcbs/lee/lyman don't bother. The major bullet mfg's swage lead wc's for the 35cal's but yet they don't bother for the 44cal's. It's called supply and demand, where there's no demand, there's no supply. With all this "inherent" accuracy of the 44cal's you'd think there would be "target" bullets being made/sold for them.

The reason for the wadcutter mold situation is because the .38 is vastly more popular for the kind of shooting that dictates their use. Again with the "absence of evidence" foolishness. It is silly to take this and conclude that it's because the .44 is less accurate. How many have you really shot? No, the only magic with the .38Spl is that it's easier to shoot more accurately than the .44Mag but the .44Spl levels the playing field. I've done enough shooting with ALL the cartridges in question to know that the only difference with regards to accuracy is the way the guns are built.

 

[CraigC]

As far as costs are concerned, they are what they are and the OP is free to handle them however he sees fit.

I just got another 2000 158gr .358" bullets from Missouri Bullet so I'm well aware of the cost savings.

The biggest issue we have here is a difference of perspective, which is usually the case on these forums. Mine is that of a single action shooter who also owns double actions and that of an outdoorsman. Forrest's is that of a double action shooter, a target shooter and an ardent caster. In the single action world, .357's, .44's and .45's are often built on the same frame. `Tis the case for the Colt SAA, New Frontier and mid-frame Ruger Blackhawk. So there is much to recommend a lighter, more powerful sixgun in a big bore chambering over a heavier .357. The big bores put more bullet on target and the added expense of their components is easily justified with greater performance. In the double action world, .38's and .357's can have a significant difference in size/weight. The .38 and .357 do just fine on paper, where larger bullets may be seen as just an unnecessary and unwanted expense. Nor right or wrong, just different. Which is the most relevant depends entirely on who is reading it.

 

[MrBorland]

There's lots of good info in this thread, but lots of off-topic wandering and bickering as well. Rather than prune the thread, and potentially lose some good info, I'll just go ahead and close it.