357 and a hard cast velocity question...

[benny]

Hello all,

I am pondering a 357 or a 44 in a smith n frame and I had a question or two.  First, given a good hard cast load in the 357 like a 180 or 200gr, will the penetration be similar to the 44 250-300gr hc?  I know there is a big difference between the two in bullet weight and diameter, but I am thinking that if I can get the same penetration on hogs/ blackies, I am comfortable with the smaller bullet diameter.

Also, at what velocity does penetration through tough muscle / bone fall off with a quality hard cast.  I an shooting a max load in my 41 with a 250wfn, which is about 1300fps out of 4" bbl and am wondering if you really lose any penetration dropping down to 1000-1100-1200???  And, would the 357 require more velocity than either the 41 or 44 to get the same penetration since the bullet is so much lighter?

Thanks for any thoughts!

benny

[Mohawk]

  I think everything you mentioned will do fine. Penetration is a weird animal. Depending on angle, what structure is hit, and other factors always make a huge difference but I would definately go with the .44 if going after black bear. The .357 is good for whitetails, but for bear, I would upgrade to the .44.

[bilmac]

I believe that penetration is more a function of ballistic coificiant than velocity. A long bullet penetrates farther than a short one, and often times if high velocity causes a bullet to deform it reduces penetration. I would bet that a hard 180 - 200 grain 357 will penetrate significantly farther than a 250 or 300 gr hollow point 44.

That said, it is seldom the case that penetration is the only factor to consider when you want to kill things. Otherwise we would all just shoot FMJ bullets and we wouldn't have anything to argue about.

[Mohawk]

I believe that penetration is more a function of ballistic coificiant than velocity. A long bullet penetrates farther than a short one, and often times if high velocity causes a bullet to deform it reduces penetration. I would bet that a hard 180 - 200 grain 357 will penetrate significantly farther than a 250 or 300 gr hollow point 44.

That said, it is seldom the case that penetration is the only factor to consider when you want to kill things. Otherwise we would all just shoot FMJ bullets and we wouldn't have anything to argue about.

Well said. And don't forget the "yaw" factor. A long bullet destabilizes sooner and might tumble decreasing the overall penetration etc, .38 Spl lead round nose. Same bullet in SWC is shorter, therefore, it will not be so inclined to tumble as quick. Isn't ballistics wonderful!!!!

[Redhawk1]

Read some of the other 357 Mag vs 44 Mag threads. There is a lot of information in them. No need repeating what was already written.

[Autorim]

If you have a good .41 why do you need a .357 or .44? Or, is the .41 a single action and not a Smith?

[Ak.Hiker]

I have tested lots of cast loads in spruce wood to see how they penetrate. One of the hottest 357 Magnum loads that I have tested is the Buffalo Bore 180 grain cast. This one is running at 1400 or so out of a 6 inch 357. One thing is for sure it will penetrate. CorBon loads a 200 grain cast that I like in my 6 inch Python. The long 200 grain bullet also will go deep. I have never seen the LBT type bullets tumble when tested in wood. Either of these two loads will clear 7 inches of spruce and penetrate into the second log straight. Round nosed FMJ bullets do tend to tumble. I have also shot quite a few 320 grain cast loads in my Super Blackhawk. At 1200 plus they will go through alot of wood as well. Phil Shoemaker a bear guide from Wasilla Ak. wrote an article for Handloader Magazine on using the 357 Magnum for bear protection. He compared the penetration of a 260 grain cast load in the 44 Magnum to a heavy loaded 357 Magnum and the penetration was similar in a brown bear carcus. This was an article on protection from an attack not hunting. His point was the 357 in a handy 4 inch revolver with a non expanding bullet was fully capable of killing large animals. I would think for black bear hunting most of the guys will suggest the 44 Magnum over the 357 Magnum. With the 44 Magnum I do not think you would even need the extra penetration of a 320 grain cast load. The 240 JSP should be plenty of bullet. The 44 magnum 629 with a 4 inch barrel only weighs 41.5 ounces. If you are going with an N frame the 357 Magnum is not going to be any lighter. One interesting thing about the 44 Magnum as far as penetration goes. I did a test between the Winchester 240 grain factory JSP compared to a mild hand loaded Sierra 300 grain JSP. The 240 is loaded to 1180 and the 300 grain load was running at about 950 or so. The Mild loaded 300 grain Sierra had less recoil and more penetration in wood than the lighter and faster 240 grain bullet. Of course the Sierra is a tougher bullet than the Winchester JSP. But it does show you do not need to run those heavy weight bullets in the 44 Magum to fast in order to get good penetration. 

[Mikey]

AK.Hiker:  nicely detailed, thank you. 

Benny:  the penetration of both bullets you asked about is similar in that both are long, heavy bullets for the bore and both will penetrate cleanly without being pushed hard.  The 200 gn 357 pushed to 12-1300'/sec will penetrate deeply or pass through, the 300 gn 44 slug pushed to 1,000 will also penetrate deeply or pass through.

At what velocity does penetration fall off - I don't think you can measure that unless you test your specific loads yourself in a consistent medium. 

But, since you already shoot a 41 magnum you can test that yourself with your 250 gn wfn slugs at different velocities.  I do not believe you need to push a long heavy slug in 41 bore very fast to get it to penetrate the same way the other two (357 and 44) do.  And truly, I think the 41 mag is a great caliber and with one in hand I wouldn't think of needing a 357 or 44.  JMTCW.

[Ak.Hiker]

Good point on the 41 Magnum. I carried a 4 5/8 inch Ruger Blackhawk in 41 Magnum for years. I would still be carrying it but I decided to give it to my oldest son to use as a trail gun. The old CorBon 265 grain cast load penetrated about the same as the 320 grain CorBon 44 Magnum load. In the Ruger line the 41 Magnum is lighter than the 44 Magnum. With similar penetration it was my number one pick for years as a field gun.

[benny]

thanks for the info guys.  i am very happy with my 41, a fa 97.  i was just considering an addition to the stable, and thought the 357 in an 8 shot smith would be a nice change of pace.  just wanted to still have the versatility to use it on bigger critters if i felt like carrying it in lieu of the 41 on occasion.

benny

[Badnews Bob]

I would think if you can't put it down with 8 180gr hard cast .357s maybe you shouldn't be shooting at it with any pistol.

[Redhawk1]

I think some people give the 375 Mag way to much credit. JMHO.

[Lloyd Smale]

first i agree with redhawk. I dont put much store in 357s for hunting. 41s and bigger do a much better job. As to penetration to give a velocity limit is tough. It depends more on the alloy your using they anything, second would be bullet design. bullet diameter and sectional density come into play too. Once a cast bullet deforms in any way penetration suffers. A heavy for the caliber bullet cast out of at least 18bhn using a non brittle alloy to get there and perferably in as large of a caliber as you can shoot will do the best at penetrating. Lighter bullets not only give up momentum but because they lack good sectional density tend to not track straight during penetration and if the tilt even a little it will effect penetration drasticaly. An alloy has to be able to take smacking into the biggest bone in the biggest animal your going to hunt without deforming if your looking for penetration and that means a fairly hard bullet. Ive had real good luck with 5050 ww/lyno for penetration. its hard enough but not brittle like water dropped ww can be. Straight linotype is another good alloy. contrary to what youve read it is not brittle enough to fracture at any handgun velocitys. problem is that its getting to hard to find and expensive so i cut it with ww. An added bonus to doing it is that it makes my bullets slightly heavier. Larger diameter bullets are less likely to fracture if you are using brittle alloys and less likely to rivit  or bend if using softer. Now to answer your question. If all your ducks are in a row following the above advise you will probably get your best penetration between 1300 and 1400 fps. After 1400 any alloy is questionable with heavy bone hits. The majic spot to me though has allways been about 1100 fps. the differnce in total penetration with a heavy for caliber bullet is small. Not enought to even worry about. 1100fps also about gurantees bullets cast the way i cast will hold up EVERY TIME. Loads at this level seem to at least in my experience hit with just as much athourity as 1300 fps loads do. Another bonus is recoil is MUCH lighter and its easier on your gun. If you looked at my hunting handguns youd see just about every one of them loaded at about 1100 fps with heavy bullets. theres a few exceptions like the 44 special. If i dont feel a 44 mag with a 300 at 1100 will take care of the chore i just grab a 475 or 500 loaded with a heavy at 1100. As to your question about a higher velcity 357 equaling a 41 mag, it isnt going to happen. It may on paper have more energy but in the hunting field with cast bullets caliber is king and velocity means very little.

[Redhawk1]

Well said Lloyd. 

[Mohawk]

  I think it depends on what game you are hunting when ruling out the .357. For whitetails, if you lose deer with the .357 it is not the caliber or bullet's fault. I have too much venison in the freezer to know different. This year, 2 shots and 2 dead deer. Now larger game I can see where the need for a .41, .44, 454, etc. would be needed due to a much larger animal.

[Redhawk1]

  I think it depends on what game you are hunting when ruling out the .357. For whitetails, if you lose deer with the .357 it is not the caliber or bullet's fault. I have too much venison in the freezer to know different. This year, 2 shots and 2 dead deer. Now larger game I can see where the need for a .41, .44, 454, etc. would be needed due to a much larger animal.

Sure the 357 Mag is a good deer round, within it's limits. But after that it is time for a bigger round in my opinion. I still prefer bigger holes.

[Lloyd Smale]

no doubt a 357 loaded properly will kill a deer. After all a 22 in the right place will drop one in its tracks. I know a dog hunter for bear that swears by his smith 38 special loaded with wadcutters. I guess i have to ask why? If you take the time to really master a 357 you can master a 44 mag with the same time invested. A 44 mag can even be loaded down with a 250 at 1000-1100 fps and be quieter and have less recoil then a fully loaded 357 and still be much more effective on game. A 44 mag costs not a dime more then a 357. Loaded with 44 specials its a great self defense gun to boot. So why fool with a 357 a marginal hunting round when its so easy to step up to a 44. Notice to how i even skipped by the 41s i have a few but have never really became a fan of them either. to me REAL hunting guns start with the 44 special with proper loads and the 44 mag and 45 colt.

[benny]

thanks for all the insight gents.  i think i will do some load tinkering to get that 1100fps with a 250gr cpbc wfn in my 41 before expanding the arsenal   that should be much more enjoyable than the max load I have been shooting as the 97 is relatively light, around 37oz.

lloyd, i always enjoy reading your posts, they reflect much experience.  i like something a little different and the 44mag is too "vanilla" for me, but the special seems more interesting as well as the colt.  one thing with the 41, i haven't heard too many bad reports about it in the hunting fields and some folks have taken some pretty tough game with it.  my experience with it (and hangunning in general) is very limited, but the one whitetail i have harvested with it never took a step... but to each his own, it is nice to have so many choices.

maybe I will think about moving up to something bigger as the comments about the 357 leave me wondering if it would be worthwhile.  what the heck, maybe i'll start saving for a fa 83 500we bet that will make the recoil of my 41 feel like therapy...

benny

[jk3006]

I just picked up my 686 and .45 Colt BH and held them side-by-side, looking down the bore of each.  The grotesquely obvious difference in diameter between the two makes it plain to me why I take the .45 with me every single time I want to carry a side-arm (when in the woods).  I have never hunted with my 686, and I never intend to, even though I know I could.

[Lloyd Smale]

nothing really wrong with the 41. Ive taken a few heads of game with it and its allways done the job. I guess i just dont see all the hoopla around it. the 44 beats it hands down and does it with very little more recoil and gives the option of many many more types of factory amunition and a much wider selection of jacketed and cast bullets.  Wanting something differnt is an argument i can relate too but its about the only argument that flys for the 41s

thanks for all the insight gents.  i think i will do some load tinkering to get that 1100fps with a 250gr cpbc wfn in my 41 before expanding the arsenal   that should be much more enjoyable than the max load I have been shooting as the 97 is relatively light, around 37oz.

lloyd, i always enjoy reading your posts, they reflect much experience.  i like something a little different and the 44mag is too "vanilla" for me, but the special seems more interesting as well as the colt.  one thing with the 41, i haven't heard too many bad reports about it in the hunting fields and some folks have taken some pretty tough game with it.  my experience with it (and hangunning in general) is very limited, but the one whitetail i have harvested with it never took a step... but to each his own, it is nice to have so many choices.

maybe I will think about moving up to something bigger as the comments about the 357 leave me wondering if it would be worthwhile.  what the heck, maybe i'll start saving for a fa 83 500we bet that will make the recoil of my 41 feel like therapy...

benny

[Mohawk]

  All good points. What was the old saying? A .357 may expand but a .45 never shrinks. I still miss by American Arms .45 Colt. That gun loved the Gold Dots.

[BAGTIC]

I believe that penetration is more a function of ballistic coificiant than velocity. A long bullet penetrates farther than a short one, and often times if high velocity causes a bullet to deform it reduces penetration. I would bet that a hard 180 - 200 grain 357 will penetrate significantly farther than a 250 or 300 gr hollow point 44.

That said, it is seldom the case that penetration is the only factor to consider when you want to kill things. Otherwise we would all just shoot FMJ bullets and we wouldn't have anything to argue about.

Sectional density increases penetration but ballistic coefficient doesn't. Take two bullets same caliber and weight. The one with the longest ogive and smallest tip will have the best ballistic coefficient but it is the one most likely to tumble something not conducive to good penetration.

[buck460XVR]

IMHO, a .357 is a very capable deer round when used by capable hands and used within it's limitations. I actually still take mine out on those days where the hunt is more important than the kill. But then I started hunting deer with a handmade recurve bow with a 40# draw weight. Killed my first buck with it when I was 14. I was well aware of it's limitations and limited my shots to 25 yards or less and a standing broadside target. Started gun hunting deer with a Model 97 pump shotgun and was well aware of it's limitations also, it's range was  only slightly more than my bow. Took several deer with it before buyin' the M1917 in '69 for $25. Any weapon for deer has it's limitations, nowadays most are beyond the capabilities of those that use them, whereas years ago it used to be the other way around.

Mentored a young man this year turkey hunting. After one failed attempt at gettin' a Tom to within the range of his single shot 20 gauge, he said to me "if I coulda used my deer rifle I coulda had him!". My reply was, "wouldn't been much of a hunt tho.........."

[Tallwalker]

Back before 180 grain bullets became popular, and available I read that a good cast 158 grain bullet at 1100 fps would do all that a .357 mag was going to do. I expect that a 180 will do a little more. I've only shot one deer with a handgun, and that was with a .38 Special using the Speer 146 gr half jacket hp. He didn't go anywhere when I broke his neck. A hard cast bullet of reasonable weight out of a .357 mag will out penetrate a fmj out of a .45 acp every time, so size isn't everything. When we talk about the .41 Mag, I think the guns used are more important than the caliber choice. I carried a .41 Blackhawk in the woods a lot in my younger years because it was so much lighter, and handier than my .44. In the S&W I really see no point in carrying a heavier gun to use a smaller caliber. Actually, with strong guns, and what is available today, there isn't much point in listening to, and enduring the muzzle blast of a .44 Mag when a .45 Colt will do the same thing, or better, and is much more pleasant at 10,000 psi less. (now that is bound to be a popular statement) By the way, I currently own .357's, and .44 mags. Ideally, I would have a .357, or .38 Special, a well made, and light .44 Special, and a .45 Colt for the heavy stuff. Too bad the gun companies don't see it that way.