Why all the lack of interest in the 357 mag? 60 yards and in with 158 gr - 180 gr bullet and 6" or longer barrel works fine for deer and hogs with proper shot placement, so what gives? alot of us got our handgun hunting start on this caliber? Is the .357 mag soon to be cast aside and forgotten?

probably the "cool" factor

! kinda like the old 30-30 that sits in about everyones cabinet...it works but deer are tough and you need that big ear bustin,shoulder dislocating magnum to kill said 95 pd. deer!
these days the 44 magnum gets looked down upon...lord forbid you get caught with a ...35....7...mag...num!the 357 will work fine as long as you realize its limitations

I don't use the .357 because I have several .44 and .45LC's that are better equipped for deer hunting. They also allow more leeway for shot angles where deeper penetration is needed.

Personally, I think it is a good starter caliber -- no recoil, cheap to shoot, etc., but I prefer bigger holes -- a lot bigger holes. With the right bullet it is a perfectly viable deer cartridge, but on hogs -- particularly larger hogs, I like more bullet weight and diameter. But that's just me.

There's nothing wrong with the .357 magnum. I get very good penetration using the lyman 358429 bullet loaded from .38 Special velocities on up. Just have to know you can put the bullet where you need it when you need it. It is not as forgiving as the larger calibers when you mess up a shot.

As the short guy with the 10 gallon hat might have said (and probably did): " A .357 Magnum revolver is a damned adequate small pest handgun !"

I like it, have had several, enjoyed the ablity to stuff 38's in the holes...sold em' all. The bigger stuff can be loaded up or down and does a better job all the way around. That said I'm looking for a 357 in a 10" T/C bbl for Field Pistol IHMSA. It will double as a Jackrabbit rig. It (the 357) has it's place but there are better choice for larger game. I shot my first wild pig with a 9 shot H&R .22LR revolver. It was sleeping and the distance was 10 yards. It died...but I wouldn't recommend it as a pig round.

Bill in OR

Looks like all agree that it has it's place in the woods with the right ammunition and distance, personnel preference looks to play a big part in the mix. I prefer shot placement over having the load cover a fudged shot or poor placement. I started handgun hunting because of the challenge of marksmanship and the field craft needed to get inside the right range. IMHO

I agree that shot placement is paramount. I just prefer larger holes.

i havebeen debating this caleber for months.When funds become available I would like a new revolver.my considerations are 357 44mag or 45colt...
1) I do not care for recoil if it can be avoided, Ijust don't like to beat up my body wrist and shoulder damage do not sound fun
2)the largest game in my area are deer most in the 100-150 lb range well within the capabilities of all calibers i am considering.
3)cost and availability of ammo 357 or 38 ammo is all over and relatively cheap.44mag is also available but costs slightly more.good 45colt can be somewhat harder to find.

down side of 357...
1) black bear and moose are moving into my area and at sometime in the future maybe a viable option to hunt or defend against in the future. while a 357 is better than the single six i currently have for a general carry gun.The 357 could feel a little small against a mad moose or black bear.

2)I would like to go for a few western hunts when time and money permit.44 mag or 45colt would be much better on elk buffalo and brown bear.but then if i could afford to go hunt them i should also be able to afford a new gun for them.

what to do...life would be borring without choices.any suggestions???

Keith, I was not saying that the 357 mag is the only answer for all game, If large or more dangerous game is an issue them buy both a 357 mag and a 44 mag. That would also help support your local gunshop and the handgun industry as a whole. Good luck.

I have been hunting exclusively with handguns for more than 15 yrs. I have never used a 357 but have many acquaintances that have. My most respected friend's advice is "for hunting the 357 is an expert's gun. It was designed to stop a man at normally short distances not as a hunting cartridge." (He has used the FA 357 to kill animals up to 200 yds - but he is exceptional). His minimum hunting cartridge today is 44 mag.

As my experiences increase, my taste is for bigger bullets in revolvers. I started with 41s. I love 41s. I have killed numerous animals with them and have observed others shot with this round. My personal opinion is that I now prefer a little more bullet than the 210 gr .410 XTP. While this combination in my revolvers is very accurate, I have seen it fail to exit more times than not. I have seen a boiler-room hit that left NO blood trail at all even though the animal lay dead 75 yds away. In the brush he was hard to find.

If I carry this logic & experience to thoughts about the 357, I would only consider hunting with it using 180 gr bullets. Even then, I personally would prefer more bullet (diameter & weight).

Also, understand that in the area where I live and the places that I hunt, a 75 yd shot is close. 100 yds is more normal and a little further is often required.

Good comments wtroper! I also hunt with the 44 mag and have for years, I also still use the 357 mag. I pick the handgun I use based on terrian, distance of shot and type of game. I also use only the 180 gr for hunting with the 357 mag. My general reson for this topic was to generate some interest back in the 357 mag which was the original magnum hunting round back in the day.

you are right about that when i can afford to i will probably buy both.357 could be my general all perpouse gun with a 44 for when i go for the tougher or dangerous ones.If i had to have just one it would have to be a .44 compaired to the .357 it is heavy, punishing to shoot but if limited to one it will do it all. I am glad i am not limited to one a 357 would be a joy to shoot and nice to carry when heavy fire power like a .44 or larger is not needed

I have four 44’s. An Encore, two SBH’s, and a SRH. I have four loads. A 44sp load shooting a 240 SWC, a load for my Encore because it was picky, and two 44mag loads for my Ruger’s which are a 240 SWC and a 300XTP. I am lucky that they are all as accurate as can be and I am REALLY lucky that my two Mag loads for my Ruger’s shoot in the same place at 100yds. With all that being said, I have loads that my kids can handle too rounds that were developed for hunting big pigs. I have just decided that that I would do better making a couple of loads for my 44. A neat fact, If I sight my Ruger’s in at 25 with my 44Sp load the 44Mag load shoots on at 50. I can’t complain about that.

In my mind if you load the 357 mag properly with a 180 XTP or eq. bullet you have a pretty good hunting gun. The 357 can be streached a bit in guns like the 353 FA and the like. There are several on the site that love the 357 max. not that the mag will ever get near the performance of the max but one can come close in a strong wheel gun. If you want to use the 357 on deer make sure you use a 180 gr+ bullet and stoke it to the level you feel good with. I like the 180 XTP it allows for longer seating in some guns (this helps a bit on pressure) Other good options are the LBT style bullets. Try to max out the OAL for your gun this will allow for a bit more space in the case and keep pressures low.

Good luck and wear some ear plugs with that 357mag!

I bought my Ruger Blackhawk a couple of months ago but mostly as a training tool regarding single actions and handgun hunting.
My choice on a Ruger was based on the wider reloading possibilities. It is the convertible model, with a second 9x19mm. cylinder.
I think I will use it to hunt something eventually.

I hunt and handload for 357!!! The thing is just to usefull to get rid of. Its way better tan a 9mm, and better penetration than a 45 acp. So what gives? There just hard to beat for an all around gun, as long as you don't over extent yourself.

Lars

I had a conversation years ago with the late Hal Swigget about this round and he said his opinion was 50 yards or less for the 357 and that most folks would be better served by the 41,44,or 45colt.He also highly recommended a scope for the 357 for exact bullet placement.And for what it's worth we tried one when we started hog hunting with hounds years back and found that feral hogs can carry alot of 357 lead.This was just our experiences.

IMO, it's not the velocity potential that is the limiting factor (a supposed reason for stepping up to a .357 max), it's the small diameter. Absolutely a viable deer cartridge even at .38 special velocities (as long as you have a good bullet nose profile), but even on big hogs I like something bigger than the .429. But that's just me.

I love my Ruger 357 magnum, 180 grain bullets at over 1400 feet buffalo bore. A good 41 mag is a 200 grain bullet at the same speed yet a 41 or 45 head and shoulders better. Using 38 speical + we have all seen 250 grain bullets as fast as 41 260 grain bullets. Comparible speed and bullet weight means compatible energy even to over the counter loads 44 mag loads (I know I looked), yet the 357 gets a bad bill. I love what Skeeter Skelton worte about his best friend. Saying the 357 is not an important hunting tool is like saying bourban is not important to man's diet. By a gun that can handle real magnum loads and have fun.

I have T/C G2 14" factory barrel .357 Rem Maximum. So I can reload .38 Spl, .357 Mag too.

I've been shooting the 357 mag for years. I've taken a bunch of small game, whitetail, a black bear, and one elk with them in the past. Mostly cast bullets in the 162 to 187 grain range. The only thing that I have trouble getting over is that "supersonic" crack. I realize that I'm goin' deaf, but! To many days in the gravel pit with the '94 30-30 and Ruger 357, as kid before the days of "hearing" protection awareness I guess.

as i tell my rifle shooting friends, why start with a 3030 and hope for expansion to 40 or so whan you can start with 44 or 45 even in a rifle. the 357 just seems light to me yet if i recall there was some who hunted some vary good sized game with the NEW 357MAG in the 1930's. now there is some talk is the 44mag enough. maybe deer elk and black bear thicker/stronger hide than they did in the 30's & 50's

Bluecow -- your recollection is correct that the "new 357 mag" was used on a variety of large game animals. If my memory serves me correctly, polar bear was one of them in addition to many African species.

Likewise, around the turn of the last century a man-eating griz was killed with the then "new" high velocity cartridge 30 WCF (30-30). While I would not hesitate to shoot a griz that had me in mind for his supper with a 30-30, I also would not choose the 30-30 today as the ideal weapon for the job.

I do not believe that a knowledgeable person would argue the fact that the 357 has been used and can be used to harvest game animals from deer on up. However, IMHO today we have better choices available to us. I personally choose to shoot a revolver with a larger hole in the bbl. However, if one chooses to use the 357 (one of Paco Kelly's favorites), I will not complain.

I don't think you'll find anyone who will say the 357 is bad, just that for large game (deer on up) there are much better choices. the 44 mag can use the 44 spl, the 454 the 45 Lc, and if you reload any handgin cartridge can be loaded up or down. I wouldn't hesitate to take a deer or boar with a 357, under 50 yards with a broadside shot...but who can be sure thats what you'll get in the field?

Bill in OR

The 357 mag gets no love from me, I have never owned one. But, I have had a 357 Maximum for 18 years. It has taken 13 deer and countless charlies.

I will own a 357 Mag someday when the right one comes along.

When using a 357 for hunting you should just know what its limits are. This weekend my nephew used a FA`s mod 83 ( which is the exception) with a handload pushing a 180gr XTP close to 1700fps to drop a small body Corsican with one shot to the chest.
However, I once used the same gun/load to hit a 4 horn in the shoulder as he 1/4ed towared me and the bullet blew up on the shoulder bone.However, this weekend I used again used this FAs combo to take a small bodied mouflon with a shot that was a little to far back but because of the velocity and XTP it downed the animal. If a normal 357 was used I doubt that it would have had the same effect. I think Jeff Copper put it best when he stated what his formula was for handgun hunting:
1) no less then .40 caliber
2) no less then 200grs bullet weight
3) no less then 1000fps

i would think a 357 maximum would pretty much nulify #1 and #2 of that formula, and definately only pertain to revolvers.

But in the end it's still just a .357....... I love the caliber, but give me bigger holes. But again, that's just me.

Yes that would be an exception as you are getting 357 Max performance from a Mag. I remember reading that John Taffin tested a FA 357 Mag and was getting Max performance from it. He didn't recomend it but the gun is capable of that performance level.

How long does the brass last at that pressure?

Tigg, 2 or 3 reloads before the primer pocket gets to large. I talked with some other guys that reload for the FA`s 353 and they recommend using a new shell only one time for the high pressure load and then to use them for normal 38 and 357 loads.
The max load Taffin recommended using AA #9 and the 180gr XTP was to much and blew the primer. Another FA`s 353 reloader from the mid west came up with a good load using another powder that worked fine in my gun. I`am working with the 180gr partitions running a second cannalure like the XTP`s.

Here is the article I was refering to;

Taffin on the 353

Interesting read. He lists the Max with a 160gr bullet at 1500 FPS and the 353 at 1750. I have laoded 158gr pills to 1750 in my Max with published data and no signs of pressure.