357 magnum for deer?

[NoSecondBest]

Lots of negative responses here from those who haven't done it but have a wealth of knowlege based on opinion, and what they've read. R&R experts (Read and Regurgitate). If you don't know for a fact, haven't done it one way or the other, you're just guessing. No facts there. Opinions worth squat.

 

[Keg]

NoSecBest..I read not one post that said it was just their opinion....
So I guess your the one giving opinions..just guessing???
Enough of that...carry on...

 

[Gunplummer]

If you have to ask, then the answer is no. Try a .357 on a deer @ 50 yards, see what it does, and make up your mind from there.

 

[chopperken]

Fact not opinion.

I hunted Michigan whitetail for over 12 years with my only
gun at that time. I never lost a deer or had to track more than
50 yards. I had venison every year.
The gun was and is a Dan-Wesson 357 witha 6" barrel
loaded with 158 gr. sjhp out to a range of 125 yards.
The 357 IS enough gun if you can do your part. YMMV.

 

[COSteve]

Most of the posts above are just repeating what they've heard on the internet and have no real life information to back them up .... and they are wrong! Before this thread gets any more ridiculous, please check out this detailed real world report on Leverguns.com from a professional hunter and his client's use of a 357 mag levergun HERE.

 

[PawPaw]

If you don't know for a fact, haven't done it one way or the other, you're just guessing.

Good point, Steve, and I agree. Lets look at one fact. Little Miss Rachel, the daughter or a friend, did well with a .357 magnum on our smallish whitetails.

I'll let her dad tell you about it. From my blog.

I think Rachel feels a .357 carbine is adequate for whitetail deer hunting, under 100 yds. Dec 27, Tuesday morning, she killed a 2.5 yr old 7 pt buck, live weight of 150 lbs. It is her first buck, and the first one I actually called in by grunting. We saw it grunting and chasing a doe thru the palmetto bushes, and when I grunted, the doe turned on her afterburners and left while the buck stopped and started looking for the "intruder". I grunted one more time, and the buck started easing our direction thru the brush. When he got within 40 yds, he slipped out onto the trail to get a better look, and my daughter was ready. Deer was quartering towards us, bullet hit forward on the on-side shoulder, penetrating diagonally thru the right lung, liver, stomach, and ended up just in the muscle in the upper part of the left hind quarter. Yes, nearly 3 ft of penetration from a factory Remington .357 Mag 158 gr soft-point load. I recovered the bullet when we were deboning the meat to grind.

Is the .357 magnum optimal for a whitetail deer? It's certainly adequate when used within it's range. That softpoint penetrated through almost 3 feet of deer, and Miss Rachel got to drag a deer out of the woods.

 

[coWSMasher]

No. I don't think anything under 1500 ft. lbs. should be used for white tail. I am not saying it wont kill a deer, but to be fair a .22lr will kill a deer i just think its irresponsible to take something that weak out in the woods.

 

[briandg]

Lots of negative responses here from those who haven't done it but have a wealth of knowlege based on opinion, and what they've read. R&R experts (Read and Regurgitate). If you don't know for a fact, haven't done it one way or the other, you're just guessing. No facts there. Opinions worth squat.

I guess it would be just plain stupid to point out that plenty of people have survived being hit by a single shot with a .357. Plenty of documentation. If a man will survive, what about a deer?

you can either choose to go hunting with something that is absolutely capable of inflicting big, punishing, lethal wounds, such as a 45-70 or 300 magnum, or you can choose to go hunting with something at the very bottom of the lethal spectrum, and "do your part." (whatever that means.)

Heck no, I've never shot a deer with a .357. I think it's a stupid idea to hunt with a single shot .357 rifle, as do a lot of other people who have posted. I'm someone who carries a big enough gun to eliminate almost all of the doubt. My 30-06 will destroy large areas of tissue, not just put a bullet hole through them.

I'm not going to be carrying a .25 auto into possible combat situations, either. Just because it can and has killed people doesn't mean that it's adequate to drop a man reliably.

 

[jhenry]

Makes you wonder how all those deer died with such silly things being shot at them. Deer must have gotten tougher over the years. I didn't get the memo.

 

[44 AMP]

I believe that at some point or other, everything thing that walks in North America has been killed with a .357 Magnum, fired from a handgun. Including real big tough critters. The key to humane kills is bullet placement, and proper bullet construction. And, proper means proper for the impact velocity, and target medium.

Fired from a rifle (carbine) the light JHP bullets (125gr, etc.) are going faster than designed for, and do not perform as well as they do at their proper speeds. Hitting a heavy bone with one can result in less than optimum results.

Heavy JSP or hard cast SWCs don't care nearly as much what higher speeds you drive them at, they perform pretty well, no matter what.

Look at your local game laws. If the .357 mag meets the minimum requirements, then use it. Generally, it is the shooter, and the rifle that limits effective range, more than the round fired, and the .357 is no exception.

 

[mpd61]

A heavy cast bullet from a .357 mag rifle is quite adequate for whitetail deer. Has been for years. It's all about bullet placement after all. You would think we're talking about the 25-20 fer crying out loud!

 

[Wyosmith]

Here are some notes from my days when I was running Cast Performance Bullet Co.

357 Magnum; from Ruger GP_100 with 6" barrel. .005" cylinder gap.
WW Case
WW S. P. Mag Primers
16.4GR WW 296 Powder
LBT 187 Grain Gas Check Bullet. LBT Blue Lube
6 shot group at 25 Yds from machine rest. .073"
Average Muzzle Velocity for 6 rounds 1403 FPS.

357 Magnum; from Marlin M-94 barrel. (Mounted with a Redfield 4X scope.)
WW case
WW S. P. Mag Primers
17.5 gr WW 296 powder
LBT 187 gr Gas Check Bullet. LBT Blue Lube
5 shot groups from good bench rest. 2.637" at 100 yds.
Average muzzle velocity for 5 rounds 1876 FPS

Just to make a valid comparisons, here's the notes on the 30-30
Winchester M-94 used as a test rifle. Factory sights.
Remington 170 grain factory ammo.
Actual measured velocity was 1988 averaged over 5 rounds
Accuracy was 4.9" at 100 yds, but that's with the semi-buckhorn rear and bead front. I assume the rifle can do better if we had put a peep sight on it or scoped it.

Here are your formulas to show momentum and cavitations/energy transfer.
30-30 from carbine
170 X 1988 X .308 =104091 divided by 7000 = 14.87 at the muzzle

357 from 6” hand gun
187 X 1400X .357 =934626 divided by 7000 = 13.35 at the muzzle. That’s 91% of the 30-30

357 from Carbine with max safe load.
187 X 1876 X .357 = 125239 divided by 7000 = 17.89 at the muzzle. That’s 17% MORE then the 30-30.

Now the lower ballistic coefficient of the 357 bullet causes it to slow down faster then the 30-30 bullet does, so the 2 are about equal at 75 yards, and the 30-30 starts to out run the 357 past 90 yards, but the idea that a 30-30 is good for deer and a 357 is not is simply not true.

 

[SHR970]

In states that allow handgun hunting and where minimum caliber requirements are specified I find one or two memes present to describe the minimum.

1) Must have a minimum of 500 ft. lbs muzzle energy / in a couple cases 400 ft. lbs. at 50 yards.

2) Cartridge minimum length of 1.29"

Both cases represent 357 magnum; which was commonly used in the early days of getting handgums made legal for big game hunting.

If a 357 is considered legal in a handgun; then it will generally be considered legal in a rifle.

The oft parroted minimum of 1000 ft. lbs. at 100 yards for hunting deer / elk is to my knowledge only codified in one place: Colorado. They also specify a minimum of .243 centerfire.

Several states allow the use of a 410 with slugs.

I have to ask: How many of you in the "Hell No" category even hunt big game? Seriously, are your white tail so much bigger than my mule deer that my GP100 side arm needs to be traded for a 454? I have to ask because I have hunted in Oregon and California for 27 years and have dropped more than one deer with a 357 handgun. During that time, I have never shot a spike or fork.

 

[Nathan]

Looks like there are a lot of people here which would argue with me. I have shot a 357 mag a fair amount. Mostly snubbie.

On game, I have killed mule deer at 50 and 150 yards with a 10.5" barrelled 44 mag.

IMO, a 357 mag could competently kill a deer at 50 yards. At > 75 yards, it probably can theoretically kill one or maybe from a rifle kill one, but this is iffy territory.

I think of an assumed 6" barrelled 357 mag like I do a crossbow. Great at 0 - 25 yards, good 25 - 40, marginal 40 - 60 and a complete no go for me over 60.

I hunt with a heavy loaded 5.5" 45 Colt now. I load for penetration and keep shots under 75 yards.

 

[Gunplummer]

That is an excellent reply, Nathan. The original poster asked a question that would indicate very little experience playing around with different calibers for deer. Posting ridicules loads for special cast bullets run through a hand gun has nothing to do with the original question. It does not sound like he reloads to me. In West Virginia you can use a .25 RIMFIRE or bigger for deer. If I had one I would probably use it sooner or later and kill a deer, but only because I understand the limitations. I would not just randomly tell somebody it was a fine bullet for deer if you reloaded. My 6" .44 would be in the dirt before 100 yards with 240 gr factory Winchester ammo. ( Yes, I have tried it)

 

[johnwilliamson062]

From everything I know 100 yards would really be pushing it. On a well placed shot the deer obviously dies, but maybe not as fast as you like and if you are off it may not go well. 50 yards i think you are good as long as you can hit with it.

The 357 Maximum is a simple conversion and some say the most efficient deer cartridge. I am looking for a deer pistol and I have so far passed up the 357 maximum. Not that much more expensive to shoot 44 mag or even 454 or 460 and they are more than enough for the job.

Fired at a 40* angle that 44 mag that ended in the dirt probably has a dangerous range of one mile. Just b.c you didn't adjust the elevation properly does not mean it won't kill a deer at 10 yards. I didn't look up the ballistics on that specific load, but very few factory loads are not dangerous for a half mile(even if they lose accuracy and drop a hundred feet).

 

[jimbob86]

have to ask: How many of you in the "Hell No" category even hunt big game? Seriously, are your white tail so much bigger than my mule deer that my GP100 side arm needs to be traded for a 454? I have to ask because I have hunted in Oregon and California for 27 years and have dropped more than one deer with a 357 handgun. During that time, I have never shot a spike or fork.

Me. I hunt big game.

Do your Oregon and Cali deer have access to pretty much unlmited food year round (Winter wheat, alphalpha, corn milo and soybeans piled on the ground 6 months out of the year)? Do the 2 1/2 y.o. deer there average 200#? Or are they scratching for pine cones in the snow for 3 months a year?

I've dropped a deer with a .357 handgun, as well..... he had already been shot in the front of the chest with a .270 WIN at 40 yards ( and he went down like a dropped sack of potatoes), but when I walked up on him and reached down to cut his throat, he got to his feet.... and there was a quarter of unpicked irrigated corn less than 50 yards from him. Maybe I had not hit him as well as I thought?* I had not brought the rifle with me, so I dropped the hunting knife and drew and pumped four 158 gr XTP's at near contact distance into his lower chest .... not one of those exited, btw ..... he went down on the last one for good. Call me underwhelmed by the "power" of the .357 Magnum.

* The initial hit from the .270 was a good one..... and would have been fatal within a minute ..... and he probably would not have gotten up if I had not walked up on him ...... but I di and he did, and I was not about to let an animal that might be able to run get into 160 unbroken acres of 7 foot tall corn....

 

[Keg]

If the 357 is good at 100 yrds on a mature buck..I guess a 38 special..that can be shot in the same gun..is good for 50 or 60 yrds???

 

[briandg]

one of the key elements to my objection, as stated, was that the OP is planning on shooting in woods, with a single shot. Poor visibility, brushy, etc.

He also describes himself as "old."

With an NEF is he going to scope it or not, and if he does scope it, is he going to go with a top quality scope with clear optics and good light gathering ability?

Given either iron sights, or the horrendously cheap scopes that NEF would provide as a combined unit, or the sort of scopes available in the price range of an NEF, is it reasonable to assume that an older hunter in possibly heavy shady woods would be able to put a bullet into the heart or lungs at maybe 75-100 yards?

This thread is about HIM and his choice of weapons. he's not a professional hunter, and he's not using a marlin or winchester. He's going to be firing from a gun that may be lacking in accuracy, only a single bullet, hit or miss, and following up on the game if that bullet goes in low on the chest and misses the lungs, or comes in aft, and blows through the paunch.

Rather than arguing about the cartridge, which everyone knows is capable of killing a deer, or other animals even including grizzly, this thread should be about what rifle should be put in this guys hands to put a serious, lethal wound in the chest of a deer. Cartridge isn't the end-all of what makes a deer rifle, and with all the hollering about cartridge, nobody has even once suggested that maybe, just maybe, the combination he's looking at isn't appropriate for him.

One of the guys at our gun club who handgun hunted loved telling about following up a two mile blood trail for the better part of a day, boasting of his skill at hunting.

Funny, following up a 2 mile blood trail is a clear indication to someone of my ideals that his hunting skills aren't up to par. His heart is in the right place, but by his own admission,

HIS BULLETS WEREN'T.

 

[PawPaw]

this thread should be about what rifle should be put in this guys hands to put a serious, lethal wound in the chest of a deer.

But that's not what the thread is about. The thread is about the .357 magnum. Let's go back to the original question:

so will a 357 magnum be a good whitetail deer gun at 100yds or less? thanks

That is what the thread is about and the answer is a qualified YES. With the proper ammunition, the .357 magnum is certainly capable of taking deer at 100 yards or less. For myself, I'd rather have a good .30-30 in his circumstances, but that's not the question.

Cartridge isn't the end-all of what makes a deer rifle, and with all the hollering about cartridge, nobody has even once suggested that maybe, just maybe, the combination he's looking at isn't appropriate for him.

We can agree that the cartridge isn't the end-all of what makes a deer rifle, and perhaps the combination that he's suggesting might not be the best choice, but that wasn't the question.

Will the .357 do the job? Certainly, with proper bullet selection and shot placement. Deer aren't that hard to kill. Most of us forget that until the early 1900s most deer were killed with black powder loads not much more powerful than the .357 magnum. A .440 round ball weighs 130 grains and was considered a heck of a deer slayer in its day. Lots of us have taken deer with black powder loads that many would consider anemic when measured against the calibers we use today.

Today I load a 180 grain hard cast bullet in the .357 magnum and launch it from my rifle at 1600 fps. That's good medicine for just about anything that walks in my woods. Is it the best combination I have? No, but it's certainly adequate under 100 yards.