357 versus deer

most handguns leave alot to be desired, its why i believe it took so long to get straight walled pistol cartridges put into lever guns.
Click to expand...
The .44 Henry Flat was available in a rifle in 1866, it was available in the Colt SAA shortly after it was introduced. The .44-40 and .38-40 were available in a rifle and revolver at almost the same time, they barely have a shoulder. The top straight walled revolver round pre-1900 was the .45 Colt, it's tiny rim wouldn't work in a lever action.
I've killed deer with a .357 but pick my shots. I've more with a .45 Colt. The .357 is adequate the .45 is plenty. I killed one Fallow Buck with a .45 ACP, I won't again.
 
Dead Deer Down

I don't see any thing wrong with hunting using the .357mag Pistol or Rifle, Heck in my state Kentucky the Law say any center fire cartridge is legal, what's the problem Kill Tagem, Bagem, Eatem :p
 
Holy Crapola! That is the most bodaciously incorrect statement I've seen in some time. My 44 Special Ruger, with Rem 240SP under 17gr of 2400, chronographs 1191. My 45 Colt Ruger, with 275LFN under 10gr of Unique, chronographs 1057. The 45 load blows through 8" Pine trees at 50 yards. Also, Wild Bill said it right on the 357.
Click to expand...


.44 Special 756 ft-lbs
.45 Ruger 682 ft-lbs
.357 (180 grain Buffalo Bore) 781 ft-lbs

What is your gripe here ?
 
I suspect there is a big difference between killing a sub 100 lb. Texas whitetail and one of them corn-fed bucks I understand can get get what, 2 - 300 pounds?
 
Try hunting in a place for bucks and you have one opportunity the entire season if you're lucky.... do you expect a hunter to pass on a shot with a 357 mag at 65 yds? Hence, I suggest a little more gun.

Yep! If the hunter has not practiced and cannot hit consistently at 65yds., I would expect them to pass on the shot.

From hunting with a bow to a high powered rifle, it's the hunters responsibility to know the limitations of the choice of weapon AND just as important, his/her limitations with that weapon.

If I'm hunting with a rifle capable of a 400' killing shot but I've only shot this rifle at 100', therefore not knowing where it hits at 200', it doesn't matter if the next world record buck walks out at 200' s, I should/would not shoot. If I did, I need to classify myself in the 'slob' hunter category and should not be in the field.

Again, learning and staying within my limitations with whatever choice of weapon should not be done afield but at the range.
Click to expand...
 
I squirrel hunt with 22, so take 357 or 45 in case a deer comes in picture. Only times this has happened, I wasn't carrying either lol. As long as your comfortable with your 357 & not shooting wild, it should take one down.
 
Shortwave, I agree with you. One should know their limitations. My earlier mention has more to do with "should and do". In my 65 yd example, I suspect that the hunter should probably be carrying a rifle versus handgun if they are unwilling to pass on a shot.
 
Hook, my problem with energy is that number is a snap shot the instant before impact. Lighter bullets will lose energy easier than heavy bullets.
Wider bullets will do the same but if the SD is similar then the fatter bullet will retain its velocity better.

Yes, the 357 will take a deer but there are better choices out there.
 
The problem is that many people do not pass. Try hunting in a place for bucks and you have one opportunity the entire season if you're lucky.... do you expect a hunter to pass on a shot with a 357 mag at 65 yds? Hence, I suggest a little more gun.
Click to expand...



You are correct, many people do not pass. But this is not a reflection on the firearm and it's terminal performance, but the shooter. The question was not "357 vs deer in the hands of an incompetent hunter". I expect a legitimate bow hunter to pass on that trophy buck that is 40 yards outta range, just as I expect the competent Turkey hunter to pass on that Tom that has hung up @ 75 yards. Neither of the weapons held by these hunters is up to the task in front of them. Sure the Bowhunter might arc one in and get a lucky shot, just as the Turkey hunter may get that one flier BB in the head of that Tom. Chances are tho, that they will only wound if they do hit. Does that make their weapons, inadequate for their hunt? The answer is No. Their weapons are very effective when used for the intended purpose and range. Same is true for the .357 and deer. When used within it's parameters, it is just as effective as any other handgun on deer. Deer are not that hard to kill.

My earlier mention has more to do with "should and do". In my 65 yd example, I suspect that the hunter should probably be carrying a rifle versus handgun if they are unwilling to pass on a shot.
Click to expand...

Again, same could be said for either the turkey hunter or the bowhunter. But then it wouldn't be the same hunt, would it? Shotgunning for turkeys and bowhunting for deer is all about the hunt. Getting close and using skill to make the shot instead of just looking thru a scope from 250 yards. Same goes for handgun hunting. The hunt is all about getting within range and knowing ahead of time that one is going to have scenarios that would have been as easy shot for a rifle, but was not to be with a handgun. This is why many of us hunt deer with handguns. It's all about the quality of the hunt, not about the kill itself. This is the difference between a hunter and a shooter. Folks should pass on bad angle shots on deer even with Magnum rifle calibers, but they don't. Folks shout pass on deer that are beyond their capabilities to make a clean killing shot, but they don't. How many of us have heard the quick 5 or 6 shots off in the distance during deer season and figured the buck was still running, knowing darn well the last two or three were desperation shots. How many have listened to those tell about the Tom they "knocked down" @ 80 paces with that new "heavi-shot" but it got up and took of runnin' never to be found. Odds are the 'yotes found him that night. In neither one of these instances is the firearm of choice at fault. It's the shooter. Sorry, but tellin' them to get a bigger gun will only make them take more bad shots.
 
No gripe, Hook

.44 Special 756 ft-lbs
.45 Ruger 682 ft-lbs
.357 (180 grain Buffalo Bore) 781 ft-lbs

What is your gripe here ?
Click to expand...

My point is momentum. The large caliber always trumps. The 45 load mentioned above is very moderate and within 100# of the BB. Do the math on the 45 /275 at 1300 and see what the comparison looks like. My first piece was a 357 and loved it; however, when I started down the 41 and 44 road, I was born again big bore.
 
well then heres a slight rephrase, if the 180 grain bullet from a 8 inch barreled 357 magnum revolver is not enough for a humane kill on a deer, and its too much for a 150 pound crack head thats trying to rape you at 5 am, then

what is it for?
 
A .357 is too light for responsible hunting of big game.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure I agree with that. Like anything else it depends on who has the gun.

I'll use myself as a good example. I have a 4" Model 28 357 I've carried in LE for 20 years. I got it in '74 and still shoot the crap out of it. I shoot in excess of 2000 rounds a year with this revolver. I do competition, and its Heck on bowling pins. I shoot it fairly well. I can get it on target and stay on target fairly well.

Now I also have a very nice 6" Model 29 44 Mag. I shoot it some, but not much. I'm not use to the recoil, and I'm slow(er) getting on target and getting back on target with this revolver. Frankly I can't shoot it near as well as my Model 28.

Now really, which gun would be "More Responsible" for hunting deer.

I don't hunt with pistols/revolvers but I have killed some pretty hefty critters (I'm the retired LE Officer who shot moose in Alaska the OP was talking about). But if I was I'd take the revolver I'm most comfortable with and I shoot the best even if its only a 357 instead of a 44. I believe I could make more humane kills with that revolver.

Its not the size of the gun, its the largest gun you can shoot well. I don't think I could handle, lets say, a 500 S&W well enough to responsibly hunt deer.
 
Closely related question:

What 180 grain or heavier 357 ammo would you use for a shoulder shot on a deer?
 
i did some load data investigations today and had a nice little revelation.

the 357 with a 180 grain bullet is supposed to be knocking on the door step of 760 foot pounds.

now if we consider the minimum .40 caliber bullet weighing a min 200 grians at a minimu 1000 fps the 44 RUSSIAN can do that. i can find load data for a 5 inch barrel that hits 9-950 fps with a 200 grain swc. give it an 8 inch barrel and youwill hit 1000 fps.
is that going to be mroe energy?
 
357 was THE big game hunting cartridge for years. They were shooting moose with the 357. Its more then enough for deer but when it comes to taking game ethically I'm a proponent of bigger being better and making a single well placed shot. I'm horrified by some of the shots i see taken even on hunting shows. Really depends on range and where you are shooting deer.

The same guy will tell ya 9mil is fine for a 300lb man but not enough for a 120lb deer. I will tell ya shot placement matters in hunting way more then it does in self defense. What matters is your comfort level. Many deer have been harvested ethically with a 357mag though.
 
Shot a four point muley 36 years ago using a 150gr. cast rcbs swc over 5 grs. of unique in a .38 case out of a SAA Colt. Ten years later I killed a forked horn with a forgotten handload using a 140gr jacketed hollow point out of a 4" model 66 at 120 paces. Recovered bullet from a downed tree trunk, the jhp showed no expansion. Jason is right, bullet placement is very important.
 
If anything, the 357mag has gotten MORE effective as hunting handgun due to modern bullets. This is also true with the 44mag, etc.... A reliable expanding bullet that doesn't require as much speed, is now a factor making all handguns a much more efficient hunter. Bonded bullets also make the hollow point better. Cast bullets that simply poke holes and penitrate do not transfer energy and are less attractive these days for deer hunting.
 
Kind of a shame, really....

pity the sad plight of the .357 Magnum. Once king of the hill, and now barely mousefarts...or so some would have you believe.

Funny how for well over half a century the .357 was thought of as a good cartridge for deer, but it took the Internet to tell the world this just wasn't so! It must be true, it's on the Internet!:rolleyes:

Hardcast SWC bullets don't expand, but they do work. The original .357 loadings delivered 1550fps from the long barrel, and were still more than quite respectable performers from the common 6" tubes.

But you can't get those today. Nobody loads them! Why? because the .357 has been downloaded for quite some time, so people can shoot it in their medium and tiny frame guns without beating them to death.

Because of this the magnum is merely a shadow of what it once was. Add in the huge use of the .357 for police and self protection use, and finding good loads, with both full power and PROPER bullet construction for deer hunting is tough. I understand some of the smaller specialty makers produce it, but it seems to be both costly and rare.

As far as I can tell, deer are not tougher these days than they were back in the pre WWII era. No round is a magic death ray, and EVERYTHING fails from time to time, even magnum rifles. Choosing the right construction of bullet for the game you are shooting is very important, and equally important is putting the bullet where it needs to go. Anti-personal JHPs don't perform well if you drive them through heavy bone. And that isn't the fault of the bullet or the cartridge. It's the fault of the shooter!

Don't tell me that the .357 is too weak, or its only good for neck shots, its not. IT may work best with neck shots, but then, so does a .243.

Funny how we never seemed to need 180gr bullets or a minimum of .44 Mag for deer before the Internet came along and told us so. Oddly enough, deer can't read!
 
"I've taken several deer with .357s. All were shot only once in the chest and none went more than 40 yards. I consider a .357 the same as a bow. Quality shots taken @ 40 yards or less into the boiler room. I recommend using JSPs, XTP-FPs or hard cast bullets of 158 gr or more and leave the HPs for varmints, SD and the range. With deer you want a hole on both sides. Very few HPs designed for .357 will give you the penetration needed for that, especially if you hit shoulder bone. The .357 is plenty of gun for the job, but you must do your part too. While bigger calibers give you more range and maybe more margin for error, hunting deer with a .357 is no harder than bow hunting. If you can't close the distance needed for a effective shot, you have to pass. If the shot doesn't present itself, you must pass. Not hard to do if one knows his limitations and respects his quarry". AS QUOTED ABOVE.

Great advice. Saved me a lot of typing. I've shot over 50 whitetails with the 357 and have never lost even one. I lost one whitetail with a 44mag due to making a bad shot. It will do everything you need it to do but gut shooting, ham shooting, and leg shooting (you get the idea) won't kill anything. I've seen a lot of poorly shot animals with very big calibers that didn't die. A guy just shot a bear near here that had seven old wounds in it. Nothing kills better than shooting ability and that seems to be in short supply.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top