.44 magnum vs. .357 magnum
- Thread starter roy reali
- Start date
Rebuttal
You can shoot loads in a .44 magnum revolver that replicate .45ACP rounds. Over-penetration shouldn't be too different then a .357 magnum.
Yes, some .357 revolvers have more then a half dozen rounds carried in them. You don't need as many rounds from the forty-four.
You can shoot loads in a .44 magnum revolver that replicate .45ACP rounds. Over-penetration shouldn't be too different then a .357 magnum.
Yes, some .357 revolvers have more then a half dozen rounds carried in them. You don't need as many rounds from the forty-four.
DiscoRacing
New member
I have three of each caliber myself.
I'm in the "it depends where you live" crowd. My opinion is that .357/.38 is the perfect caliber for most of the lower 48; by simply changing the ammo you can use it for deer hunting, small game hunting (using headshots), animal protection, concealed carry, or as a duty gun. .357 magnum also has the best 1-shot stopping record, at least according to the charts I've seen online.
I grew up in SE Alaska, and I'd say that .44 magnum is definitely the sidearm caliber of choice around there, at least for open carry. It can do just about everything the .357 can but it has more oomph for animal protection. The cost is that you end up carrying a larger, heavier gun.
I now live in the lower 48, and I now prefer .357 magnum. If I still lived in Alaska, I'd sell it for a .44. The concept of "one gun" isn't sold on me, though; I like having one full-sized one for the trail & range, and a smaller one for daily carry. I like their calibers to complement each other, i.e., my CCW is in .38 and my trail gun is in .357.
I grew up in SE Alaska, and I'd say that .44 magnum is definitely the sidearm caliber of choice around there, at least for open carry. It can do just about everything the .357 can but it has more oomph for animal protection. The cost is that you end up carrying a larger, heavier gun.
I now live in the lower 48, and I now prefer .357 magnum. If I still lived in Alaska, I'd sell it for a .44. The concept of "one gun" isn't sold on me, though; I like having one full-sized one for the trail & range, and a smaller one for daily carry. I like their calibers to complement each other, i.e., my CCW is in .38 and my trail gun is in .357.
http://www.buffalobore.com/index.php?l=product_detail&p=100
Buffalo Bore .357. Includes charts on fps / energy.
2. 4 inch S&W L frame Mt. Gun
a. Item 19A/20-180gr. Hard cast LFN = 1375 fps
Now, the question becomes ... which can you shoot the most accurately and rapidly if you have little time.
I'll go with the .357.
Buffalo Bore .357. Includes charts on fps / energy.
2. 4 inch S&W L frame Mt. Gun
a. Item 19A/20-180gr. Hard cast LFN = 1375 fps
Now, the question becomes ... which can you shoot the most accurately and rapidly if you have little time.
I'll go with the .357.
Rebuttal
I looked that up. If you read it, the ballistics you are quoting are from an 18.5 inch carbine, not a two and a half inch handgun, slight difference.
I have shot small .357 magnum revolvers with stiff loads. I used to own a Colt Anaconda. My .44 magnum was much more pleasant to shoot. I am not sure I could rapid fire either weapon.
I looked that up. If you read it, the ballistics you are quoting are from an 18.5 inch carbine, not a two and a half inch handgun, slight difference.
I have shot small .357 magnum revolvers with stiff loads. I used to own a Colt Anaconda. My .44 magnum was much more pleasant to shoot. I am not sure I could rapid fire either weapon.
rickyjames
New member
"But being as this is a .44 Magnum, the most powerful handgun in the world, and would blow your head clean off, you've got to ask yourself one question: Do I feel lucky? Well, do ya, punk? "
may not be the most powerful anymore but still works for me.
may not be the most powerful anymore but still works for me.
.44 vs. .357
I've never owned a .44 Mag, I've always kind of wanted one but every time I pick one up my first reaction is "Holy crap, this thing is BIG" Much bigger and heavier than my model 19 and not even in the same ballpark as ms SP101. I'm afraid that unless I move to great bear country I just can't justify carrying that big of a gun. If I were to go after black bears or wild pigs with a handgun a .44 mag would be my choice but I prefer to hunt with a rifle. For woods protection a .357 mag, properly loaded is enough for where I live.
I've never owned a .44 Mag, I've always kind of wanted one but every time I pick one up my first reaction is "Holy crap, this thing is BIG" Much bigger and heavier than my model 19 and not even in the same ballpark as ms SP101. I'm afraid that unless I move to great bear country I just can't justify carrying that big of a gun. If I were to go after black bears or wild pigs with a handgun a .44 mag would be my choice but I prefer to hunt with a rifle. For woods protection a .357 mag, properly loaded is enough for where I live.
HighValleyRanch
New member
N. Cali Bear?
I've seen some pretty big black bears in Northern California, and some pretty nasty wild boars!
I've seen some pretty big black bears in Northern California, and some pretty nasty wild boars!
A lot of things will depend on where you live, and what you do with your revolver.
For big game hunting, the .44 magnum has a pretty clear advantage.
For self-defense against larger animals, the .44 mag has a pretty clear advantage.
Back in my "one handgun" days, I carried a .357 magnum. Started with a Blackhawk, then a GP-100, then a 4" S&W 686, and later a 6" 686. I didn't "need" the power of a .44 magnum.
Ammo is cheaper for the .357 mag than for the .44 mag, and .38 specials are a whole LOT cheaper than .44 specials for those who prefer factory fodder. For those who handload like I do, .357's and .38's are cheaper to load, as well.
If I could own but one handgun for the areas I roam, it would likely be a 4" .357 magnum. Since I can (and do) own more than one, I don't own a .357 magnum. Instead, I use handguns better suited to specific uses, and other than for "one-size-fits-all, the .357 mag doesn't really fit any of my more "refined" preferences.
Daryl
For big game hunting, the .44 magnum has a pretty clear advantage.
For self-defense against larger animals, the .44 mag has a pretty clear advantage.
Back in my "one handgun" days, I carried a .357 magnum. Started with a Blackhawk, then a GP-100, then a 4" S&W 686, and later a 6" 686. I didn't "need" the power of a .44 magnum.
Ammo is cheaper for the .357 mag than for the .44 mag, and .38 specials are a whole LOT cheaper than .44 specials for those who prefer factory fodder. For those who handload like I do, .357's and .38's are cheaper to load, as well.
If I could own but one handgun for the areas I roam, it would likely be a 4" .357 magnum. Since I can (and do) own more than one, I don't own a .357 magnum. Instead, I use handguns better suited to specific uses, and other than for "one-size-fits-all, the .357 mag doesn't really fit any of my more "refined" preferences.
Daryl
hardworker
New member
Comparing the two is like comparing a 22 magnum and a 223. They both have their roles. Killing big game is possible with a 22 mag but you've got to hit them in the head whereas rabbit hunting with a 223 is a waste of ammo and time.
I like the .44 mag and the .357 mag ....
I have a .44mag ( S&W 629 3" - ported ) which is easy to carry in a holster / but so is a .357 mag ( S&W model 19, 27, 66 etc ) in a 4" ... The 3" .44 mag is more difficult to shoot on quick follow-up shots than any of my guns in .357 mag / just becuase the .44 mag has a lot more recoil / even with the ported barrel.
I have about 25 S&W revolvers / so saying I have to limit myself to only one ...probably means I would go to an N frame in .357 mag ...probably a 6" - in a model 27. It is more versatile, in my opinion -- and good for hunting, defense, etc ...maybe not the best on big bear ...but with the exception of Northwestern Montana - big bear in the continential US are gone.
I have several .44's - one 3", one 6" and a few in 8 3/8" barrels ...all S&W ( model 29's and 629's ).
I have more than several .357's .... 4" and 6" ...( mod 19's, 27's, 28's, 66's, 686's ) ...and the N frame S&W's ( model 27 ) is my all time favorite - especially in Nickel ...
I have a .44mag ( S&W 629 3" - ported ) which is easy to carry in a holster / but so is a .357 mag ( S&W model 19, 27, 66 etc ) in a 4" ... The 3" .44 mag is more difficult to shoot on quick follow-up shots than any of my guns in .357 mag / just becuase the .44 mag has a lot more recoil / even with the ported barrel.
I have about 25 S&W revolvers / so saying I have to limit myself to only one ...probably means I would go to an N frame in .357 mag ...probably a 6" - in a model 27. It is more versatile, in my opinion -- and good for hunting, defense, etc ...maybe not the best on big bear ...but with the exception of Northwestern Montana - big bear in the continential US are gone.
I have several .44's - one 3", one 6" and a few in 8 3/8" barrels ...all S&W ( model 29's and 629's ).
I have more than several .357's .... 4" and 6" ...( mod 19's, 27's, 28's, 66's, 686's ) ...and the N frame S&W's ( model 27 ) is my all time favorite - especially in Nickel ...
And southwest Montana too, not to mention mideastern Idaho and western Wyoming. They come into our campgrounds and leave very large prints on the dirt roads around here. A jellystone park rangerette once told me that a large park griz went around 500lbs. That's why I always carry when i go in the woods, or ride my bicycle, or fish, etc.
bamaranger
New member
did you catch this?
The OP stated a "medium size 4-6 inch .44 mag"...... and there's hardly any such critter!
Most .44's, double actions anyhow, are pretty beefy guns. A S&W Mtn revolver, 4" comes closest to the concept, but that still pretty chunky when compared to a K-frame or similar.
Now, a single action, fixed sights, something like a Vaquero, or a Blackhawk, down the lines of a Colt SA, (my Dad had a Hawes Marshal for awhile) are fairly portable, but still not in the same league as a M19, a Sec-6, etc. I'm not even sure the Vacquero is available in .44 mag?
Handloading a .44 mag up and down makes it pretty versatile, but you can't escape the fact that .44 mag class revolvers are big! Carried for extended periods, or any distance, even in a exposed, field type holster (the OP was not interested in concealment) will give the medium frame .357 a bit of an edge in convenience and portability over a .44.
The OP stated a "medium size 4-6 inch .44 mag"...... and there's hardly any such critter!
Most .44's, double actions anyhow, are pretty beefy guns. A S&W Mtn revolver, 4" comes closest to the concept, but that still pretty chunky when compared to a K-frame or similar.
Now, a single action, fixed sights, something like a Vaquero, or a Blackhawk, down the lines of a Colt SA, (my Dad had a Hawes Marshal for awhile) are fairly portable, but still not in the same league as a M19, a Sec-6, etc. I'm not even sure the Vacquero is available in .44 mag?
Handloading a .44 mag up and down makes it pretty versatile, but you can't escape the fact that .44 mag class revolvers are big! Carried for extended periods, or any distance, even in a exposed, field type holster (the OP was not interested in concealment) will give the medium frame .357 a bit of an edge in convenience and portability over a .44.