The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Hide > The Hunt

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old June 7, 2012, 10:28 AM   #1
Southern Shooter
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 4, 2005
Location: central Louisiana
Posts: 440
.357 Magnum VS .44 Special for Rocky Mountains trail gun

If you were limited to one of these two specific calibers, both with 4 inch barrels, which would you choose as a trail gun in the Rocky Mountains region? Any particular reasons why?

Thanks
__________________
"My plea is that we stop seeking out the storm and enjoy more fully sunlight. I am suggesting that as we go through life we accentuate the positive. I am asking that we look a little deeper for the good, that we still our voices of insult and sarcasm, that we more generously compliment and endorse virtue and effort." Gordon B. Hinckley
Southern Shooter is offline  
Old June 7, 2012, 12:54 PM   #2
jmortimer
Junior member
 
Join Date: January 24, 2010
Location: South West Riverside County California
Posts: 2,763
Since you eliminated .45 Colt or .44 mag, I would take a .357 Have both .357 and .44 Special but you max out around 500 ft lbs with the .44. If you reload a 250 grain hard cast SWC would be a good choice for the .44

Last edited by jmortimer; June 7, 2012 at 01:09 PM.
jmortimer is offline  
Old June 7, 2012, 01:03 PM   #3
Southern Shooter
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 4, 2005
Location: central Louisiana
Posts: 440
Reload

Well, I do reload for my single-action .44 Magnums using hard cast 240 grain SWC. So, .44 Special hand loads could be an option.
__________________
"My plea is that we stop seeking out the storm and enjoy more fully sunlight. I am suggesting that as we go through life we accentuate the positive. I am asking that we look a little deeper for the good, that we still our voices of insult and sarcasm, that we more generously compliment and endorse virtue and effort." Gordon B. Hinckley
Southern Shooter is offline  
Old June 7, 2012, 01:08 PM   #4
Buzzcook
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 29, 2007
Location: Everett, WA
Posts: 5,618
Which gun weighs less?
Buzzcook is offline  
Old June 7, 2012, 01:08 PM   #5
jmortimer
Junior member
 
Join Date: January 24, 2010
Location: South West Riverside County California
Posts: 2,763
That will shoot through just about any critter on a brodaside. Seems like you may have a solution.
jmortimer is offline  
Old June 7, 2012, 01:10 PM   #6
Southern Shooter
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 4, 2005
Location: central Louisiana
Posts: 440
Gun Weight

Actually, the .44 Special weighs less.

Yes...maybe I already have the solution. Hand loading can increase the usefulness of some tools.
__________________
"My plea is that we stop seeking out the storm and enjoy more fully sunlight. I am suggesting that as we go through life we accentuate the positive. I am asking that we look a little deeper for the good, that we still our voices of insult and sarcasm, that we more generously compliment and endorse virtue and effort." Gordon B. Hinckley

Last edited by Southern Shooter; June 7, 2012 at 01:15 PM.
Southern Shooter is offline  
Old June 7, 2012, 01:42 PM   #7
Wyoredman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 6, 2011
Location: Wyoming
Posts: 1,249
I suggest the .44 spl because it is able to shoot much heavier bullets than a .357 mag. If confronted by a grizz, you first need to use you pepper spray. Failing that, if a bear is charging, a heavy bullet will be more effective at getting him to change his mind about having you for lunch!

If you are not in Grizz country, than it really doesn't matter which gun you carry, as the only dangerous predators yu are likely to see are the two legged type!
__________________
Go Pokes!
Go Rams!
Wyoredman is offline  
Old June 7, 2012, 01:58 PM   #8
a7mmnut
Junior member
 
Join Date: February 27, 2009
Location: NC Foothills
Posts: 1,150
I love my .44's, but Cor-bon and Buffalo Bore both make heavy 180 gr. loads in the .357 that should easily out penetrate the slower .44. If you want more firepower, try the 10mm and Cor-bon Hard Cast loads.

-7-
a7mmnut is offline  
Old June 7, 2012, 02:42 PM   #9
jmr40
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 15, 2008
Location: Georgia
Posts: 5,886
I'd carry my Glock 20 in 10mm, with a 4" 357 revolver as my 2nd choice. The 10mm outperforms 357 and is actually closer to 44 mag if the magnum rounds are shot from 4" or shorter barrels. When you step up to 6" or longer barrels then the magnum rounds are the winner. If I'm gonna carrry a handgun that big, I'll just carry a carbine.

My Glock is lighter, shorter, more accurate in rapid fire, more powerful, less recoil, less muzzle blast, more reliable in outdoor conditions, and holds nearly 3X as many rounds.
jmr40 is offline  
Old June 7, 2012, 02:48 PM   #10
Southern Shooter
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 4, 2005
Location: central Louisiana
Posts: 440
10 MM

The problem there is...I don't own a 10 MM. A number of my friends have them and they are great guns. But, I just never bought one. I do own .357 Magnums, .44 Specials, and some .44 Magnums in single-action.
__________________
"My plea is that we stop seeking out the storm and enjoy more fully sunlight. I am suggesting that as we go through life we accentuate the positive. I am asking that we look a little deeper for the good, that we still our voices of insult and sarcasm, that we more generously compliment and endorse virtue and effort." Gordon B. Hinckley
Southern Shooter is offline  
Old June 7, 2012, 08:20 PM   #11
tahoe2
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 13, 2011
Location: Seattle area
Posts: 517
44 all the way

Big bullet ! big thump ! I always prefer a bigger bullet when possible, not necessarily faster, just bigger!
Although the 158 grn @ 1300 fps is a good stopper, I would rather have a 240 grn @ 1000 fps. But that's just me.
I carry a .41 mag when out & about in the woods!
tahoe2 is online now  
Old June 8, 2012, 05:07 PM   #12
Keg
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 13, 2011
Location: Freestone County, Texas
Posts: 1,072
tahoe...Buffalo Bore lists their 44 special +p 255 grain at 1000 fps....
My choice...
__________________
Hog Hunters never die........They just reload.........
Keg is offline  
Old June 8, 2012, 11:49 PM   #13
tahoe2
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 13, 2011
Location: Seattle area
Posts: 517
keg

nice !! They might even "outthump" my .41 - 210grns @ 1300fps.
I want to try some Cast Performance 250wfn gas checks @ 1200,
I've heard good things about those too!
tahoe2 is online now  
Old June 9, 2012, 05:06 AM   #14
mavracer
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 27, 2008
Location: midwest
Posts: 2,942
Yes
__________________
rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6
Quote:
originally posted my Mike Irwin
My handguns are are for one purpose only, though...
The starter gun on the "Fat man's mad dash tactical retreat."
mavracer is offline  
Old June 11, 2012, 12:28 AM   #15
Cool Breeze
Member
 
Join Date: June 2, 2012
Location: Western Montana
Posts: 42
ballistically, they are pretty close, no? It's a personal preference I believe.

However, for what you describe, I'm assuming (uh, oh) you are prioritizing weight and it's more for predator protection at close range.......


it's well known that at close range......with equal penetration (ha)..........


the bullet with the larger metplat (diameter) will be the more effective in a defensive situation against a 4 legged mountain predator......

so if it was I......I would go with a heavy semi wadcutter in a .44 special.

probably a bear load from HSM......and hopefully it will go clean through the skull or base of the skull................

but that won't happen since avoiding the situation in its entirety is always the silver bullet.....................if a charging griz is close, it's most likely too late anyway but you hear the stories to the contrary on occasion
Cool Breeze is offline  
Old June 11, 2012, 04:19 PM   #16
1tfl
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 12, 2007
Posts: 274
For about a year and half my primary sidearm out in the woods was a Ruger New Flattop 44 Specail with 4 3/4" barrel. I keep it loaded with 250gr Keith Style SWC @ 1,000 fps.

Now I carry the same revolver in 45 Colt loaded with 255 gr Keith Style SWC @ 950 fps... at 1,000 fps the recoil gets to be a little too much.
1tfl is offline  
Old June 12, 2012, 08:25 AM   #17
American Made
Member
 
Join Date: September 21, 2011
Location: Idaho
Posts: 92
'Now I carry the same revolver in 45 Colt loaded with 255 gr Keith Style SWC @ 950 fps... at 1,000 fps the recoil gets to be a little too much.'

How do you like that Flattop .45 ?? One of the dealers around my place has two of those for sale and I'm debating. I just don't think they make Rugers like years ago. All my newer Ruger pistols have hade QC issues and sitting side by side my older models you can see the fit and finish difference.

Anyhow, if the OP lived in my neck of the wood I'd point him towards the .45 colt or 44 mag. I still will. With the 44 mag you can still shoot 44 special or you could always load down the 44 mag to lower pressure levels = lower recoil. I have both and like both. I load my 45 colt on the warm side - running 300 grainers around 1000-1100 fps. Very fun shooting such history. If it says anything about my belief in the old 45 colt, my wife has the Ruger montado 45 colt as her carry weapon! No half pint for her.

Last edited by American Made; June 12, 2012 at 08:34 AM.
American Made is offline  
Old June 12, 2012, 08:55 AM   #18
Sarge
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 12, 2002
Location: MO
Posts: 4,911
It would depend on the specific gun. If the .44 could stand Elmer loads, that would be my choice. If not, I'd take a .357 with 180-200 grain Buffalo Bore or a hand-loaded equivalent.

Frankly, neither is optimal for what you're doing. I've carried the aforementioned .357 combo in Alaska during the spring, secure in the knowledge that the best I could hope for was to have 'kilt the bar what kilt him'. A pre-lock .44 Mountain Gun make a lot more sense and a Ruger Alaskan makes even more. There is a point where having a substantial firearm takes precedence over weight saved. You and only you can decide where that point is, for your particular situation.
__________________
I'm inclined to think if a man hasn't gotten his point across in 4912 attempts, 4913 probably isn't going to do it.
Sarge is offline  
Old June 13, 2012, 03:15 AM   #19
bamaranger
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 9, 2009
Location: North Alabama
Posts: 4,319
no question

The lightest one, and the .44 spl will be lighter due to more metal removed for chambers and bore.

The .45 Colt Mtn gun was even lighter. I shoulda bought one.
bamaranger is offline  
Old June 13, 2012, 06:57 AM   #20
Mobuck
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 2, 2010
Posts: 2,181
Years ago I had to make that exact choice and chose the 44Sp. I figured the 4" barrel and heavy, flat nosed 44 cal slug would be more advantageous than the 6 1/2" barrel and faster but lighter 357. Didn't use it so the choice was moot. We did get closer than intended to a sow griz w/cub but extracted ourselves w/o confrontation. My last trudge through possible bear country was accompanied by a SuperBlackhawk 4 5/8" loaded with 240 JSP and I did have it in my hand on one occasion but as before, no shot was required.
Mobuck is offline  
Old July 15, 2012, 02:47 PM   #21
samsmix
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 29, 2006
Location: Montana (Montucky?)
Posts: 617
Since both rounds amount to a mere pin prick on a grizzly bear...

... I will choose the one that penetrates the deepest, and that is the .357/180gr hands down. This load will out penetrate the .44mag/240gr; the .44 SPL isn't even in the running. No pistol wound channel diameter will matter on these big bruins; you must perforate or break something vital with the bullet itself. "Shocking power" is non-existent in this scenario.

If I were worried about 2-legged critters with the odd black bear thrown in, then sure I'd go .44 SPL.

I know this thread is a bit aged, but it seemed a realistic word on penetration was in order.
__________________
You'll probably never NEED a gun. I hope you never do. But IF you do, you will need it worse than anything you've ever needed in your life.

IF we're not supposed to eat animals,
howcome God made 'em outta meat?
samsmix is offline  
Old July 19, 2012, 01:17 PM   #22
Alaska444
Junior member
 
Join Date: April 3, 2010
Posts: 1,231
Quote:
July 15, 2012, 12:47 PM #21
samsmix
Senior Member

Join Date: June 29, 2006
Location: Montana (Montucky?)
Posts: 583
Since both rounds amount to a mere pin prick on a grizzly bear...
... I will choose the one that penetrates the deepest, and that is the .357/180gr hands down. This load will out penetrate the .44mag/240gr; the .44 SPL isn't even in the running. No pistol wound channel diameter will matter on these big bruins; you must perforate or break something vital with the bullet itself. "Shocking power" is non-existent in this scenario.

If I were worried about 2-legged critters with the odd black bear thrown in, then sure I'd go .44 SPL.

I know this thread is a bit aged, but it seemed a realistic word on penetration was in order.
__________________
You'll probably never NEED a gun. I hope you never do. But IF you do, you will need it worse than anything you've ever needed in your life.

IF we're not supposed to eat animals,
howcome God made 'em outta meat?
+1, I agree the .44 special isn't a bear gun. Living in Idaho, my BUG is a .357 and my woods gun is the .44 magnum. MT and ID has the griz. Gotta go with something that can penetrate at least even if not in the same class as appropriate rifle. Much better than a stick.
Alaska444 is offline  
Old July 22, 2012, 12:34 PM   #23
kraigwy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 16, 2008
Location: Wyoming
Posts: 9,406
I live in the mountain west. Normally all I carry unless I'm hunting is my 642 in my pocket. Never felt underguned.

But that wasn't the option. Based on your choice, I have both, a Model 29 and a Model 28 (also have a Model 27).

Of the three I'd take my old service revolver, my Model 28 w/150 grn SWCs and 14.5 grns of 2400.

Killed deer, moose and buffalo with that thing. I've shot it enough to be comfortable with it. It's heavy and wont fit in my pocket so that's why I carry the 642 with the same bullet loaded to standard 38 velocities.
__________________
Kraig Stuart
CPT USAR Ret
USAMU Sniper School Oct '78
Distinguished Rifle Badge 1071
kraigwy is offline  
Old July 22, 2012, 06:04 PM   #24
farmerboy
Junior member
 
Join Date: May 16, 2009
Location: Central Texas
Posts: 1,343
The 44 if it's lighter and I could hit with it.
farmerboy is offline  
Old July 23, 2012, 06:54 PM   #25
Sure Shot Mc Gee
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 2, 2012
Posts: 2,023
44 Special.
Quote:
Bigger is always better.
Sure Shot Mc Gee is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:59 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.14046 seconds with 7 queries