357 mag w/ 170 Gold dots for deer?
09-19-2003, 10:51 PM
#11
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location:
Posts: 1,168
RE: 357 mag w/ 170 Gold dots for deer?
wimp, I am going to assume that you can shoot a handgun well, and by well I mean 3-4" groups in field positions at the max range you would use it at. You also display ethics of one that knows the limitations of the .357 (as i do because that is what I hunt with). thus i give my approval without a bunch of lecturing.
I almost bought some of the 170gr gold dots while testing loads for my 357 for deer season. but after my first groups from my 357 measured 1" with the 180gr XTP HPs over 15gr of Lil' gun, I decided that the power and accuracy I needed was there. After the performance of the 357 in the field last year I am convinced that it is a fine handgun hunting cartridge (with in 50 yards). My shots while in the stand are 25 yards or less so for me that kind of shots easy especailly when Im sitting in a stand. with the 170gr SPs you will most likely make a hole thru the deer. Now be certain that a .357" hole thru a deers lungs will stop the animal quickly. My buck last year ran 25 yards at a full sprint so I figure it lasted 3 seconds after the shot. Not bad for a " wimpy" gun.
I almost bought some of the 170gr gold dots while testing loads for my 357 for deer season. but after my first groups from my 357 measured 1" with the 180gr XTP HPs over 15gr of Lil' gun, I decided that the power and accuracy I needed was there. After the performance of the 357 in the field last year I am convinced that it is a fine handgun hunting cartridge (with in 50 yards). My shots while in the stand are 25 yards or less so for me that kind of shots easy especailly when Im sitting in a stand. with the 170gr SPs you will most likely make a hole thru the deer. Now be certain that a .357" hole thru a deers lungs will stop the animal quickly. My buck last year ran 25 yards at a full sprint so I figure it lasted 3 seconds after the shot. Not bad for a " wimpy" gun.
09-20-2003, 07:31 AM
#12
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location:
Posts: 1,491
RE: 357 mag w/ 170 Gold dots for deer?
Propmahn has summed it up very well indeed! The .357 Magnum works well when used carefully by responsible people. When I last used a .357 Magnum for Whitetails, (out of a 6" blue Colt Python....they didn' t make the Stainless version at that time), the 158 grain Jacketed Soft Points were " state of the art" for hunting loads in the .357. I found that they did indeed kill whitetail....with a " sufficient" wound channel....but they lacked the authority of even the " old" .30-30. (I know...I just opened another can of worms. Please before anyone attacks me read my other post on how I feel about " older" cartridges.)
And as Propmahn also observed, you sound like you are approaching this in a responsible manner. I am sure that you will find your .357 suitable....and I tend to believe from the information I have that the 170 grain Gold Dots should work very well indeed. (Assuming your gun shoots them well?!?)
Keep us posted...and best of luck!
And as Propmahn also observed, you sound like you are approaching this in a responsible manner. I am sure that you will find your .357 suitable....and I tend to believe from the information I have that the 170 grain Gold Dots should work very well indeed. (Assuming your gun shoots them well?!?)
Keep us posted...and best of luck!
09-20-2003, 09:40 AM
#13
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Western Nebraska
Posts: 3,393
RE: 357 mag w/ 170 Gold dots for deer?
some personal experiences hunting deer with a .357 mag handgun:
In the 80s I hunted in Wisconsin with two conservation officers. One was the shooting coach for the Wis. DNR...and he could shoot!!!!
These two guys used their service revolver every year and managed to take deer nicely. They proved to me without a shadow of a doubt that the .357 Mag can be used effectively for deer. At the time I carried a 6" Dan Wesson .357 just for grins.
I came across two does and one was wounded (laying down) the other was standing close to the wounded one. The range was about 20 yards. I took a lung shot at the standing doe and off she ran. I walked up to the wounded deer a fawn actually...it' s head up was all it could muster and I decided to end it and at three feet put a 158 grain factory federal in the eye. The bullet didn' t exit!!!!! Yes the doe was meat for the freezer but the power was clearly displayed!!
At the 50' target range I normally (shooting freehand) put six shots in a 3" circle. I can only assume I didn' t hit the other doe where I wanted to because as the sun fell (five hours later) I was still tracking her and she seemed unhurt although still leaving a small blood trail.
A couple years prior to that a friend told me of shooting a downed moose at close range for a finishing shot. He said the .357 " bounced off" the mooses skull! I didn' t believe it....but today I do!
Both sides of this issue are valid...the .357 IS adequate for deer....and the .357 IS NOT adequate for deer.
If one can shoot a .357 well.....(and it gives a serious shock to the hands) then they might want to consider a move up to the vastly superior .41 mag.
If you can' t shoot the .357 well, then you really ought to consider a rifle.
In the 80s I hunted in Wisconsin with two conservation officers. One was the shooting coach for the Wis. DNR...and he could shoot!!!!
These two guys used their service revolver every year and managed to take deer nicely. They proved to me without a shadow of a doubt that the .357 Mag can be used effectively for deer. At the time I carried a 6" Dan Wesson .357 just for grins.
I came across two does and one was wounded (laying down) the other was standing close to the wounded one. The range was about 20 yards. I took a lung shot at the standing doe and off she ran. I walked up to the wounded deer a fawn actually...it' s head up was all it could muster and I decided to end it and at three feet put a 158 grain factory federal in the eye. The bullet didn' t exit!!!!! Yes the doe was meat for the freezer but the power was clearly displayed!!
At the 50' target range I normally (shooting freehand) put six shots in a 3" circle. I can only assume I didn' t hit the other doe where I wanted to because as the sun fell (five hours later) I was still tracking her and she seemed unhurt although still leaving a small blood trail.
A couple years prior to that a friend told me of shooting a downed moose at close range for a finishing shot. He said the .357 " bounced off" the mooses skull! I didn' t believe it....but today I do!
Both sides of this issue are valid...the .357 IS adequate for deer....and the .357 IS NOT adequate for deer.
If one can shoot a .357 well.....(and it gives a serious shock to the hands) then they might want to consider a move up to the vastly superior .41 mag.
If you can' t shoot the .357 well, then you really ought to consider a rifle.
09-21-2003, 08:52 AM
#14
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location:
Posts: 1,491
RE: 357 mag w/ 170 Gold dots for deer?
One of the problems with a forum like this is that a lot of different experiences and opinions are brought to the table. Some based more on one' s personal experiences and some based on opinions derived from....? Sometimes we know when we hear something it coincides with our own experiences. And sometimes it does not....which is not to say that it is NOT true. But that it doesn' t correlate with our own experience.
Another problem is we do not know either the experience or the " frame of mind" of the person asking the question. Sometimes we make assumptions based on what they tell us. And there is very little else to do under the circumstances unless we personally know the person. That is why so many answers need to be tempered in one way or another.
In reference to Vapodog' s post about the incident with the Moose I would believe it....because I have seen instances where the .357 out of a handgun has not penetrated through " hard targets" . But I also know of incidents where just the opposite has occurred. I personally witnessed a Moose that had been seriously injured by a motor vehicle, (numerous broken legs and internal injuries), put down by another " passing" motorist with the only gun available at the moment. It was a .380 Makarov he carried under his seat. One FMJ bullet in the back of the skull and it exited out the front. Based on that single observation, (and a lot of ignorance), one might infer that the little 9X18 would make a good " Moose Gun" . (Quite a number of years ago I saw a taped segment of a conservation officer releasing a Grizzly from a trap on the back of the truck. When the bear exited the trap it tipped over spilling the officer from the top of the trap onto the ground. The bear was on the officer mauling his legs within moments. As the officer lie on the ground he drew his four inch service revolver, a .357 Magnum...don' t know the load, and emptied it into the bear at " contact range" . The last shot entered under the Grizzly' s chin penetrated to the brain...instantly killing the bear. Coincidentally all of the previous shots had hit the bear on the head, penetrated through the hide, slid around the skull, and lodged under the hide at the back of head. Was the .357 Magnum enough to kill the Grizzly? Yes and No! You can believe I would NOT want to use it for that purpose. But it did in fact kill the bear, and save the officer from a much more severe mauling, and maybe even saved his life!) I also personally saw a smallish doe hit in the shoulder at " maybe" 20-25 yards with a 150 grain Hornady interlock and a standard load out of a .30-06....that doe flipped, kicked, regained her feet...ran to and around the top of the hill...down to the river on the far side...and her track was lost in a maze of deer trails/tracks in the thick brush around the river. The bleeding had long since stopped..and in four hours of searching she was never found. I have no explanation.....just know what I saw!
Which brings us back to the original point. Marginal calibers for deer. When used by an experienced, resposible, person with " great ethics" and skills.....they work. If used carelessly and/or haphazardly they have a tendency to fail. And yes beginers can be skilled shots, (with lots of practice), and can be responsible and ethical...particularly if coach by such a person. And I truly do understand any individual' s concern to insure that people enter the woods with a tool appropriate for the job. And sometimes we don' t all agree with where the scales should balance.
The best we can do is offer our experiences, our concerns, and pass the information to those in the hope that they apply that information judiciously. Because in the end....that is all that we can do in a forum such as this. I would prefer that individuals would all use a weapon that offers a surplus of energy to do the job. But I know that they won' t all do it. And I also know that no matter how sufficient a weapon is for the job...that it can be misused...and less frequently sometimes things occur that defy explanation. But offering the best information we can based on our experience is all we can do!
A great example is archery. A broadhead is a marvelously efficient killing implement. Unfortunately it has been my experience that their are more " hunters" (term used loosely) in the woods with bows than there are people with the needed skills to use them ethically. Bows represent both a great killing implement and a great wounding implement....depending in whose hands they reside. But I would NOT like to see more " Government regulation and interference" . So how do you approach the problem. All we can do if we are serious about hunting and conservation is to try to pass on a little of our experience, and a little of our concerns. Try to share an ethical approach to what we call " sport hunting" . In the end the ethics are generally much more important than the implement. (Example: In a life and death struggle in the wilderness it would be ethical to try to kill food, of any size, with a .22LR if that is all you have. In normal hunting circumstances most hunters I would be willing to associate with would call that an unacceptable stunt made by a slob.) Somewhere between those two extremes we each try to decide for ourselves what works, what doesn' t. What is ethical, what isn' t. And in many cases the " line" is different for different people based on their experience, patience, skill, and ethics!
What more can we do!?!
Another problem is we do not know either the experience or the " frame of mind" of the person asking the question. Sometimes we make assumptions based on what they tell us. And there is very little else to do under the circumstances unless we personally know the person. That is why so many answers need to be tempered in one way or another.
In reference to Vapodog' s post about the incident with the Moose I would believe it....because I have seen instances where the .357 out of a handgun has not penetrated through " hard targets" . But I also know of incidents where just the opposite has occurred. I personally witnessed a Moose that had been seriously injured by a motor vehicle, (numerous broken legs and internal injuries), put down by another " passing" motorist with the only gun available at the moment. It was a .380 Makarov he carried under his seat. One FMJ bullet in the back of the skull and it exited out the front. Based on that single observation, (and a lot of ignorance), one might infer that the little 9X18 would make a good " Moose Gun" . (Quite a number of years ago I saw a taped segment of a conservation officer releasing a Grizzly from a trap on the back of the truck. When the bear exited the trap it tipped over spilling the officer from the top of the trap onto the ground. The bear was on the officer mauling his legs within moments. As the officer lie on the ground he drew his four inch service revolver, a .357 Magnum...don' t know the load, and emptied it into the bear at " contact range" . The last shot entered under the Grizzly' s chin penetrated to the brain...instantly killing the bear. Coincidentally all of the previous shots had hit the bear on the head, penetrated through the hide, slid around the skull, and lodged under the hide at the back of head. Was the .357 Magnum enough to kill the Grizzly? Yes and No! You can believe I would NOT want to use it for that purpose. But it did in fact kill the bear, and save the officer from a much more severe mauling, and maybe even saved his life!) I also personally saw a smallish doe hit in the shoulder at " maybe" 20-25 yards with a 150 grain Hornady interlock and a standard load out of a .30-06....that doe flipped, kicked, regained her feet...ran to and around the top of the hill...down to the river on the far side...and her track was lost in a maze of deer trails/tracks in the thick brush around the river. The bleeding had long since stopped..and in four hours of searching she was never found. I have no explanation.....just know what I saw!
Which brings us back to the original point. Marginal calibers for deer. When used by an experienced, resposible, person with " great ethics" and skills.....they work. If used carelessly and/or haphazardly they have a tendency to fail. And yes beginers can be skilled shots, (with lots of practice), and can be responsible and ethical...particularly if coach by such a person. And I truly do understand any individual' s concern to insure that people enter the woods with a tool appropriate for the job. And sometimes we don' t all agree with where the scales should balance.
The best we can do is offer our experiences, our concerns, and pass the information to those in the hope that they apply that information judiciously. Because in the end....that is all that we can do in a forum such as this. I would prefer that individuals would all use a weapon that offers a surplus of energy to do the job. But I know that they won' t all do it. And I also know that no matter how sufficient a weapon is for the job...that it can be misused...and less frequently sometimes things occur that defy explanation. But offering the best information we can based on our experience is all we can do!
A great example is archery. A broadhead is a marvelously efficient killing implement. Unfortunately it has been my experience that their are more " hunters" (term used loosely) in the woods with bows than there are people with the needed skills to use them ethically. Bows represent both a great killing implement and a great wounding implement....depending in whose hands they reside. But I would NOT like to see more " Government regulation and interference" . So how do you approach the problem. All we can do if we are serious about hunting and conservation is to try to pass on a little of our experience, and a little of our concerns. Try to share an ethical approach to what we call " sport hunting" . In the end the ethics are generally much more important than the implement. (Example: In a life and death struggle in the wilderness it would be ethical to try to kill food, of any size, with a .22LR if that is all you have. In normal hunting circumstances most hunters I would be willing to associate with would call that an unacceptable stunt made by a slob.) Somewhere between those two extremes we each try to decide for ourselves what works, what doesn' t. What is ethical, what isn' t. And in many cases the " line" is different for different people based on their experience, patience, skill, and ethics!
What more can we do!?!
