A 357 Magnum, fired from a carbine length barrel with a 180 gr cast or bonded bullet will shoot completely through a broadside whitetail up tp 125 yds. Been there and done that several times. They act like any other deer Ive shot with a pistol caliber round, 357 to 454, a mad scramble then piled up. FWIW just about every deer Ive ever shot reacts the same way, unless its a neck or high shoulder hit, regardless of the caliber weapon it was hit with.
357 magnum for deer?
- Thread starter old fart
- Start date
A 357 magnum out of a rifle produces enough energy to bring down deer with one shot. I have hunted over 45 years and still do not understand the paranoia that surrounds american hunters with the need to use way to much over powered cartridges like magnums for deer, of all things. I find it funny that some one would actually feel comfortable using a 300 winchester magnum or 7mm because they feel they need "KNOCKDOWN POWER". The biggest caliber gun I own is a 30-06 and the biggest deer I shot was with a 125 grain bullet.
A many years ago there were some tourists on the Rio Grande rafting when they got shot at, and some were killed. It was later determined that it was by some kids smoking dope that used a 44 caliber rifle to shoot the people. Many will dispute that the 44 magnum out of a rifle is not even good for deer. The people killed were shot from a distance of over 300 yds. As reported by the Texas Rangers who investigated this incidence.
So yes a 357 is enough to bring deer down I personally have shot and killed 9 deer with a 357 magnum.
A many years ago there were some tourists on the Rio Grande rafting when they got shot at, and some were killed. It was later determined that it was by some kids smoking dope that used a 44 caliber rifle to shoot the people. Many will dispute that the 44 magnum out of a rifle is not even good for deer. The people killed were shot from a distance of over 300 yds. As reported by the Texas Rangers who investigated this incidence.
So yes a 357 is enough to bring deer down I personally have shot and killed 9 deer with a 357 magnum.
Hunter Customs
New member
I've killed two deer with handguns, one was with a 45acp the other was with a 357 magnum.
The one killed with the 357 was a broadside shot at 75 to 80 yards.
The gun used was a S&W model 27 with a 8 & 3/8 inch barrel.
The load I was using was a handload stoked with 2400 powder and a 158 gr jacketed flat point bullet.
I don't recall all the load specs but I believe it was a load Elmer Keith developed and used.
The bullet hit no large bone, however it did nick a rib on the exit side and the bullet did exit the deer.
The deer ran about 80 yards up a sloping hill and fell over dead before it reached the top of the hill.
The deer was a six point buck and the body was average size for a Missouri deer.
Granted this was not the biggest deer I've killed but he was a nice one.
So if all I had to hunt with was a 357 magnum I would not feel under gunned.
I would hunt the thickets and timber.
Try and keep my shots 100 yards or less, concentrate on placing my shots well, which is what I do no matter what caliber gun I'm using.
It does amaze me at the shooters who think it takes the biggest rompin stompin magnum to kill deer. I wonder if they realize how much bullet energy is wasted on the outside of the deer after the bullet passes through the deer.
Best Regards
Bob Hunter
The one killed with the 357 was a broadside shot at 75 to 80 yards.
The gun used was a S&W model 27 with a 8 & 3/8 inch barrel.
The load I was using was a handload stoked with 2400 powder and a 158 gr jacketed flat point bullet.
I don't recall all the load specs but I believe it was a load Elmer Keith developed and used.
The bullet hit no large bone, however it did nick a rib on the exit side and the bullet did exit the deer.
The deer ran about 80 yards up a sloping hill and fell over dead before it reached the top of the hill.
The deer was a six point buck and the body was average size for a Missouri deer.
Granted this was not the biggest deer I've killed but he was a nice one.
So if all I had to hunt with was a 357 magnum I would not feel under gunned.
I would hunt the thickets and timber.
Try and keep my shots 100 yards or less, concentrate on placing my shots well, which is what I do no matter what caliber gun I'm using.
It does amaze me at the shooters who think it takes the biggest rompin stompin magnum to kill deer. I wonder if they realize how much bullet energy is wasted on the outside of the deer after the bullet passes through the deer.
Best Regards
Bob Hunter
tahunua001
New member
a 357 out of a rifle is more than capable of killing a deer within 150 yards
tahunua001
New member
interesting, with all of the guys that claim that 357 for deer is a bad idea when federal classifies it's 357 powershoks as medium game ammunition and marlin states on it's website that the 1894C as a varmint through black bear weapon.
the 357 is not marginal at all as long as you keep your shots within the rounds capabilities, which if you just use iron sights you are not likely to exceed them. 357 was more than capable 125 years ago and advances in ballistics, materials and construction have made it even more effective over the years. the deer sure haven't gotten larger, tougher, smarter, or purchased kevlar, shooters have just gotten so lazy that they dont take the time to line up a good shot and just blast away and when the animal gets away with a 3 legs and 4 flesh wounds, the hunter naturally blames his gun and grabs a bigger one. A 22lr can and does kill deer with consistent results, why is it outlawed in about 75% of the U.S.? because too many inexperienced hunters go out with them, blast away from way outside the weapons effective range and just maim and wound their prey and when they drop a few weeks later from infection and blood loss the authorities naturally believes that it was the round's fault and not the hunter's.
the 357 is not marginal at all as long as you keep your shots within the rounds capabilities, which if you just use iron sights you are not likely to exceed them. 357 was more than capable 125 years ago and advances in ballistics, materials and construction have made it even more effective over the years. the deer sure haven't gotten larger, tougher, smarter, or purchased kevlar, shooters have just gotten so lazy that they dont take the time to line up a good shot and just blast away and when the animal gets away with a 3 legs and 4 flesh wounds, the hunter naturally blames his gun and grabs a bigger one. A 22lr can and does kill deer with consistent results, why is it outlawed in about 75% of the U.S.? because too many inexperienced hunters go out with them, blast away from way outside the weapons effective range and just maim and wound their prey and when they drop a few weeks later from infection and blood loss the authorities naturally believes that it was the round's fault and not the hunter's.
chucknbach
New member
Would you rather be shot at with a bow or .357 rifle at 100 yds? Hell even at 25 yds?
The .357 is more deadly than any bow at any range.
tahunua001
New member
exactly, good thing this conversation revolves around deer which are considered medium game rather than big game
johnwilliamson062
Moderator
I disagree and I don't need to go to absurdities to be right(ballista). An English long bow had a what, 350 grain broadhead with a 150 pound draw? I'm no archer, but I think that is right. Broad heads are big and messy and that is a lot of power. Technology hasn't made the bow any less dangerous over the last 500 years.
NoSecondBest
New member
Best to keep to subject matter you have some first hand knowledge on.
I have shot one deer with a smith and wesson model 686 357 mag with a federal hollowpoint, sorry dont remember weight. I was carrying that on my side along with my 7 mag on my shoulder as I was walking to my treestand I came upon a decent sized doe feeding, I seen her before she seen me so I took cover in a evergreen tree, the doe was slowly feeding my way so I opted to lay the rifle on the ground and drew my sidearm and waited patiently. As she fed to about 15 yards I aligned the sights directly behind the shoulder,not on the shoulder and about 4 inches up from the bottom, pulled the trigger and watched her run 20 yrds and pile up dead.
would I take a shot with a 357 mag at a deer any farther that 25 yrds? probably not, but under that I would do it all day long. In fact, I would rather do that than shoot them at 100 yrds with my high powers, less damage to the meat that way. Yes fellas there is such a thing as too much gun just as much as there is a thing as too little.
would I take a shot with a 357 mag at a deer any farther that 25 yrds? probably not, but under that I would do it all day long. In fact, I would rather do that than shoot them at 100 yrds with my high powers, less damage to the meat that way. Yes fellas there is such a thing as too much gun just as much as there is a thing as too little.
I have experience in both.
The heavy broadhead kills by effectively slicing lungs, heart, liver into irreparable hemorrhage. It also has penetrating power that even heavy magnum rifles cannot compete with. (Try a 75-lb bow/broadhead on sandbags sometime. Someone directly on the other side of that that sandbag is as dead as someone standing behind common Sheetrock in an apartment gun battle.)
Would I rather get shot with a .357 or a broadhead? Neither.
I'd be just as dead or dying with either.
And death from the broadhead might be just a little more drawn out.
Last edited:
I have to disagree on that one. Energy is energy. Useful is a value judgement. Arrows do the job by cutting, like a knife. They slip through soft material very easily (including stuff that stops bullets, like sandbags), but are stopped cold by a hard inpact (like wood) that a bullet will blow through.
You can pick any common factor (energy, the fact that they both fly through the air, etc..) but its still apples and oranges.
And, dead is dead. A deer isn't any "deader" being shot with one thing or another. If it does the job efficiently, extra speed, penetration, energy, what ever you measure, all that extra is "wasted". But then, thats a value judgement, too.
christcorp
New member
Yea; considering the 357 magnum didn't get introduced until 1934, I'd say that there isn't a lot proof about what was acceptable 125 years ago.
Now; having said that, I believe that with the proper 357 magnum ammo, in a rifle, it can be very effective on white tail deer out to 100 yards. Their 180 grain out of an 18" carbine will go more than 1800 fps and 1300ft/lbs. At 100 yards, it's still around 1500 fps and 900 ft/lbs. The 158 grain is 200 fps faster. In my 24" octagon Rossi lever action, with the 180 grain, I can get right at 2000 fps and about 1600 ft/lbs out of the barrel. "According to my chrono on speed and some math". At 100 yards, I'm still getting around 1600 fps and 1000 ft/lbs. That's with 180 grain LFN.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with deer hunting whitetail or mule at that distance with that ammo. Anyone who says differently simply is living in the past and is trying to compare traditional handgun 357 mag ammo out of a 3-4" barrel. They simply don't know what's available and they are using bad data. Most states that allow deer hunting with handgun calibers like the 357 magnum, for humane kills, require a minimum of 500 ft/lbs remaining energy at 100 yards. BuffaloBore in a 24" has twice that at 100 yards. Even in an 18" barrel it's close to 900 ft/lbs. Speed and weight formulate energy. On a white tail deer, I'd feel comfortable with anything 750 ft/lbs or more at 100 yards. For mule deer, I'd want 900-1000 ft/lbs at 100 yards. I wouldn't shoot any of them past 100 yards. Plus, I don't scope lever actions, so 100 yards is about the end of my accuracy range with open sites for hunting. Target shooting I can go further.
Anyway; if you use ammo like BuffaloBore for hunting, then it's fine to use a 357 magnum to 100 yards. I'd use the 180 grain because it's solid. Their 158 grain is a hollow point. Still effective, just that I prefer the lead flat nose. If you use traditional handgun cowboy or personal defense ammo, then you have no business out there deer hunting.
Now; having said that, I believe that with the proper 357 magnum ammo, in a rifle, it can be very effective on white tail deer out to 100 yards. Their 180 grain out of an 18" carbine will go more than 1800 fps and 1300ft/lbs. At 100 yards, it's still around 1500 fps and 900 ft/lbs. The 158 grain is 200 fps faster. In my 24" octagon Rossi lever action, with the 180 grain, I can get right at 2000 fps and about 1600 ft/lbs out of the barrel. "According to my chrono on speed and some math". At 100 yards, I'm still getting around 1600 fps and 1000 ft/lbs. That's with 180 grain LFN.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with deer hunting whitetail or mule at that distance with that ammo. Anyone who says differently simply is living in the past and is trying to compare traditional handgun 357 mag ammo out of a 3-4" barrel. They simply don't know what's available and they are using bad data. Most states that allow deer hunting with handgun calibers like the 357 magnum, for humane kills, require a minimum of 500 ft/lbs remaining energy at 100 yards. BuffaloBore in a 24" has twice that at 100 yards. Even in an 18" barrel it's close to 900 ft/lbs. Speed and weight formulate energy. On a white tail deer, I'd feel comfortable with anything 750 ft/lbs or more at 100 yards. For mule deer, I'd want 900-1000 ft/lbs at 100 yards. I wouldn't shoot any of them past 100 yards. Plus, I don't scope lever actions, so 100 yards is about the end of my accuracy range with open sites for hunting. Target shooting I can go further.
Anyway; if you use ammo like BuffaloBore for hunting, then it's fine to use a 357 magnum to 100 yards. I'd use the 180 grain because it's solid. Their 158 grain is a hollow point. Still effective, just that I prefer the lead flat nose. If you use traditional handgun cowboy or personal defense ammo, then you have no business out there deer hunting.
L_Killkenny
New member
Anyone who claims that a .357 carbine or rifle shooting appropriate bullets isn't enough for whitetails out to 150 yards should avoid guns at all cost. Sometimes I think we should have a basic test prior to being able to buy a gun. Maybe something like 2+2=4, True or false? Might help.....
LK
LK
NoSecondBest
New member
Now Larry, we all know that it takes a huge amount of muzzle energy to kill a deer. The more the better. That way we can hit them anywhere and knock them down and the shock of the bullet will drop them dead in their tracks. More muzzle energy makes up for shooting skill and weak, anemic firearms like the 357 mag. If you shoot them in the lungs or heart with a puny 357 mag they'll run away and you'll never get them. I know this for a fact, I read it on the internet and now I'm an expert. Someday I'll actually shoot a deer and prove it to you.
Gunplummer
New member
The OP is probably some kid yanking your chain. He started the same thing on on a hunting forum I look in on. Judging by all the deer I see around where I live, and all the deer I shot that were already hit, I would have to say there is no caliber big enough for deer with some people.