Does 357 Mag offer anything 44 Mag doesn't?

[buck460XVR]

Propforce, at typical handgun ranges I'd agree.
But if the OP has skill to stretch out further, or typical carbine ranges there's a difference.

At 100yrds I feel much better served on whitetails with my 44's. Plus more blood to aid in tracking is never a bad thing.

The OP said this in his last post........

My use for 44 Mag (or 357 if I get one) is just for range fun and the thrill of the hand cannon. No self defense, and unlikely to hunt.

So no hunting with a carbine for shooting whitetails @ 100 yards, and no need for a bigger blood trail. Shooting all day at the range, the .357 will still give you the thrill of a handcannon without being abusive. For most folks, they are more accurate with a .357 because of less recoil. Many folks go to the range to enjoy a days worth of shooting. It's more fun when you can hit what you point at, more fun if it doesn't hurt when you pull the trigger and paying less for the ammo means most can afford to do more of both. Now I realize that some folks think that more noise, more flash and more recoil makes for more fun. It depends on what you expect from a handgun. I have both .357s and .44s in multiple handgun and carbine platforms, and enjoy the 'ell outta both. I also would not want to be without either.

 

[BobWright]

As has been pointed out, a .44 Magnum can do anything a .357 Magnum can do. I do own, and shoot, the .357 Magnum mostly because I want to shoot that caliber. As far as Single Action revolvers are concerned, the .357 Magnum can be had in a smaller framed revolver, i.e. a mid-sized framed Blackhawk. As far as accuracy, trajectory and knock-down power is concerned, the .44 wins hands down.

But, why not get a .357 Magnum, just for the experience?

Bob Wright

 

[Kendal Black]

Since you aren't necessarily interested in a smaller revolver, the .357 will do nothing for you that the .44 won't accomplish. The way I look at it, the big deal with the .357 is that it allows more power than the .38 Special in revolvers of about the same size. The .44's trajectory is approximately similar and its accuracy might be a shade better.

As you doubtless already know, the .44 can be loaded down to become a nice midrange big bore cartridge that has all the stopping power of a .357, and is more pleasant to shoot.

Effectively, other than a new (to me) cartridge to handload for?

I have a big Ruger Super Blackhawk that I hand load for, and it does a lot for me. I don't have a 357 Magnum. Some of the platforms (S&W 686+, Vaquero) are appealing to me, but a new revolver chambered in a new cartridge, needing new dies and ammo to shoot & reload is probably a $1000 venture. So I'm searching for a justification of some sort.

Does the 357 Mag offer any benefit the 44 Mag doesn't? Flatter trajectory? Inherent accuracy? This is in the context of a big 6" barreled revolver, not a CCW or Lady Smith piece.

Unlike some, I really find the 44 Mag to have a high degree of versatility. So it's been my go-to revolver (hand cannon) cartridge, and I've never strayed.

What makes a fella reach into the safe for a 357 Mag instead of a 44 Mag before going to the range?

EDIT: This is for primarily handload shooting. I'll only shoot factory ammo for the brass.

 

[CraigC]

Can I say this in reverse?

There is nothing in the lower 48 that you take care with a 44 magnum you can not take care of with a 357 magnum. 357 magnum does it with lower recoil.

One exception is the brown/ grizzly bear

There's a lot in the lower 48 that I would not attempt with a .357Mag. It's fine for deer sized game out to 50yds but that's about the practical limit. No way would I be shooting 800lb elk or 1500lb moose with a .357Mag. A bigger cartridge buys you not only the capability to take larger game but greater range as well. This ain't the 1930's and no one here is Doug Wesson. Or needs to be. If you cannot handle .44 recoil, you don't need to be hunting .44-sized critters.

For lessening recoil, you're far better off with a moderate .44 load than a heavy .357.

 

[gotboostvr]

Buck460, I only brought up hunting because I was responding to a different post.

In my first response I said that 357 is great for plinking and the like with the thrill of a "boomer" without all the recoil.

 

[buck460XVR]

The OP told us that his handguns are not used for hunting or SD, but for Range use only. What does the hunting of a 1500# moose have to do with that? One can claim an ought-six is better on 1500# moose and it would be just as relevant to this thread. 45 years ago I got rid if my .44 for a .357 because I only used it at the range. For all the obvious reasons. Years later when I got bored of hunting deer with a rifle and had taken several deer at short range with my .357s, I decided to move back up to a .44 mag and larger calibers as my primary weapon, primarily to increase my effective range. Still, at the range, I shoot .357 a 'ell of a lot more than .44 mag. At the range, the majority of other folks I take, pick up the .357s when asked if they want to shoot again. This I believe is relevant to the thread and something the OP needs to think about......as opposed to hunting moose.

 

[CraigC]

Please try to pay attention to the post I replied to, rather than just critiquing the validity of my posts. Last I checked, one can reply to ANY post in the thread and not just the OP.

And the OP is a handloader so load selection is not quite so black and white. The .44 has a broader spectrum of capability that fully encompasses the .357's capability. The .357 is not my favorite cartridge but there are some worthy guns that chamber it. Bearing in mind that the last gun I bought was a S&W Highway Patrolman.

 

[Propforce]

There's a lot in the lower 48 that I would not attempt with a .357Mag. It's fine for deer sized game out to 50yds but that's about the practical limit. No way would I be shooting 800lb elk or 1500lb moose with a .357Mag. A bigger cartridge buys you not only the capability to take larger game but greater range as well. This ain't the 1930's and no one here is Doug Wesson. Or needs to be. If you cannot handle .44 recoil, you don't need to be hunting .44-sized critters.

For lessening recoil, you're far better off with a moderate .44 load than a heavy .357.

I apologize for missing the part where OP was not interested in neither hunting or SD with the 44 magnum but only for the pleasure of Big Bangs at the range. I can relate as I have 454 Casull for same purpose.

Craig, you will use 44 magnum for 800 lb Elk or 1,500 lb Moose? You think that'a responsible hunting?

 

[CraigC]

Craig, you will use 44 magnum for 800 lb Elk or 1,500 lb Moose? You think that'a responsible hunting?

Uh, yeah! What's wrong with that?

 

[RunninLate]

I have both and usually shoot 38's in the 357 and 44 Specials in the 629 and SBH. BTW, I really enjoy shooting the Charter Arms Backpacker. I also reload for all 4 calibers.

Really do not see any need to shoot a steady diet of magnum loads trying to kill paper. Yes, there is a difference in reloading cost but if you have to worry about that, stick with one caliber IMHO.

 

[eldon519]

Propforce, weren't you just advocating using the .357 for anything in the 48 except brown bears? And now you are knocking folks for using the .44 on elk or moose? Seems a wee bit hypocritical.

 

[Varminterror]

There is nothing in the lower 48 that you take care with a 44 magnum you can not take care of with a 357 magnum. 357 magnum does it with lower recoil.

I'll call this bet. I've taken whitetail at 150yrds with .44mags with nary an argument. Taken dozens of deer with .357mags - getting past 75yrds with a .357mag is about equivalent to getting past 150 with a .44 in terms of how far deer will travel after the shot. One is a true hunting weapon, one is a super short woods gun with a little more range than a compound bow.

 

[buck460XVR]

Please try to pay attention to the post I replied to, rather than just critiquing the validity of my posts. Last I checked, one can reply to ANY post in the thread and not just the OP.

Off topic and not pertinent to the thread is obvious invalidity. I was not critiquing, only stating the obvious. What does 1500# moose and 150 yard shots have to do with only punchin' paper at distances the average handgunner shoots? Nuttin'........ right?

I'll call this bet. I've taken whitetail at 150yrds with .44mags with nary an argument. Taken dozens of deer with .357mags - getting past 75yrds with a .357mag is about equivalent to getting past 150 with a .44 in terms of how far deer will travel after the shot. One is a true hunting weapon, one is a super short woods gun with a little more range than a compound bow.

Here we go again. The average handgun range is 25 yards. Much less than the range of a compound bow. A piece of paper is not going to leave a blood trail, much less travel any distance at all after being shot.....unless the wind rips it off the stand. Again, the .357 for someone only shooting paper at the range, offers a lot less and a lot more for the shooter. A lot less recoil and a lot less cost for ammo, while providing a more pleasurable shooting platform, that for most folks is more accurate than shooting .44 mag.

You folks want to argue hunting with a .357 or .44, start a different thread.

 

[Varminterror]

The average handgun range is 25 yards.

Average for whom?

25yrds sure isn't average handgun hunting range for me. Maybe many paper punching auto shooters are resigned to 25yrd shooters (tipping my hat at this point to my Bullseye brethren who play at 50yrds every wknd with bottom feeders), but revolver shooters and hunters certainly don't have to be relegated to your narrow scope. I could pull averages for exact numbers I suppose, but I can be certain my average revolver kills have been considerably longer than my average archery kills, I'd safely venture neary TWICE as far. But then again, I've hunted with handguns primarily for my entire hunting life, taking over a hundred whitetails with a .44mag revolver alone - some even past 150yrds.

Are you going to say you only hunt that big X-Frame .460S&W to 25yrds?

"There are more things in Heaven and Earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy" - Wild Bill Shakespeare

 

[CraigC]

Off topic and not pertinent to the thread is obvious invalidity. I was not critiquing, only stating the obvious. What does 1500# moose and 150 yard shots have to do with only punchin' paper at distances the average handgunner shoots? Nuttin'........ right?

Then by definition, your critique is also off topic and invalid. Why do we need to pursue this nonsense? These discussions are fluid and more often than not, go in directions not originally intended. It is how people learn, by reading answers to questions they didn't think to ask. For the record, the OP mentioned nothing about intended use, that came later and many people respond to the OP without even reading the entire thread.

I was responding to a post that I wanted to respond to and will continue to do so, whether it strictly addresses the OP or not. Just as I'm sure you've responded to my comments about X-frames in the past that may or may not have been on topic. I suggest that you leave the post policing to the moderators, it's what they do.

Lighten up.

 

[buck460XVR]

Average for whom?

25yrds sure isn't average handgun hunting range for me. Maybe many paper punching auto shooters are resigned to 25yrd shooters (tipping my hat at this point to my Bullseye brethren who play at 50yrds every wknd with bottom feeders), but revolver shooters and hunters certainly don't have to be relegated to your narrow scope. I could pull averages for exact numbers I suppose, but I can be certain my average revolver kills have been considerably longer than my average archery kills, I'd safely venture neary TWICE as far. But then again, I've hunted with handguns primarily for my entire hunting life, taking over a hundred whitetails with a .44mag revolver alone - some even past 150yrds.

Are you going to say you only hunt that big X-Frame .460S&W to 25yrds?

"There are more things in Heaven and Earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy" - Wild Bill Shakespeare

Again, what the 'ell does the range I hunt with a handgun or the range you hunt with a handgun have to do with the topic of this thread? This is my point. You keep ranting about shooting deer out to 150 yards, but the OP does not hunt....only shoots his handgun at the range, at paper, or maybe some random reactive target. He never claimed to shoot in Bullseye or any other competition. Most handgun ranges indoor and out, generally max out 25 yards. Many folks shoot their handguns less than that. I shoot mine mostly @ 40 -70. The .357s still do a great job there. My narrow scope here has nuttin' to do with hunting with revolvers....like I said, you want to argue that, start a new thread on it. This thread is about shooting a handgun at the range and when doing so does a .357 have any distinct advantages.Apparently you missed that.

 

[CraigC]

Here we go again. The average handgun range is 25 yards.

Personally, I would make NO assumptions as to the range people are shooting at, targets or critters. I scoped a .357 specifically to play with it on paper and inanimate objects out to 250yds. What's the problem with having an open discussion? The OP can decide what is pertinent and what is not.

 

[buck460XVR]

many people respond to the OP without even reading the entire thread.

Yep....that's pretty obvious.

 

[CraigC]

Again, what the 'ell does the range I hunt with a handgun or the range you hunt with a handgun have to do with the topic of this thread? This is my point. You keep ranting about shooting deer out to 150 yards, but the OP does not hunt....only shoots his handgun at the range, at paper, or maybe some random reactive target. He never claimed to shoot in Bullseye or any other competition. Most handgun ranges indoor and out, generally max out 25 yards. Many folks shoot their handguns less than that. I shoot mine mostly @ 40 -70. The .357s still do a great job there. My narrow scope here has nuttin' to do with hunting with revolvers....like I said, you want to argue that, start a new thread on it. This thread is about shooting a handgun at the range and when doing so does a .357 have any distinct advantages.Apparently you missed that.

You have done more to derail this thread than anyone you're responding to.

 

[Buck13]

The pic is a 210 grain Speer GDHP over 23 grains of 2400 powder. A screamer.

Even with hot .357, I don't find the need for a glove. I do put one on for top-of-the-line .44s, else my Redhawk may rub a litte skin off the web of my thumb.

So, I guess .357 has that advantage if you forget your glove! And also forget your bag of downloaded .44s. I keep the glove in the bag of .44 ammo, so it's all or nothing.

 

[eldon519]

buck460, why do you have so much desire to control this conversation? I think it is appropriate to respond to a post when someone puts some questionable information out there. People read these threads for all kinds of reasons and come across them from all kinds of Google searches. There is alot that can be taken away from these conversations beyond the exact question posed by the OP. It's a facetious example, but I wouldn't want some idiot to try to shoot a bison (which most definitely live in the lower 48) with his .357 from 25 yards because he read it was a good idea on THR.

 

[forrest r]

Cost of reloading:
General ratios of 357 vs 44's are 3 to 2 or 3cast bullets for the 357 ='s 2 cast bullets for the 44mag. Same with powders @ the end of the day it cost you 1/3rd more to feed the 44mag. Cases are extremely cheap for the 38spl/357's compared to the 44cal's. 1x are 1/2 the cost.
Bullet molds if you cast:
There's just so many more 35cal molds out there. Just got done testing cast hp bullets for 38spl p+ snubnosed revolvers. Used 10 different cast hp's in the test. Did the same testing with a snubnosed 44spl, no where near as many hp molds for the 44cal's. Got me thinking about the 2 different calibers and the molds that are out there. At the end of the day I trip over a bunch of 35cal molds just to able to buy a special/odd 44cal mold. They just don't come around that often. A side benefit of the 35cal molds is the cast bullets can be sized to .358" and used in the 9mm/38spl/357.
Firearm size:
Your pretty much locked into a large framed revolver for the 44cal's. 357's can be small/medium/large framed. The biggest advantage of the medium framed revolvers is the line of the bore compared to the shooters hand. The lower the bore is the less felt recoil is. The length of the trigger pull is shorter on medium framed revolvers compared to their large framed counterparts. The end result is a firearm that is extremely easy to control and has excellent follow up shots.At the end of the day smaller hands will never control a large framed revolver but small & large hands can control a medium framed revolver.
The affects of the ammo on the shooter:
Simple enough go out and shoot 300 full house loads of each caliber in 2 hours. Typical 44mag bullet/load of 240gr xtp with 24gr of 296 vs the typical 357mag bullet/load of 158gr xtp with 16.7gr of 296. Then put target loads in the same revolvers and start shooting 1 handed at nra targets for score.
Accuracy:
The 35cal are inherently more accurate. Don't think so, ask the countless 1,000,000's of bullseye shooters that have shot in competitions since the 38spl got a foothold in the 30's. The 35cal's have never looked back and the 44spl has become 1 of those odd calibers that only a handful of different firearms are chambered for anymore.

Hands down I go with a 357:
There's more firearms brands/styles out there
Cheaper to shoot
Extremely accurate
Longer periods of range time/higher round count with hotter loads
Most importantly, the quality of the range time due to less shooter fatigue.

I'm 1 of those rare shooter that appreciate wheelguns and the 44cal's. For years I owned/shot snubnosed 44spl & 38spl revolvers, owned/shot a target 44spl (624), and owned/shot full underluged 357 & 44mag revolvers. It got to the point I didn't shoot that much nra bullseye with a revolver anymore so I sold the 624 last year after 15+ years of quality range time. Owned countless 44mags over the years, ruger bh's to their automag rifle, marlin 1895 leverguns to 4"/6"/8 3/8" bbl'd 29's. To this day I still own/carry a ca bulldog in 44spl, stated carrying a ca bulldog in 1986. Also have/shoot 10" bbl's in 357 & 44mag for the contender, too much fun!!! Been casting bullets & collecting molds for both calibers since 1986 also. At the end of the day I still own/shoot more 38spl/357's than I do the 44cal's. Simply because like the op, I'm doing nothing more than punching holes in paper, pecking at steel, popping bowling pins & putting the smack on reactive targets like shotgun shells.

 

[Zaydok Allen]

I was going to participate in this thread, but I was really confused at the dialogue. Then I went into my ignore list and realized the problem. The old THR at least told you when an ignored member had commented. Not now.

Now I see comments on effectiveness have been twisted and contorted, and the thread has been derailed. Just once I'd love to see a cartridge conversation not get derailed.

Since the OP has expressed that SD and hunting are NOT desired uses, all the hunting effectiveness arguments are irrelevant, so we can all be friends again.

So OP, what does the 357 have to offer that the 44 doesn't? If we assume warm loads in each, the answer is simple. It offers less recoil and perhaps less expensive ammo and reloading components. It may also offer a seventh or eighth round depending on the model you choose. Any other discussions of performance appears to be irrelevant for your uses. Let us know what you buy!

 

[CraigC]

There's no doubt the .38Spl and .357Mag are more popular. There's no doubt that components cost less. However, the difference isn't quite as significant as some would have you believe.

Starline brass:
.38Spl - $131/1000
.357Mag - $136/1000
.44Spl - $175/1000
.44Mag - $176/1000

A difference of about 20%. Which, spread out along the number of times a case can be reloaded, is completely insignificant.

Jacketed bullets, the Hornady XTP:
.357" 158gr JHP - $20/100
.429" 240 JHP - $26/100

A difference of 23%.

Cast bullets from Missouri Bullet Co.:
.358" 158gr SWC - $35/500
.430" 240gr SWC - $49/500

A difference of less than 30%.

Only a bullet caster, who loves casting as much as or more than shooting, really cares about the number of molds available for each. There are PLENTY in each size for anything anyone might want to do. I strictly use commercial cast bullets and am left wanting for nothing. From pipsqueak 700fps .44Colt loads to 355gr monster masher .44Magnums, it's all covered with just a handful of choices.

The .38Spl is NOT inherently more accurate than the .44Spl, .44Mag or any other cartridge. The fact that more bullseye shooters used .38's is because the cartridge does everything they need it to do. Not because it was somehow more accurate. Revolvers are inherently accurate, not cartridges. A properly built sixgun will shoot well regardless of its chambering.

The lower the centerline of the bore, the more recoil is transmitted straight back into the palm, rather than muzzle flip. It does NOT reduce recoil, it only redirects it. Personally, as one who is primarily a single action shooter, I'll take muzzle rise over palm slap.

The .44Special is more popular today than ever. We've had more guns chambering the round in the last 20yrs than at any time during its existence. Ruger has produced several iterations of its mid-frame .44Spl in recent years and those surely won't be the last. Not to mention the various S&W's, Charter Arms, Colt's, USFA's, Freedom Arms and it has long been a consistent offering in Italian replicas, in multiple platforms and from multiple importers.

A glance at the various weights of the various guns raises another question. How much lighter is a .357 than a .44? It depends. If we're talking K-frames, then they are significantly lighter. If we're talking L-frames, the waters are muddier. A 6" 686 is 45oz, the same weight as my Ruger Bisley .44Mag. A 6" model 27 is 46oz. Only 1oz lighter than a 6" 29 and 4oz HEAVIER than a 6.5" model 24.

Of course, I'd never try to talk someone out of buying a new sixgun but one should enter with their eyes open.

 

[Hanshi]

Most .357s are smaller, lighter than most .44mags. Recoil and cost of reloading is less. IMHO the .357 is more versatile than the big .44. I've killed many deer with a couple of .357s and carried them on duty. Plus you can shoot inexpensive wadcutter loads for target and small game.