opinion of company versus opinion of hear say

B

Bezoar

Moderator
Here is a nice new little 'toss the kerosene" thread that i have been gushing out over for a long time. And no, its not intended to burn the forest down, but to provide illumination for the throngs dancing about the tree trunks..


Now, the gun magazine is supposed to be taken as gospel. I know, to many say it is gospel because they would never lie, or suggest i do things that were stupid.
And the hunting shows would never want me to do something hair brained.


Now the manufacturers are to be taken at face value, correct? When they say the product they are selling does 'x" when fired, we need to believe it completely, and say 'sure thats where there ballistics lab did on a particular day..."

Everybody has opinions on the .357 magnum. It was considered the most powerful cartridge the majority of people could actually learn to control. it is noisy, and a lightweight gun isnt fun even as a 38 special....

Now the winchester site has 3 hunting loads that are for handguns, with handgun barrels. 2 loads for .357 were tested with a 4" vent barrel. 158 grain jsp and a 158 jhp.
they produce the same 550 foot pounds of muzzle energy that most federal handgun loads in 357 do. and corbon. and MOST buffalo bore.
they have a 200 grain jsp for the 44-40 that is listed for deer and piggies. no energy or barrel listed.

now if a 180 grain hard cast bullet thats tested to create 750 foot pounds in a 4 inch barrel is NOT enough for mr or ms whitetail, how can a 158 grainer that generates 20% less energy still be ok ?
 
I think it's more important to hear from actual hunters than some theoretical write up in a magazine. For example I keep hearing 7.62x39 is 'marginal' for deer, but actual hunters told me with the right ammo it is just fine.
 
Any aspect of shooting and hunting has so very many variables that any 'opinion', whether by gun rag, manufacturer or forum member, must be taken with that big 'grain of salt'. What works fine for one shooter may not work for another - conditions change, different distance, different gun, different skill levels, etc.

Kinda like all those who gush over using Unique powder and think it the best thing since Jesus himself was hunting..... but MY personal experience shows it as the gun-fouling 'flammable dirt' that a few others consider it. Just one example..... ;)
 
now if a 180 grain hard cast bullet thats tested to create 750 foot pounds in a 4 inch barrel is NOT enough for mr or ms whitetail, how can a 158 grainer that generates 20% less energy still be ok ?
Click to expand...

Where did this come from?

No offence intended but, your post is quite difficult to follow.
You talk about three loads for the .357 mag, then list two, then jump to something about a .44/40, then drag out a 180 grain bullet of unknown caliber.:confused:
 
now if a 180 grain hard cast bullet thats tested to create 750 foot pounds in a 4 inch barrel is NOT enough for mr or ms whitetail, how can a 158 grainer that generates 20% less energy still be ok ?
Click to expand...

To respond to that question, it would be most helpful if you could show us where someone said a load generating 750 ft/lbs (bullet weight and barrel length are irrelevant at this point) was NOT OK for mr or ms whitetail.

Last time I looked, in my state, 750ft/lbs was the legal handgun energy level for ELK. The level for deer is much lower, around 500 or so.

Never heard anyone claim a 180gr with 750ft/lbs wasn't enough for deer. Who is saying that?
 
I kind of started wondering about the post after this:
"Now, the gun magazine is supposed to be taken as gospel. "

I have yet to know of anyone thinking this was true. Generally it's the opposite.
 
Andy Blozinsky said:
I kind of started wondering about the post after this:
"Now, the gun magazine is supposed to be taken as gospel. "

I have yet to know of anyone thinking this was true. Generally it's the opposite.
Click to expand...
Not only that, hearing real-world results from real people is not hearsay. It's testimony. Hearsay is third party information (of the "My cousin's best friend Joe's brother said his pal Richie told him ..." type).
 
to clarify.

the buffalo bore 180 penetrator in 357 is tested by them to generate 750-780 foot pounds in an actual 4 inch barrel.
Its designed to blow through a bear head at short range. the company says its good for deer to.

winchester sells 158 grain jsp and jhp for 357 that generate roughly 530-570 foot pounds in actual 4 inch barrels. its marketed for both deer and boar hunting from handguns. Boar are not known for being NICE.

Remington sells or sold a 44-40 that uused a 2-240 grain jsp that from a 16" barrel generated about 660 foot pounds fo muzzle energy.

Now, the only cartridge here thats "considered' safe and sane for deer hunting from a handgun is that 44-40 load, with is going to loose alot when put in a handgun.

SO tell me when we believe rule of thumb over the ocmpany?
 
Now, the only cartridge here thats "considered' safe and sane for deer hunting from a handgun is that 44-40 load,..
Click to expand...

Again, who is saying that? You named .357 loads that the makers recommend for deer, isn't that safe and sane?

If you are talking about some internet experts who don't think any .357 load is adequate for any deer, I happen to disagree, and so would a great many deer, if only they could...

I'm afraid your clarification didn't clarify much for me..
 
I think the gun magazines had "authority status" when there was no Internet where shooters could communicate with each other directly. Also when we had writers such as Elmer Keith, Jack O'Connor, Jeff Cooper, Charlie Askins, etc. who for lack of a better term came across as "personalities"-people who had been there, done that.
As far as opinion of company based on personal experience, AMT pistols seem to have at best a so-so reputation, I have been pleased with my AMT Hardballer, when I fired it in IPSC style events it never let me down.
 
the buffalo bore 180 penetrator in 357 is tested by them to generate 750-780 foot pounds in an actual 4 inch barrel.
Its designed to blow through a bear head at short range.
Click to expand...

Must be a black bear or really close range - too close for me. When I'm in northern Montana or Idaho, I'm not going to be carrying a .357 - no matter what the manufacturer says or you believe.

I carry a .460 and hope I'm never in a situation that requires me to use it. For comparison, to the .357 you're quoting as being designed to "blow through a bear head," the .460 load I carry generates 2,860 ft/lbs of energy.
 
The gun writers of the early and mid 20th century are a lot of fun to read. A lot of what they said was truth, and some of it was highly cultivated opinion.

And perhaps for the sake of style, sometimes they went just a wee bit overboard from our standards today. And sometimes a bit beyond reality, too.

One of the renowned writers and gun technicians wrote (in the 50s) that buckhorn sights were the only reason there was still a deer population in the United States. (just an example)

But by and large, what they wrote about, they had done, built, tested, etc.

I have been attending the Real "World Observational School for Applied Physics and Engineering" for well over half a century (one never really graduates), and I can tell you, without reservation that some things work as designed, and some do not.

When I hear somebody with a pretty impressive reputation for their things doing what they say they will do, say "we designed this to blow through a bear's head at close range", I would expect it to do just that.

I'd want to know just a bit more, before I put my personal butt at risk (real world proof is good), but I'd take them at their word it should do it.

Might sleep better if I carried something that would blow through the bear's head with 1800ft/lbs left over but the bear wouldn't know the difference, I'm thinking...
 
Might sleep better if I carried something that would blow through the bear's head with 1800ft/lbs left over but the bear wouldn't know the difference, I'm thinking...
Click to expand...

Hmmmm....well...all I can say is I'd rather err on the side of safety than have to depend upon luck. While the brown bears in northern Montana are probably not as large as the ones you'll find in Alaska, the two that I saw convinced me that a bigger pistol wasn't a bad idea - and I was carrying a .44 magnum.
 
Last edited:
Having seen bears with claws as long as my entire hand I won't say you're wrong, Buckhorn.

Do you know the story about the guy who carried a .32acp as his "bear gun"?
Out hiking with a buddy, buddy says "what makes you think that will do any good against a bear?" Guy says, "don't need to stop the bear, just slow you down a mite....figured the kneecap would work fine."
;)
 
i live in michigan and subscribe to the dnr newspaper thing. makes some interesting kindling, and once in a while something will actually be worth reading, other then the list of repeat dnr offenders...


few years back they had an article from one of their experts on deer hunting with handguns. they decided that a 357 needed a scope, 8 inches of barrel, and 35 yard headshots to be "humane" because the 44 magnum has sooooo much more power.

people hunt black bear from treestands with 357.. so why not deer?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top