357 vs 44 mag

D

Doc Holliday 1950

New member
If you had your choice wold you get a Ruger GP 100 4.2" 357 or a Ruger 5023
44 mag for self defense and why7????? All response are welcome especially carrying as your CCW.
What are your pros and cons on this?

Doc
 
I would pick the GP. I have no experience with the Redhawk but it is bigger, heavier, and (and as I understand it) harder to work on the trigger mechanism. Also ammo availability and cost is a factor. I assume you mean self defense against humans. If you meant defense against 4-legged foes, my answer might be different.
 
I would get the .44 magnum for self defense.

Buffalo Bore and Speer both have defense loads in .44 magnum. Buffalo Bore has a an anti-personnel load that is a 180 grain cast hollow point with about 1000 ft-lbs of energy behind it, or well over twice the energy of a .45 ACP. Would be devastating for use against human attackers:

https://www.buffalobore.com/index.php?l=product_detail&p=243

.357 magnum, while good for defense as well, does not have the same effect on target as a proper .44 mag load. If someone is attacking you, and they are heavily drugged up or insane, you want them dead NOW and that means a .44 magnum. :cool:

My $0.02.
 
^ Agreed.

Also, the .357 magnum you get at the stores these days is hardly nothing more than 9mm +P in terms of power. It's been severely loaded down in recent years, mostly to protect lawyers. To get the .357s full potential, you'll have to reload.

.44 magnum, however, is still hot almost which ever brand you get. Just a FAR more versatile cartridge. You can run .44 specials for training, which have less recoil and are about as powerful as .45 ACP, making them every bit as good if not better than .357 mag. But, you can step up to the .44 magnums for self defense.
 
I'll be the odd one out and suggest .357

You might be able to carry the 4.2in barrel, no way you carry the redhawk.
 
Redhawk.

Less blast n flash, more power. A 180 gr. JHP @ 1500 fps is nothing to sneeze at - neither is the .44 Special version.

Both the GP and the RH are large pistols, but not difficult to conceal. A lot will depend on the grips selected.
 
Redhawk.

Less blast n flash, more power. A 180 gr. JHP @ 1500 fps is nothing to sneeze at - neither is the .44 Special version.

Both the GP and the RH are large pistols, but not too difficult to conceal. I conceal a 4 5/8" Blackhawk often. A lot will depend on the grips you select. Those giant rubber grips they come with nowadays will make concealment very difficult with either gun.
 
.44

Hmmm. I had trouble with that model number (5023) it came up as a 45 Colt revolver.
The .44 Mag is one of my two favorite pistol cartridges (the other is 45 ACP).
But -
The .44 Mag Alaskan is 5303.....at 45 ounces for the 2.5" barrel.... about three pounds loaded.
That's a lot to carry.

Pete
 
doc, i would say go with the 357mag, but try to find a Coonan Classic Model 1911ish 357 mag semi-auto to see the 357 mag's true potential. but i say get the GP-100, or if you want a Redhawk try and see if you can buy a 357 Redhawk, i've heard you can safely shoot 353 Casull ammo in one.
 
I would go with .44mag but ONLY loaded with .44spl for SD purposes. That 240gr running 700-800fps will still deliver more than enough stopping power.
 
I don't know which model a 5023 is, but assume one of the Redhawks. If so, I'd rather have one of the GP-100's. The Redhawks are great guns for hunters wanting to shoot nuclear loads not recommended for other guns, but just too big and heavy for everyday use.

If you throw the S&W 629 into the mix I'd rather have it than any full size 357. The 629 is actually lighter and more compact than the 686 or GP-100. When loaded with hot 44 Specials or mid range 44 magnums it is a more effective round than 357 mag and with less recoil and blast. If needed you can load 44's up into another league that 357 can't touch.

Price of ammo is a wash if you shop around, 44 magnum is 50 cents more for 20 rounds for me.
 
The Redhawks are great guns for hunters wanting to shoot nuclear loads not recommended for other guns, but just too big and heavy for everyday use.
Click to expand...
That's an exaggeration. The 4" Redhawk is only 4oz heavier than a 629 Mountain Gun and the 5.5" Redhawk is only 2oz heavier than a 6" 629.
 
Good grief!

Why not just go to the .454 or .480 or the .500?

Such manly men.
Click to expand...

Fer sure!

I get grief because I carry a 5# revolver in a bandoleer holster for hunting deer and these guys want to carry a 3 pounder concealed.....:eek:
 
Last edited:
"...or a Ruger 5023..." 5032?
It came up as a 45 Colt revolver that weighs 44 ounces. One ounce less than a 6" GP. The Redhawk is too big and heavy to lug around hanging off your pants.
"....357 can not be uploaded that much..." A 180 can be driven to roughly 1400 fps. A 125 to nearly 2000 fps. Doesn't need to be more.
 
A three pound handgun is nothing to carry......I thought my Walker was heavy when I first got it.....it aint since I lost forty pounds. Once you carry a heavy gun every day for several months you get accustomed to it and hardly feel that it is there....

Many of you know that I am in the Yakima area. We just had a new range open up and I have been thinking about getting a larger handgun. My .44 Auto Mag is nice as are my other .44 Magnums but I have touch of arthritis so I called the new range and asked about coming in and renting a handgun and what did they have available.....they had a list but then I asked about the largest caliber....their response was well sir we do have a .45 acp they do also rent.... I said thank you for talking to me but the point of my call was to rent something larger not downgrade as I wanted to find out how much larger of a caliber I could handle. My .44 Magnum load is 22.7 grains of 296 with a 240 grain bullet either solid for deer, elk and bear or hollow point for two legged varmits.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top