To each his own, I rather like .357

This thread is getting a real "GD" feel.

It did go GD a few times and we got off on the MAX energy/10mm vs 357 Mag harder than I expected but the rest of the thread has been pretty interesting.

ETA:  One other thing that has not really come up in this thread so far and is another reason the 357 Mag SUCKS. It ubiquitous has locked revolvers designs into once cylinder length.  The modern double action revolver and 357 Magnum have evolved together and the revolver manufactures only manufacture revolvers with frame/cylinder sizes that will accommodate 357 Mag (or 44 Mag)  The idea of making a size that is shorter than that will not happen (except boutique makers like Korth) due to the public perception of 357 Magnum being the end-all be-all of revolver cartridges.  That sucks!

Example A BUG revolver in 9mm would be very useful even now in the age of the semi-autos but the few of those that exist are simply 9mm chambers in a 357 Magnum length cylinder/frame.  You could remove some weight and bulk while adding barrel length and not increase the over all size of a J-frame if you make a 9mm size J-frame.  There are a lot of interesting things that could be done with revolver is we were not forced to shoehorn it into revolver cylinder/frames sized around the 357 Magnum (and 44 Mag).

When Dan Wesson was really producing they made the SuperMag revolver line which used a larger frame for the extra length cartridges. I thought Ruger at one time had also made a 357 Max revolver. As the short/semi auto cartridges go I'm not aware of a purpose built small frame for them, most prefer to just shoot them in the semis they were designed for. I would think the J frame or Ruger LCR would be the closest thing to what you're talking about and would work for 9mm and 40S&W. That's all I got.

Wasn't charter arms making a 9mm snubby?  I don't know how long the cylinder was on it.  If it was rebated in size for just 9mm.  Because I believe they were making it in .40 too.  Although again, not sure if they used the same length cylinder for that model.  

I recall it having some kind of mechanism for ejection that made me think it could be a failure spot.  Sort of complex.

Taurus Judges and S&W Governor have loooong frames...  

Korth is the only one I know of that made a 9mm size cylinder/frame with the Sky Marshal/Sky Hawk revolver.  Its a six shot not five so its not quite the BUG size revolver.  I have seen a few custom S&W 625 with short cylinder and the barrel setback into the frame but it still used a standard N-frame.

 
I believe that is the Pit-Bull line from Charter Arms.  The 9mm version is built on the 38 snub nose frame and the 40 S&W and 45 ACP versions are built on the 44 Special Bull Dog frame.  Yes they do not require moonclips as they have a special extractor that has a tab that pops out to engage the extractor groove on the rimless case.  Unfortunately that same extractor prohibits the use of moonclips, But for the intended use of that revolver I think the moonclipless version is probably better.  I would love to see one that could do both.

Taurus has a 9 mm revolver and a .380 Auto Mini Revolver with a shorter cylinder and frame.

Mini Revolver

Review


CD

Sweet, that is a nice small frame.  I wonder why the only did the 380 ACP on the smaller frame and not the 9mm?  The Taurus 9mm appears to still be build on the 357/38 frame but that 380 is built on a noticeable shorter frame.  It would be interesting to see if you could re-chamber that 380 mini revolver to 9mm and not have it do a grenade impersonation.

nice pieces.  bottom one in nickel?  what is model number of those?

I went to go order some of these yesterday to see what I was missing.  I went on Safariland's website and I can't find any comp II for a J frame.  It doesn't appear like they make them for a J frame.  I have a Comp I around here somewhere.  But it didn't seem as reliable as an HKS.  My issue with some kind of carry pouch is that when I'm carrying my 442, it's usually when I'm more dressed up.  I was looking for a decent speedloader pouch / holster but they all look kind of bulky.  I suppose I might just have to not worry about what it looks like.  But usually if I can dress around my gun better, I'm able to use a different gun.  

Anyways.....  I did try to learn something from this thread and see where my set up might be lacking, but I've yet to have an HKS open up on me in my pocket.   I actually went to carrying more of the speed strips with only 4 on them because of how DeBettencourt teaches.  For some reason I find when I put 5 on the speed strip, I might fumble the reload more.  One of the rounds likes to pop out on me.  But when I load just 4 it seems to work better.   And of course be a little quicker.  But then you're down one round.  

Anyways......   If I'm wrong about the Comp II's not being available for J frames.  I'm all ears.  But I couldn't find them on amazon or Safariland's website.

Unfortunately Safariland only makes Comp I's for the 5 shot 38/357 revolvers and 6-shot 44 Mags .  Comp II and III's are only made for 6-shot 38/357 for the K and L frames and similar size revolver.

Jet makes one for the J-frame but its nearly as long as Comp III.

Some guys use 6 or even 7 shot speed strips with their J-frames.  Lets them skip a slot or two making them a bit less fumble prone during the loading process.  But it takes up more room in a pocket.

I found my comp I.  I may use that one.  But I gotta practice with it some more.  The big problem is it really could use some serrations or something on the knob.  When you try to turn it to lock them in, it's smooth and so small.  I needed to use a pliers to turn the knob to lock them in.  The HKS are more user friendly, IMHO.  And I'd prefer a Comp II or III style button on top to the release on the star.  Although that probably works well too.  Not to start another war, because I'm not really meaning to.  I can see what Madcap was saying about the Comp style being faster to load.  I get that.  But I'm not sure it slows you down THAT much to just twist the knob on an HKS.  

I think if I was carrying the 442 with a cover garment the pouches and some Comp I's would probably be a good set up.  But like I said I'm usually not wearing my 442 in that type of a situation.  

The one thing I've never practiced and need to, but not sure how practical it is, is a tac reload.  When you have the revolver muzzle down, push part way up on the extractor rod, let the ones fired stay up as you let the unfired ones back down.  Because they expand when they're fired.  And then take those out and load some new ones.  That seems like so complicated and would be really hard to do under stress.  I'm not sure anyone teaches that other than Clint Smith.  But he's the one I saw do that.

JJ,

Get in the habit of always reloading with your speed loader or speed strip on the range.


CD

Yes, that I do.  I did catch myself wanting to grab my brass a few times last time but forced myself to smack the ejector rod and let them all fall out.  But I did hesitate the first time.  It was wet and cold out and my mind wanted to take the easy way out.  Of course my daughter helped me pick up my brass anyways.......    The upside is that they're not all over the place like with an auto.  More like a big pile of them.  

The biggest issue I have is that I have so much crap in my pockets, the speedloaders get sort of lost.  I noticed that I can actually feel the speedstrips more quickly in my pocket.   And plus when I'm wearing pants that have the coin pocket, there is a speed strip there and that's really the easiest one to get at first.  I'm on the hunt for the right way to carry the rounds on the belt that would go better with dress clothes.  I do remember there was some kind of pouch with a snap that carried speed strips.    

But in essence I like the idea of being able to have all 5 rounds reloaded with a speedloader if you run your gun dry.  

And what I'd REALLY like is to have my Colt fixed so I have 6 rounds, but I've been reluctant to send it somewhere.  I wish I knew someone locally that knew how to work on Colt's properly.  

I think if I try to find a Model 10 snubby, it's just not going to carry as easily as the J frame or the Colt.  But I've never had one to know for sure.   Because like I said, if I can dress around my gun better, I'm probably better off wearing a bigger auto.

The Comp I does not require the knob to be turned during the loading process like the HKS so the motion is simpler and more fumble proof especially when the pucker factor is high.  The speed difference between HKS and Comp I is going to be that great in the context of CCW most of the time.  Though I am sure there are few rare instances where it might have made a difference.

In a competition setting like IDPA is can make a huge difference.  If a stage takes you twenty seconds to shoot and your two reloads during the stage cost you an extra second over a competitor using a faster method that is ~5% worst score.  It adds up over all the stages of the match.

Tactical reloads are the dumbest thing I have ever heard, especially in a real world setting.  Shoot it till it's empty and then reload.  I can't think of any setting were I am doing a tactical reload if I think there are bag guys around.  If I have time to think about a tactical reload then I will be safe enough to do it slow and deliberate or be de-arsing myself from the situation.  Having tried tactical reloads a few times in IDPA matches I have no intention of ever trying one with a revolver in a real self defense situation.

Yeah, I was always skeptical about the tac reload.  I guess if you had one or two in the gun after shooting and there was a lull, but I guess you would just dump the one or two and put 5 in.  I guess you could pick them up and put it in your pocket.

It looks pretty silly when tac-reloads go wrong and a round slips under the star. 

(plus makes your gun functionally useless, meaning real life it's time to drop it and grab a knife, bonking tool or go hands on.  Which, to be fair, would probably have to happen (and be prepared for through training) on a reload regardless if the threat wasn't stopped in the first load.    

No, it's not that simple.

357 is fun to shoot.  

Revolver shooting is very different than semi-auto pistol shooting.  Revolvers are solid.

You can chamber a lever action rifle in the same 357 caliber and have fun in a whole new way.  

You can load the cartridge light, you can load it HOT and everywhere in between using 110 to 180 gr bullets.

When you are ready for a whole new experience, go night shooting with a 357.

Is it possible to get a 38 Special case under the star of a 642/442?  I can not make it happen with my 442.  Its pretty easy to get one under my 627 with its longer ejector and takes a little force to get it under my Model 10 but I don't think its possible to get a case under the start of a snub nose J-frame, the extractor just does not got out far enough.  Its also another reason moonclips RULE!  You never get a cartridge under the star, they all come out in a nice tight pile of cases, never a loose case to get left behind.


A lot of cartridges are fun to shoot that does or does not prove 357 Mag sucks.  25ACP sucks for just about any application on the planet and yet in the right firearm it is fun to shoot too.


How does this bear on a 357 Magnum's suckage status?  Revolver can be chambered is a huge variety of catridges.


I can chamber a lever gun in 44 Mag, 45 Colt and even 10mm or 410 shotgun shells and have fun a whole new way also.  That fact does not de-suck the 357 Mag!


Again not unique to 357 Mag, somewhat unique to revolvers but not 357 magnum.


And one more time, not unique to 357 Mag.  The best fireballs I have ever seen from a pistol was from 357 Sig loaded with Power Pistol in a compact handgun, it was like a camera flash going off.  That said my Nagant M44 with 1950's ammo does pretty good, I can even see those in the daytime.  There was also that time my neighbor took an old muzzle loader and loaded it with a healthy charge of black powder and then about 8 inches of #0000 steel wool packed on top of that charge.   Now that was a fire ball.

You're right Bro, 357mag is boringly the GREATEST manstopping cartridge EVER developed!  To the point where it's mundane!  And yes, out of snubbies, TOTALLY USELESS!  38spl is BEST for snubs, if you must own one of those USELESS contraptions.  Yeah it's great fooling with other rounds/cartridges, but the smart man will ALWAYS come back to 357magnum!

"the GREATEST manstopping cartridge EVER developed!" and yet almost no one issues it as a duty weapon and vanishingly few people carry it as a CCW.  It may have once been "the GREATEST manstopping cartridge EVER developed!" at one time in the past but it has arguably since been eclipsed by the 9mm.

38 Special +P is better in a snubby, especial <20oz snubbies, mostly because most people can actually shoot it without pain, shoot it passably accurate, and still feel and use their hand afterwards.

It is great fooling around with other cartridges.  Life is too short to have just one cartridge.  One women sure, one cartridge never!!!

I can't see me coming back to 357 Magnum, not in serious way.  It just does not do anything I can't do better with another cartridge.

Not that it matters much, but I carried my trusty old Model 10 loaded with regular old 38 Specials all day today while alone in the woods and manage to survive to tell you that, the 357 Magnum SUCKS! 

Thanks.

Yes, bottom nickel.

Top is a 649-5.

Bottom is a pre model 357, AKA a "pre-27."

I've enjoyed countless experiences in the woods without carrying anything except some food and water and survived to tell you that beer sucks.




Don't listen to him beer, he's crazy.

Touche, but even a good set of beer goggles will not make 357 Magnum appear to SUCK less. 

Ha, all fun. Can't tell you the .357 is good in the New Model Blackhawk. It really was only special with light .38s or 180g silhouette loads. Just meh in between.

Really, the .357 is good only in certain platforms. To my mind, the 13?/19 Smiths, possibly theSP101 and Old Model Blackhawks. In smaller platforms there are better rounds, and bigger platforms there are better rounds.

If you want a midsize, mid weight revolver with maximum power, no better option than .357 in a K frame. Any other wants or needs, there are better cartridges. Not counting the S&W 69 or 329, as both of those come with other penalties, or the GP100 class as it is approaching big bore weight.

The versatility does mean something, but then it isn't the cartridge that is meaningful, but the chambering, as you aren't shooting .357 Mag...

Never shot one, but the other platform that may work is long guns in .357. Plenty of pop for smallish game, nice suppressor hosts, low ammo cost. Obviously this would depend on what you shoot at, but some may find it a better choice than either bottleneck or larger bore cartridges.

Really most calibers suck if we don't need them. .45 ACP is pretty close to useless, so is .44 Special. .44 Mag is great unless you don't want to pack a heavy gun or deal with heavier recoil. 9x25? Who cares if we can push a 125g bullet 200 fps faster? But, shooting a mint 70 series Government model in .45 is almost a religious experience, and a Charter Arms Bulldog in .44 Special is just awesome in comparison to .38 anything. So yeah, .357 sucks just like everything else does unless you enjoy that particular round in your preferred platform.

I have a couple thousand rounds of 38 Special SWC through my Blackhawk probably nearly that much 9mm through it and only two or three boxes of 357 Mag.  It was my first revolver and the first gun I bought myself after grad school.  So there is some sentimental attachment but not much use for it.


If I only had one gun then versatility would mean more to me.  But if I only need/want 38 Special then I am grabbing my Model 10 not my Blackhawk or 627.  Yes I could get the same gun in a Model 13 and have the versatility of 357 Mag but I would have paid more for the gun and the performance of my intended cartridge (38 Spl) would suffer in the longer 357 Chamber.


This is part of why I had started this thread.  Two years ago I bought a Rossi M92 carbine (16-in barrel) in 44 Mag.  It is a very handy little rifle.  I was thinking about getting a S&W 629 (or maybe a S&W 69) to go with it.  I was thinking about which of my revolver I might sell to help fund the 44 Mag revolver and realized I have almost no used for 357 Magnum.  I own two 357 Magnums (Blackhawk and S&W 627) and have probably only shot 7 or 8 boxes of 357 Magnum between the two.  I though about all the thing I do with my revolvers and came to the realization I never use 357 Magnum cartridges for anything I do with my revolvers.



This paragraph rings very true to me.  357 Magnum SUCKS because I don't enjoy shooting it and I don't have a good reason/need to shoot it.

.357 revolvers are exceptionally versatile.

Hot, heavy bullet loads can take large game or defend from large animals.

You can load up with light .38s for low cost, low recoil plinking.

You can find something that does anything better but I can't think of anything with a wider useful range of applications.

I am not really looking for super versatility.  I own several revolvers, each selected for one particular application or another.  If I was in the market for a do-all revolver then maybe 357 Mag might be a choice.  But a similar argument to the 357/38 high to low power versatility can be make for revolvers chambered in a huge variety of cartridges, 44Mag/44Spl, 41Mag/41Spl, 327Mag/32 H&R Mag/32 S/L S&W, even 10mm Auto/40S&W or even 460 Rowland/45 Super/45 ACP  All of these combination, and a few I have probably forgot, offer similar broad power ranges.

I don't see any use in a .44 rifle/pistol combo unless you just want it. There is too much overlap to carry both, IMO. It is a heavy pair, especially with a proper belt and holster. Nice to have them use the same ammo, but some of the 300s don't feed well in the lever, so then you still have two ammo types...

Since you are a handgunner, get a 5.5-7.5" .44 and call it good. A good 25% step up from hot 10mm.

If you are going to be carrying two guns, a bottleneck cartridge rifle seems better for one of the pair, to get an extra 100 yds of reach if needed.

Of course, if I had .357 and a .38 or two, I would buy a .357 rifle. It is a much stronger cartridge out of the long gun, and the ammo would pretty compatible with what you already own and reload. Kind of a no brainer. Don't think little deer need a .44 rifle to get dead.

200g .357 out of a rifle and 200g .44 handgun probably similar speed, fwiw. .357 may be faster, and will have more sectional density. Long gun would weigh 2lbs more, but may give a little more distance.

I don't see how a 357 Mag rifle/pistol combination is any different just a lower power level.  I have 357 Mag pistol and a 44 Mag carbine already.  So I have to buy either a 357 Mag rifle/carbine or a 44 Mag pistol.  Since my load of choice for my 44 Mag carbine is already hand loaded 240gr XTP I don't have a two ammo issue with either cartridge.


I like 10mm Auto a lot but it is a far cry from 44 mag.  44 Mag is more like 50-60% more kinetic energy from similar barrel lengths if both cartridge are loaded close to SAAMI max with appropriate powders.


Where I hunt in middle TN I don't have much need for the range of bottle neck cartridges .  The terrain is very hilly and broken with lots of thick edges.  Our largest food plot would give me about a 120-140 yard shot max.  I have yet to take a deer on the place at a range of over about 70 yards.  I also want the combination for more utilitarian purposes.  The little M92 straps on the tractor or UTV in a scabbard a lot nicer than my old Model 70 with a scope. I spend a lot of time on the tractor or UTV working food plot doing trail maintenance and similar.  A pistol/carbine combo seems like a nice fit for that application.



This last part is confusing.  First you tell me I don't need as much gun as 44 Magnum to kill deer than your telling me 357 Magnum from a rifle is better than 44 Magnum from a pistol.  It's not (at least not more KE) but still I am confuse.  I also though there was no such thing as overkill when humanly taking big game.  44 Mag is hardly overkill when guys out there are hunting deer with 308, 30-06 and other similar center fire rifle cartridges.

I spent many years living in Ohio hunting deer with a 410 slug gun.  My primary driver is not raw KE but other factors.  I can load moderate 44 Magnum ammunition that will have less muzzle blast and still deliver more energy and a heavier bullet than 357 Magnum can when pushed to it's muzzle blasting limits.  In the revolver the big old holes in the cylinder will make a quick reload easier.  I might even try my hands at USPSA or IDPA with it using 44 Special on moonclips just to make the old guys cringe.

If it was me, I would probably just run a .44 handgun and call it good. I was suggesting that there may be better alternatives for you since you are already pretty vested in .35 caliber.

A .357 combo is different because it (can) weighs less, and the handgun won't have the killing range the .44 handgun would. Basically the (potentially) lighter weight handgun would be limited to 50-60 yds, and the rifle could take it out farther. Compare that to a .44 combo where the handgun can be stretched closer to 100, and you can see that there is much more overlap when the carbine is good for 125-150 in both cases. Not for power, but just for the bullet drop at distance.

The .357 rifle could be better just because it would be easier to hit with at a distance, and higher sd/bc as well, at least over a .44 handgun. The .357 combo is also nice in your case because you already do a lot with the .38s, so ultra verstaility when making ammo.

I really don't like carrying two guns if it can be helped, so don't really care for combos except in special applications. On a utv though, the handgun might be easier to get at for targets of opportunity, though I don't know anything about your area, son wouldn't know.

If you shoot or feel differently about any of it, that's fine. Just offering my .02.

Yes I am vested in in 35 cal handguns.  Currently I own 6 but only two of them are 357 Magnum and I almost never shoot the 357 Mag cartridge in either of them.

I don't really see the 44 Mag handgun being a longer range handgun that 357 Magnum.  Either cartridge is capable of minute of deer-vitals at 100+ yards if the meat-ware behind the booger hook can do their part.  357 Mag still delivers over 60+% of it's muzzle energy at 100 yards when using medium to heavy for caliber bullets.  I think for an iron sight revolver the range limitation for deer hunting is more hunter's ability than the exterior or terminal ballistics of either of those cartridges.

As for sectional density there is almost no difference between the two.  Over the common weight range for each cartridge the sectional densities line up almost the same with the advantage going to 44 ever so slightly.

                                 

----------	0.357-----	----------	0.43------	----% Dif.
Weight	SD	Weight	SD	44 vs 357
125	0.1401	180	0.1391	-0.74%
158	0.1771	240	0.1854	4.70%
180	0.2018	265	0.2047	1.48%
200	0.2242	300	0.2318	3.39%

I would agree that snub nose .357mag sucks.

But long barreled .357magnum revolvers and rifles are pretty stout, for a pistol cartridge.

Like this 357?  It sucks so bad!!!!

Pretty gun too bad it is chambered is such a Suckie cartridge.  

No doubt. Anyone want this Piece of Crap??? 

I'll give ya threefiddy for it, so it doesn't keep taking up valuable space.

Nick

The .32s are on the small size for big game and self defense. The .40s, .44s, and .45s throw big lead bullets which increases costs and recoil over a .35. Also, for factory ammo .38/.357 are at a good price point, not as good as 9 mm but not as bad as .44 anything.

In other words, it isn't just the power range, but the capabilities you can achieve within that power range.

Versatility isn't as much of an issue if you have a large number of guns to choose from, but for someone with few guns it matters.

That brings up another point: .357s are in a wide range of platforms. High quality exotics like yours, 8 shot N frames, 6 shot L and K frames, 5 shot J frames, Pythons, Blackhawks, etc.

I lean to a .357 over a .38 simply because it can fire both. Even if I end up mostly shooting .38s.

You forgot derringers, single shot Contenders and auto loading pistols ie Coonan.


CD

Big game I would agree 32's are too small.  For self defense, 32 H&R Magnum, and more so, the 327 Magnum are solid performers in small CCW revolvers.  The 327 Magnum at its 40,000 psi chamber pressure is a noisy bugger but in a SP101 or J-frame size revolver you get 6-shots instead of five and proponents claim nearly 357 Magnum performance (performance on par with 110gr and 125gr 357 Mag load).  Certainly a better performer than most 38 Special loads.  From a carbine supposedly the 327 Magnum is a real spitfire.

Setting the diminutive 32 aside.  The other calibers mentioned have wider power ranges and you don't get that for free.  We can load any of them down to bunny fart levels since we are talking about revolver with no action to cycle but on the top end they are all more capable than 35 cal.  Yes you pay more, they use more lead/copper and more propellant but such is the trade off.  If you are a reloaded those cost difference become less dramatic.  We can load plinking 40S&W loads for basically the same price as plinking 38 specials.  44 and 45 for only a little bit more if I shoot ~180gr bullet in 44 or 45.

You last point is a prime driver that started this thread.  I am at a point where I will buy a revolver for a specific application (see setups laid out way up thread).  I am bless that I no longer constrained to one revolver to do it all.  I have multiple revolvers each selected for a task.  And where at one point in time I selected my Blackhawk in 357 Magnum for it versatility I now find that as I look to select at revolver for a specific task I never grab for a box of 357 Magnum to do that task with.  There is always a better option that I would rather use.  Hence my original premise that the 357 Magnum sucks...



But shooting cartridges short for the chamber in a revolver is nothing unique to 357 Magnum.  The majority of revolver on the market can be shot short. 327 Mag, 38 Special, 10mm Auto, 41 Mag, 44Mag, 45 ACP,  460S&W all have cartridges that are shorter and that can be safely fired in a revolver chamber for the longer listed here, and I have probably forget a couple.



This point (to both DonS's and Combat_Diver's posts)  will hold little water and I acknowledge that now.  It's more of a pet peeve.  The ubiquitous of the 357 Magnum has pushed out all other possible revolver cartridges/designs from the slowly dieing double action market (except the big bores).  The market is so in love with and ingrained with the 357 Magnum that none of the double action revolver manufactures make anything but 357 Magnum (hence the premature death of 327 Magnum, 9mm Federal and other cartridges).  The few non 357 Magnum cartridges chambered in medium or small framed double action revolver are just other cartridge jammed into a 357 Magnum sized revolver.    No one makes a 9mm sized revolver.  No one makes a 40S&W sized revolver.  No one make a 10mm Auto sized revolver.  No one makes a 45 ACP sized revolver.  (There are vanishingly few exceptions, Korth, Taurus...)  The frame and cylinder are dictated by 357 Magnum and anything other than 357 Mag only happens if the manufacture can do it with minimal changes to the 357 Magnum Revolver they already make.

A .357 can be loaded with a much lighter bullet hence much lower costs than a .44, while still being capable of being loaded up to cover most any task in most states. It has the right bandwidth. Sure, if you have a multitude of revolvers something else will probably be the best choice for a specific task.

Given the advances in the bullets used in 9mm, a 9mm revolver would offer a ballistic advantage for self defense over .38 but potentially in a smaller package. However, to take full advantage you would want to go to a shorter frame. But that would require a special frame size. Is there sufficient market to offer that?

My .44 carbine weighs 5 1/2 lb (I lied, it's not 6 lb), my lightest 44 revolver weighs 25 oz.
240 gr XTP's are what they both eat, so ammo interchanges.
I have "bottleneck cartridge rifles" in the truck that will add a WHOLE lot more than 100 yds range to what the two 44's will effectively do.  But for their intended use, I love the two 44's.

edit for weight correction.

I really like the 357 Magnum.   Granted, just about anything in a revolver isn't exactly tactical but nonetheless I like revolvers even if their use isn't as widespread as semi autos.

To me the 357 Magnum is mostly a social magnum (for two legged threats), I would say it's about 80-85% best suited for social work and the remaining 15-20% is okay for woods/hunting use.  Power wise it's no joke, it has plenty of power to accomplish all that most people would ever require out of a handgun, even for hunting.  Many still consider the 357 Mag to be very powerful, which I won't say it's "very" powerful, but it's potent for sure.

I also have .44 Magnum, which to me is 80-85% a woods/hunting cartridge and about 15-20% a social/self defense caliber and even then, not with full power loadings.  I can honestly say that for social work I'd rather have the 357 Mag than the 44 Mag despite being a good bit less powerful simply because it's not only lighter weight, but has bullets specifically designed for bipedal threats, most of the 44 stuff is more specifically for animals.

One thing I'm not a big fan of is the small J-frame type revolvers, they're just completely and totally eclipsed by small semi autos in every way, that's why I'm okay with my revovlers being relatively big.  The small revolvers have terrible capacity and the slowest reloading speed you could imagine, plus they're hard to shoot decently.  I like revolvers but they have to be full size or I'm not interested, but that's another story.

I guess why I think the 357 Mag doesn't suck is because as a reloader, I can load up a very economical and soft shooting 38 Special load that I'd use for plinking.  If someone is a novice to shooting, a 357 Mag revolver loaded with 38 Specials is a good platform to teach someone shooting basics, and they'll likely enjoy it.  For self defense I'm pretty sure nobody here is going to doubt the 357 Mags effectiveness and if you intend to go out in the woods and hunt with it, sure there's better choices like the 41 Mag and 44 Mag, etc. but the 357 Mag is perfectly suitable for deer sized game.  To me that makes it's quite versatile, which is a GOOD thing.

I may not have convinced you, but hopefully you can see where it's got value and a place among shooters.

My take on 357 Mag vs. 10mm is that the advantage goes to the 357 Magnum (we're talking revolvers here).

I had a S&W 610 maybe 10 years ago and it shot well, but what threw me off was having a 6 shot 10mm in a gun that's big enough to house the .44 Magnum, I felt jipped.  A smaller framed 10mm would make more sense than an N-frame 10mm....to me at least.  Now a GP100 sized 10mm revolver might be cool, I know they exist in the custom world.

Power wise the two are VERY VERY close to the same when you compare bullet weight vs. velocity.  I reload for both BTW so I know what they're capable of.

The 10mm has the advantage of using a larger caliber bullet, but that's about it.  Max bullet weights for both are about identical, I know there are 220gr 10mm and 220gr .358" cast bullets out there.  The 357 Mag has the advantage in the JHP department for sure simply because nearly all 10mm JHP bullets are designed around the .40 S&W.  Yes, some of those bullets are tougher than others, but when you're talking about maxing out either cartridge, the 10mm is pushing even the tough .400" JHP bullets faster than what they're designed for which causes excessive bullet fatigue which in turn causes the bullet to penetrate less and less the faster it's driven.

The .357 Mag actually has many JHP bullets that are specifically designed for 357 Mag velocity.  I guess a good way of saying it would be why would you take a JHP designed primarily with the 38 Special in mind and drive it to 357 Mag velocities?  That's kind of what you get with the 10mm, not exactly, but it's fairly good analogy.  Both will generate similar energy figures, but that's not the only criteria, as the 357 Mag will handily out penetrate the 10mm and that to me is a much more important factor than an energy number.

Anyone who says the 10mm or 357 Mag aren't suitable for deer sized game (and slightly larger) just don't know what they're talking about, but even still I think that due to bullet design and construction, the 357 Magnum has the upper hand over the 10mm Auto.

To me if I am going to carry a full size handgun for social activity (duty or CCW) it's not going to be a capacity limited 357 Magnum revolver.  For the same weight and similar size as a 4-inch Model 13 and I can have a loaded Glock 17 or similar semi-auto with three times the capacity and arguably equivalent terminal effectiveness in social situation.



As far as social application of a revolver the J-frame is the only place I see a revolver still holding any water.  I would much rather pocket carry and shoot a J-frame in 38 Special +P than most any other of the pocket guns.  5 round of 38 Special is IMHO better than 6-7 rounds of 380 ACP.  And more shootable than 9mm or 357 Mag in a <20 oz pocket gun.  Reloads and accuracy are all about putting the time in.  It takes more time and dedication to use a revolver as effectively.



But as a reloader you can save money by reloading nearly any of the cartridges we have discussed in the thread.  I can load plinking 40 S&W as cheap as 38 special and only $0.02-$0.04 more a round for 44 or 45.  You don't really need a 357 Magnum if all I want to shoot is soft 38 Special.  A 38 Special revolver is almost always cheaper than the comparable size 357 Magnum version.

But I agree, and have said it many time in this thread, that yes the 357 Magnum is versatile and can do a lot of things acceptably well.  But every time I reach into the gun cabinet and ammo locker for a sidearm to do anything I am currently doing (CCW, competition, woods-carry, hunting, etc) I never end up strapping on a revolver loaded with 357 Magnum.



No you have not convince me  to change my opinion that 357 Magnum SUCK.  Yes I can see someone choosing 357 Magnum because they want one revolver to do it all, but I am now convinced that is a less than optimal solution in most cases..  I do appreciate your well written and thought out contribution to the thread.  



I can under stand the jipped feeling.  It is a revolver chambering that has its very particular niche.  If you are already heavily invested in 40S&W/10mm then the S&W 610 fits nicely into your collection.  If you are a dedicated old school rim cartridge revolver shooter the 10mm revolver is a bastard.



I agree with you whole heartily here.  My pet peeve is guys that try to compare 10mm to 41 Mag or 44 Mag.  It is on par with 357 Mag not the other magnum revolver cartridges.



We could argue the nuances of 10mm vs 357 Mag for weeks.  I don't see a clear winner.  I would see a slight advantage for hunting in the 10mm's ability to push the heavier bullets a touch faster giving it the advantage there but its too fine to make much of it.  You only need one good 10mm bullet to match a plethora of good 357 Magnum bullets.  And there are several good 10mm hunting bullets to be had in both JHP and hard cast lead that are made for 10mm velocites.  So bullet construction is a wash to me.  I use Hornady XTP in both 357 Mag and 10mm Auto and have always gotten good performance.

10mm Auto 200gr Hornady XTP @ 1250fps.  First deer dropped in its tracks.  The other made it 10ft.  I have never recovered an XTP in a deer they have always gone clear through.

Clearly we have established that 357 magnum excels at versatility. If that's not appealing to you, we'll that's just like, your opinion man.

Excelling at versatility just means it SUCKs at a lot of different things!  

No, it means it's good for many things. It ay not be best for any specific task, but it works well for a wide range of tasks.

Well yeah, I guess, but when you say it like that it's not nearly as fun as, 357 Mag SUCKS because it is a jack-of-all trades and master of none!

I don't want a generalist I want a specialist.