Does 357 Mag offer anything 44 Mag doesn't?

[Darkstar888]

The added benefit of being able to fire 38 special as well is nice.

 

[CraigC]

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.

The added benefit of being able to fire 38 special as well is nice.

You can do all those things with the .44.....and more. I don't see how the .357 could possibly be more versatile. The .44 has a much broader spectrum of potential uses and can be loaded just as mild as the .38Spl.

 

[eldon519]

For what it is worth, the place I buy lots of my cast bullets from sells 158gr .358 bullets for $.07 and 240gr .430 bullets for $.08. My H110 loads do use about 50% more powder in .44 mag though. However to get comparable bang, I can use a faster powder like Unique in the .44 mag and actually use less powder to get a similar load on par with a full-power H110 .357 magnum round. They'd break pretty even at that point.

But shooting the .357 is kind of ho-hum and doesn't do that much for me. Just my opinion/experience. It's a situation where I can pay 80% of the money and have 50% of the fun, kind of like paying to go on a vacation but then trying to be cheap once you get there. I'd rather pay 100% of the money and have 100% of the fun.

 

[Zaydok Allen]

It's a situation where I can pay 80% of the money and have 50% of the fun, kind of like paying to go on a vacation but then trying to be cheap once you get there. I'd rather pay 100% of the money and have 100% of the fun.

Well said.

 

[readyeddy]

Couple of different questions asked by OP. Does 357 offer anything 44 doesn't? What makes a guy reach for 357 instead of 44 when going to the range? The answer to the first, as pointed out by the good folks here, is for the most part "no". The second question, however, is more subjective. I would say that SOMETIMES I grab the 357 just because I want to. It's a great cartridge and I love my gun that's chambered in 357. I don't need any other reason.

 

[roscoe]

Just so the OP can see it clearly - it is the firearms in .357 that offer advantages, not the round itself. I sometimes backpack (in black bear country) with a 3" SP101 and there is no .44mag equivalent. If there were a revolver that was as compact, light, indestructible, inexpensive, and versatile, I would go that way, but there isn't, so I don't. I do have a 5.5" .45 LC Blackhawk that beats the .44 mag in the raw power game, but it is a big, clunky, heavy, awkward pistol compared to the concealable SP101.

 

[eldon519]

I cannot think of a .44 mag the size of an SP101, but not all .44s are giant guns. The 4" M69 is an L-frame that weighs LESS than a 4" 686 (~1.5-4.0 oz less depending on the exact 4" 686 model). By comparison, the current production M66 is only 0.5 oz lighter than the M69. All pretty negligible differences. It is a great gun for woods carry. Also surprisingly recoil is fairly manageable with the right grip.

 

[forrest r]

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.
Actually it's a difference of 33%
Jacketed bullets, the Hornady XTP:
.357" 158gr JHP - $20/100
.429" 240 JHP - $26/100

A difference of 23%.
Try 30%

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

A difference of less than 30%.
You must be using that "NEW" math again 40% sounds more like it.

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.
Or a caster that doesn't want to spend stupid amounts of $$$ on a rare 44cal mold that the bullet style is extremely common and cheap in the 35cal world. Some of us don't care to shoot Keith or Thompson swc's our whole life.

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.
That makes sense, bullseye shooters go out and spend $1000's on a custom 1911 and use a 38spl revolver because it's simply there. How about they buy whatever works the best.

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.
Thank you for pointing out 1 type of firearm is harder to control over another and why. I can see why "YOU" personally shoot single action. Something to think about when shooters are doing steel or bowling pins.

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.
S&W hasn't put out a 44spl revolver in years, ca doesn't sell a 6" bbl'd 44spl, & the rugers are the single action thing. To buy a new double action revolver chambered in 44spl you'll spend $2300 with the freedom arms. But why you're bringing up the 44spl is beyond me, the OP asked about the 44mag ve 357.

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.
Actually you are comparing a 6" bbl'd full under lug 686 to a 5 1/2" bbl'd Ruger Bisley 44spl. There's that single action thing again. Odd I thought the new model 27's have 6 1/2" bbl's. Doesn't really matter a n-frame is a n-frame. GEE, I wonder why you didn't compare a full underlugged 686 (44.8oz) to a full underlugged 629 (48..4oz)??? Heck 7 shots are better than 6, a 7-shot 686+ is 44.2oz. At the end of the day there's more models of 357's out there than the 44cal's and that isn't even counting the 7 & 8 round capacities of new generation of 357's.

Of course, I'd never try to talk someone out of buying a new sixgun but one should enter with their eyes open.
Me neither but I do try to post accurate #'s and compare apples to apples

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.

 

[Dog Soldier]

Back in the day when handgun hunting first became a popular sport guides and Outfitters had a test. The client would stand with a 2 hand hold. The target was a common paper plate. Your safe range was determined by what distance you could keep 5 of 6 rounds on the paper plate. I suspect it would still be a fair measure.

 

[eldon519]

Forrest R, just a reminder of how math works since you seem quite cocky about it: calculating whether something has increased vs decreased will yield different percentages. You can describe either as a difference.

With the example of the cast bullets at $35 vs $49, $49 is 40% more than $35. However, $35 is 28.6% less than $49. You both calculated correct numbers, it just depends which you are regarding as the standard for increase/reduction. It's also a great piece of knowledge for making presentations to management, clients, etc in order to use bigger percentages for good changes and smaller percentages for bad changes.

Also, in regards to inherent accuracy, silhouette shooters seem to do just fine with the big guns at ranges that make bullseye shoots look like spitting distance. I don't think an inherent accuracy advantage between the two exists.

 

[CraigC]

Now that the math is out of the way.

Or a caster that doesn't want to spend stupid amounts of $$$ on a rare 44cal mold that the bullet style is extremely common and cheap in the 35cal world. Some of us don't care to shoot Keith or Thompson swc's our whole life.

Like I said.

That makes sense, bullseye shooters go out and spend $1000's on a custom 1911 and use a 38spl revolver because it's simply there. How about they buy whatever works the best.

The evidence of absence is not the absence of evidence. In other words, the fact that bullseye shooters predominately use the .38Spl is not proof that it's more accurate than any other cartridge. It's proof that it's more popular.

Thank you for pointing out 1 type of firearm is harder to control over another and why. I can see why "YOU" personally shoot single action. Something to think about when shooters are doing steel or bowling pins.

You said it reduces recoil and that is simply not true. It only redirects it, into the palm. The fact that you think single actions are harder to control makes me think you've never spent much time with them. Thank you for putting that in perspective. You do realize that the .44 in question is a Super Blackhawk, right?

S&W hasn't put out a 44spl revolver in years, ca doesn't sell a 6" bbl'd 44spl, & the rugers are the single action thing. To buy a new double action revolver chambered in 44spl you'll spend $2300 with the freedom arms. But why you're bringing up the 44spl is beyond me, the OP asked about the 44mag ve 357.

S&W has made SEVERAL iterations of N-frame .44Spl's in recent years. Look it up.

Freedom Arms doesn't make a double action, never has.

Okay, so you can espouse the .38Spl but I can't mention the .44Spl???

Actually you are comparing a 6" bbl'd full under lug 686 to a 5 1/2" bbl'd Ruger Bisley 44spl. There's that single action thing again. Odd I thought the new model 27's have 6 1/2" bbl's. Doesn't really matter a n-frame is a n-frame. GEE, I wonder why you didn't compare a full underlugged 686 (44.8oz) to a full underlugged 629 (48..4oz)??? Heck 7 shots are better than 6, a 7-shot 686+ is 44.2oz. At the end of the day there's more models of 357's out there than the 44cal's and that isn't even counting the 7 & 8 round capacities of new generation of 357's.

Yes, I'm comparing the most popular full sized revolver S&W has ever produced with the most popular iteration of the .44Mag. No, I said my Ruger Bisley .44Mag, which is an ounce heavier than my 5½" .44Spl. Does the OP need to exclude single actions from the equation because YOU are so averse to (or ignorant of) them? That's a bummer because he says he already has a Super Blackhawk. The point being that .357's aren't necessarily universally smaller/lighter than .44's. That unless you're comparing K-frames, there's little difference.

Capacity is a subjective thing and personally, of low relevance.

I never said the .357 wasn't more popular. It is the .30-06 of the handgun world.

Me neither but I do try to post accurate #'s and compare apples to apples

Is that what you call it?

 

[Zaydok Allen]

Also, in regards to inherent accuracy, silhouette shooters seem to do just fine with the big guns at ranges that make bullseye shoots look like spitting distance. I don't think an inherent accuracy advantage between the two exists.

Inherent accuracy is a term that always makes my spidey sense tingle. I started a discussion on the topic awhile ago and it is a very long, though interesting read. The term inherent accuracy is an oversimplification describing a combination of factors. It is effectively irrelevant when discussing pistol calibers, as you pointed out. It's much more relevant when discussing rifle calibers and long distance shooting, at least as far as I understand it.

In case anyone wants to read. I don't mean to be off topic. The thing to remember is that 44 caliber bullets do offer higher ballistic coefficients, and thus may have greater potential accuracy at longer ranges. It's probably irrelevant for a lot of shooters though.

http://www.thehighroad.org/index.ph...nt-accuracy-in-regards-to-a-cartridge.774598/

Please read the entire thread if you decide to give it a look, as there are a lot of discussion points that get touched on, and a lot of individual factors had to be ferreted out before the concept made any kind of sense to me. I'm still not entirely convinced I have a true understanding of the topic, but definitely better than I did before the conversation.

 

[tallpaul]

Well some state that 20 or 23 percent more cost is not enough to justify the savings...

the 357 cartridge is also physically smaller/lighter and it all adds up...

When you shoot thousands of rounds it does add up to quite a bit of savings and it allso makes a difference in how many rrounds one can carry. That may make a difference to some depending on the mission. I am of the you need both school...

and a .22lr and a .45 colt and a big n boomer 460-475 or 500 mag... but thats a different story also

 

[murf]

Less recoil. You can shoot full-house 357 magnum loads all day long with a full size six inch revolver, not so with full-house 44 magnum loads and a full size revolver.

murf

 

[Confederate]

You didn't mention what you'd want with a new gun. The S&W 686 is a good gun, every bit as good as a Colt Python. Very accurate, but heavy for outdoorsmen in 6-inch barrel length. But if you're using the gun for range use only, it's fine. For self defense in the woods, that .44 Mag will be hard to beat, but it's heavy too. You can buy a new S&W 66 Combat Masterpiece instead of a 686, and get the accuracy and durability, but without the weight. Recoil will be a bit sharper, but if you're into shooting .44 Mags, I doubt recoil will be an issue.

For self defense against humans, cougars and black bears, the .357 is fine. In fact, against humans the .357 arguably has better stopping per than the .44. Many have a hard time believing that, but the .357 doesn't penetrate too much while the .44 does. Those big pills go right through people and wastes most of its energy. The .357 is known for its ghastly effects on the human body, but 158gr bullets generally overpenetrate. When going down to the 125gr JHP, however, that's just about perfect for stopping humans.

 

[Old Dog]

Love this thread. A question I've asked myself for over 40 years. I opted for the .357, and will take my chances with the brown bear (oh, wait, I think I started packing a 10mm in bear country -- never mind).

Seriously, though, I just find the .357 way more versatile for target, competition and self-defense applications. Then there's reloading and budget factors to consider as well. But for handling, looks, weight and fun, K-frames forever!

 

[gotboostvr]

Old dog, I'm with ya!
K frames forever!
As a matter of fact, I've owned K, L and N frame 357's, now all my 357's are M19's.
In my opinion, it's the best balance of size and power.

 

[au_prospector]

but one can easily get through life without a .357Mag. Even a sixgun nut.

Craig this statement is crazy blasphemy!

I can understand not having the cash holding you back on a .38/.357 purchase and set up, I truly can. But for me this would have high anxiety. It would be like not owning other classics like something chambered in .22lr or .45 auto. On the flip side, we would not want you to be disappointed. .38 spl are anemic compared to .44 mag, but .357 in a lighter framed revolver gets some adrenaline pumping.

Its all about personal preferences, I own a Ruger Super Blackhawk with the 4.6 inch bbl. I own a Smith 29 with a 6 inch bbl. My Smith 586 has a 4 inch bbl and produces the best groups and is the one which gets the most range trips. Then the model 29 and lastly the Ruger SBH. I can run 100 rounds of .38 spl and feel satisfied. At about 50 rounds of mid to high end .357 I am done. I can do about 30 rounds in the model 29, but only a couple cylinders in the Ruger SBH before the thrill is gone for the day. Maybe if I used gloves like you have in the picture, I would feel better about the SBH.

 

[45_auto]

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.

Same thing that makes you reach for a 44 mag instead of a 500 Mag.

List the reasons that you shoot a 44 instead of a 500. Then go back and change where you wrote "44" to "357", and change "500" to "44".

 

[forrest r]

Forrest R, just a reminder of how math works since you seem quite cocky about it: calculating whether something has increased vs decreased will yield different percentages. You can describe either as a difference.
Cocky, not hardly, more like I don't have to play with words or #'s to to cloud the truth.

With the example of the cast bullets at $35 vs $49, $49 is 40% more than $35. However, $35 is 28.6% less than $49. You both calculated correct numbers, it just depends which you are regarding as the standard for increase/reduction. It's also a great piece of knowledge for making presentations to management, clients, etc in order to use bigger percentages for good changes and smaller percentages for bad changes.
You're comparing the difference in the price of the different components which is meaning less (bullets/brass/powder). At the end of the day the bank account is going to be out $35 vs $49 that's a difference of 40%. I don't have spin the #'s to make it look better or worse. I know it's complicated but it's either spend $35 or $49 for the same # of bullets.

Also, in regards to inherent accuracy, silhouette shooters seem to do just fine with the big guns at ranges that make bullseye shoots look like spitting distance. I don't think an inherent accuracy advantage between the two exists.
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.

 

[eldon519]

You are clearly blinded by your own bias or simply unwilling to see both sides of the coin. Either is a sign of a small mind. It is pretty easy to see and understand both sides as each has its own supporting truths. Accepting that an opposing view has validity does not mean that you have to adopt it.

The point is, to a person used to shooting the big bores such as myself, I consider the cost of shooting/reloading .44mag or .45 Colt my baseline. I hardly shoot .357, so I base my decision on my present expenditures. Not surprisingly, when I contemplate getting a bigger caliber, I also base that off .44/.45 costs because that is still my baseline.

For the sake of the example, let's say the given bullet costs reflect the entire costs of shooting .44 vs .357. As a .44 shooter, I only reduce my expenditure by 28.6% (pretty inflated figure still). By contrast, you seem to be pretty dedicated to .357, so your baseline might be the cost of .357 shooting and the jump to .44 represents a 40% increase to you.

Maybe to you, the 40% increase (again an exaggerated figure) makes the jump to .44 less appetizing to you. Similarly, the smaller percentage savings for me makes the jump down to .357 less appetizing to me. I'd reference my previous comment, but I'll adapt it to 71.4% of the cost but only 50% of the fun for me when pulling the trigger on the .357.

However, as I also said, one of the places I buy from sells bulk .44 245gr bullets for $.08 compared to $.07 for .358 158gr bullets. Since you insist on viewing things from your cost-increase perspective, that's only a 14% increase.

However, to get that 158 to give me the full magnum experience, you're looking in the neighborhood of 16-18gr of slow burning powder for a max load. A .44-Special-level load with a similar power factor (momentum) maybe takes in the neighborhood of 7gr of Unique. A mid-level .44 mag load with similar velocity, superior PF, and superior KE (if that is your thing) takes maybe 10-11gr Unique. Those loads save about 1-1.5lbs of powder per 1000 rounds. At maybe $18-25/lb, that more than makes up for the increased cost of bullets.

Point being, sure a full-power .44 magnum load costs more than a full-power .357 magnum load, but there are lots of light and mid-level .44 loads that are both cheaper and more potent than a full power .357 magnum load. Shooting a .44 isn't the sport of kings you are making it out to be.

Seems ironic, but the same is true with .454 and .44 mag. You can load up a mid-level .454 load with a powder like Longshot and get full-power .44 mag performance at less cost. It's similar to how a 350 Chevy has to work harder to do what a 454 will do without running up the RPMs.

I also don't know why you are attacking the .44 magnum specifically with regard to accuracy though. It is plenty accurate whether you can shoot it accurately or not. No one has made any claims that it is the most accurate round in existence. To the contrary, several posters have even expressed skepticism to the concept of "inherent accuracy" in a revolver round, myself included. Whether or not it becomes less popular in silhouette does not diminish its demonstrated performance in the sport. Even if the .44 magnum became an obsolete relic, it will not go back in time and make it inaccurate. Popularity is not the definitive mark of superiority, otherwise Justin Bieber would be one of the best musicians in the planet.

 

[Zaydok Allen]

forrest r, while I think you make some valid points, that from your perspective are correct, eldon519 is just as correct, as was Craig. Depending on how you look at the numbers, the savings or lack of savings can be portrayed two different ways. No one is trying to cloud the truth. Think of it this way. If I am working for a software firm, and want to demonstrate how my product will help a large corporation run their business more efficiently, I'm going to present the potential increase in revenue or savings to the company the way you did. If I was going for consistency, when they asked what how much more my software will cost to use than what they are already using, I will again present the numbers the way you are. However, if I'm a sharp sales rep, I'll present the cost the way Craig did. Is that dishonest? Some would say so. Does it happen, sure, all the time. That's capitalism. Everyone is trying to get someone else to buy something.

The difference is that Craig used the numbers, correctly, that pertain to him. He isn't trying to sell you anything. Eldon isn't trying to sell you anything. These guys don't give a rats ass what you or anyone else shoots because their livelihoods don't depend on it. You used the numbers that pertain to you, and that's fine. They do care about making sure that both sides of the benefit/cost ratio is seen by the original poster, as well as others that stumble upon this thread. Neither of them have said that 357 magnum is a useless or ineffective cartridge. Just the opposite in fact. They've both acknowledged it's use. They have just pointed out some of the benefits of 44 over 357, and that some of the perceived benefits of 357 can be mitigated based on how you load a 44. Since the OP is a reloader/hand loader, that info is very pertinent to the discussion.

Your argumentative tone, outright belligerence, refusal to even consider the validity of what they are saying, and even the red font you are choosing to, point by point, dismiss their comments are not constructive to the conversation. It just makes you look like a troll, or an angry person who just wants to be right. We welcome you to the forum, but your confrontational tone is unnecessary.

 

[forrest r]

I actually have no bias contrary to other's in this thread. I own both calibers in multiple firearms. Have for the last 30 years and still do to this day. I've reloaded for both calibers, bought molds/cast for both calibers, swage my own lead and jacketed bullets for both calibers. Hunted with both calibers, plink with both calibers, use both calibers for hd/sd/cc, shot nra bullseye with both calibers, bowling pins, silhouette, etc. The op asked for opinions on 357 vs 44mag, while not claiming to be an expert on either caliber, I simply gave an answer based on my 30+ years experience with both calibers.

 

[CraigC]

Craig this statement is crazy blasphemy!

I can understand not having the cash holding you back on a .38/.357 purchase and set up, I truly can. But for me this would have high anxiety. It would be like not owning other classics like something chambered in .22lr or .45 auto. On the flip side, we would not want you to be disappointed. .38 spl are anemic compared to .44 mag, but .357 in a lighter framed revolver gets some adrenaline pumping.

Its all about personal preferences, I own a Ruger Super Blackhawk with the 4.6 inch bbl. I own a Smith 29 with a 6 inch bbl. My Smith 586 has a 4 inch bbl and produces the best groups and is the one which gets the most range trips. Then the model 29 and lastly the Ruger SBH. I can run 100 rounds of .38 spl and feel satisfied. At about 50 rounds of mid to high end .357 I am done. I can do about 30 rounds in the model 29, but only a couple cylinders in the Ruger SBH before the thrill is gone for the day. Maybe if I used gloves like you have in the picture, I would feel better about the SBH.

I never had much use for one. Got my first .44Mag at age 16 and quickly learned why so many were so romantic about the .44Spl. I love K-frames but when I want to shoot a .357" caliber sixgun, it's usually a .38Spl and for that, model 14's and 15's rule the roost. I believe in mass over velocity so things for which the .357 might be appropriate, I reach for a mid-frame .38-40, .44Spl or .45Colt. As I sit here and think about it, I actually have six .357 sixguns but at least three or four of those are destined to become something else. The two mid-frame Ruger Blackhawks will become a .45ACP and a .38-40. The GP-100 above will become a .41Spl and the Cimarron Bisley with factory ivory will also get converted to something more interesting. The two N-frames are here, well, because they're N-frames. A pre-28 and a 27-2 and that needs no explanation. IMHO, the best thing about .357's is that they can be rechambered to something bigger.

 

[forrest r]

forrest r, while I think you make some valid points, that from your perspective are correct, eldon519 is just as correct, as was Craig. Depending on how you look at the numbers, the savings or lack of savings can be portrayed two different ways. No one is trying to cloud the truth. Think of it this way. If I am working for a software firm, and want to demonstrate how my product will help a large corporation run their business more efficiently, I'm going to present the potential increase in revenue or savings to the company the way you did. If I was going for consistency, when they asked what how much more my software will cost to use than what they are already using, I will again present the numbers the way you are. However, if I'm a sharp sales rep, I'll present the cost the way Craig did. Is that dishonest? Some would say so. Does it happen, sure, all the time. That's capitalism. Everyone is trying to get someone else to buy something.

The difference is that Craig used the numbers, correctly, that pertain to him. He isn't trying to sell you anything. Eldon isn't trying to sell you anything. These guys don't give a rats ass what you or anyone else shoots because their livelihoods don't depend on it. You used the numbers that pertain to you, and that's fine. They do care about making sure that both sides of the benefit/cost ratio is seen by the original poster, as well as others that stumble upon this thread. Neither of them have said that 357 magnum is a useless or ineffective cartridge. Just the opposite in fact. They've both acknowledged it's use. They have just pointed out some of the benefits of 44 over 357, and that some of the perceived benefits of 357 can be mitigated based on how you load a 44. Since the OP is a reloader/hand loader, that info is very pertinent to the discussion.

Your argumentative tone, outright belligerence, refusal to even consider the validity of what they are saying, and even the red font you are choosing to, point by point, dismiss their comments are not constructive to the conversation. It just makes you look like a troll, or an angry person who just wants to be right. We welcome you to the forum, but your confrontational tone is unnecessary.
Actually all's I did was reply to a post about the 357 vs 44mag. From there Craig went thru and made his point. GOOD FOR HIM!!

I could care less what someone uses or doesn't use. The op asked 357 vs 44mag. I gave my opinion and why.
What I am not doing is:
Attacking anyone
Selling anyone anything
Not trying to put a spin on anything to sway anyone

I haven't called anyone any names, accused anyone of trolling or anything else. I have stated people are clouding the truth. No matter how slice/dice/spin/word it. If I take $35 out of my wallet compared to $49 for the same # of bullets/cases/apples/oranges/whatever. That's what's missing from my wallet.

I do find it interesting that this is the 2nd post about how to spin #'s to make it look more appealing. Odd, I'm not trying to sell anything, perhaps that what I'm doing wrong.
Well here goes.
TRY THIS!!!
Spend $35 or $49 for the same # of pulls of the trigger depending on the caliber. "That's right!!!" For only a little over 28% more and you can be shooting one of your very own 44mags. No money down and 12 easy payments every month when your credit card bill comes in.

There simple enough!!!