Unconventional comparison 223 vs 357

MiG25

MiG25

CGN Ultra frequent flyer
Rating - 100%
69   0   0
Location
B.C.
223 vs 357 Magnum as a Deer capable plinker.

357 uses less powder and carbide dies.

223 shoots flatter and has cheaper or even free brass.

What would you choose and why?
 
Choose a rifle cartridge for a rifle, and a handgun cartridge for a handgun.
Unless you're one of those "never shoot past 100 yards" fellers.
Then it really doesn't matter.
Plus, the versatility and "better" bullet profile of the 223 couldn't hurt.
The less powder thing doesn't really make sense. either. And dies are dies...
R.
 
If you want a closer ranger plinker and deer carbine in a lever gun then .357. With decent quality bullets the .357 isnt that much cheaper, if at all.

For versatility, and in my opinion, there is no contest. No way I would trade a .223 for a .357. .223 is super versatile. If you want cheap you can pick up brass (likely crimped primers but easy to remove), FMJ’s, TAC.

.223 is a better deer option in my opinion, others may disagree of course.
 
The .223 is a much more capable killer than the 357 Magnum.

If you are plinking using cheap bullets like Campro, the bullets for the 2 are the same price. 223 you will use about double the powder by weight. Depending on how much you want to plink, this may or may not matter.
 
I’ll take the 350 Legend over the 357. I can’t say the 350 over the 223 because both fill specific roles, but they compliment each other better than the 357 does the 223.
 
Challenging question to answer, if I lived where there was more open country, and less critters that might chew on me while I was carrying said rifle, 223 all the way.
If I lived near the bush and muskeg, short range deer and other things, a stout loaded 357 would be an alright choice.
But… a 44 magnum carbine would be my choice over a 357.
 
I think that the 223, for the vast majority of deer hunting work, will significantly outperform the 357. If we were talking about shooting deer in your backyard, then the 357 would have more going for it. But for most of us I think ranges between 50-200 yards would encompass the large majority of shot presentations. When viewed through that lens, the 223 is the only logical choice. I have punched holes through 3/8 plate (not AR500) at 200 yards with the 223. You can't even hope for that at point blank range with a 357.
 
If one was strictly hunting in thick timber areas or similar situations where you are essentially limited to archery ranges the 357 would have some merit. In all other cases the 223 wins for me based on the effective range alone.
 
I'd change it to 44mag vs .223

Short range, thick bush the .44 would be a better choice. If the 223 touches anything it's trajectory will change quite a bit.
 
scotteboy said:
? No s hit? I honestly thought it was a no go, rifle or not.
I gotta go back and read my Alta regulations again.
Thanks for the heads up.
Click to expand...
When they got rid of the minimum cartridge length to accommodate the WM and WSM cartridges, the vintage stuff like the 44/40 were once again legal, and the newer stuff like the 9mm and 357 were now made legal.
Cat
 
For plinking you can’t beat 38 special for cost. For deer under 100 yards using a hard cast 180 grain slug 357 will work just fine. For scrounging available ammo 223/556 wins hands down. For plinking with bulk 55 grain 556 cost is pretty minimal. With premium bullets in the 60 to 77 grain range deer are what’s for dinner. You need both.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom