"Based on some of the threads on here lately, has it become some sort of achievement to go hunting with the least powerful cartridge possible? I hear stories about how this round did this or this round did that, I wonder how many stories are not told of the animal running off and dying an inhumane death."
There is some truth in the above statement by militant. However that's only 1/2 the story.
I have killed deer (and cows, pigs and horses) with calibers smaller than what's considered to be normal for the size of animals shot. I think lots of folks have.
I have never shot one that didn't die.
I have never shot one that didn't die pretty quickly, but I do admit some took about 10-30 seconds longer than I'd have liked.
I HAVE SEEN a few shots of animals that obviously were not hit hard enough or in the right place. Two with 22s, one with a 38, one with a 9mm and one with a 222 Remington. (I have seen more however shot with big rifles that were shot poorly and they didn't die very fast either)
The general idea of a minimum caliber is not really a minimum at all. It's the idea of a caliber/bullet weight/ velocity combination that has some over-kill built in, so the effect is a quick humane kill in the vast majority of the cases. It is not to say you can't kill an 1800 pound cow with a 22 rifle. You can, and I have, and I have seen it done hundreds of times. Most ranch kids have.
But the cows are not trying to get away as a rule and they are held steady and have no idea they are in danger so they are not running, thrashing or turned at a wrong angle.
I have see ONE big bull hit perfectly with a 22 rifle that dropped, and then got up and started to fight. It was enough to make me use a 44 with a hard cast bullet from that time on.
If I may try to shed some light on the topic I'd say that a man that regularly kills deer with a 223 and never looses one is probably a good hunter and a good shot, and is disciplined to shoot only when he knows his shot is going to be perfect.
The less power your cartridge has, the better you must shoot it.
So shooting deer with a 22 LR is the task of the expert, not the beginner.
This is all said not in reference to laws, but against the back drop of reality. If your state laws say you need to shoot a certain minimum, then you should do so. If you don’t like the law, become active in the state government to try to amend it.
Anyway… back to the original topic, the 357 magnum as a deer gun.
I am NOT of the opinion the 357 (in either handgun or rifle) is too weak for hunting deer. I am the former CEO of Cast Performance Bullet Co. I oversaw the production of millions of bullets made for hunting big game with handguns. I am VERY VERY familiar with the performance of the best 357 bullets, and there effects on deer, antelope bear and even a handful of elk as well as African game. A 357 is not a death dealing super ray gun, but neither is it a toy.
Out of a rifle the 187 grain bullets we made could regularly be fired at 1950 to 2025 FPS. That’s real chronographed velocities, not someone’s theory.
I chronographed several 170 grain 30-30 commercial loads when I was running the ballistics tests there. None were much over 2000 FPS and some didn’t get much over 1900 FPS. However the 170 grain 30-30 is beyond question as to it’s effectiveness on deer.
So if we can have a 35 cal bullet that’s 17 grain heavier than a 30 cal bullet and both are going the same speed, how could the bigger bullet have less energy?
It can’t. It doesn’t. And it kills as well or better than the 30-30.
As with the 30-30, the fact that has to be addressed and held to by any ethical hunter is range. But within its realistic range (which is much farther than many “cyber experts” believe) the 357 magnum is a good killer. How far is that?
Well that depends on the skill of the shooter.
Ballisticly the 357 with the 187 grain bullet is about used up for deer size game at 300 yards, but you’d better have your range down pat. It’s a much better round for most hunters at 175 maximum range. Not because it’s not deadly beyond that, but because most shooters don’t shoot them enough to know how to hold past about 150 to 175.
Now to address the handguns.
A 187 grain bullet coming from an 18.5” barrel at 2000 FPS is going about 1300 FPS at 80 yards. About as fast as the same bullet from the muzzle of a 6” barreled revolver. So again the real question is the skill of the shooter. If we are talking about white tail in the weeds of woods, the average shot is going to be at or under 100 yards.
If you can shoot at 50 yards, the revolver is going to do as well as the rifle would do at about 140 yards.
So what does it all mean?
It means we need to be honest with ourselves and there should be more pride taken in being honest than in bragging about a few shots you made one or 2 times in your life..
If you can hit a 6” paper plate 6 times out of 6, EVERY time, on demand at 100 yards with your 357 handgun, go ahead and shoot at deer at 100 yards with it. If you can’t, get within the range you can, and DON’T shoot until you are within that range.
Accept the challenge of the weapon you are using.
Be honest and be a man or woman of integrity and you’ll be fine.
Just because Elmer Keith or Bob Mundon could hit clay birds with their revolvers at 150 yards doesn’t mean you can.
If you can’t say so, and be proud of your ethics. Not of a stunt you pulled off a few times in your life.
I am a very good shot with a handgun, and when I was younger I was far better than I am now.
I have made some good shots on game with handguns and done so many times, but as I age I find I must get closer than I used to. I feel no shame in that.
I also love to hunt with a long bow with wood arrows and with my flintlock rifle shooting round balls.
I have a perfectly good 270 and a 300 H&H mag. Just because I can kill well with my 270 at 400 yards doesn’t mean I can with my flintlock.
Just because I can roll Pepsi cans most times at 100 yards with my M28 S&W357 mag doesn’t mean I can do it with my long bow.
Again, there is no shame in that. Shame is in risking a deer to a long slow death and not bringing it to bag.
As with so many other posts I have made, I have to say one more time, it’s less about the gun than it is the man shooting it.
A real expert can get by with less. The question he must answer for himself is this;
How much less SHOULD he use?
I think the 357 is fine in the same way I think a 30-30 is fine. The 30-30 is not thought of as a long range rifle, and it shoots flatter than the 357 magnum. But I would say “fine" starts at about that level of power.
Not less than that for sure.