A good article on 357 mag

[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?

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/...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/...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]

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