.357mag vs. .44mag

[roy reali]

Please humor me with thread.

Lets say you have the chance to deer hunt in an area were the longest shot would be less then one hundred yards. You have two choices of guns. You could either used a revolver chambered in .44 magnum or a carbine in .357 magnum. Which would you take?

I don't know how, but some of shooters around here got into a heated debate over this. After a few responses I will let you know my side of this debate.

[shafter]

I've never hunted with either one so take my comments for what they're worth. If you've bowhunted and are proficient at getting close to your game then go with the revolver. My preference though would be the carbine in 357.

[crghss]

Depends on a persons skill level. I feel like I can hit a Deer in the kill zone out to 125 yds with my .44 mag. I say 125 yds because this is as far as I practice with it.

Also what do you prefer to carry. I prefer a revolver. I switched to Ruger SRH years ago. Because its easier to hump through the woods. And I just like it.

They both kill deer if you can put the bullet where it belongs. As usual it comes down to the shooter.

So .44 mag for me.

[roy reali]

Wouldn't it be easier for the average shooter to place an accurate shot with the carbine?

[RamSlammer]

Easy. 357 from a carbine makes 1800+ fps in most loadings, over 2,000 with some (approaching .30/30 power). It's flatter shooting and the carbine would have a longer sight radius enabling more accurate placement. Both rounds are very capable of easily killing whitetailed deer.

[L_Killkenny]

Easy choice there Roy. "IF" you have a choice, take the .44. That being said I use a .357. Why? Because I wanted a do'it'all gun from plinking to HD to hunting to trail work. Don't plan on buying another handgun either so I'll keep using my .357. It works but for a dedicated hunting sidearm IMO the .44 is better.

LK

[22-rimfire]

As the thread is framed, it would be a tough choice. If you had said under 75 yds, I would say 44 mag revolver if you are proficient with it. Otherwise, I would choose the carbine in 357 mag every time.

The question for me would be how much I want a deer if given the opportunity to take a shot?

[L_Killkenny]

Sorry Roy, didn't read the part about the carbine in .357, only saw revolver.

.357 Carbine hands down for us mere mortals.

LK

[Edward429451]

As much as I'm fond of my 44's I'd have to say the carbine because I am a mere mortal also. I would load it up with the heaviest solid bullet I could find.

[Daryl]

Been thinking about it, and can't make up my mind.

I reckon I'd be about as comfortable with one as I would be with the other, so just let me have whichever one isn't claimed yet.

Daryl

[crghss]

Wouldn't it be easier for the average shooter to place an accurate shot with the carbine?

Well you started with "Lets say you have the chance" and follow up "average shooter".

Again, back to the persons experience. Like the guy who stated about archery hunters or a LEO who only has shot handguns, what would you suggest?

[longranger]

.357 Mag. Carbine any day of the week over .44 Mag. revolver.

[Eagleks]

The .357 carbine, no question about it. I shoot a Marlin .357 with a 24" barrel, and if it's 200 - 250 yds away.. it's a dead deer. Accuracy, velocity, etc. would all be better with a carbine than a revolver. You can use a 180 - 220 gr buffalo bore if you wanted more knock down energy.

[Ryanfromcanada]

Im canadian and as such i dont get much chance to shoot handguns. I have fired them although they have mostly been autos. That being said i would use that 44 but in a different manner. Screw 100 yards im setting up 25 yards from the trail. I can shoot accuratly with a handgun at that range. Im not doubing the abillity of a practised shooter to kill way further then that but for me i dont have the oppurtunity to practise with a revolver to be comfterable past 25-30 yards.

So i will say 357 for general hunting but i would go on a handgun hunt provided the set up would resemble bowhunters.

P.S I working on my restricted licence in about a year. It lets me get evil ARs and revolvers so maybe soon i will be able to change my anwser.

[Water-Man]

No contest. With Buffalo Bore ammo, 180gr. out of an 18" .357 rifle you get 2153fps.

[Hook686]

I would pick the .357 magnum carbine, Out of the carbine the Buffalo Bore 158 grain JHC has 2153 fps velocity. It yields 200 ft-lbs more muzzle energy that the 270 grain ,44 magnum out of a 6" barreled revolver. Better sight radius also.

[Mallard76]

I have taken several deer over the years with my S&W 629 .44mag 6". Always seems to do the job. Either round will work if you have correct shot placement.

[Rampant_Colt]

rifle > handgun

[waterfowler]

Carbine chambered in .357 mag

[Old Grump]

In carbine the 357 wins over revolver in 44.

[James R. Burke]

I never done it. But my cousin has. She has both but use's the carbine for deer. After I started reloading for her, and having her practice before season with the .357 carbine she started scoring ever time. Before that she wounded a few. Wrong load, and no confidence because of not enough practice. Before season I load a bunch up for her, and we go out three or four times. Probalby shoot a total of around 500 or so. You can see the confidence in her now. She now will leave a buck walk if the distance is to far or she cant get the placement. I dont think its the pefect caliber for deer or the 44 Mag, but they will work. But those folks know what there doing, and do it good even with the pistol. They shoot alot, know there gun inside and out, and have the confidence needed. Everyone has a favorite for whatever reason and you can't knock that if they know what they are doing.

[bamaranger]

I think everybody shoots a carbine better than a handgun, especially at distances past 50 yds. The exception might be hand-rifles, ie scoped handguns. There's no mention of sights or hunting conditions in the OP.

For me, handguns wear iron sights and handgun range is bow range (under 50, ideally, under 25).

If I just had to kill a deer, my choice would be with the .357 carbine. For sport, I'd set the .44 hunt up like a bow hunt.

[vranasaurus]

rifle > handgun

This is the correct answer. As long as the cartridge is up to the task, and a .357 mag is, then you take the rifle.

The ability to place accurate shots, for most average shooters like myself, is so much greater with a rifle that it far outweighs the difference in power between the .44 and the .357.

For most people handgun range is the equivalent of bow range.

[Legionnaire]

Lets say you have the chance to deer hunt in an area were the longest shot would be less then one hundred yards.

Just because a 100 yard shot presents itself doesn't mean one would have to take it. I often hunt with a revolver where I can see deer out much farther than 100 yards, yet I still choose to hunt with the revolver. More of a challenge. I know my limitations, and I won't take a shot I can't make. I'll grant that I can probably hit more accurately out farther with the .357 carbine, and that would be the prefered option if I'm trying to maximize my range. But by electing the revolver, I've already decided to limit my range.

rifle > handgun

This is the correct answer.

Not necessarily. Depends on how you interpret the original question. Seems to me the question really is either "Which do you prefer, and do you know your range limit with your selected firearm?" versus "Which of the two lets you take a deer ethically at the greater distance?" Different questions, different answers.

[Slamfire]

Having shot thousands of 44 Magnum rounds through my Super Black Hawk, and hundreds through my M1894, there is one choice, the rifle.

Ethical hunting is not about proving yourself, or just “hitting” the animal. Its about a clean kill. If a pie pan represents a heart lung target area, I can reasonably hit a pie pan most of the time at 25 yards with a pistol, I can do that every time at 100 yards with the carbine.