Why did the 357 Maximum flop in a revolver?

[2ndAmendmentNut]

I have heard that one reason it flopped was because of flame cutting. However the 460 S&W can put out similar velocities to the 357 Max all while burning more powder and pushing heavier bullets, and I have not heard of any flame cutting problems. So why did this round flop?

[Dframe]

Because Ruger panic'd and stopped production. The frame cutting was proven to be mostly superficial, as the cut widened a bit its depth was mitigated to the point where it didn't become appreciably deeper. Ruger was in full "Lawyer Panic" mode as they often seem to be.

[2ndAmendmentNut]

Yes but Dan Wesson also had issues with the 357 Max. Oh and is it “Flame” or “Frame” cutting? Both seem to make sense but which one is correct?

[44man]

I heard the S&W has an insert in the frame that can be replaced. Does anyone know for sure?

[dubber123]

I heard the S&W has an insert in the frame that can be replaced. Does anyone know for sure?

Pretty sure they do. A little folded over piece of stainless sheet metal I believe. I think they have them on alot of their "not steel frame" revolvers now too.

[S.R.Custom]

Actually, the problem with the .357 Maximum was guys shooting light bullets with heaping spoonfulls of hairy hot ball powder.

And Ruger's response wasn't so much a panic as it was a business decision. Their thinking at the time was "yeah, there's a bit of a problem, and in addition to longer frames and cylinders we now have to use special steel in the frames and barrels, too? Forget it. Not enough demand." (Yes, Ruger does confiscate Maximums sent to them for work, But as far as I know, there never was an actual published recall. )

The most effective way to deal with top strap cutting is to put a chamfer on the front edge of the cylinder. This permits the escaping gas to disperse so it's not the cutting knife-edge of gas it otherwise would be.

[2ndAmendmentNut]

I would just love it if revolvers started to be chambered in 357 Max again.

[softpoint]

BF could make them in that caliber pretty easy, as they already have a rev. with a cylinder opening long enough., as could Smith on the X frame, that would be kinda overkill though.:coffee:

[9.3X62AL]

A lever rifle chambered in 357 Maximum would be kinda cool, too.

If Ruger (or anyone else) confiscated my revolver, a lively and spirited exchange would ensue forthwith. You gotta be kidding--a move like that would be ludicrous--not to mention, ILLEGAL.

Of course, anytime you let lawyers set policy--public or private--you're asking for trouble. One need look no further than State and Federal legislatures for confirmation of that belief.

[jhrosier]

I had .357 Maxi in a Savage M24, a TC contender carbine, and an H&R handi rifle.
Still have the H&R and intend to try it with BP when I get the chance.
The Savage was almost as handy as a concrete fence post and strung the shots badly as it heated up.
The TC had a folding stock and felt like getting hit in the cheak with the Savage every time it went off.
The H&R is a cute and handy little gun. I last fired it with a .357 case full of black powder and it was a rack of fun to shoot and reasonably accurate at 25 yards.

I also have a NIB Ruger SRM revolver in .357 maxi and it will probably remain unfired.

A much larger problem with revolvers in .357 Maxi, than the gas cutting of the frame was severe erosion of the barrel forcing cone. The DW revolvers were shipped with two barrel liners and a coupon for a third one. They were said to be excellent revolvers when fired with an appropriate heavy bullet and very popular among the silhouette shooters of the day. I've never been a fan of DWs so I didn't get one in 357 maxi.

Jack

[2ndAmendmentNut]

Does anyone here own a 357 Max revolver that has only ever had 180gr+ loads in it? If so what does the forcing cone and top strap look like?

[exile]

I just checked out "Big Bore Sixguns" by John Taffin. In the chapter on the .357 maximum, he said that he never fired light bullets in his and it is just fine, no flame cutting at all I believe. I would like to have a Thompson Contender in that caliber myself, although I have no experience with it.

exile

[mtnbkr]

Speaking of non-revolver platforms for the 357max, I briefly toyed with the idea of converting my Win 94 Trapper 357mag to Max. It looked doable, but the gun never shot mag loads to my satisfaction. I ended up selling it for what I paid and never looked back.

Chris

[MT Gianni]

Bob Milek was the big push behind the "it'll cut your gun in half" movement. A well respected gun writer who was instrumental in developing the "herret" cartriges, I wondered if he felt threatened that only single shot pistols should go really fast. Many revolvers shooting light bullets will show a slight flame cut.

[S.R.Custom]

Does anyone here own a 357 Max revolver that has only ever had 180gr+ loads in it? If so what does the forcing cone and top strap look like?

I've got one that's been converted to .445SM, and it's seen only 300 gr. bullets. After 500 rounds, the shoulder is till sharp and has no sign of cutting.

Of course, I should probably also say that it's also got a chamfer on the front of the cylinder, and has only seen single base powders, too.

[9.3X62AL]

Bob Milek was the big push behind the "it'll cut your gun in half" movement. A well respected gun writer who was instrumental in developing the "herret" cartriges, I wondered if he felt threatened that only single shot pistols should go really fast. Many revolvers shooting light bullets will show a slight flame cut.

A-yup, true fact. When the L-frame S&Ws appeared in the early 1980's, so did FBI's love affair with 125 grain JHP bullets marching out at 1450 FPS from 4" barrels. Great rounds--they'll fold a mastodon with their impact and set off earthquakes near fault zones with their report. They will also initiate flame-cutting on top straps and erosion of forcing cones--although not to an extent that will significantly shorten service life.

When my agency added the 357 Magnum to its caliber selections in 1991, the FBI/125 grain JHP was the round authorized. Deputies started noticing the flame-cuts shortly thereafter, and S&W advised that the wear pattern would "stabilize" (their word) after about 500 rounds. That seemed to be the case. We changed out the 125 grainers to 158 grain JHPs after testing showed the FBI 125s to be a bit too much of a good thing--they could defeat our issued body armor. The 158 grainers didn't and don't flame-cut top straps--although another variable rears its head in the equation.

Our 158 grain load--and most commercial 357 Magnum loadings--now subscribe to a SAAMI pressure standard of ~36K PSI. Formerly, the 357 Magnum's SAAMI standard ran 42K PSI or thereabouts. It is surmised that the pressure standard was lowered in 357 Mag to enable the S&W J-frame 357s to survive a bit longer than a 264 Magnum chamber throat, to lengthen the service lives of K-frame 357s already in the field, and in 41 and 44 Magnum for the benefit of older-series Models 57 and 29 variants that did not take kindly to full-time full-tilt cartridges. L-frame and N-frame 357s can soak up full-tilt 357s with aplomb, as can the near-indestructible Rugers--even the SP-101. Colt Pythons and Troopers (both I-frame and J-frame variants) aren't strained by full-potential 357 loads, either. Curiously, even using the 125 grain FBI loads--I can't recall any flame-cutting on my Colt or Ruger revolvers. One in particular comes to mind, a J-frame Trooper x 6" that I shot the living daylights out of with some healthy handloads and the FBI fodder. Zero. Zilch. Nada. Go figure.

[missionary5155]

Good Afternoon
If I remember a bit of the history of the time the STEEL shooters (I was one) were the main market for the heavy thumpers. The 357 Max (Super Mag) was still a minimal ram smasher (low body hits not reliable) so it offered little advantage over the 41 & 44 (.43) magnum revolvers. My personal 41 Dan has long enough cylinders the boolit can be crimped long seated and gives that extra case capacity so I can launch 220+ grain bolits at a power factor 357 Max cannot come close to.
The 357 Max is a fine cartridge BUT it just cannot compete against larger diameter bores. The 375 SM WAS areal improvement in the power factor. A 255 grainer at 1400 fps with flat smash 50 lb rams even hit low in the leg. The 41 or 44 SM"s can drive the same & heavier boolits even faster so why have a small bore SM when the same $ will get you a HARD HITTER large bore. Big holes are always better.... ask any tank gunner.

[Blammer]

The maximium length a Win 94 in 357 mag can be modified to fit, is the 360 Dan Wesson case.

I know because I did it to mine. :)

[S.R.Custom]

The maximium length a Win 94 in 357 mag can be modified to fit, is the 360 Dan Wesson case...

What was the limiting factor? Seems to me that a rifle that came chambered for cartridges as long as the 30-30 could do a lot better than that...

[mtnbkr]

It seems I remember someone converting their 94 to 357max. Maybe Paco Kelly? I dunno, it's been several years since I looked at it.

Chris

[MT Gianni]

Paco Kelly cited problems converting a 92 and a 94 with the cartrige being either too long or too short for the carrier.

[45r]

The 357 max is said to be finicky compared to the 357 mag.Long straight walled cartridges don't burn quite as well as a bottlenecked one.The max is great in the contender when a load it likes is found.I might have my new 12 inch 357 mag barrel rechambered later but it shoots well with Vitt N-110 but for some reason it hasn't been consistant with 296 and that powder usually is the most accurate powder in my S&W.The long forcing cone in the contender barrels don't help.I think I might need to up the charge a little to get the 296 to burn better.If that don't work Lil-gun and IMR 4227 might do as well as the Vitt powder.I had a chance to buy a new Ruger 357 max at an estate auction once and have regretted it ever since.I've always preferred the 45 colt but have been playing with the 357 mag lately in the contender.Like the low recoil and 1 inch groups at 50 yards are easy with the Vitt load.I wonder if the reason is that the 357 mag is so good that the max had a tuff act to follow.

[cbrick]

The Maxi got a bad rap from a lack of understanding proper loading. If it was Milek or not I don't know. The original intent of the maxi was to drive heavy for caliber bullets as fast as standard weight bullets in the mag. It was not to drive light weight bullets ultra fast and this is where part of the problem was.

Here is a good article by Glen fryxell on the Maxi:

The 357 Maxi (http://www.lasc.us/Fryxell357Max.htm)

Rick

[dale2242]

A good friend shot IHMSA with a DWA 357 Max. and cast boolits. If memory serves he shot Lyman 358315 with 4227. Rams fell easily even with a marginal hits. Heavier bullets is the answer in the 357 Max. 180gr. minimum IMHO.----dale

[Coogs]

Not to beat a dead horse here because this thread is only 6 1/2 years old. but being a new member I felt compelled to post. The biggest problem with the Max was the erosion of the forcing cone. This was primarily caused with light bullets on top of fast burning powders driven at mach speeds. The original forcing cone was 5 degrees and at some point Ruger changed it to 11 degrees which helped. The top strop cutting is a non issue. Totally abates after a 1000 rds or so. I personally stick with 180, 200 and I think I even have a 210 cast w/check that I put on top of 4227. Ruger produced 16,314 completed guns and/or serialized frames. They DID "scrap" over 5000 of these. The Ruger Max is a hoot to shoot! And if you stay with the big and slow formula, it will give you a lifetime of pleasure. JMHO, Coogs.

[dtknowles]

I love mine, Dan Wesson. Not a flop, just not a big commercial success. The gun and cartridge is excellent.

Tim

[str8wal]

Because uber-conservative Ruger over-reacted and pulled it.

[Outpost75]

A lever rifle chambered in 357 Maximum would be kinda cool, too.

If Ruger (or anyone else) confiscated my revolver, a lively and spirited exchange would ensue forthwith. You gotta be kidding--a move like that would be ludicrous--not to mention, ILLEGAL.

Of course, anytime you let lawyers set policy--public or private--you're asking for trouble. One need look no further than State and Federal legislatures for confirmation of that belief.

Ruger felt that the revolvers were prone to failure if shot alot and they deemed them unrepairable. And because they were no longer in production they could not be replaced. They DID replace the Maximum with any other new gun you wanted from the catalog. I swapped mine on a new stainless .44 Magnum Redhawk, which I still have.

[reed1911]

With all the DW SM's (except for the .414) That I have I have never had any issues with gas cutting. I only run heavy bullets since that is my prerogative.

[dtknowles]

With all the DW SM's (except for the .414) That I have I have never had any issues with gas cutting. I only run heavy bullets since that is my prerogative.

Mine, I got second hand has some gas cutting on the top strap. My Ruger .22 mag Single Six has some gas cutting too. I don't see erosion on the forcing cone, how can I tell? I think I could take a little off the barrel and recut the forcing cone, I imagine it would only take setting the barrel back maybe 10 thou to clean up the forcing cone. Would you lap the cone first and then turn off the face of the barrel or vice a versa.

Tim

[Coogs]

Erosion of the forcing cone, for lack of a better explanation, looks like all kinda little "pits" in the barrel around the face of the barrel and on the leading edge, or forcing cone" of the bore. No gunsmith here, so can't really help you on a proper procedure. I'm sure someone will come along more knowledgeable than I. Outpost, sent you a PM, Coogs.

[gwpercle]

It flopped because not enough people were buying them. I didn't sell any of my 357 magnums to go out and buy 357 max.. No demand = no sales = drop from production.

[Coogs]

Sales were actually quite good up until the time Ruger starting getting complaints. The top strap cutting was the most evident, but is a non issue after about 1000rds. or so. I had a Smith 19 that showed more top strap cutting than any of my Maxi's. There was another issue that is very rarely discussed, shaving lead. Cylinder/bore alignment on the Max CAN BE very poor on some, and when it's bad, it's bad. Talked to John Linebaugh a couple times and he said it wasn't one of Rugers Best. The bashing the gun writers gave it contributed to it's demise, but there were many, many other factors involved. I'll eventually get into some more. Coogs.

[saleen322]

Not to beat a dead horse here because this thread is only 6 1/2 years old. but being a new member I felt compelled to post. The biggest problem with the Max was the erosion of the forcing cone. This was primarily caused with light bullets on top of fast burning powders driven at mach speeds. ....

Coogs is exactly right. I have a DW 357 SM and a DW 375 that I recently purchased. I competed with my 357 Super Mag in silhouette back in the 80s and I never even used the extra barrel. It is still new in the box. My go to load was/is a 200 grain RCBS gas check. With the alloy I have now, it comes out at 208 grains ready to load. I can not tell you how many rounds have been shot but the old girl is still a shooter after all these years. I cannot remember even once it 'rang' a ram without taking it down. I know I will never sell mine. I would buy a Ruger Max if I see one too!
http://i601.photobucket.com/albums/tt98/saleen322/Center%20Fire%20Pistol/DanWessonSM-Tgt-1_zps77e040f3.jpg

[Moonie]

In the 90's I had a DW 7445 8" 445 SM and a 10" 'tender barrel in 357 Max. Both great calibers.

[curioushooter]

I think 357 Maximum flopped in revolvers basically because it exceeds what is workable in a revolver. It's too long for caliber. The pressure is too high and too much velocity is lost to the gap. It basically needs a gas check at the very least or straight up jacketed bullets. All for what? For something that underperforms the popular and proven 44 Magnum. It's a great cartridge in a Contender or in a rifle. In those platforms with sealed and long barrels all the power can be extracted and the longishness of the cartridge is not a detriment. I find it amusing all these folks these days going on about the 300 Blackout. 357 Max in a carbine seriously outperforms it and is more practical in every way, even if one want to do subsonics. Why Marlin or Henry or someone hasn't picked up the 357 Max chambering in a carbine I do not understand. It would be backwards compatible with the Mag and Spl, too; though accuracy may suffer.

[contender1]

A very old thread. But it flopped because Bill Ruger got pizzed at flame cutting complaints. Reloaders were loading light bullets, with a hot, fast powder, (in search of more & more velocity) and then they complained when they found a bit of top strap flame cutting.
NOT because of it being too long for caliber, or high pressure, or whatever. As for under performing the 44 mag,, I can say this; Go ask David Bradshaw (a former national handgun silhouette champion,) if it's an "under performer."
And as for manufacturers not building guns for the Maxi,, it's about economics,, and expenses.

The Maxi has a following,, and it is highly regarded by many. Sadly, it was shooters themselves that cost us a great gun & caliber.

[Mr_Sheesh]

Hmm mutate a Nagant into something that'd seal up, stopping flame cutting? But it'd have to be NEW manufacture, not just a modded Nagant of course, and seal using steel on steel instead of the case mouth. Potentially doable but I doubt it'll ever be done.

[curioushooter]

Regarding the Nagant, which is a revolver I've reloaded and manufactured brass extensively for. That concept WOULD solve the problem of the max in revolvers. The problem is that the Nagant design is very weak. The way it works is that a big thumb backs up against the firing chamber and it pushes the cylinder forward through the gap into the barrel. The way the thumb locks up is not very robust, and I think the only way Nagants last is because 7.62x38R is an absolutely anemic cartridge basically equivalent to 32 S&W--it really isn't even a 32 H&R. It can load longer bullets with decent SD though, and I was able to get the Lee 115 grainer going to 1000 FPS without ill effects--with truly gas-sealing cases made out of 223 cases--which is how it works best. Accuracy (if one fired in SINGLE ACTION MODE and was still able to overcome the 14 # trigger) was nothing short of incredible. Despite the wretched sights and horrid trigger off a bag I could basically make dime sized groups with the thing at 25 yards. There is no doubt in my mind that the Nagants reworked by the USSR for Olympic competition (marketed as Nagant Sports here) were competitive if not surpassing anything the West had. To me the Nagant proved that basically most accuracy problems with revolvers have to do with the gap and cylinder-barrel alignment issues. I suspect this is why Dan Wesson and Freedom Arms revolvers have such a good reputation--they are both designed to minimize those problems. But the NAGANT solves it...it doesn't just minimize it. It's just stupidly weak and only useful for punching holes in paper or perhaps squirrels. Supposedly the Russian Empire tested the Nagant revolver on old horses about to be "retired" to establish its power...I suspect that the horses died more from their underlying health problems than the actual wounding effects.

In regards to "performance" the 357 Max simply cannot match 44 IN A REVOLVER if one is sticking to 40K PSI max. It's just physics. I've loaded both and pushed both the the limit. The Max simply doesn't have enough caliber or case volume. I can stuff 26 grains of Win296 and a 265 grainer into a 44 case and shoot it out of my 7.5" Blackhawk and it go 1400 FPS (1153 FT-LBS), in my Marlin 1894 this load went 1650 FPS (1602 FT-LBS). The 357 Max can't even get that much powder in the case with 180 grainer in front of it in a REVOLVER cylinder limitation length. In a 10" Contender one CAN reach 44 Mag revolver performance with the Max, at least in terms of energy, and with less powder, lead, and recoil. I can push 180s to 1800 FPS using Lil'Gun which is actually more muzzle energy (1295 FT-LBS)...for what that's worth. I am confident the 44 Mag will blow the 357 Max away in 10" Contender.

In terms of real-world performance on deer I think that Max out of a Contender (or rifle) can match 44 with careful bullet selection (basically the 180 grain XTP) whereas the 44 will work with pretty much anything over 200 grains including cast flat-points. In fact, my friend swears by a 215 soft cast RNFP going about 1200 FPS on deer, and he's bagged way more than I have.

I restate my answer for the question posed in this thread: the reason why the Max flopped is that it exceeds the practical performance limitations imposed by its intended platform--revolvers. The cartridge is brilliant in Contenders or rifles, and I suspect that many if not most of the Max "following" are using these platforms. Those that are using revolvers are worrying about cutting their topstraps and eroding their forcing cones and probably running the cartridge at something that basically achieves performance of OLD 357 Mag "hot loads." If they protest otherwise they need to plopped in front of a Chrono--that little box of truth.

[Mr_Sheesh]

curioushooter - Agreed, I guess I could have said new DESIGN too, anyone who's seen a Nagant should know better than to try 44k PSI+ in that old beast!

[wildcatter]

Regarding the Nagant, which is a revolver I've reloaded and manufactured brass extensively for. That concept WOULD solve the problem of the max in revolvers. The problem is that the Nagant design is very weak. The way it works is that a big thumb backs up against the firing chamber and it pushes the cylinder forward through the gap into the barrel. The way the thumb locks up is not very robust, and I think the only way Nagants last is because 7.62x38R is an absolutely anemic cartridge basically equivalent to 32 S&W--it really isn't even a 32 H&R. It can load longer bullets with decent SD though, and I was able to get the Lee 115 grainer going to 1000 FPS without ill effects--with truly gas-sealing cases made out of 223 cases--which is how it works best. Accuracy (if one fired in SINGLE ACTION MODE and was still able to overcome the 14 # trigger) was nothing short of incredible. Despite the wretched sights and horrid trigger off a bag I could basically make dime sized groups with the thing at 25 yards. There is no doubt in my mind that the Nagants reworked by the USSR for Olympic competition (marketed as Nagant Sports here) were competitive if not surpassing anything the West had. To me the Nagant proved that basically most accuracy problems with revolvers have to do with the gap and cylinder-barrel alignment issues. I suspect this is why Dan Wesson and Freedom Arms revolvers have such a good reputation--they are both designed to minimize those problems. But the NAGANT solves it...it doesn't just minimize it. It's just stupidly weak and only useful for punching holes in paper or perhaps squirrels. Supposedly the Russian Empire tested the Nagant revolver on old horses about to be "retired" to establish its power...I suspect that the horses died more from their underlying health problems than the actual wounding effects.

In regards to "performance" the 357 Max simply cannot match 44 IN A REVOLVER if one is sticking to 40K PSI max. It's just physics. I've loaded both and pushed both the the limit. The Max simply doesn't have enough caliber or case volume. I can stuff 26 grains of Win296 and a 265 grainer into a 44 case and shoot it out of my 7.5" Blackhawk and it go 1400 FPS (1153 FT-LBS), in my Marlin 1894 this load went 1650 FPS (1602 FT-LBS). The 357 Max can't even get that much powder in the case with 180 grainer in front of it in a REVOLVER cylinder limitation length. In a 10" Contender one CAN reach 44 Mag revolver performance with the Max, at least in terms of energy, and with less powder, lead, and recoil. I can push 180s to 1800 FPS using Lil'Gun which is actually more muzzle energy (1295 FT-LBS)...for what that's worth. I am confident the 44 Mag will blow the 357 Max away in 10" Contender.

In terms of real-world performance on deer I think that Max out of a Contender (or rifle) can match 44 with careful bullet selection (basically the 180 grain XTP) whereas the 44 will work with pretty much anything over 200 grains including cast flat-points. In fact, my friend swears by a 215 soft cast RNFP going about 1200 FPS on deer, and he's bagged way more than I have.

I restate my answer for the question posed in this thread: the reason why the Max flopped is that it exceeds the practical performance limitations imposed by its intended platform--revolvers. The cartridge is brilliant in Contenders or rifles, and I suspect that many if not most of the Max "following" are using these platforms. Those that are using revolvers are worrying about cutting their topstraps and eroding their forcing cones and probably running the cartridge at something that basically achieves performance of OLD 357 Mag "hot loads." If they protest otherwise they need to plopped in front of a Chrono--that little box of truth.

Those that understand what they 357 Max is supposed to do best don't have fgorcing cone issues or top strap cutting in the Ruger or the Dan Wesson. They use 180 grain and up bullets, and they have as much or more energy out past 200 yards whith less recoil and abuse than with the 44 mag. That was what the Maximum was specifically designed to does and it does it wonderfully.

The fact is like anything, people confuse speed with power,, or what it takes to kill. Nothing could be farther from the truth. longer leaner heavy slugs from the 357 didn't slow down as much, and competitors didn't get fatigued from recoil as quickly with the Max but still had the energy they needed to knock down the rams at over 200 yards.

As for beyond revolver limits that holds no water, and I know of a few have thousands of rounds thru revolvers matching 44 levels and have no damage to their revolvers. I will also mention if you do some investigating you will find the 454 Casull suffered the same shortcomings when some tried using it for what it was never designed for as well. If you try using a fast burning powder to stuff full cases and shoot 200 grain and lighter bullets at max pressure levels you will find the sand blasting that the atomized copper does under the extreme heat and pressure produced by the large volumes of the fast burning propellant at those same high pressure levels will do and did do the same thing!

These guns are designed to use the slower powders with heavy bullets at the same pressures as they are pushing with the lighter bullets and faster powders to obtain those same 60,000 CUP's. But they do not suffer from the same damage the lighter faster loads suffer from using those faster powders to get those same pressure levels! The Heavy bullets and slower powders make more power and momentum with the same pressures and do way more than the light bullets can, without doing the damage those speedy light bullet loads do!

Both these calibers will shoot many years and take 10's of 1000's of rounds at full power when one understands not only how they perform their best, and what components to use to achieve them. But sadly far to many only understand performance at the expense of useless speed.

Kinda like the young bull that hurried to breed on cow, while the old Bull mozzied down and took care the whole herd! But in time that young bull will learn to slow down and take em all. Same goes for archery as well as handguns, they don't kill with speed and KE, they kill with weight and momentum, the larger hole and farther you can bore it thru the animal, the quicker it will die. you will never use Hydro static shock to kill with less than 2000 fps.

Same goes for the Silhouette shooters that are only wanting one thing, enough momentum to nock that 200 meter Ram down every shot, and the heavy bullets in the 357 did put an awful lot of 44 magnum,s back in their cases without winning the match, while the Max prevailed!

see what difference their is using a 44 mag with a 180 grain bullet at 1600 or 1700 fps and what a 357 at 1600 with a 180 grain bullet will do at 200 meters. The 44 wont keep up, and if you increase the weight and slow it down to keep up ,at longer range, your going to find A lot more recoil comes with chasing the same results!

[contender1]

Well put wildcatter.
On another Forum,,, former championship shooter in steel silhouette, David Bradshaw, was involved in the development of the 357 Max. And, as noted, with heavier bullets,, that caliber, in a revolver can & does deliver. And it also does it with the hunting crowd. a member here, sixshot, has used his to kill deer at long distance with impressive results.
I own a pair of Contender bbls, (10" & 14") in Maxi, as well as 3 of the Ruger Revolvers.
Your analysis of the comparison between the maxi & the 44 mag is very good.

In short, the maxi is not a 44 mag, and the 44 mag is not a Maxi. BOTH have their place & BOTH can do a lot.

[Beerd]

I own a pair of Contender bbls, (10" & 14") in Maxi, as well as 3 of the Ruger Revolvers.

gun hog :kidding:


..

[contender1]

:D :D :D
Years of collecting & not turning down good deals.
(I bought a 10" Ruger, used but in the box, for $275 once. The guy got it in a construction trade payment. Action kept hanging up. I bought it,, and all that was needed was a new trigger return spring, where bubba had unhooked one leg, and bent things. The leg was hanging in the hammer spring! Then there was the one,,,,,!)

Seriously, A 357 Maxi is a sweet shooter, delivering a 180-200 grn downrange at long distance AND being able to ring steel or drop deer. In my Contender bbls, I tried the old Hornady 200 grn .358 spire pt bullets. Their accuracy was never as good as a nice 180-200 grn flat nose SWC or similar design.

My ONLY complaint about the 357 Ruger Maxi,, is that there are too few of them. First,, Bill Ruger got pizzed & had around 4000-5000 destroyed because of the complaints,, AND many custom guns are built on the extended frames that only the Maxi has. While it makes my collectables worth more,, I'd rather see more shooters out there.