44 mag vs 357 mag

I think the issue with .44Mag penetration is simply the style of bullet used. Get some Garrett or Buffalo Bore ammo and you'll have everything you need...either that or build your own with Barnes bullets or similar.

If I wanted a wilderness carry combo, I'd cheerfully carry a .44Mag Marlin 1894 and a Ruger Redhawk loaded with heavy-duty ammo.
 
This may not have much to do with ranch hand use but I read an article awhile back on carrying a handgun for protection from critters in a country more civilized than Canada.

The writer said he would prefer a .357 mag revolver. His viewpoint was that his .357 he could shoot with one hand, ether left or right and there was sufficient power to penetrate the skull of anything chewing on his leg. A more powerful handgun he theorized would be a two handed proposition and that may not be feasible during a really close encounter.
 
I have both a .357 and a .44 on my ATC. I should drop the .357 and get a second .44 or a .45. My .44 load is 20 gr of H-110 under a 325 gr WFN hard cast bullet from MT Chambers, which clocks about 1200 fps from a 5" barrel. My .357 load is 13.0 grs of H-110 under a hard cast 190 gr SWC for about 1150 fps from a 6" barrel. The penetration with both loads is similar, but I think the edge goes to the .44, and for overall terminal performance on a live target, the .44 has it all over the .357. Of course if your target is a bear approaching head on, the only shot that will work is the very tricky brain shot, that will be equally effective with either bullet. If you get it right the bear is rugged, if you don't, well we don't even want to consider what might happen then. The reason the shot is tricky is because the brain pan is only the width of the snout, so the massively wide head, which is in motion, unless he's focused on you, confuses the aiming point, and the close range of the action might cause you to shoot low.
 
aaron v said:
What of these two calibers would you pick for wilderness carry ( ranch hand style) and why? I keep hearing from a trapper friend about the lack of penetration from the 44 mag and was wondering if anyone else saw this. I keep thinking that a 357 would penetrate better. This isn't for a hunting application, just protection. Thank you
Click to expand...
Why not just keep it simple and buy a 30/30?
 
Duffy said:
This may not have much to do with ranch hand use but I read an article awhile back on carrying a handgun for protection from critters in a country more civilized than Canada.

The writer said he would prefer a .357 mag revolver. His viewpoint was that his .357 he could shoot with one hand, ether left or right and there was sufficient power to penetrate the skull of anything chewing on his leg. A more powerful handgun he theorized would be a two handed proposition and that may not be feasible during a really close encounter.
Click to expand...

I don't know if the recoil from a .44 is any more controllable with a two hand hold . . .






 
Good thread. My bush/fun gun is my rossi puma 44 mag 16 inch barrel in stainless, holds 10 or 11 shots , light, can handle the weather.

I cannot say what I would pick over that or a .357, I have never shot the .357, but I bought the rossi just for the reason of being a backpack gun and I am confident with it. I would never trade it for any ranch hand for a number of reasons, capacity, your shoulder being a third anchor point and can hold a target much better (IMO). Getting a ranging bull soon to give her a partner :D
 
Tengoo said:
I think the issue with .44Mag penetration is simply the style of bullet used. Get some Garrett or Buffalo Bore ammo and you'll have everything you need...either that or build your own with Barnes bullets or similar.

If I wanted a wilderness carry combo, I'd cheerfully carry a .44Mag Marlin 1894 and a Ruger Redhawk loaded with heavy-duty ammo.
Click to expand...

I don't mean this as a criticism really, but I've always found that the idea of carrying both a rifle and and handgun chambered for the same cartridge a curious one. If you can shoot the handgun effectively, then what is the advantage of the rifle? In my case I carry a .458 or a .375 (or a 9.3X62 or a .300 magnum, or a .30/06 you get the idea) and the .44 when I anticipate that carrying the rifle will be inconvenient.
 
SuperCub said:
Why not just keep it simple and buy a 30/30?
Click to expand...

There is the issue of the number of pistol rounds vs the number of rifle rounds in a short tube magazine. Then there is the matter of muzzle blast from an additional 12 grs of powder from the .30/30 coming out of a smaller bore. If it was me though, I'd find a decent butt stock for it.
 
SuperCub said:
Why not just keep it simple and buy a 30/30?
Click to expand...
I have a 336ss in 3030, 1894 in 44mag, 1895gs in 4570, rossi 92 stainless in 44, savage 99 in 308, henry mares leg in 45 colt and the 44 RH. If I want to shoot moa or better, 336. If it want 2 moa and go through a tree to kill a deer or smash an awesome trail of destruction the 1895 is the beast. If I want something to use as a club I will use the Savage 99. The rossi 44 out shoots the 1970 marlin and I use them light loaded for rabbits and have heavier loads for bigger game as kind of a do all type rifle. The henry never gets used even though is Smooth and nice to look at it may be too nice to bush wack with. The RH just begs to be used. The kids like it with the 750 fps loads and I like how packable it is. I use a short shotgun scabbard strapped to my pack in the carrier of my snowmobile for the rides and have put a sling on it for the walks.
 
I carry my double rifle in 4570. It comes up and swings just like my skeet gun. I shot a bear running towards me this year with it thru heavy cover and dropped it in its tracts at 12' from my stand. I was barely 8' up the tree. Bullet caught him just behind the skull went thru the neck and out the off shoulder. About a 3" tunnel of shredded meat bone and emptiness that was once meat. Didn't need the second barrel but if I had missed no other gun could give me a faster second shot
 
My $.02 worth to the OP - I think it depends where you are and what you intend to use it for. Here in SE Ontario, my Ranch Hand is in .357 Mag and 99% of the time I carry it with cast lead .38 SPL loads. Why? Because it's for despatching porcupines and other vermin and for coyote protection when I check my rather long game cam trail after dark. Using anything larger would only cost more and shoot less accurately. The .38's are like firing a .22 when shot out of the Ranch Hand.

If I were to use it for protection agains small black bears, I would use .357 MAG - but when bear are around, I normally take a 16" trapper in .44 MAG - which has a little more zip than a ranch hand and a full stock that let's me shoot the gun better despite the extra zip.

If we were in grizzly country, there is no WIN94 clone I would take - I'd carry my .45-70 guide gun.
 
Duffy said:
This may not have much to do with ranch hand use but I read an article awhile back on carrying a handgun for protection from critters in a country more civilized than Canada.

The writer said he would prefer a .357 mag revolver. His viewpoint was that his .357 he could shoot with one hand, ether left or right and there was sufficient power to penetrate the skull of anything chewing on his leg. A more powerful handgun he theorized would be a two handed proposition and that may not be feasible during a really close encounter.
Click to expand...


I've shot my .44Magnum Redhawk two handed and one handed. Certainly it's easier to be more accurate with two hands, but if something is chewing on my leg, its skull is certainly within range of my one-handed accuracy.
 
TheTooner said:
I've shot my .44Magnum Redhawk two handed and one handed. Certainly it's easier to be more accurate with two hands, but if something is chewing on my leg, its skull is certainly within range of my one-handed accuracy.
Click to expand...

Good point. But then ... if The Law learns about this from your doctor or EMT or whatever ... you'd be looking at a non-negotiable mandatory minimum of three years of hard federal time unless that bear (or Range Officer) pounced on you at that approved Saskabush gun-range. :(
 
Bitumen said:
Well, a few months ago I was watching Eric and Barry with Moss Pawn and Gun. I recall Barry saying that the CIA did a study on 1 shot kill calibers and the .357 magnum came out on top...even over the .44 magnum.
Click to expand...

That was the 92% first shot stopping report on the .357 on humans...a good part of the reason is that larger calibers like the .44 magnum intimidated the shooters into not aiming as accurately as the shooters of the .357 did...and the .357 has plenty of energy for human targets. The .44 magnum would be far superior for stopping bears at close range, and this being Canada, you'll almost invariably be using a carbine and the extra recoil won't be a factor.
 
boomer49 said:
Good point. But then ... if The Law learns about this from your doctor or EMT or whatever ... you'd be looking at a non-negotiable mandatory minimum of three years of hard federal time unless that bear (or Range Officer) pounced on you at that approved Saskabush gun-range. :(
Click to expand...

I can afford to restrict my handgun shooting to approved ranges. When I go out in the wilderness I'm not doing anything that makes it too difficult to carry a long gun, and as an old soldier, I prefer to meet any real threat with a rifle rather than a pistol.
 
^I'm not a soldier by any means but I certainly agree with the last statement in terms of bloodthirsty canadian bears.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom