A good article on 357 mag

[badguybuster]

I really enjoyed this one!

https://alaskagunsite.wordpress.com/2017/01/01/the-case-for-the-357-magnum/

[Buck Shot]

Interesting material, thanks for posting.

[bisleyfan41]

Good article. Thanks!

[Dale53]

Enjoyed this - Thanks for sharing!

Dale53

[cwtebay]

Great article!

Sent from my Pixel 5 using Tapatalk

[megasupermagnum]

I don't like it. The author is talking as if it is settled science, when reality it's some goobledygook math made up of multiple peoples own made up formulas.

I love the 357 magnum, but that article is nothing but worthless text.

[Cosmic_Charlie]

I think the issue is with less than a perfect hit, how much more effective are the larger diameter calibers? Because in the real world, less than perfect hits are going to be the norm. I doubt many of us would choose a 3" .357 over a 4" 629 to strap on for an outing in brown bear country. But in a more realistic scenario, how many of us would choose a 3" .357 over a Glock 19 if we had business to attend to in East St. Louis? In my mind the .357 gets left on the table twice.

All that being said, my carry gun is a Model 60. But I don't live in griz country and I don't venture into urban war zones.

[Rick Hodges]

The guy seems pretty optimistic on his numbers for making his "mathematical" projected performance. 180gr. 357 mag at 1400 fps out of a 4" barrel? My guess is one would be hard pressed to see 1200 fps. from his 4" rig.

[JSnover]

Even the author admits shot placement is critical (I thought that was settled years ago) and cites examples to back up his argument. If a .357 or a .44 don't get it done it's not the bullet's fault.

[Buck Shot]

I suspect that in most cases, if a given shot (with a given shot placement) will do the trick with 44 Mag, it'll also do the trick with 357.

It's not like either one of them is particularly powerful compared to the average deer rifle.

Would I use either one of them on a brown bear? Not unless I was out of rocks to throw!

[JohnH]

I always find it odd that the 357 Mag is at once touted as a real man stopper out of a 4" at ~1300 fps barrel but it's next to worthless on deer out of a 20" barrel which gives it an extra ~450 fps, even though both animals for practical purposes weigh the same, have about the same bone weight, bone to body mass ratio. No one has ever said the black powder 44-40 loading was inadequate for deer and that 200 grain bullet at 1300 fps killed far more deer than the 30-30 is given credit for and Elmer's 44 Special load is for all practical purposes a ballistic twin of the 44-40. Yet somehow, the 357 from a rifle which will stand toe to toe with the 300 Black Out that we are told is the latest greatest AR platform hog and deer slayer is inadequate to the task.

[Daekar]

It's nice to see a bit of rationality about how much power is required to achieve good terminal performance. I'm not about to shoot Buffalo Bore in my S&W Model 60 for daily carry loads, I can't handle the recoil, but I would consider doing it for protecting against big critters when necessary and not feel undergunned.

357mag from a rifle is horribly underrated. The STARTING load of Lil'Gun with a 158gr RF out of my Henry is knocking on the door to 2000fps, and plenty accurate. Unless you have to make shots over 150 yards, you can rest assured that any deer sized target which gets away from you isn't the fault of the cartridge.

I actually have scope rings coming for that rifle so it can pull duty as a varmint rifle with 125gr boolits. If a critter is so far away that I can't hit it with one of those at 2000fps, then there's no hope for me to hit it with anything else either.

[rintinglen]

The guy seems pretty optimistic on his numbers for making his "mathematical" projected performance. 180gr. 357 mag at 1400 fps out of a 4" barrel? My guess is one would be hard pressed to see 1200 fps. from his 4" rig.

My opinion precisely.

Numbers are fun to play with, but I recall the old admonition, "figures lie and Liars figure." There are several assumptions made that are hogwash. Don't equate a bear with an inch or more of lard inside his thick, hairy hide, covering some solid muscles and thick bones with ballistic Jell-O. It simply doesn't match. Likewise, some of the numbers suggested are pretty speculative as far as velocity goes. My experience is that you would be pretty hard pressed to get 1200 fps with a 180 out of a 6" 357, save maybe a Redhawk overloaded to the gills. Not a load I'd care for in my Model 60, nor for that matter Model 66. And Marshall and Sanow's work can be accurately described as "at best, statistically flawed, at worst, pure invention." Then the argument shifts to placement over everything. I can't dispute that, but I can question the ability of most of us not named Miculek to assure consistent hits. Oh, but wait, he's a better shot who can assure his placement is perfect. Well, then I suppose one can argue that since Grizzlies have been taken with .22 LR's, that's all you need. Bologna, as Oscar Meyer would have it.

Now I don't say that I would feel utterly naked with a .357, but it would not have a 3 inch barrel. it would not be a small frame, and would not be my first choice. At the end of the day, there is no substitute for displacement, all else being equal.

I do fully concur with the 30-06 being ample for anything in North America that hasn't escaped from a zoo. A 180 grain bullet of modern design at 2700 Fps will put paid to just about anything that you shoot with it.

[megasupermagnum]

The guy seems pretty optimistic on his numbers for making his "mathematical" projected performance. 180gr. 357 mag at 1400 fps out of a 4" barrel? My guess is one would be hard pressed to see 1200 fps. from his 4" rig.

Not at all. Infact, you don't even need to hotrod it to get there. You don't even need to handload it. Buffalo Bore's 180gr cast round says it will do 1375 fps from a 4" barrel. That's real world tested, BB doesn't lie. There's lots of load data out there that does in the 1350 fps range. The old 45,000 CUP and European CIP stuff does even faster.

[rintinglen]

Neither Lyman No. 50 nor Speer # 13 lists any load that that will break 1225 fps with a 180 in either a 4 or 6 inch revolver. A 10 inch Contender will do it. And the 10 inch test barrel used by Hodgdon will do it. Alliant does list a max load of 2400 at 1300 from a 5.6" barrel. Western Lists a few loads that do so from a 6" barrel. Shooters World does not appear to list 180 grain .357 data. Vitavouri lists loads that break 1200, but from a 7 inch barrel. 1400 fps appears to be delusional, at least from factory pressure tested data.

Buffalo Bore's non-canister, secret loads may well be all that, but I have become very skeptical of velocity claims by manufacturers.

[robertbank]

The largest Grizzly on record was shot by a 5' lady with a single shot .22LR rifle. One shot in the ear did the bear in. That saud, I wiould not suggest to anyone the .22LR is adequate bear protection.

Interesting read ti be sure but beyond shot placement, the rest if the article is one guys opinion. Not sure the math that would appear to be constructed to prove his position, just saying.

U carry a GP-100 in .357Mag or the same model in 10MM. I just can't handle the .44mag from a weight or recoil point of view hence the other two calibers. Seems to me you have to carry what you can shoot well and bigger is always better IF you can shoot it well.

Take Care

Bob.

[sixshot]

Shot placement is #1, penetration is #2, if it has to be from a 357 magnum then so be it. Wouldn't be my first choice on big bears but hits count a lot more than misses last time I looked. Use the biggest gun you can handle.

Dick

[Murphy]

The Grand 357 Magnum.

Just my 2¢ worth of input. For my use, a 125 Grain JHP, a 150-158 Grain cast boolit, and a heavy Keith boolit out of a 4-6" barrel should handle all my needs at normal velocities for those weights. If it won't handle the task at hand? I need more gun, not hotter loads.

Math is an awesome thing. Also, I totally suck at math. That being said, over the decades I've read so many different stopping power charts based on math I quit bothering with them.

Murphy

[gwpercle]

Not enough load data listed ... you going to write about the 357 Magnum ... show me some loads !
Gary

[Tar Heel]

The calculations indicated in the article are incorrect. My math doesn't jive with his math. Also if you average something to death or come up with a quotient that pushes everything into the same group, one could then state that "mathematically" a 22LR has the same "stopping power" of a .30-06 cartridge.

While I do not doubt the veracity and effectiveness of a well placed shot as alluded to, that (of course) was not in the calculation for PEN or the other arbitrary terms. To "prove" that a 180gr .357 bullet has the same penetration and therefore the same effectiveness as a 240gr 44 caliber bullet is a proof ad nauseum and a "reduction to zero."

His indicated answer for the 357 bullet was calculated with a .400 caliber instead of with a more "correct" .350 caliber. When .350 is substituted in his specified formula, the end result is lower than the stated result. Regardless, the "mathematical proof" is simply an argument to average. His target velocity is also the muzzle velocity. Another computational error intended to equalize the results.

As always, shot placement is the most critical variable in a lethal encounter with a critter intent on doing you harm. A .30-06 bullet through the haunch would only serve to aggravate an already aggravated bear. A 357 slug or a 44 slug through the brain pan or the spine will accomplish the desired result.

Granted - some horsepower is requisite and I do not doubt a .357 is capable; but his formula however which "proves" this point is in doubt.
I would think a hard cast & heavy .357 bullet at the highest allowable velocity would get the job done. The closer the shot, the more effective the terminal ballistics.

Would I use a .357 Mag? Probably not. My intuition would have me wearing a 44 Mag with a heavy SSK bullet.

[dverna]

What I found interesting was that a professional guide/hunter decided the .357 was the best choice for him and his daughter.

Maybe the guy is a fool...I do not know anything about him.

Yet, he shot more big bears than I will ever see.

Non-issue for me anyway. I must be 2000+ miles from Boo-Boo’s that size.

[Tar Heel]

Non-issue for me anyway. I must be 2000+ miles from Boo-Boo’s that size.

You have "Da Bears" just a few hundred miles away! :-)

[charlie b]

Recall that the guide who wrote the article killed a Grizzly (at very close range) with 7 shots from his short barrel 9mm (also using Buffalo Bore ammunition).

His math might be a bit off, but, the message is pretty clear. Have enough penetration to get through to the CNS. From what I can see of his math there is not a huge difference in penetration between the .44 and .357. If a .357 penetrates, eg, 28" in a gel block and a .44 goes 32" is one really that much better than the other? If you can place your .357 shots into a 4" group but can't keep the .44's on a 10" plate, does that make a difference? Those two questions are really the key to the article.

For those of you who can shoot a .44mag (or larger) with decent accuracy, then please do carry one. For those of us who cannot, then a lesser caliber is better than missing the target.

For those who did not care to look, this is the data from Buffalo Bore bullets.

➤ 3-inch S&W J Frame

a. Item 19A/20-180gr. Hard cast LFN = 1302 fps
b. Item 19B/20-170gr. JHC (jacketed hollow cavity) = 1299 fps
c. Item 19C/20-158gr. Jacketed Hollow Point = 1398 fps
d. Item 19D/20-125gr. Jacketed Hollow Point = 1476 fps

➤ 4-inch S&W L frame Mt. Gun

a. Item 19A/20-180gr. Hard cast LFN = 1375 fps
b. Item 19B/20-170gr JHC = 1411 fps
c. Item 19C/20-158gr. Jacketed Hollow Point = 1485 fps
d. Item 19D/20-125gr. Jacketed Hollow Point = 1603 fps

➤ 5-inch S&W model 27

a. Item 19A/20-180gr. Hard Cast =1398 fps
b. Item 19B/20-170gr. JHC = 1380 fps
c. Item 19C/20-158gr. Jacketed Hollow Point = 1457 fps
d. Item 19D/20-125gr. Jacketed Hollow Point = 1543 fps

➤ 6-inch Ruger GP 100

a. Item 19D/20-125gr. Jacketed Hollow Point = 1707 fps

➤ 18.5-inch Marlin 1894

a. Item 19A/20-180gr. Hard Cast = 1851 fps
b. Item 19B/20-170gr. JHC = 1860 fps
c. Item 19C/20-158gr. Jacketed Hollow Point = 2153 fps
d. Item 19D/20-125gr. Jacketed Hollow Point = 2298 fps

[Daekar]

Based on my own experience with canister powder in 357, I would totally believe the BB claims for velocity with that 180gr bullet. Not that I have any interest in that much power out of my J-frame, lol. Ouch. Guess it would be better than being eaten, though I would rather get a Redhawk even with the same barrel length for those kind of loads.

[dverna]

Charlie b,

I agree with you and your points are worth noting. Use as powerful a caliber as you can shoot accurately and quickly. For many folks (like me), that leaves a lot of excellent calibers out of contention. I am not loading for bear but I use the same criteria for defensive carry.

On a large animal, penetration would seem the primary requirement. I suspect those 180 gr Hard Cast BB bullets achieve good penetration...and would pencil through a deer. Shooting deer would be better served with a different bullet. Different needs need different solutions.

I got criticized on another thread for putting a 9mm barrel in my Glock 22 and using 9mm for self defense. After shooting thousands of rounds, it was apparent I shot the 9mm more accurately and faster. It may be the wrong decision theoretically, but I value good hits and quicker hits more than 50-75 ft-lb of energy.

Short story. I know a fellow who hunts black bears with dogs with a bunch of others. The dogs had cornered a bear and the guy went up to shoot the bear with his .357. He wanted to impress the ladies, so instead of standing back 15 yards and taking a well aimed shot, he struts up to within feet to try and deliver a head shot.
For some reason he only had two rounds in the gun (not the brightest bulb on the string) , neither round hit a vital spot and he got tore up after wounding the bear. So, he blames the gun (instead of his stupidity) and goes out and buys a .500...but it kicks so hard he cannot hit the south end of a north bound elephant. He had read something from an internet expert that the .500 was good and proper bear medicine.

[derek45]

https://i.imgur.com/CxMxBwc.jpg

https://i.imgur.com/uyZ3UoW.jpg


https://i.imgur.com/O0yV3sI.jpg

https://i.imgur.com/3O1yF38.jpg

[robertbank]

Derek45 what bullet is the third from the left?

Take Care

Bob

[derek45]

Derek45 what bullet is the third from the left?

Take Care

Bob

From left to right.

SNS 130gr, MBC 158gr, LEE158gr RNFP, NOE 360-176-SWC Keith

here's another pic of the LEE 158


https://i.imgur.com/Gvb4GPP.jpg

https://i.imgur.com/lQ2tHlP.jpg

[Shawlerbrook]

Great article. Got my Cast Performance 180’s and Lil Gun for my GP100 and it will be with me on my next Alaska adventure.

[358429]

Fun to read, thank you for sharing. I enjoyed the article except for the fuzzy math/perhaps delusional thinking. I see it as foolish thinking to believe a 357 mag is as effective as a 44 mag. If it works it works, does not make it something it is not.

That being said I shoot and carry a 20 oz. 357 snub. It is not easy to shoot like 9mm. A gun in the hand sure is a better outcome than your head in a bears mouth that's for sure.

I went shooting my 9mm on thursday and can hit the paper plate 20 times in 5 seconds at 8 yards without reloading.

Thats not possible for me with any revolver. The 357 snub chronographed almost 1100 ft/sec with 172 grain semiwadcutters, barrel 2.25". Average maybe 1075? Low 1059, high 1103. Recoil is stout and the fireball entertained me.

Thats not possible for me with any 9mm autopistol I own.

When I camp in the mountains the revolver goes in the sleeping bag with me, in a small safariland retention holster. I don't trust the cz to function inside a sleeping bag. It's 2021 where are the phazers in the 40 watt range? [emoji3]

Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk

[charlie b]

40Watt? That's like carrying a rimfire :) Gotta have at least 500Watts :) The real fun is when you start shooting 1million watt lasers :) That was a couple decades ago for me.

[358429]

https://i.imgur.com/CxMxBwc.jpg

https://i.imgur.com/uyZ3UoW.jpg


https://i.imgur.com/O0yV3sI.jpg

https://i.imgur.com/3O1yF38.jpgFantastic pictures!

Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk

[358429]

40Watt? That's like carrying a rimfire :) Gotta have at least 500Watts :) The real fun is when you start shooting 1million watt lasers :) That was a couple decades ago for me.0.5 watts will pop balloons, light matches, make a visible dot outdoors on a bright day, and make a green lightsaber visible for miles at night. I'll be happy with 40 Watts.

A Rimfire in your fist beats a fishing pole any day of the week[emoji3]

We all know 500 watts recoils too much anyways[emoji39]



Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk

[charlie b]

0.5 watts will pop balloons, light matches, make a visible dot outdoors on a bright day, and make a green lightsaber visible for miles at night. I'll be happy with 40 Watts.

A Rimfire in your fist beats a fishing pole any day of the week[emoji3]

We all know 500 watts recoils too much anyways[emoji39]



Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk

LOL

We used 75W to cut sheet wood in our home business. 1kW is used in industry to cut sheet steel. Big stuff is for harder targets at longer ranges, sometimes very long ranges.

No recoil. Just big optics to lug around :) More range means bigger output aperture.

[358429]

LOL

We used 75W to cut sheet wood in our home business. 1kW is used in industry to cut sheet steel. Big stuff is for harder targets at longer ranges, sometimes very long ranges.

No recoil. Just big optics to lug around :) More range means bigger output aperture.How many watts for Bears?[emoji39]

Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk

[Jtarm]

That’s interesting, because just yesterday I read this article actually penned by Shoemaker in “Rifle” magazine, which says his guide rifle of three decades was a… .458 magnum.

https://www.riflemagazine.com/big-bores-and-brown-bears.

I’m gonna call BS on the article. Not on the story of Shoemaker dropping bear with his .357, but the math purporting it’s superior to the .44. While I have tremendous respect for Veral Smith, permanent crush cavity of a non-expanding handgun bullet is the meplat size, period.

IMO, if Shoemaker carried a .357, it was as a weapon of last resort, as in the bear was on top of him where a bullet in the brain or spine could save his life. Not with any visions of taking on a charging bear with it, though it obviously worked.

[Jtarm]

The guy seems pretty optimistic on his numbers for making his "mathematical" projected performance. 180gr. 357 mag at 1400 fps out of a 4" barrel? My guess is one would be hard pressed to see 1200 fps. from his 4" rig.

Yup.

Plus he’s comparing a .44 special to a scorching-hot .357 round old using a 180-grain bullet. An equivalent .44 bullet would weigh 300 grains.

The “formula” may be similar to one developed by Jeff Cooper, but I’m pretty sure Cooper would’ve said an equation never won a gunfight or stopped a charging bear.

[Char-Gar]

I am always mindful that an author can sell copy by taking a position that is contrary to what some folks think. Those who agree and those who disagree with certainly read it. It is a favorite gunwriters ploy and I factor that into every article.

I have never seen a big brown bear outside of a zoo and it is not likely I every will. So, any thinking I might have on what handgun is good to carry when hunting such critters is just a SWAG. That said, there are a couple of things I know on the subject at hand.

1. The 357 Mag round is a great round for a Texas outdoorsman.

2. In the past decades there has been a push to make bigger and bigger handguns that folks think are somehow connected to their testicles. Folks shoot these hand cannons and many damage themselves in the process. I have seen John Taffin's X-Rays of his hand and wrist. Not pretty! Folks seek to justify their need for these big blasters and frankly I don't buy most of their reasons.

[Tar Heel]

1. The 357 Mag round is a great round for a Texas outdoorsman.

Being from Texas I think you mean the 35.7mm Mag round? :kidding:

[Daekar]

Being from Texas I think you mean the 35.7mm Mag round? :kidding:

That's the 35.7mm Texas Magnum. :kidding:

Jokes aside, he has a point. Controversial copy does get clicks and boosted engagement, and synthetic comparisons aside the 357mag IS a proven beast, especially when loaded to top pressure spec and used in a slightly longer barrel.

[robertbank]

https://youtube.com/shorts/oYAwiBU3OiQ?feature=share

From the land of rain and snow.

Take Care

Bob

[Jtarm]

Being from Texas I think you mean the 35.7mm Mag round? :kidding:

That would be my choice for a charging Kodak.

[Daekar]

That would be my choice for a charging Kodak.

This is the most underrated post I have seen in a long time.

[yeahbub]

In my search for load data to bring the .357 back to original performance, rather than the recent reduction to 35 KPSI SAAMI standard required for the lighter revolvers being produced, I ran across an article that was informative. Others might be interested as well: https://leverguns.com/articles/paco/357_magnum_and_the_literature.htm.

[cwtebay]

That would be my choice for a charging Kodak.Hahaha! You're right! Those photography folk can be tough to stop!

Sent from my Pixel 5 using Tapatalk

[Tar Heel]

A
Hahaha! You're right! Those photography folk can be tough to stop.

You use a Canon to stop them

[1hole]

If a bear of any size or color were charging my rosey red rear I would take the bear seriously. I'm a practical man, I'd shoot back with whatever I had at hand but my desired defence weapon would be a tripod mounted 12 ga., double barreled autoloader emplaced in a head high ring of sandbags and fed by twin ammo belts, each belt rising from its own pallet load of OO buckshot.

I believe those who argue for any handgun ammo in a rifle miss the point of other's disagreement. Handgun ammo is obviously enough power for anything when everything works perfectly but no one can seriously say a conventional handgun round has the killing equal of any moderate rifle round.

My beloved 6" Md 29 .44 mag is simply not ballastically equal to my 335/.35 Rem in range, field accuracy, trajectory or terminal effect and I know it. Ammo and rifles chambered for the .357/.44 mag and rifle rounds cost about the same while the bulk and weight that must be carried are the nearly same as a .30-30/.35 Rem.

Other than a fad novelty for it, why in the world would anyone consider buying and carrying a puny cartridge rifle in the field when such a rifle combo offers NO BALLISTIC ADVANTAGE over the parent handgun? We are reloaders; if the kick of a .30-30 is too much why not put a recoil pad on the rifle and download the ammo to whatever feels good?

[Jtarm]

In my search for load data to bring the .357 back to original performance, rather than the recent reduction to 35 KPSI SAAMI standard required for the lighter revolvers being produced, I ran across an article that was informative. Others might be interested as well: https://leverguns.com/articles/paco/357_magnum_and_the_literature.htm.

I don’t think it was all that recent. Early or mid-90s, maybe?

[Jtarm]

A

You use a Canon to stop them

Is “Polaroid” a white bear with an itchy butt?

[charlie b]

And paco seemed to quote a bunch of loads published by Lee. Keep in mind that Lee did not come up with any of that data on his own. He simply gathered data from all the powder and bullet mfg's and combined it all into a set of data that he could include with his dies (and publish in his book). In some cases this can be misleading because some data may be cup and some psi depending on where it came from.

This has a bearing here when looking at older data that is based on the CUP measurements. Some of those loads have been shown to be over pressure when measured with modern equipment.

FWIW, I did not read the original article as saying the .357 was more powerful or penetrated more than a similarly loaded .44mag. Only that it was not that much less when considering the target animal and a hit on the CNS. You can make the same kind of comparisons with the 10mm. When comparing I like to go to the same kind of source. In this case a look at the Buffalo Bore Outdoorsman ammo for each of the pistols will show the differences in bullet weights and velocities.

And, yes, Shoemaker does publish that he carries rifles when guiding hunts. He also carries pistols when out fishing, which is how he ended up killing a Grizzly with his little 9mm. So, I'll give him credit with having more experience than many with dispatching the big bears.

[JSnover]

Other than a fad novelty for it, why in the world would anyone consider buying and carrying a puny cartridge rifle in the field when such a rifle combo offers NO BALLISTIC ADVANTAGE over the parent handgun? We are reloaders; if the kick of a .30-30 is too much why not put a recoil pad on the rifle and download the ammo to whatever feels good?

Why not? Ive hunted deer with an 1894 in .357 magnum because I knew it was adequate and there is a measurable advantage over a handgun. I also know a handful of shooters who think a 357 can be "loaded up to a 30-30". I disagree but a downloaded 30-30 actually might be similar to a hot .357 by the time recoil gets 'comfy.'

[BunkTheory]

there be some serious discrepency in that data,,, velocity is a serious joke on those 125 grain jecketed slugs....

one of those cases of "strange, why is the head stamp on my cartridge case SMEARING when fired?"

[yeahbub]

Quite right, Jtarm, the article was written a good while ago, but even then, the .357 ammo was being downgraded from its 1935 performance and pressure levels. A lot of old guns are out there and the makers were bringing out smaller/lighter/handier revolvers, I presume for the CCW folks who might prefer a revolver. My main use is in lever-actions which will readily withstand ammo loaded to the old data which is in the article. What is "recent" is SAAMI's reduction of .357 mag operating pressures to 35kpsi.

[sniper]

:bigsmyl2: My favorite cartridge! It will get the job done !

[Daekar]

Other than a fad novelty for it, why in the world would anyone consider buying and carrying a puny cartridge rifle in the field when such a rifle combo offers NO BALLISTIC ADVANTAGE over the parent handgun? We are reloaders; if the kick of a .30-30 is too much why not put a recoil pad on the rifle and download the ammo to whatever feels good?

Efficiency. Takes less powder to run the cartridge.
Carbide dies. Ain't nobody got time for unnecessary lube.
Brass life. 357mag brass seems to last forever.
Recoil. A 30-30 loaded to the same energy with the same weight boolit will usually have more powder mass and therefore more recoil.
Terminal performance. While a 357 rifle is far more performant than a handgun, it generally does not make a gelatinous mess of the internals of a living target like full power rifles do. If you care about the meat, that can make a big difference.

If you don't need the higher velocity, why would you incur the higher cost and other disadvantages of a larger, usually bottlenecked, cartridge?

EDIT: If we accept the logic you suggest at face value, we would be left questioning why 22LR rifles exist. I think that alone makes it clear that the required analysis is more complex than "Use a powerful cartridge if you're bothering to take a rifle," especially because 357 magnum is more powerful than some beloved rifle cartridges which were considered effective at the turn of the 20th century. Remember, deer don't wear body armor...

[AndyC]

I gave up trying to read that.

It infuriates my brain trying to read a column 8 words wide and a million lines tall - the formatting just kills me.

[megasupermagnum]

There's people that swear up and down that a 44 special (normal 44 special, not hot rodded), is more effective than a 357 magnum, just because it is bigger. Now in a rifle, a 357 magnum really isn't that far off from a 30-30. From what I've seen of actual numbers, a 30-30 you are generally looking at 1900-2000 fps for a 170 gr. A 357 magnum in a rifle you are around 1900 fps for a 158gr and 1800 fps for a 180 gr. You can get more from each round if you try, but in general, they are fairly comparable.

Plus there is always those who always say bigger is better, even at a distinct disadvantage, which this is not one of those cases.

[robertbank]

There's people that swear up and down that a 44 special (normal 44 special, not hot rodded), is more effective than a 357 magnum, just because it is bigger. Now in a rifle, a 357 magnum really isn't that far off from a 30-30. From what I've seen of actual numbers, a 30-30 you are generally looking at 1900-2000 fps for a 170 gr. A 357 magnum in a rifle you are around 1900 fps for a 158gr and 1800 fps for a 180 gr. You can get more from each round if you try, but in general, they are fairly comparable.

Plus there is always those who always say bigger is better, even at a distinct disadvantage, which this is not one of those cases.

Good point.

Out of my long gone Rossi .357mag:

14gr of Alliant 2400 under a Lyman 358156 GC155 gr LSWC gave me an average of 1764 FPS.

Out of my Marlin 336 30-30 using:

25 gr of WC735. a surplus powder, under the Lyman 31041 170gr bullet gave me 1974 FPS on average.

35gr of H4831 under the same bullet gave me 1830fps on average

There is not much difference in performance. The WC735 powder is no longer available ip here. It was the most accurate load I found in the 30-30. The 2400 load was the second most accurate load out of the Rossi.

Take Care

Bob

[Paul105]

I chronoed the Buffalo Bore 180gr .357 at 1,894 fps from my 16" Rossi carbine (Labradar muzzle at 60 def f)

FWIW,

Paul