I disagree completely. Any round's lack of power can greatly limit the angles you can shoot, and the target area on the animal that it will sufficiently pentrate, without even taking distance limitations into account. When I shoot a deer with my .454 Casull, I know that no matter where I hit it, and at what angle, that it is going all the way through and out the other side. I can get a bullet through the vitals no matter what part of the deer's body is in the way. With a .44 Magum, there are some limitations. With a .357, the deer better be standing at precisely the right angle, and you better not nic any bone bigger than a rib. A sufficient round for a skilled and experienced hunter. Not a good choice for a handgun hunting beginner. No margin for error.
357 mag vs 44 mag for hunting
- Thread starter bucksnort13
- Start date
I disagree completely. Any round's lack of power can greatly limit the angles you can shoot, and the target area on the animal that it will sufficiently pentrate, without even taking distance limitations into account. When I shoot a deer with my .454 Casull, I know that no matter where I hit it, and at what angle, that it is going all the way through and out the other side. I can get a bullet through the vitals no matter what part of the deer's body is in the way. With a .44 Magum, there are some limitations. With a .357, the deer better be standing at precisely the right angle, and you better not nic any bone bigger than a rib. A sufficient round for a skilled and experienced hunter. Not a good choice for a handgun hunting beginner. No margin for error.
22-rimfire
New member
Was it? Seems to me that the bullet didn't expand if the exit hole is the same size as the entrance hole. You would expect that with solids, but I do like the XTP bullet for deer or thin skinned animals. Bullet performance is not always perfect. I'm glad you got the doe.
I agree about the margin of error or performance TimSr mentioned. That's why I lean toward the 480 Ruger. It is still no 454 Casull in terms of typical recoil, but it has a bigger diameter bullet. But it is harder to learn to shoot the bigger recoiling caliber and there is a trade off. All things being equal, the 454 is a better choice.
I would never hand my .454 to a beginner, but everybody I've taught to shoot always wants to "try the .44 magnum", and are usually surprised at how mild the recoil is is from a 7 1/2 Redhawk, but even more surprised at how much easier it is to hit what you are aiming at with the long barrel. One very petit lady I taught to shoot with .38s from a 6" GP100 fired one shot from the Redhawk and became instantly addicted to it. Her nickname from that day forward was "Magnum Smurf". 
With a long barrel, the .44 is not difficult for even a newbie to master. She was 5" and around 100 lbs.
With a long barrel, the .44 is not difficult for even a newbie to master. She was 5" and around 100 lbs.22-rimfire
New member
One needs to work up to the larger boomers in terms of handling the recoil. Otherwise, you might spend the money and be very dissatisfied with your ability to shoot it very well. Yes, you can load them light, but generally speaking I just choose a lighter caliber if I want "light". Hence, that is why I recommended either the 41 or 44 mags as the starting point in the world of big bores. You may find that you feel that their recoil is substantial and again, just keep practicing and you should over come any hesitation you might have shooting one.
buck460XVR
New member
I assume my .460 has as much penetration or a tad more than your .454. Still I don't think I can take a shot at any angle, at any part of the body without any concern about a quick and clean killing shot. No different than with my 30-06 or any other rifle. I've seen too many deer shot with rifles with more penetration than a .454 suffer and lost because someone took a shot at a bad angle thinking they could still reach the boiler room. Thinking that a bigger gun will make up for poor shot placement is one reason why we see so many wounded and unrecovered deer in the woods.
A .357 is no more limited on deer than any decent compound bow. In my experience, it has about the same range, about the same amount of penetration and require similar shot placement to be most effective. But no one claims a compound bow is marginal on deer. No one claims a beginner should not hunt with a bow, they just say hunt within it's and your limitations. Same is true for the .357.
I'd rather give a new handgun hunter a .357 and tell them to wait until a good shot presents itself within range, than give them a .454 and tell them not to worry about shot placement, because it has more margin for error. Seems the first will develop positive hunting skills that will be beneficial for a lifetime, while the latter will promote a lackadaisical attitude toward accuracy and shot placement, that like all bad habits, will be hard to break.
Using a round with enough penetration to make "Texas heart shots", that you can shoot accurately, does increase your options for what is a viable shot. BUT, it doesn't remove the "margin for error" in my opinion.
A gut shot deer is a gut shot deer, no matter if its shot with a .357, a .454. or a .458 Win mag.
Deer have been killed with everything from the .22 on up. A lot of deer have fallen to muzzle loading rifles and pistols, many of which have "only" the power of a .357, and some not even that.
The most important thing is, and always has been, what the shooter can do with the tools they are using. Bigger more powerful guns expand one's options, provided that the shooter can mange them, but they won't turn a bad shot into a good one. Many people can manage them, some cannot.
"Magnum Smurf" fell in love with the 7.5" Redhawk .44 mag. I think that's wonderful. If that lady's introduction to the .44 Mag had been a 10" Contender, with a beautifully blued, pencil thin octagon barrel, I can virtually guarantee she would think long and hard before even touching a .44 Mag again!
In the hands of an expert, everything works. For those less expert, there is such a thing as both "not enough" and "too much" gun. And there is more than just the ability to shoot accurately on a range that factors into which is which for any given shooter.
Why? Generally speaking, in a self defense situation, the ability for fast followup shots is considered an important thing. The recoil of the .44 Mag in most guns works against that, a considerable amount more than the recoil of the .357 Magnum.
Maybe its just a lack understanding the definition the definition of "margin of error".
I have a broadside shot.
I aim my compound bow behind the shoulder. He moves, and I shoot 8" to one side and directly hit the shoulder.
I aim my .357 behind the shoulder. He moves, and I shoot 8" to one side and directly hit the shoulder.
I aim my .44 behind the shoulder. He moves, and I shoot 8" to one side and directly hit the shoulder.
I aim my .454 behind the shoulder. He moves, and I shoot 8" to one side and directly hit the shoulder.
My "error" was 8" in one direction. The weapons that will still get the job done are within that "margin of error".
Your margin of error is the maximum distance from yor aiming point that you can hit, and still make a clean kill. Yes, a guy who is skilled enough to always hit exactly where he is aiming needs no margin for error. Personally, I've never met him. The rest of us improve our chances by for a clean humane kill, by using a weapon that will do the job if we happen to hit where a bone or two is in the way.
Yes, nothing has a margin of error big enough to compensate for a gut shot thats 24" from your aiming point. I don't think anybody is suggesting that. Nor is anybody suggesting you take a lousey shot just because you have a bigger gun. I'm just saying that a kill zone the size of a dinner plate improves your chances over a weapon that limits your kill zone to the size of a tea cup saucer.
I have a broadside shot.
I aim my compound bow behind the shoulder. He moves, and I shoot 8" to one side and directly hit the shoulder.
I aim my .357 behind the shoulder. He moves, and I shoot 8" to one side and directly hit the shoulder.
I aim my .44 behind the shoulder. He moves, and I shoot 8" to one side and directly hit the shoulder.
I aim my .454 behind the shoulder. He moves, and I shoot 8" to one side and directly hit the shoulder.
My "error" was 8" in one direction. The weapons that will still get the job done are within that "margin of error".
Your margin of error is the maximum distance from yor aiming point that you can hit, and still make a clean kill. Yes, a guy who is skilled enough to always hit exactly where he is aiming needs no margin for error. Personally, I've never met him. The rest of us improve our chances by for a clean humane kill, by using a weapon that will do the job if we happen to hit where a bone or two is in the way.
Yes, nothing has a margin of error big enough to compensate for a gut shot thats 24" from your aiming point. I don't think anybody is suggesting that. Nor is anybody suggesting you take a lousey shot just because you have a bigger gun. I'm just saying that a kill zone the size of a dinner plate improves your chances over a weapon that limits your kill zone to the size of a tea cup saucer.
N.Y. Yankee
Inactive
If all you can handle is a .357, then by all means, shoot it. Use a good, accurate heavy bullet and put it in the heart/lung area. If you dont have a problem with heavy loads in a .44, better yet! You can load .44 specials and magnum and would make a great companion gun to a .44 lever gun too. Elmer Kieth designed that round to be a hunting round.
buck460XVR
New member
If you're shooting 8" off to one side of POA, you are using a kill zone, and a margin of error the size of a pick-up tire(16''). Even a .454 cannot compensate for that. If the deer moved 8'' the other direction it would be a paunch shot and the .454 is not going to kill that deer any faster than the .357. The odds of the gut shot are much more than that of the shoulder shot because most deer do not go backwards when they move.
Have you ever shot a deer with a .357, with proper loads and a proper bullet? I have and a coupla of them were shot in the front shoulder, with the bullet penetrating the boiler room and imbedding itself under the hide on the opposite side. Pretty little hole in the shoulder blade on the entry side. Massive destruction to the lungs. Of the half dozen deer I've shot with a .357, none went more than 50 yards and all were dead on their feet. I still hunt with the .357s, along with .44s and the .460. The all have their place and all are equally effective within their parameters when used properly. The reason I use a larger caliber is to get more range, not a bigger kill zone.
Besides the skill of the shooter, one important factor in maximizing the effectiveness of the .357 is choosing the right bullet for the target.
People have become fixated on expanding bullets to the point many seem to feel non-expanding bullets won't work. Too many will choose a light weight hollowpoint when a better choice is a heavier built bullet, with more controlled expansion, or even, none at all.
Proper bullet choice for the .357 is more critical than in larger, more powerful calibers.
People have become fixated on expanding bullets to the point many seem to feel non-expanding bullets won't work. Too many will choose a light weight hollowpoint when a better choice is a heavier built bullet, with more controlled expansion, or even, none at all.
Proper bullet choice for the .357 is more critical than in larger, more powerful calibers.
gbclarkson
New member
Carry what you are comfortable with.
Not convinced there, because the 44 Magnum is typically a bigger, heavier gun, certainly in my collection. The 357 in carry weights has a reputation of being rather punishing. I shoot 327, 357, 41, and 44 Magnums and will take the gun sized for the caliber with minor compromises for the sake of carrying.
Last edited:
Super Sneaky Steve
New member
I agree that hollow points are over rated. There are lots of good solid cast bullets and flat points that can work equally well, but I think heavier bullets aren't always better.
I don't think anyone would say a .357 Mag is more deadly than a .308 Win round. Even though the .308 is smaller caliber and around the same weight.
The difference is speed. With the limited case capacity of the .357 you just get so much more with lighter bullets.
I clocked full power loads with a 125, 158 and 180 grain bullets in .357 and the energy was 1376ft/lbs - 997ft/lbs - 697 ft/lbs respectively.
Lighter bullets can produce way more energy and it's devastating on animals.
I'm a little confused, are you saying you're not convinced the .44 Magnum has more recoil than the .357 Magnum?
.357s in "carry weights" are completely a matter of personal opinion as to what a proper carry weight is. Undercover carry? Uniform duty carry? Carry while hunting?
I have S&W N frames in both .357 and .44 Mag. There is absolutely no question I can fire the .357 accurately faster than I can the .44.
The same is true of the Desert Eagle in .357 & .44. I am equally accurate with either but I can be much faster, as accurately with the .357 because it recoils less than the .44.
Recoil in the lightest .357s is vicious, and I find it hampers fast followups as much as the recoil of the .44 does in a much heavier gun.
.357s in "carry weights" are completely a matter of personal opinion as to what a proper carry weight is. Undercover carry? Uniform duty carry? Carry while hunting?
I have S&W N frames in both .357 and .44 Mag. There is absolutely no question I can fire the .357 accurately faster than I can the .44.
The same is true of the Desert Eagle in .357 & .44. I am equally accurate with either but I can be much faster, as accurately with the .357 because it recoils less than the .44.
Recoil in the lightest .357s is vicious, and I find it hampers fast followups as much as the recoil of the .44 does in a much heavier gun.
I was hoping that I was clear enough about the size, barrel balance, and weight of the guns being important factors with recoil. It is useful that you have guns of comparable size/weight and can report a comparison.
Now in terms of what we each may mean by "recoil", the 44 is more pleasant or "fun", if you will, to shoot but it probably does have more muzzle rise and then slower time back on target. The 44 to me is more of a push, while the 357 is just nasty, great if you like the drama. I have 357 in size comparable to a 44 Mag, probably the closest being two Sauer SA with 6" barrels. I do okay with either one but would rather shoot the 44.
In rifles, my Marlin 44 Mag has presented no problem, while my Cimarron Lightning pump 357 bruised my shoulder to the point where I bought a pad to use next time out.
I am not disputing what you say, just adding some of my own perspective and subjective assessments.
I like my 44 Magnums in 5-6" barrels. For one thing, that helps with powder burn and optimal performance of the load. It surely reduces muzzle flip and wrist punishment.
The 357 is typically a smaller gun, not retaining its original N-frame identity. On that basis it is difficult to project a comparison of how the guns shoot.
I don't believe the 44 Magnum should be expected to be anything but ghastly in a 4" barrel. The 357, on the other hand, seems manageable at 4". The M19 though is a K frame, and it would be a stretch to suppose that is where the 357 even approaches being user friendly. It does what it does, but it will never be the fun one can have with a full sized (5-6 inch barrel N-frame) 44 magnum...not to me anyway.
Last edited:
Substitute 6" for both, still a big difference, to me anyway. And I still have yet to understand how a 357 is sharp while a 44 is more of a hard or strong push. Unless we are talking about extremes as far as gun weights I have to disagree with these descriptions in regards to their respective recoils.
458winshooter
New member
357 vs 44
First yes the 44 is more powerful and will on paper do a better job.The 357 is up to the task and as already said most people can shoot it more accurately.The idea that it is not makes no sense.Looking back at history 140 years ago the 44-40 was king of the deer rifles so much so that its reputation is that it has taken more deer than anything but the 30-30.That load was a 200-205 gr bullet over 40 grs of black powder at 1190 fps.A 357 will do better than that even from a revolver.
Deer haven't gotten smarter or are armor plated.They are forced like any other creature to adapt to survive so they are living where you ain't.They are no more difficult to kill than they use to be just harder to find.
First yes the 44 is more powerful and will on paper do a better job.The 357 is up to the task and as already said most people can shoot it more accurately.The idea that it is not makes no sense.Looking back at history 140 years ago the 44-40 was king of the deer rifles so much so that its reputation is that it has taken more deer than anything but the 30-30.That load was a 200-205 gr bullet over 40 grs of black powder at 1190 fps.A 357 will do better than that even from a revolver.
Deer haven't gotten smarter or are armor plated.They are forced like any other creature to adapt to survive so they are living where you ain't.They are no more difficult to kill than they use to be just harder to find.