The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > General Discussion Forum

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old February 1, 2014, 12:51 AM   #1
Bezoar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 19, 2004
Location: michigan
Posts: 558
opinion of company versus opinion of hear say

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 ?
Bezoar is offline  
Old February 1, 2014, 04:38 AM   #2
chris in va
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 26, 2004
Location: Louisville KY
Posts: 12,492
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.
chris in va is offline  
Old February 1, 2014, 07:49 AM   #3
Bigdog57
Member
 
Join Date: December 2, 2006
Location: North Florida
Posts: 93
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.....
__________________
ADULT LITERACY can be your friend. Friends don't let friends use "Failed English".
Bigdog57 is offline  
Old February 1, 2014, 10:01 AM   #4
Hal
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 9, 1998
Location: Ohio USA
Posts: 7,435
Quote:
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 ?
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.
Hal is offline  
Old February 1, 2014, 03:20 PM   #5
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 11,112
Quote:
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 ?
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?
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is offline  
Old February 2, 2014, 01:36 AM   #6
Andy Blozinski
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 31, 2013
Posts: 127
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 Blozinski is offline  
Old February 2, 2014, 08:58 AM   #7
Aguila Blanca
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 6,189
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andy Blozinsky
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.
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).
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Old February 2, 2014, 06:46 PM   #8
Bezoar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 19, 2004
Location: michigan
Posts: 558
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?
Bezoar is offline  
Old February 2, 2014, 11:35 PM   #9
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 11,112
Quote:
Now, the only cartridge here thats "considered' safe and sane for deer hunting from a handgun is that 44-40 load,..
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..
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is offline  
Old February 3, 2014, 12:04 AM   #10
SIGSHR
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 13, 2005
Posts: 3,045
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.
SIGSHR is offline  
Old February 3, 2014, 07:10 AM   #11
buckhorn_cortez
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 30, 2010
Posts: 389
Quote:
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.
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.
buckhorn_cortez is offline  
Old February 3, 2014, 03:18 PM   #12
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 11,112
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...
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is offline  
Old February 3, 2014, 09:31 PM   #13
buckhorn_cortez
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 30, 2010
Posts: 389
Quote:
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...
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 by buckhorn_cortez; February 3, 2014 at 09:44 PM.
buckhorn_cortez is offline  
Old February 4, 2014, 03:33 PM   #14
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 11,112
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."
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is offline  
Old February 7, 2014, 12:44 AM   #15
Bezoar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 19, 2004
Location: michigan
Posts: 558
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?
Bezoar is offline  
Old February 7, 2014, 09:10 AM   #16
Rifleman1776
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 25, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 3,309
Quote:
No offence intended but, your post is quite difficult to follow.
Agree.
Rifleman1776 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 10:41 PM.


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 0.09539 seconds with 7 queries