As a shotgun hunter of whitetails, I'm considering using my 357 magnum revolver. I know a 44 would be better, but I got to thinking. If an arrow can drop a deer, (good shot placement of course) why not a 357 hunting round. In other words, do I really have to buy a 44 revolver?
44 magnum, 357 magnum and an arrow on deer.
- Thread starter 9mm1033
- Start date
Loaded4yote
New member
.357 will do the job as long as the shooter is up to the task. 22lr is enough if you're a good aim.
If it's legal where you hunt and you're comfortable hunting with a round then use it. Just be sure you realize the limitations of that particular cartridge.
If it's legal where you hunt and you're comfortable hunting with a round then use it. Just be sure you realize the limitations of that particular cartridge.
castnblast
New member
I've had great luck w/ .357 at archery distances...50yds & under-I think it would do great beyond, but that is the limitation of my ability to hit a 6" plate w/ all 6 rounds. That's where I'd draw the line. don't shoot farther than where you can consistantly hit a 6" plate and you'll do fine. I suppose If I were to practice more, I could do better. I have too many other "toys" to take deer with.
BTW, I really like the 125 HP. Works great...wouldn't want to get hit with one of those rounds.
BTW, I really like the 125 HP. Works great...wouldn't want to get hit with one of those rounds.
Last edited:
Jack O'Conner
New member
This cow elk was taken with 357 MAG revolver. Two shots. Distance was about 50 feet. The animal weighed approx. 450 - 500 lbs (guessing).
357 MAG does not have the power of 44 MAG but is quite lethal at archery distances. But it takes patience and self discipline to pass up less-than-ideal shot angles or longer distances.
I advise against scoping a hunting revolver. Avoid long shots!
Jack
Last edited:
Boris Bush
Moderator
A 44 Mag will not make a less than ideal shot or distance magicaly ideal either. Shot for shot on deer (light skin light boned) 44 mag and 357 mag will perform equaly well granted proper shot placement.
I agree that a 357 Mag will take deer at reasonable distances. But before comparing apples and oranges and basing your decision on a fallacious argument, you should know that arrows and bullets create wounds in totally different ways.
Arrows use the momentum of the arrow to drive a cutting blade into the animal's flesh, causing shear of the tissues, forming a wound channel. In this manner, it takes very little kinetic energy to cause penetration of skin, muscle and organs, because the weight of the arrow times the velocity of the arrow are focused on the very thin cutting edge of the arrowhead.
Bullets cause wounds by high velocity and the mass of the bullet surpassing the tensile strength of flesh and bone, thereby penetrating and damaging tissue and organs.
Totally different mechanisms, totally different wounds.
School's out. Thank you for your attention. Leave donations in the cup by the door.
Arrows use the momentum of the arrow to drive a cutting blade into the animal's flesh, causing shear of the tissues, forming a wound channel. In this manner, it takes very little kinetic energy to cause penetration of skin, muscle and organs, because the weight of the arrow times the velocity of the arrow are focused on the very thin cutting edge of the arrowhead.
Bullets cause wounds by high velocity and the mass of the bullet surpassing the tensile strength of flesh and bone, thereby penetrating and damaging tissue and organs.
Totally different mechanisms, totally different wounds.
School's out. Thank you for your attention. Leave donations in the cup by the door.
fisherman66
New member
Jack, would you expound upon this idea. I fully understand your advisement to avoid long shots, but scopes and long distance don't always go hand in hand. I appreciate having my eye focused on both the target and my sighting system simultaneously. A 1x or red dot seem ideal for what we are talking about.
Jack O'Conner
New member
Fisherman:
You can scope your handgun if you want to. I won't do it because it adds to bulk and weight plus might tempt me to shoot farther than I should. Even the mighty 44MAG is no long distance hunting arm.
Good hunting to you.
Jack
You can scope your handgun if you want to. I won't do it because it adds to bulk and weight plus might tempt me to shoot farther than I should. Even the mighty 44MAG is no long distance hunting arm.
Good hunting to you.
Jack
fisherman66
New member
Thanks for the response Jack. I appreciate your comments and disagree with only a smidgeon of what you suggest. Irons are less precise than crosshairs. It's important to be able to use both, but a scope make for a more humane shot when I'm behind the trigger. Again that's just me. I admire those who tilt the odds away from success. If using open sights does that, I'm all for it.
Yes, the .44 is more powerful, but
especially with a handgun, most shooters should not attempt a shot on game at any range beyond 50-60 yards, regardless of caliber. That, I think, is also an argument against scoping handguns. That scope might encourage you to take shots that you shouldn't be taking.
First shot in the vitals. Form field positions. Every time. Nothing else will do.
At the ranges that 90% of us have any business taking a shot at a deer, I don't consider a properly-loaded .357 "marginal."
Is the .44 "better?" Yes.
Is the .357 enough? Yes.
If you're a shooter who can go beyond 60 yards with a handgun, then by all means go for the .44. Also, you have my admiration, because I can't do it. Past 100 yards? Very, very few can go there, no matter what they're got in their hands.
--Shannon
--Shannon
especially with a handgun, most shooters should not attempt a shot on game at any range beyond 50-60 yards, regardless of caliber. That, I think, is also an argument against scoping handguns. That scope might encourage you to take shots that you shouldn't be taking.
First shot in the vitals. Form field positions. Every time. Nothing else will do.
At the ranges that 90% of us have any business taking a shot at a deer, I don't consider a properly-loaded .357 "marginal."
Is the .44 "better?" Yes.
Is the .357 enough? Yes.
If you're a shooter who can go beyond 60 yards with a handgun, then by all means go for the .44. Also, you have my admiration, because I can't do it. Past 100 yards? Very, very few can go there, no matter what they're got in their hands.
--Shannon
--Shannon
As "Scorch" pointed out, the arrow kill mechanism is a bit different than that of a bullet.
But arrows are still basically pointy sticks, and have been used to kill deer for many thousands of years . . . and for most of that time, compound bows and modern broadheads were not being used.
If you use relatively heavy bullets in your .357 and place the shots properly, it will do a fine job.
But arrows are still basically pointy sticks, and have been used to kill deer for many thousands of years . . . and for most of that time, compound bows and modern broadheads were not being used.
If you use relatively heavy bullets in your .357 and place the shots properly, it will do a fine job.
Do you have to buy a .44? yes, if you have the extra funds. Not because your .357 is to small. But solely on the fact you need another gun. I know of a few people who use .357 mags, quite succefully. Check your local laws, this may require a T/C contender with a large caliber barrel. Not because your .357 wont do the job, More like you realllyy need to buy one more gun.
Like most everyone here says"shot placement" and practice. Once your comfort level is there, I say go for it
This year I will hunt with a T/C Contender .357 Mag on my side, and a H&R .44 mag. rifle."thank you Indiana"
. I know of a few people who use .357 mags, quite succefully. Check your local laws, this may require a T/C contender with a large caliber barrel. Not because your .357 wont do the job, More like you realllyy need to buy one more gun. Like most everyone here says"shot placement" and practice. Once your comfort level is there, I say go for it
This year I will hunt with a T/C Contender .357 Mag on my side, and a H&R .44 mag. rifle."thank you Indiana"