44 Magnum vs 357 Magnum for hunting

[Army GI]

Hello, I'm considering trading my 44 Magnum for something a little more manageable like the 357. I'd like to know from those that have actually hunted both calibers the following: Is there a noticeable difference on game between the 44 and 357?

I know the debate will rage on gun forums (just like 9mm vs 45) by armchair commandos who have never shot anything or anybody but paper and metal cans at the range. But those who have actually experienced shooting both calibers at appropriate game such as a deer or a black bear. What about something a little bigger like an elk?

I always hear that shot placement is the most important element in bullet effectiveness, after that is good penetration. Would a 158gr or 180gr at maximum velocity and shot straight through the vitals be any less effective than a 44 magnum? Does that 0.083" diameter make a difference?


edit 1: Since they are range guns/hunting guns, the barrels will be 6".

[PatriotnMore]

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?p=1475997#post1475997

[Army GI]

I'd agree that grizzly bears are, well, grizzly. If I expected to run into one of those, I would take my M1 Garand.

[Fjold]

I've never hunted with a 357 magnum but have with a 44 magnum.

The big issue that I have is that most 180 grain .357 loads only make about 1250 fps and 675 Ft Lbs at the muzzle and that's with bullets that have horrible sectional densities. The 180 grain bullet is large for a 357 so you lose a lot velocity and it barely has 500 ft lbs of energy at 50 yards.

JMHO
It is barely adequate for reliable penetration (slow and bad SD) on deer at 50 yards and is not adequate for anything bigger.

The 44 mag has 2- 3 times as much energy with 250 -260 grain bullets and I consider that adequate for deer and close range (baited or treed) bears but I wouldn't consider shooting an Elk with one.

People shoot deer with 243 and Hi velocity 22s also but those bullets have much higher velocities and better sectional densities than any handgun bullets.

[Californio]

Hand load the 44 magnum, you can tailor the load to the hunt, .357 will always have to be full house to perform.

You did no state your barrel length, I like 6.5" for 44's and 8" for .357 which makes it harder to hunt with but increases my ability to make good second shots.

[Army GI]

Yeah I've been told that 180 may be a little heavy. So I guess 158 is the heaviest I can go without slowing down too much, but then the sectional density sucks.

[buffybuster]

From my experience and observations there is a definitive difference between the 357 and 44Mags when proper bullets are used. On small deer and other "smaller" big game, they're both effective. The difference becomes more apparent when the live weight of the animal goes above 200-300lbs.

With the 357, to get best performance on animals, you must shoot a heavy for caliber expanding bullet. The bullet must expand to impart shock, but limits penetration and may not break bigger bones.

With the 44, to get best performance on animals, you shoot a hardcast lead, heavy for caliber bullet with a wide meplat. You don't need the expansion and the meplat cuts a nice hole to bleed out and imparts shock. Since the bullet doesn't expand you get great penetration and it'll break bones.

But a 357mag that you can shoot accurately is preferable to a 44mag that you cannot.

A carbine in either caliber will increase velocity by 200-300fps or more and turns them into another animal.

YMMV

[yellowfin]

How much would you sell your .44 for?

Anyway, if you've got something nasty coming at you you'll want the biggest gun you can have your hands on. A .303 can kill a lion stone dead but for some reason the Brits always wanted a .375 on up to a .505 or even .600.

[Army GI]

my Taurus Raging Bull in 44 Mag is still up for sale in the for sale forum.

[P08]

Consider the 10mm auto, as someone who has used it on various game -it is no slouch. I'd really think about the size and the nature of the animals you hunt. I personally prefer a rifle, to anything. If forced to utilize a pistol, I choose the Glock 20 in 10mm auto.

[WhoDat]

What about .357 Sig? Or, for that matter, .357 Sig vs .40 S&W.

Thinking about bringing it as a backup for hogs this weekend. I'll be using my AR-10 .308 as primary weapon.

[JBird33]

What about .357 Sig? Or, for that matter, .357 Sig vs .40 S&W.

Thinking about bringing it as a backup for hogs this weekend. I'll be using my AR-10 .308 as primary weapon.

I would never want to go with either of those for hunting anything, to be honest. Not even for my backup. .357 Mag is the smallest I would go, but currently take my 10mm.

[Army GI]

357 sig is cool and all (and I'm considering getting that or a 5.7mm for my next semi auto handgun), but you are limited to 125gr bullets. When you're talking about hunting, sectional density is what it's all about and the heavier the better. Most people choose 158gr to 180gr for their 357 Magnum. Most companies only offer one bullet weight and the smaller "specialty" companies like Cor-Bon and Double Tap offer only up to 147gr. But they are already slowed down substantially.

[308fan]

Look at 41mag. It is a nice trade off betwen the two. I have hunted with one for years and love it.
308fan

[WhoDat]

Duuuhhhh....

I actually forgot that I do own a Taurus .357 revolver (probably the handgun I'm most accurate with anyhow). I really did feel like taking the new Sig out though... I just love that DAO trigger. And those night-sights would have been cool. I guess I haven't done enough research on .357 mag vs Sig ballistics...

But I hear you on the bullet-weight thing.