Limitations of .357 Magnum

Status
Not open for further replies.
I believe in Colorado there is a minimum of 800 foot pounds of energy from a handgun to hunt big game with.
Not getting there in any of MY 357 magnums.
 
JohnKSa said:
Right. What I'm trying to find is evidence to support the assertion that, when talking about lever actions, there's a specific convention/definition for definitively differentiating a 'short rifle' from a 'carbine' even though both are essentially the same length.

It does seem that Winchester differentiates between carbines and short rifles using the definitions mentioned above. I couldn't find an explicit statement of formal definitions, but it can be inferred from their product descriptions. It makes sense that companies making Winchester reproductions/clones would name their products similarly--I don't think that adds extra weight to Winchester's product naming scheme or elevates it to the level of an industry-wide convention.

Henry and Marlin seem to call something a carbine if it's a short version of another rifle they sell, or if it is chambered in a pistol caliber, regardless of other features.
Click to expand...

Then there's brilliant, erudite definitions like this. Pass the aspirin please.

http://www.differencebetween.net/technology/difference-between-carbine-and-rifle/
 
Caplock said:
I believe in Colorado there is a minimum of 800 foot pounds of energy from a handgun to hunt big game with.
Not getting there in any of MY 357 magnums.
Click to expand...

I believe its 550 ft-lbs at 50 yards in Colorado which is stout but withing 357 Mag capabilities. A 180 gr bullet at 1300 fps has 675 ft-lbs at the muzzle and 570 ft-lbs at 50 yards (using an BC of G1: .230). That is certainly stout but not a max performance load from 357.
 
Actually come to think of it, Carbine is a Military term dating from the day of single shots rifles, that referred to a rifle with shorter Over All Length(OAL) including a shorter barrel barrel and stock and usually either a less powerful cartridge then standard infantry or same cartridge but lighter loading. These were also called Cadet rifles, especial if they were meant for training Cadets.

I'm not certain, but I do believe that the Us military invented the term.
 
el Godfather said:
My question today is: what you cannot do with a 357 magnum that will require you to go for a bigger caliber? In other words where does the line end for the 357 magnum, making it useless while still remaining in the realm of handgun calibers.
Click to expand...

I'm a 44 man through & through but the limit of the 357 wasn't here or any of the others he took with the then new cartridge. I wasn't there so can't speak to the details.

1935.jpg
 
I think that consideration of limitations of the .357 Magnum(if actually any) is highly dependent on wither it is a handgun or rifle. A rifle in the same caliber gives it's user better performance, greater accuracy, and ease of handling.

Given that every large North American game can be and has been taken, it is out silly to speak of the 357 magnum as limited for hunting.
 
whm1974 said:
I think that consideration of limitations of the .357 Magnum(if actually any) is highly dependent on wither it is a handgun or rifle. A rifle in the same caliber gives it's user better performance, greater accuracy, and ease of handling.

Given that every large North American game can be and has been taken, it is out silly to speak of the 357 magnum as limited for hunting.
Click to expand...

Well most of us talking about 357 automatically think about the revolvers. Whereas you have right to mention its shooting out of Rifle because then its limitations are rather limited. There is nothing that cannot be taken down with 357 magnum in a defensive posture.
 
whm1974 said:
I think that consideration of limitations of the .357 Magnum(if actually any) is highly dependent on wither it is a handgun or rifle. A rifle in the same caliber gives it's user better performance, greater accuracy, and ease of handling.

Given that every large North American game can be and has been taken, it is out silly to speak of the 357 magnum as limited for hunting.
Click to expand...

Well most of us talking about 357 automatically think about the revolvers. Whereas you have right to mention its shooting out of Rifle because then its limitations are rather limited. There is nothing that cannot be taken down with 357 magnum in a defensive posture.
 
el Godfather said:
Well most of us talking about 357 automatically think about the revolvers. Whereas you have right to mention its shooting out of Rifle because then its limitations are rather limited. There is nothing that cannot be taken down with 357 magnum in a defensive posture.
Click to expand...
Well I also think of revolver as well.
 
Since I have a lot of better things to do today I'll let my two cents in on the "carbine question".

The term carbine comes to us from the military like most things related to guns.

The idea for the carbine came about in the late 1600's when the King of France decided that he needed a number of troops with the particular job of keeping the urban masses in check. They were armed with short muskets called carabinier. These arms were overall shorter,lighter and more maneuverable than the long guns of the infantry. The Italian Carabinieri took on a similar job and armament some years later in the early 1700's.

Over time and place the role of the weapon and use evolved. Calvary were armed with these weapons which were lighter and more maneuverable than the longer rifles which the fellas that pounded it out with sore feet carried, the infantry. Think of the Sharp's carbine vs. the Sharp's rifle. In the U.S. the development of leverguns added to the development and popularity of the carbine. Carbines predated the lever gun.

Basically a carbine is a overall shorter rifle. Shorter barrel, usually a shorter and lighter stock and build. They are more maneuverable, lighter wight and handy. Think of the M1 Carbine vs. the Garand.

No one at any time with any authority sat down and decided that it also had to have a certain type of stock, or fore end, or a certain shaped butt plate. In the 1800's one or another gun maker may have set their products in a certain mold but that never ruled all else. Today you can get a saddle ring carbine, an Alaskan Guide Gun, a Trapper carbine, and alot more in a number of variations and names with varying shaped butts made by a number of different companies.

A rifle with a short barrel is a different critter.

Now over the years there are and have been bolt action carbines, lever action carbines, and semi auto carbines. Still are and will be for a long time to come.
 
tipoc said:
Since I have a lot of better things to do today I'll let my two cents in on the "carbine question".

The term carbine comes to us from the military like most things related to guns.

The idea for the carbine came about in the late 1600's when the King of France decided that he needed a number of troops with the particular job of keeping the urban masses in check. They were armed with short muskets called carabinier. These arms were overall shorter,lighter and more maneuverable than the long guns of the infantry. The Italian Carabinieri took on a similar job and armament some years later in the early 1700's.

Over time and place the role of the weapon and use evolved. Calvary were armed with these weapons which were lighter and more maneuverable than the longer rifles which the fellas that pounded it out with sore feet carried, the infantry. Think of the Sharp's carbine vs. the Sharp's rifle. In the U.S. the development of leverguns added to the development and popularity of the carbine. Carbines predated the lever gun.

Basically a carbine is a overall shorter rifle. Shorter barrel, usually a shorter and lighter stock and build. They are more maneuverable, lighter wight and handy. Think of the M1 Carbine vs. the Garand.

No one at any time with any authority sat down and decided that it also had to have a certain type of stock, or fore end, or a certain shaped butt plate. In the 1800's one or another gun maker may have set their products in a certain mold but that never ruled all else. Today you can get a saddle ring carbine, an Alaskan Guide Gun, a Trapper carbine, and alot more in a number of variations and names with varying shaped butts made by a number of different companies.

A rifle with a short barrel is a different critter.

Now over the years there are and have been bolt action carbines, lever action carbines, and semi auto carbines. Still are and will be for a long time to come.
Click to expand...
Didn't know that a king of France cause Carbines to come into existent. Learned something new today.

Of course nowdays the term also can mean shorter OAL rifles that are chamber in standard Semi Auto pistol cartridges as well.
 
Well, I pretty much just use .357 for everything, but I'm not a fan or defender of it or anything. For most repeater handgun purposes, one could more easily argue that the 357 is "too much" rather than limited. That's why the most popular handgun cartridges don't even bother to be "magnums."

For revolvers, which are the natural home of 357, very big bores begin to become impractical in the cylinder diameter and the height of the bore axis above the grip. Now I would have a hard time pursuading a person that an N-frame, the original home of the 357, is too "tall," but I think it is fair to say that there is some bore diameter that is too tall to be practical for a revolver handgun. It may be that bore and cylinder diameters simply get increasing unwieldy as they increase. Hunting big game with a handgun seems to be the raison d'être of the really big bores. As a former bow hunter, I don't find repeating to be a compelling feature in any hunting firearm. If big bore handguns are better for hunting big game, make mine a single-shot with a lower bore axis and no cylinder gap.

So my conclusion is that bigger bore revolvers usually come with increased frame height (or reduced chamber count). This is a considerable trade-off for repeating handguns. Where the ballistics of the big-bores are really merited is in big-game hunting where repeaters are rarely needed. If someone hunts dangerous big game with a handgun or uses them for big bear defense, that's about the only practical scenarios where I can see a compelling case for the super-magnum revolvers. But the Desert Eagle never needed a practical scenario. There's lots of guns that just are.
 
Pollard, in his "History of Firearms" tells us the the term carbine, or carabins, was first used to describe small lighter long guns intended for mounted use in Europe in the late 1500's. A sorta harquebusier, and for a while maybe interchangeable with that term. In England it came to mean a smaller bore short rifle. In France, as I said above, it was a shorter weapon with a rifled barrel.

The English Council of War in 1630 gives the measurements of what a carbine (which they also called a Petronel) should measure.

Any way, the concept has been around since flintlocks. So maybe the King of France didn't bring them into existence but he or his generals, certainly spread the idea around.
 
tipoc said:
Pollard, in his "History of Firearms" tells us the the term carbine, or carabins, was first used to describe small lighter long guns intended for mounted use in Europe in the late 1500's. A sorta harquebusier, and for a while maybe interchangeable with that term. In England it came to mean a smaller bore short rifle. In France, as I said above, it was a shorter weapon with a rifled barrel.

The English Council of War in 1630 gives the measurements of what a carbine (which they also called a Petronel) should measure.

Any way, the concept has been around since flintlocks. So maybe the King of France didn't bring them into existence but he or his generals, certainly spread the idea around.
Click to expand...
First time I've seen the that word in print... Never heard of it...
 
These definitions are common and as old as the levergun itself. Unfortunately manufacturers like Marlin and Henry cater to the modern shooter who really doesn't care too much about history or such minor details.
Click to expand...
The assertion was that “…Winchester, Marlin and a whole slew of others.” adhered to the convention and definitions. Apparently Winchester does, but it doesn’t appear that Marlin does, and I couldn’t find any others that did (other than companies making replicas of Winchester vintage lever actions who adhered to Winchester’s convention), let alone a slew of them.
The crescent buttplate was commonly referred to as the "rifle" buttplate. The carbine and shotgun buttplates, the same way. These were specific "rifle" and "carbine" features. Kind of an important distinction when you have an overlap of barrel lengths. Of course, back then you could special order a rifle with whatever features you wanted and there are some in existence that mixed rifle, carbine and shotgun features.
Click to expand...
I see that Winchester does appear to name their products along those lines—is that the background for the assertion? If so, it might be reasonable to make the point that Winchester defines carbines and rifles a certain way, but going farther and asserting that it’s a widespread convention that applies across the board and to any lever action firearms, antique or modern, made by any manufacturer would be much harder to justify.

For example, Winchester also made some of their leverguns in what they called a “musket” configuration, but I’ve not seen any claims or evidence that their product naming convention officially redefined the term “musket” (which like the term 'carbine' existed before Winchester began selling firearms) or even that it established an official definition for that term that applies to all lever action rifles.

Furthermore, crescent buttplates are pretty uncommon these days on any firearms and heavy or octagon/half-octagon barrels aren't exactly prevalent on modern leverguns which brings up the issue that if this convention is still in place across the board, there would be almost no official lever-action rifles being made today. They are, if one chooses to follow Winchester's convention, carbine/rifle hybrids.
None of this stuff was random or arbitrary, it all had purpose. The rifle butt takes more time to get settled. The carbine but was faster into action. These were the assault rifles or sub-machine guns of their day. Meant for fast handling, short to intermediate range (all relative) and hard use, usually on horseback. They were also more utilitarian in nature.
Click to expand...
The intended usage all makes perfect sense, but it really doesn’t establish the idea that those features are universally accepted to be the definitive distinctions between lever-action carbines and rifles.
People seem to have blinders on and only focus on the barrel length to distinguish rifles from carbines.

…

I don't know why this is such a foreign concept to some folks, they did the same thing with the M16. Is the barrel length the only thing that distinguishes the M16 from the M4? Nope. We still refer to the buttstock and buffer system, as well as the gas system and handguard configurations as distinctly "rifle" and "carbine". The shorter, adjustable butt has at least as much to do with fast handling as the shorter barrel.
Click to expand...
I don’t think that anyone is saying that the only way to make a carbine is to shorten only the barrel. It’s quite often true that a “carbine” by the commonly accepted general definition, is designed to be more compact/light in more ways than just a shorter the barrel, but it’s also sometimes true that a “carbine” differs from the rifle it was derived from only in terms of barrel length and any modifications required to accommodate the shorter barrel. And Marlin & Henry also use the term “carbine” to refer to pistol caliber leverguns that have lengths and external appearances that are essentially identical to their “rifle” offerings.

As far as the M16/M4 differences go, I’m not sure that they are especially relevant to the assertion which was apparently intended to be very specifically about leverguns. i.e. “The action absolutely matters. These are important distinctions that apply to leverguns.” I was specifically asking about where these leverguns definitions exist other than perhaps as inferred from Winchester’s product naming convention. I think we can all agree that if conventions about barrel bands, saddle rings, octagon/half-octagon, fore-end caps, crescent buttplates, etc. do exist, they are very unlikely to apply to long guns in general, given that such combinations of features are quite uncommon on other action types.

Finally, not to put too fine a point on it, but the reference that started all this was to a Marlin 1894CSS not to the 1894C Cowboy. As far as I can tell the 1894CSS (not currently stocked by Marlin) had a barrel band, round barrel and non-crescent buttplate, so even if Marlin did adhere to Winchester’s convention (and it appears they do not) it would be closer to fitting Winchester’s idea of a lever action carbine than Winchester’s idea of a lever action rifle, even without a saddle ring. So the original comment about the rifle being a carbine was accurate by not only Marlin's standards, but also apparently by Winchester's.
 
Some extremely valuable insights I learned from this thread on 357. Unfortunately the sidetracked debates on revolver v semi-auto and then rifle v carbines corrupted much of the later part of the thread. From the two layer deserves a new thread as its a unique issue.

That said kind keep replies to the main subject of the thread ie 357 magnum.

I would like hear more from guys who have experience using it from the rifles.
 
I would like hear more from guys who have experience using it from the rifles.
Click to expand...

I have always kept my 1894CSS carifle (ribine?) loaded with heavy 180grn bullets for larger game ( for me, whitetail) as the bullets hold together well, expand and penetrate.

Bullet limitations come into play with lighter bullets, the 158grn 357's can be pushed to well over 2000fps, at close range there is a good chance of jacket separation.

The 125grn 357's loaded hot can approach 2300fps! Almost certain to come apart on impact, depending on the bullet contruction. Good varmit round, really only limited by range.

I have tried the Hornady FTX 140grn bullet, seems good for longer range, but haven't found a use for it.

None of these would be ideal at longer ranges that a true rifle caliber shines, but if you can shoot accurately to 150yrds or so, the 357 carbine/rifle is effective.

I limit myself with my Marlin to 125 yrds or so, only because of my ability to shoot it acurate consistently at longer distance (ghost ring sights) now if I had a Ruger bolt action with good optics I would definitely consider stretching that distance.

Now, if I had something dedicated solely to groundhogs or yotes it would be a varmit rifle in appropriate caliber.
Or if I lived out west with larger game and much longer distances that would be different.
But for me, in Indiana the 357 is ideal, not perfect for every scenario, but capable.

Edit:
To maximize the 357's performance handloads or boutique ammo manufacturers are the best route.
Sooo many factory loads don't load anywhere near fully utilizing the 357's potential.
 
Last edited:
el Godfather said:
Some extremely valuable insights I learned from this thread on 357. Unfortunately the sidetracked debates on revolver v semi-auto and then rifle v carbines corrupted much of the later part of the thread. From the two layer deserves a new thread as its a unique issue.

That said kind keep replies to the main subject of the thread ie 357 magnum.

I would like hear more from guys who have experience using it from the rifles.
Click to expand...

The ironic part is that if this thread in the handgun section wasn't 'unfortunately sidetracked', as you said, you might not be wanting to hear more rifle experiences.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

el Godfather
  • Locked
Novelty Threshold: where does the practicality end?
2 3
Replies
61
Views
4K
Gary W. Strange
G
American_Fusilier
Bear defense pistols: .357 or .45acp. Pick one!
2 3 4 5
Replies
107
Views
4K
crestoncowboy
C
M
  • Locked
Modern ammo got self-defense calibers down to 9mm, why hasn't the same happened for wilderness?
2 3
Replies
70
Views
4K
Kleanbore
K
tomrkba
  • Locked
New Forum Game: 2 Handguns only
2 3
Replies
68
Views
3K
Brian Williams
Brian Williams
C
  • Locked
.357 handguns on big northern bucks?
2 3
Replies
61
Views
5K
Armored farmer
Armored farmer
Back
Top