.357 Magnum is obsolete

aterry33 · Jan 9, 2010

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.

Markcuda · Jan 9, 2010

I better give away all my .357s then

ajpelz · Jan 9, 2010

I see the point, but you could argue just the other way....

While a 40 or 45 is not enough for a woods gun, and a 44 mag is too much to carry for a daily protection weapon, 357 magnum can do either or both. I think that a 357 would do much better against creatures in the woods than a 40 or 45, and being realistic, who carries a 44 magnum on the streets daily? The 357 may not be the best for either, but adequate for both. Not obsolete, efficient

Firehouse · Jan 9, 2010

.357 mag will take out most men or beast in North America but yet is still small enough for everyday carry. Hardly obsolete.

Markcuda · Jan 9, 2010

Well, I guess my 1000 rounds of ammo is junk, any one want it?

ajpelz · Jan 9, 2010

Markcuda said:
Well, I guess my 1000 rounds of ammo is junk, any one want it?

PM incoming to send all 357 ammo and firearms. I will dispose of them safely and humanely.

Markcuda · Jan 9, 2010

Thank you very much, I just knew all that guns and stuff was no good, I am very thrilled that some one will junk it out

Jack Flash · Jan 9, 2010

When a writer for one of the gun rags can't think of anything else, they pick a popular cartridge and say it is obsolete. Today it's the .357 Mag, tomorrow the .30-06.

PhysicsGuy · Jan 9, 2010

aterry33 said:
I don't feel like the .357 magnum does anything that the .40 S&W can't do

So the .40 S&W can generate over 1000ft/lbs of energy????

(Energy from max load data of 125gr XTP with 22grs of H110 @41,400CUP, generating 1966ft/s, which works out to about 1072ft*lbs)

Sebago Son · Jan 9, 2010

I call Hokum and Sheep Dip.

The .357 in a K-Mag is about the best woods / belt gun we have here in the North East.

This one goes out often.

john traveler · Jan 9, 2010

It's a ridiculous notion that several generations of lawmen and sportsmen are/were using an obsolete cartridge and gun for the last 70-something years.

Please explain why the .357 Magnum has been, and still IS the best-selling magnum caliber by far?

Spotteddog · Jan 9, 2010

Oh,
I think that authority was absolutely right!
'Cause everybody knows it doesn't hurt getting 10 ringed by a .45/70, .30-40 Krag, or .303 Brit either. What with them being even older and more feeble and all?

ENGINE18 · Jan 9, 2010

Backup depository for all .357s and ammo! I only have 5 of them so a few more will keep them company

2000Z-71 · Jan 9, 2010

Horse Hockey!

While the .44 can be loaded heavier and hotter, one always doesn't need that much power. The .44 is also going to require a large framed revolver while a .357 can be had in large, medium and small framed lighter weight guns. While the .40S&W and .45ACP can be used for personal defense they don't offer the versatility of the .357 Magnum. The .357 can be loaded with snakeshot, high velocity lightweight bullets, and deep penetrating 180gr bullets moving at very respectable velocities. One doesn't have to worry about slide speeds, changing out recoil springs or anything else that may effect reliability when changing loads. Yeah it can have flash and bang when loaded hot but .40 can also bark and be snappy. I've got .44's, .45's, .40's and a lot of .357's. The .357's aren't going anywhere anytime soon.

oldRoger · Jan 9, 2010

Clearly an 870 with 0 Buck or a 45/70 (I saw a neat 45/70 double rifle the other day!) is the answer to serious social problems at short range.
Why take a handgun at all?
Why take a 40 S&W when you could take a 10mm (and I quite frequently do take a 10mm).
I have a P239 in 40, it usually is at home.
Why do I usually carry a .357, because I can conceal my 640 under most anything I wear, which is a problem here in the summer. So most of the year it’s a 640 or a 60-10 3”.
These things have to come down to practicality sooner or later.

If there was even a slight chance I would encounter a Grizzly I would carry appropriate arms, but there is no chance.

ArchAngelCD · Jan 9, 2010

aterry33 said:
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.

If you need 16 rounds of .357 Magnum to stop a threat you shouldn't be carrying a handgun, get a AK-47 or AR-15.

As for only 6 rounds and "excessive" weight, there are now .357 Magnum revolvers which carry 8 rounds and weigh only 27oz. Hardly double the weight of a Glock 22 which weighs 23oz empty. Yes it will hold 16 rounds but then again, go back to what I started this post with.

A note about the 40 S&W or .45 Auto being better against human targets than the .357 Magnum, all the data I've read says NOT....

Vulcan Bob · Jan 10, 2010

I love hi-cap's, one can miss fast and often! Sure the odd exception occur's now and again, but if a trained shooter cannot solve the problem with six round's, it wont get solved with seventeen. The 125gr JHP in .357 is the round that is the standard for one shot stop's. They dident call it the lightning bolt for nothing!

amd6547 · Jan 10, 2010

It is a conceit of the wheelman to expect high capacity equals propensity to spray and pray.
I have been a fan of the Browning High Power since before most police started carrying semiautos. I also own a Beretta 92FS. In either case, I count on aimed fire to help the 9mm perform, not volume.
That having been said, I am perfectly confident in the Ruger SP101 3" 357mag, and it's five rounds of DoubleTap 125gn Bonded Core JHP that is in my belt right now.

Ron H. · Jan 10, 2010

aterry33 said:
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.

Sir, the guy makes some good points, but they don't make the .357 obsolete. There's still a need for revolvers with more power than a .38, but less bulk than a .44.

FWIW, I'm somewhat conflicted about the .357. I like its accuracy, versatility, ubiquity, and that some very fine guns are chambered for it. I do not like the noise and recoil of full loads--if I'm going to deal with that level of drama, I want a bigger bullet.

JMHO.

Hope this helps, and Semper Fi.

Ron H.

Texas Star · Jan 10, 2010

Jack Flash said:
When a writer for one of the gun rags can't think of anything else, they pick a popular cartridge and say it is obsolete. Today it's the .357 Mag, tomorrow the .30-06.

No, that was yesterday.

Col. Charles Askins wrote it, and when I asked why, he said that stuff like that riles up the readers, who write to the editor to complain. Thus, the editors knew that his stuff was being read. He was serious too!

But someone will probably recycle the idea, like one guy does with his WWII and Old West material.

I think that the .30/06 with modern loads is better than it's ever been. And I like the .357 Magnum for a wide variety of uses, esp. if I can also load .38 ammo when the full .357 power isn't needed.

T-Star

.357 Magnum is obsolete

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

SWCA Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

US Veteran

Member

US Veteran

Moderator, SWCA Member, Absent Comrade

Member

Member

US Veteran

US Veteran

Similar threads