.357 Magnum is obsolete

[max]

Years ago some writer said that the 357 was the most powerful handgun the average shooter could handle. It is probably still true. I don't shoot many magnums, mostly 38 specials. but I am not about to give the magnums up.

 

[ccso7d100]

If I was limited to only ONE handgun, it would be a 4" .357 (prob. a "k" frame Smith)..... It will do anything you need it to......

 

[edmeloy]

Hi there.

As far I know, the .357 Mag got developed for the highway police. Hence the .38 Special wasn't enough going thru a bonnet and kill an engine. If the .357 is doing that then the man stop effect must be given? What you think?

If someone is a bad shooter than, I agree, he needs all capacity he can get. If he is good enough he loads only two rounds.
9mm would be only my second choice. All other are perfectly fine for self defense. Comes down to preferences.

Cheers Edgar

 

[sunnyd]

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.

The glock 20 10mm will take care of all of these issues.

 

[jtcarm]

Browse revolvers on Gunbroker and the page displays the number of hit subtotaled by category. The top caliber is .357, followed closely by .38 special. There's half as many of the next caliber, .22 lr.

 

[rwsmith]

Or.....

It's only obsolete to the guys who want a gee-whiz semi-auto with a 500-round magazine!

Or a .500 S&W magnum. X FRAME!!!! With a compensator.

 

[rwsmith]

The reason that these cartridges are 'old'...

The reason these old, obsolete cartridges are still around is because whether by chance or design they work well.

 

[357-RevolverGuy]

I've yet to own or shoot a Redhawk/model 29 that fits in my hands as perfectly and is as easy to carry as my model 19.

 

[DocB]

So Many Deer

My 45 year old son has killed so many deer on our timber farm over the past 20 years with his S&W 686 with a 6 inch barrel I can't even count them anymore. It's all he uses and has never lost a deer. I sure hate to have to tell him that he's been using the wrong gun all this time.

 

[Krell1]

NEWS FLASH: ALL calibers are now obsolete. I'm willing to take all you have off your hands and I'll see to it that it is disposed of properly....DOWN RANGE!!!!

No such thing as obsolete.

 

[MattO]

I only need one from either of my .357's to stop the bad guy, the others I can still hit the range with after I give my side of the story to the police.


Matt

 

[Doug.38PR]

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.

I think your friend that argued this is wrong.

The .357 Magnum was designed for LEO back in 1935 but was embraced more by big game hunters at the time. The .357 Magnum was a favorite of hunters to carry into the bush and does have the energy and penetration necessary to do the job. Is the .44 Magnum more successful at this? Yes. But that doesn't take anything away from the .357 Magnum.

As for self defense, the .357 Magnum is still top of the line in defense ammunition and has a good track record for "one stop shots" as far as there is such a thing. Before the semi-auto craze of the 1990s, many LEOs preferred the .357 Magnum because of it's performance over other handgun cartridges.

The .40S&W is just an intermediary round between the 9mm and the .45 ACP and a toned down 10mm that the FBI was trying to find back in the late 1980s.

The 9mm has been improved so much over the past 15 or 20 years that it can match the performance that the 40S&W will give you. A lot of law enforcement are moving away from the 40 and going back to the 9mm. Some say the 9mm today can even match the performance of the average .45 ACP.

But the .357 Magnum still can beat any of them in terms of penetration and energy deliverance. Men still use it to hunt medium game in rifles or even long bore handguns. If it can take down a 300 pound deer, I think it can handle a 175 pound man.

 

[Doug.38PR]

I'd have not even argued with this obviously ignorant individual, I'd have laughed and told him that he's a fool(or something worse) and left it at that. And comparing the 357 to the 40 is friggin laughable, the 40 is a unecessary round these days. When it was introduced it did fill a void but with todays bullets it's uneeded. The 9mm or 45 will do the same job.

Agreed. It sounds like something one of these Millenial gunshop guys that are under 22, just got a job at a gun shop, have a Glock .40 on their belt behind the counter and think they are an expert and up to date on all the "new stuff".

 

[HalfStack]

I prefer the 40sw over the 9mm only because the bullet is bigger and heavier. I had a 9mm (sold it) and my 40sw at the same time when I shot at the range one day. I was shooting 9mm 124 +Ps and 40sw 165s and the 40sw 165s kicked only slightly more than the 124 +Ps.

The 165 was 40 fps slower than the 124 +P but at 100 fpe more than the 9mm.

Back in the 80s I had a 357 revolver that I shot at the range. I met a reloader that also shoot 357s. He gave me a box of 146g lead cast SWC HPs and he told me for SD ok? I shot a cylinder's worth and it was hot as hell (like an Underwood ammo.)