Someone argued this point to me the other day.

The argument was that if you were looking for a woods gun or something to defend against predators, the .44 magnum is a better choice, whether it's a S&W 29, Ruger Redhawk, etc. If the recoil of the 44 is too much for some shooters, they can use downloaded rounds that are manageable but still more effective than the .357.

If you are looking for defense against humans, rounds like the .40 S&W and .45ACP are better, because they have plenty of knockdown power without the recoil, flash, or muzzle blast of the .357 magnum. This is not a revolver vs. semiauto thread, but a Glock 22 will hold 16 rounds vs. 6 rounds of .357 in a S&W 686 and still only weighs a little over half as much as the 686.

What do you think? I am not saying that I agree with this argument, and I will always be fond of the .357 magnum, but I find myself perhaps agreeing to an extent. If I am in the woods I take my .44, which I can load with anything from light to hot 44 specials up to magnums. For civilian (or even LEO) self-defense, I don't feel like the .357 magnum does anything that the .40 S&W can't do, with less recoil, blast and noise. You could argue that the 45ACP does not have enough penetration, or that the 9mm doesn't have enough power, but the 40 seems to do well enough.

__________________
Aaron Terry