.44 magnum vs. .357 magnum

The man with only one gun? There's no such animal! There are only two types of people: Those that don't own any guns and those that do own guns. If you meet the man with only one gun, he simply hasn't bought the next one. When I made the choice to buy my first gun, I was under the delusion that it would be my only gun. That didn't last very long at all.

OBTW, my first handgun was a 6.5-inch M29. My second was a 3-inch 586. My third was another 586. Combined, my wife and I own more .357's than any other caliber. The original .44 stands alone in the collection. Is that because it is less of a caliber? No way! It's just that it's a less convenient caliber for all of the reasons that everyone else pointed out.

I can't easily hide my .44 on myself. Besides that, the thought of subjecting it to holster wear makes me a little sick. I can easily hide both of my .357s and add a .45 if I really must have a big-bore along for the ride. When people have discovered me carrying like that, they always ask why I need to carry so many guns. I answer, "Because I'm the holster maker. I've got to set an example!" :D
 
Hook686,

Strikes me the .357 magnum has less bullet drop and more energy at 200 yards than the .44 magnum out of a rifle. JUst the facts. Rationalize them away in any manner you wish.
Click to expand...

I think your figures are thrown off a bit by the selection of a light load for the .44 Magnum from a levergun. In general the heavier bullet retains more energy over distance than the lighter. In the case of your example you have taken a heavy load for the .357 and a light load for the .44 and compared them side by side. Interesting but it skews things a bit.

tipoc
 
evyl robot(I'm picturing that guy on the bike over snake canyon- sorry its just the evyl bit), I agree w/your post. I had the same delusion about one gun. ps-you set a good example(power of example)
 
Evel Knievel! :eek:

I haven't read the whole thread, but I think we can all agree that both the .357 and .44 are excellent calibers. When deciding between a .357 or .44 Marlin 1894, I chose the .357 because I had a Ruger revolver chambered in .357. I also liked the more compact size of the 1894C. While I would rather have the .44 if I needed to shoot a deer, I would be using either in only the most dire of situations (i.e. I had no plans on using it as a hunting rifle).
 
The OP was about the cartridges in handguns, and we're still in the Hangun forum (last time I checked), so discussing rifle performance is not germane, and is thread drift. This one will likely be done soon, as everything but opinions going "nyah, nyah, mine is better!" has been covered.
 
I like the 357 but the reason is becuase I can get it in so many kinds of guns.

I currently have a 5 shot CCW (S&W) in 357, I have a 6 shot revolver (Taurus) and an 8 shot revolver (S&W), a Derringer in 357 and a 357 Carbine from Marlin. I am working on getting a Coonan 357 magnum semi automatic but funds have been short recently.


I use to own a 44 mag (S&W) and liked it a lot but one year I had to sell it to pay an important bill.
 
I have three .44 Magnum revolvers and they do not get shot as often as my .38Spec/.357 Mag revolvers.

Why? A 240gr bullet costs more than a 158 gr bullet and 20 gr of powder cost more than 7 grains.

A .44 Magnum is an allround expensive gun to shoot.
 
tipoc, the OP wanted one fact to support that the .357 magnum was better than the .44 magnum. The delivery system was not of consideration, only the cartridge. I offered one fact ... firing a 180 grain bullet from a lever gun demonstrated the .357 magnum cartridge had better ballistics. Rationalize away this fact to your hearts cvontent, it remains still a fact.
 
don't sweat it hook686'' attempted hijack! lol
EYES.gif
 
I think Deja vu has a winning argument: the .357 is more versatile because it can be had in 5, 6, 7, or 8 round revolvers - 5 in a J-frame, 6 in a K or L-frame, 7 in an L-frame (that 686+ just looks wrong to me, though), 8 in an N-frame. The .44 for all its awesomeness is pretty much a 6 shooter and requires an N-frame size gun. I know Taurus makes a 5 shooter .44 but it is definitely no J-frame.

.357 for the win! :D
 
When we think of the .44 .vs. .357 magnum debate we tend to forget the platforms that are available for the two cartridges.

Now .44 magnum about all you can find is BIG guns. But the .357 magnum you can find more reasonable size guns.

No the .44 magnum has its uses, but a gun the size of a Security Six or Smith 686, that is a handy size gun you can pack both for CCW or in the field, are pretty hard to handle in such rounds as the .44 Magnum.

I can get Buffalo Bore to get just about 1500 fps for a 158gr JHP from a 4 inch L frame Smith. That’s plenty for most uses. Yes the .44 would take more but the handgun is much larger.

So my vote goes for the .357 Magnum.

Deaf
 
Roy Reali said:
Forget any parameters, which cartridge would serve the one gun man the best?
Click to expand...

Isn't the answer obvious? It's the cartridge that fits the man's one gun! :D

I have several handguns and would find a .44mag cartridge useless since it won't chamber in anything I have. (Except my .45Colt RH, but I'm not doing that.)
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top