Sfury

It's funny, a lot of people say that a .357 round out of a revolver is a marginal deer gun. Not because it really is, but because most people don't make a good shot with the revolver.

Instead of blaming the person, who with any handgun caliber would be only a decent shot, they blame a caliber that leaves less room for error in a short gun. Let's face it, some calibers do make up for poor markmanship. Right or wrong, that's a fact of liife.

That's why a lot of the guys my family used to hunt with made fun of Dad who used a .44 mag rifle as his secondary hunting gun for decades. That rifle took a lot of deer when most said it would be worthless.

What made it lethal for my father, and then to a lesser extent with me? Accuracy. Ok, so until I got my buck fever under control, I did wound two deer and clean missed another. After that I took two deer with that .44 that were one shot one kills before I stopped hunting for a while due to situations in my life (school and work mostly).

If you can put the bullet where it needs to go, a rifle chambered in .357 mag will work very well.

PS - My take on the 30-30 is simple. It's a round that has taken a lot of lives for a long period of time. If I had a rifle chambered in it, it would be used as my backup gun. However, seeing as I don't own one in that caliber, I will not buy one. It is a round that has a lot of meaning for my Father due to his experiences hunting as a youth. Much like why we both enjoyed using the old Ruger chambered in .44 to hunt with. We love the round, yet no longer hunt with it.

Topgun 3006

Sir, anyone that says the 357 beats a 30-30 is full of baloney and needs to go back to ballistics 101. The 357 doesn't even have 1000 ft./lbs of energy at the muzzle and that's been the accepted minimum on deer at POI by most experts for decades. The 30-30 has taken more deer than any other cartridge and that's fact, not fiction, with the 30-06 a close second. A 357 revolver may take a deer at 50 yards, but is marginal past that and with a rifle I would still hold my shots to under 100 yards and make it a broadside shot. There are 5 or 6 30-30 hunting bullets that still have between 965 and 1080 ft./lbs. of energy left at 200 yards. There is no 357 that even comes close to that! If a guy buys that caliber in a rifle just to save a few bucks on a box of ammo, when the revolver ammo shouldn't even be what he's using to hunt deer in the first place, his thinking is way off base IMO!

KYMISTWALKER

good at short range and placed shots,i hunted with a python in s tree for years bagged a few,but i did take a long gun with me at all hunts..

snapper1982

sir you are full of balogna. 18 inch barrels 357(which is what this is all about a rifle not a pistol)
rem 125 grain jhp 2038ft/s with 1153 ft/lb of energy

now for all guys that say a 357 wont kill deer at 100yds you are wrong. it has plenty to kill them at that distance. if you dont think so you need to re-evaluate.
is it the best 100 yd cartridge? that is up for debate. but i wont sit here and let all of you bash this guy because he wants to save a bit. it is not gonna affect you one bit. he has stated he takes only ethical shots and his choice in a rifle will be just fine as long as he sticks to taking ethical shots.

james jordan (jordan buck) was killed with a 25-20. we dont know for sure the bullet weight but for a 75grain 1877ft/s with 587ft/lbs of energy.

if this doesnt say enough then concider all the deer that control shooters kill with 22's every year

Topgun 3006

Nobody is "bashing" the OP! He asked advice and is being offered same. The energy I mentioned was with a revolver and even with a rifle with the muzzle energy you mentioned he's not going to shoot them at 10 yards. What is the energy level at 100+ yards? Even with the newer Leverevolution it's down to 500 ft./lbs at 100 yards and that's no where near what knowlegeable people consider the energy needed to properly take a deer every time! Sure it may kill every one you shoot at and it may wound every one the next guy shoots because it's not a caliber that was intended for big game even though they now make that rifle. That's why I said to keep it under 100 yards if he absoutely has to use it. If he can't save enough over one years time to buy one box of bullets for his hunting rifle, I feel sorry for him, but his reasoning makes no sense when there are plenty of other rifle calibers he could go to that would suit his needs much better than the 357 and not break the bank! Cripes, now you're really making no sense when you start talking 22 calibers. I could kill one with a baseball bat if I was a good stalker, LOL! The 357 is and was meant as a close range self defense round. You're trying to tell us that one round fits all for his house handgun and then for his rifle to kill deer at 100 yards or more and I'll have to disagree every time. He could buy a 44 or some other caliber that's considered a good short range deer round, for example, and one box of the proper hunting rounds for the ranges he's talking about and he'd have both covered without spending $20 more than what he's proposing to do by using the same shells for home and hunting in the 357.

snapper1982

you are the one that stated the 357 doesnt break 1000 at the muzzle so i put but a small piece of ballistics forth. you my friend stated a revolver energy which had nothing to do with the question and you my friend are the one that chose it to be at the muzzle. my point about the 22's is that if a 22 will kill a deer at 100 then so will a 357.
we do agree on one thing here. a 357 probably is not the best round for this.
you state that it may kill but it may wound. well isnt that the fact with every single caliber out there? bottom line it doesnt matter what you use, if shot placement isnt on then you will wound one.

.357 Magnum 140 gr FTX® LEVERevolution®

From 18" rifle barrel

Velocity (fps) / Energy (ft/lb) / Trajectory Tables

MUZZLE: 1850 / 1064 / -0.9

50 yds: 1632 / 828 / 1.2

100 yds: 1438 / 642 / 0.0

150 yds: 1272 / 503 / -5.4

JagMagMan

Nothing against the OP, but I have to agree with TG-3006. Again, I don't have a lot of use for a 30-30, but its darn near a friggin magnum compared to a .357!
The price of an extra box of bullets is a really poor excuse to use a .357, especially with all the other costs associated with hunting.
Besides, a regular box of 30-30s would be cheaper than .357 ammo!

jrbsr

Shot with a Henry Goldenboy in 357 magnum.

http://brshooting357m.blogspot.com/2...-with-his.html

Deer with 357 magnum
http://www.castbullet.com/hunting/th.htm


Before the .357 Magnum arrived the top dog was the .38-44, which was a .38 Special revolver built on a .44 Magnum frame. This was a .38 Special on steroids designed for law enforcement but it found favor of handgun hunters everywhere like Elmer Keith and Phil Sharpe and soon they began working on something more. That something became the .357 Magnum. Soon it too found its way into the field, cradled in the nurturing hands of Doug Wesson and Elmer Keith. It was there, in the field, that it proved itself to be a game round.

Doug Wesson got off a train in Wyoming in 1936 with a brand new Smith & Wesson .357 Magnum and two hundred and fifty rounds of factory ammunition and proceeded to blow minds with what this mid-sized round was capable of. He shot an antelope at a distance of nearly two hundred yards. This was followed by an awe-inspiring shot on a bull elk at one hundred and thirty yards. The round passed through both lungs, taking the animal clean. Finally Wesson shot a bull moose with that .357 Magnum Smith & Wesson at one hundred yards. North America’s largest ungulate made it only forty yards before he dropped dead. Later Wesson found that the factory round had gone through the moose’s neck at the base, cut through one rib, passed through the big bull’s lungs and even had enough juice left to cut a divot in another rib.

Elmer Keith later tested out his Smith & Wesson .357 Magnum and the factory 158 grain bullet came out of the long 8 3/8 inch barrel at 1,500 feet per second. He found it to be quite accurate at long ranges even on targets up to five hundred yards.

So why all the negative press on the .357 Magnum when it comes to its reputation as a hunting round? History shows that it has performed admirably on North America’s biggest game animals? Granted, it was in the hands of some world-class pistolero’s but, with modern handgun instruction, the world is full of them today. So why the bad rap?

Well, a large part of it is that today the sad truth is that the .357 Magnum isn’t the fire breather it once was, it has had some of that flame doused. and compared to the .44 Magnum or the .500 Magnum it looks downright puny. The average velocity from a factory 158-grain bullet today is around 1,230 fps, well below what it used to be.

And the culprit is to some extent the concealabilty craze. As newer, smaller and more compact revolvers came out, many chambered in this once soul-punching, the .357 Magnum was watered down so shooters could actually fire out of compact pistols and also not batter their guns to pieces. There are only a couple of handguns like the old N-frame Smith & Wessons, the Colt Python, the Ruger Blackhawk, and the offerings from Freedom Arms that I would trust with those old loads on an everyday basis. Even the hottest .357 Magnum ammunition from companies like Buffalo Bore don’t come quite close to the old factory rounds.

So can the .357 Magnum still be counted on to take whitetail deer? Yes and no given all the variables. I would not hesitate to shoot a whitetail with a .357 Magnum if it were my handloads, which are quite warm and using good cast lead bullets and with plenty of practice. I also know enough to keep the range practical, usually under seventy five yards for any handgun. Even though there are some shooters who can do more, I prefer not to get chancy.

Would I prefer to use a larger caliber for deer, yes, but if it were all I had I would not fret to plug a shooter. It’s enough pop for the job; it can be done and has been done before and it’s just like anything else in shooting. As long as you know your limitations and use common sense and good judgment you can bring home the bacon, the backstraps and the rest of the animal.

Sfury

Apparently the ballistics information that I've been reading about has been wrong. Various articles in my hunting and rifle magazines, not to mention the site ballistics by the inch which has some very interesting numbers.

All that prove Topgun 3006 is wrong. I just hate people spouting off wrong information.

It's also silly to think you would need different rounds for SD and for hunting. Nonsense. A decent quality HP round will do both jobs equally well. This includes the modified HPs, like Hornadys FTX line, as well.

DocD

As with anything "you need the right tool for the Job" & a .357 is not the right tool, will it put down a deer ? of course it will, will it put down a moose, Of course it will. The big question is why?? a 30/30 or .35 Remington (which I prefer) are just so much more capable, they are also easy on the pocketbook. another option is a RIFLED shotgun, H&R have them priced very reasonable, much preferable to the .357. I have just seen too many lost deer with the .357 PISTOL & I don't know anyone who uses .357 in a rifle (although it would be much preferred to the pistol) I understand in todays economy, money is tight, & that is just more reason to use the right tool, Remember,,, "only a rich person can afford cheap tools" JMOP Doc