Darn, me too. I love the .44. Not ranting about a .357 if done right. I still think it is lack of boolit weight and penetration with the .357. Even the .44 with wrong bullets can be a problem. I started with the 240 XTP and shot 3 deer with them. OK, they died but I could watch them until down at over 60 yards. But other places will have a deer out of sight in a jump. I back tracked the deer and found no blood. I recovered the bullets. Perfect mush rooms. But a deer in the thick will not be found. If you can't see deer fall just how do you find them? You need blood.
I stopped the fallacy right quick and went to the LBT 320 LNGC and had blood a blind man can follow. Then the Lee 310. You need two holes.
But long ago a survey was made with revolver hunters and those with the .357 lost 50% of deer hit and the .44 had 100% recovery. For me hunting starts at a 4. Bigger is even better.
If you never lose one with the .357, you do things right, are lucky or have not shot enough deer. I have over 180 deer kills with revolvers based on when I could use them. I could not in Ohio back then but it was legal in WV when I moved here. I never used a .357, woodchuck gun.
A nine, get real. Why do they hold so many rounds? It is because a BG needs multiple hits. He will still survive in many cases.
The old .38 cops used got cops killed after shooting a BG.
Deer never bother me, I do not get "buck fever". I shoot better at deer then paper. I was an archer and have something over 260 with bows and well over 560 with all. Deer control with free tags on farms and orchards showed what each gun did.
What do I trust more then a .357? An arrow or a RB from a flint lock.
Some use a 12 GA slug but say a .50 revolver is too much.