It was cooooold and windy this morning. I did not know that my heavy jacket fell off of my backpack while climbing my treestand. About the time I start shivering, I see my jacket on the ground....damn. I'll just tough it out, as there are does already under me. About this time a 6point with a terrible rack shows up, and runs my does off. He eats my corn, he came under my tree, and SNIFFS my coat! Stupid, (my name for the STUPID 6 point) chases off another doe.
Stupid comes back and eats more corn, and about this time, I start throwing pecans at him (I'm in a pecan tree) Stupid looks around, gee, what are these things flying through the air at me?
About the time my eyelids freeze, I'm bored with throwing pecans at him, and remember I've carried a .357 Ruger 6" GP100 for 2 years, and never fired a shot at a deer yet.
Stupid is about 30-35 yds. out, and finally looks up when I cock the hammer. KERBLAM! Headshot. He my not be a trophy, but, I have purified the gene pool.

Read the .357 SIG thread below. Don't You know the .357 isn't ENOUGH for deer!! Better check again to make sure your's is really dead.

Tongue firmly in cheek.....FN in MT

FN, he was actually dead right there, I double checked. If he would have given me a broadside shot, I would have shot him through the shoulders. (of course it might have bounced off, according to some)
As he was peeking out behind some brush, the head seemed a good target, clean kill or clean miss.
I would love to have a scoped Super Redhawk someday, but with in it's limits, you and I both know the .357 is a pretty potent weapon. the 180gr. HP entered just below the right eye, and the left side of the head, well, it just wasn't there.

Gee, I though it would be something unique like using pecans for bullets !!

He may have been "Stupid" this morning but he's "Venison" now. Nice shot, and thanks for _not_ posting a trophy photo.

Yes, I get a lot of flak about my opinions on small calibers. Granted, acsteele is a good shot and as I have expressed before, I have no problems with a good shot using them.
This does not negate the fact that some .357 bullets do not perform good enough for deer and a lot of deer can be lost with good chest hits.
Read the armed citizen in the Rifleman and see how many thugs are shot multiple times with .357's by home owners that are found at the hospital or on the street, still alive.
Of course, any animal shot in the head does not prove that a shot to the chest would have killed it.
You can rank on me all you want, but you can't change my mind (and a lot of the other fellows here.) It seems as if nobody posts the bad shots and lost deer from small calibers, sort of like the democrats and anti gun people that twist facts and only say what they want to hear and believe.
I know a lot of guys that have taken deer and pigs with the .357 but I have had to try and find too many that got away, shot with these and other poor performing calibers. And these guys are great, calm shots. We are not talking about the boobs that lose deer shot with 7mm and 30 caliber magnums either.
The .357 is not a wonder gun!

180gr .357magnum would have punched through chest/lungs, and or shoulder(s). I simply chose to take a head shot, due to the close range.
A .357 may not be the best choice for 100+ yard shots, but within a reasonable range, with proper ammunition, and a competent handgunner, what is the problem?

You are correct because you are using a good bullet and of the proper weight. I am not against the .357 as such, Or the good shot that uses one, only the great number of bullets in that caliber that are not fit to hunt with. I am also against too light and too fragile a bullet for the .44, .45, etc. The average hunter that grabs his .357 and a box of factory loads has no idea what performance the bullet will give him. This has been a problem since the gun came out. A lot of bullets open so fast that they won't penetrate and some bullets will not open and the caliber is so small, there is only a little hole through the deer. This is the reason that I never recommend it.
I have said many times that if you are a good shot, stay within range, use the proper bullet, I have no problem with anyone hunting with it. However a lot of you fellas have ignored that portion of my posts.
I am VERY much against telling the average guy that does not have the knowledge that most of us have, to buy one for deer.
I found a deer (little four point) in my woods today that was shot with a rifle. It looks like the bottom of the heart was blown out from the bullet placement. Yet, this deer got away to rot in my woods. Do you think that I would tell whoever lost this deer to buy a .357?
Believe it or not, we have a lot of beginners and guys that have never hunted with a handgun coming to these forums and no telling how many lurkers there are. I think we should start them with enough gun and after they gain experience and the knowledge that they can find here, then they can use the smaller guns.
A lighter load that reduces recoil in a large bore will kill very well for a beginner. I have a friend that is determined to get a deer with his .44. He is a great shot, shooting very small groups off hand. But he can't hit a deer at 20 yd's. He goes to pieces. He missed five last year! I would never hand him a .357 because I know if he did hit one somewhere, I would spend a day searching for it. With the .44, even a gut shot deer should be found.

quote:

With the .44, even a gut shot deer should be found.

Maybe so, maybe no... A gut shot deer is a gut shot deer, I don't care what it is shot with... Whitetails have an amazing will to live, and if you shoot paunch, they are going to go a LONG way, typically with very little blood because there is very little in there in the way of blood vessels. Additionally, what little bleeding does occur is going to be into the body cavity, not out onto the ground.

FWIW, I have only shot one deer with a .357, and she was shot through the lungs with a hard cast 158. She did just what the deer I have lung shot with a .270 or '06 did: ran about 60 yards and fell. Put the bullet in the right place, use the right bullet for the application, and a .357 is plenty of deer caliber, even out of a revolver. But bullet placement is paramount, just like with a rifle. NO bullet will make up for poor shot placement, and if you belive otherwise, I feel you are mistaken...

No, I do not believe in gut shot deer! The only experience I have with the revolvers was a large doe I gut shot because I hit a branch. I found the boolit cut in it and it deflected it enough. I was using my 45-70 BFR with a hard cast boolit. The blood trail was tremendous and the deer only went 40 yd's. She was still alive and I had to finish her. She was a total mess inside and I had to wash it many times and butcher right away. I have great doubts that a .357 would have let me recover her.
I really have to give my friend a better chance due to his buck fever and I have more confidence in the .44 if he screws up. I would have to be the one to track down the deer and thats another reason.
We have no control over another persons buck fever, shaking hands or trigger squeeze under those conditions and if you do not agree that a larger bore would be better for them, then you are out of touch. What should we do? Ban them from using a handgun? Or should we give them a mouse gun thinking they will shoot better?

I suspect the major reason for the deer being a total mess inside was due to the huge bullet she was hit with. You are most likely correct that a .357 would have made her harder to find, but unfortunately, there are some things we just have no control over. Bullets sometimes hit limbs and deflect, despite our best efforts to limit that happening...

And your friend would shake just as much with a .380 in his hand as he does with the .44, I suspect. A change in firearm will not cure the problem, a few successes with the firearm will. I understand totally, and sincerely wish the best for him. The day I no longer become excited in the woods when my chance for success comes, is the day I hang up my camo and firearms for good. I hope it never happens.

And I really don't think I am out of touch. I think I have a rather realistic grasp on life, hunting and most everything else. No issue taken, but I am 51, and I have studied and experienced ballistics, terminal performance, etc, for about 30 years now... I believe I have a fairly good grip on it. Unfortunately, a lot of today's hunters have been convinced that bigger is better, hence the evolution of the short mags, the super short mags, the ultra mags, and so on, ad nauseum. To me, they are unnecessary. Proper bullet application and placement will almost (and nothing is ever absolute...) always ensure success: a quick, humane kill, and game recovery.

Regards,
doubless

I don't know if I have been making myself clear enough in my answers. I am not talking about those of us that can pick the proper components, have a great deal of hunting experience, are cool and deadly taking the shot and can place it exactly. Last week, I killed deer number 354 with my .44. I took out both lungs, the heart and the far shoulder. She went 30 yd's.
I believe fully 80% of hunters go to pieces when they see a deer. These are the fellows that should not shoot the wrong gun, either too small or too large trying to make up for bad shooting, IF THEY ARE AFRAID OF RECOIL. But all of you must agree that too large is better in a bad situation. Now with revolvers versus rifles, the .41, .44, and .45 are not too large. Anyone can master them.
I am not against all of you good shots and good hunters using what you like, I am just against recommending smaller handguns to beginners. All of you have stated that the bullet has to be placed exactly. Explain to me how many average or beginning hunters can do that.
How many of you have screwed up a shot with a little jiggle or hitting an unseen twig? How many of you have lost a deer? I have lost a few over the years and I have much more experience then most of you.
We owe it to the deer to separate the experts from the beginners.

Doubless, I agree with you. The small bore magnums were designed for long range shooting in those areas where the game can not be approached. The large bore magnums are for large dangerous game.
I believe the rifle hunter that shoots deer at 100 yd's and less is served best with a .35 Rem, 30-30, .44 or .45 lever gun.I think the 30-06 and .308 are too large in many cases.
For the handgun, a large, heavy, slow boolit is better then a small, light fast bullet. A very large hole all the way through is very deadly. You do NOT have to blow the other side of a deer all over the ground.
So, you see, we do agree on almost everything.

I have no argument with using any caliber on deer as long as you place the bullet in the proper place.

Saying a head shot is a clean miss or kill in not right. I have seen and shot a few deer that have come in with their lower jaws shot half off. I am not afraid of taking head shots but they can be srewed up as with any shot.

p dog, point taken. Having carried a .357 for a few years in law enforcement, and shooting agood deal to this day, I did, and still do consider my shot to have been a "clean kill/clean miss. I knew the exact range (35yds) and was shooting from a steady rest.
I have helped recover a number of deer missing a front leg due to faulty range estimation/poor aim. Had my 180 grain bullet hit the jaw, I have zero doubt the shock would have slowed him down enough for a second shot.
My point is, If I were not sure of my ability to make the head shot, I would have taken a shoulder shot.
That being said, this pistol hunting has really gotten me hooked. I do recognize that a .357 limits my range, so I am seriously looking for a Super Red Hawk, in .44 or .454. Probably .454 with a Leupold. I'll probably shoot a lot of .45LC's and work my way up to .454's also considering .480 Ruger.

I don't mean to insult anyone's favorite choice of hardware, but useing a .357 on deer is like using a .243 on Elk. Yes, it can be made to work but why bother when there are so many better choices? Many a Polar Bear has fallen to a .222 but that doesn't make a .222 a good choice for Polar Bear.

JBD, I respectfully beg to differ. Shoot an elk with a .243, and you are asking a 100-grain bullet with a thin jacket to penetrate a 24" thick, densely-muscled body, stay together, exit, and leave a hole big enough to allow for sufficient blood to trail.

Conversely, a hard cast 357 bullet of 158 grains only has to penetrate ~10-12" of muscle to completely perforate said whitetail, and will leave at least a 3/8" hole. And it WILL exit, even if the deer is shot through the shoulders. I have seen this happen, have done it personally.

There is a WORLD of difference. Yes, there may be "so many better choices", but a .357 is plenty of medicine for deer, given the right bullet. There is no "right" bullet for taking an elk with a .243, period.

And I have heard stories about polar bears with a .222, but do not know personally of that occurring. Will have to take your word for it...

Doubless, I agree the load will doubtless kill deer. For a while I used a 686 with 83/8 barrel and 2x Leupold on deer. The load was usually a 168gr. cast Keith type bullet over a good dose of 2400. I shot over a dozen deer of various sizes putting the bullet both on the shoulder and behind it. Killed most of them but had to chase half of them over a lot of country before I was done. The one I didn't kill (or at least find) was probably the largest best antlered buck I ever shot at. The bullet went in just behind the shoulder at 25-30 yards. Anyway it might have happened with any caliber but I have never had a deer go further than 25-30 yards after being similiarly hit with a .44 or .45. I think if I ever used a .357 again for deer I would use some flavor of jacketed bullet. As for the .222 on bear, the caliber was long a favorite of the Eskimos who, by all reports did good work with it. I don't know if it is still being favored or not.

Do those of you with lots of handgun deer hunting behind them feel similar section density bullets should give similar performace across a range of calibers? For example: .357 Magnum 125 grain (.140), 180 grain .44 Special / .44 Magnum, 200 grain .45 ACP / .45 Colt. I'm thinking of similar Hornady XTPs, Sierra Game King, Speer Gold Dots and so on.

quote:

Originally posted by 376steyr:
Do those of you with lots of handgun deer hunting behind them feel similar section density bullets should give similar performace across a range of calibers? For example: .357 Magnum 125 grain (.140), 180 grain .44 Special / .44 Magnum, 200 grain .45 ACP / .45 Colt. I'm thinking of similar Hornady XTPs, Sierra Game King, Speer Gold Dots and so on.

That would be a too much of a general statement. What is missing in this thread and is missing from most threads on this subject is barrel length and/or type of handgun and the expected velocity. For example a 125 HP/SP pushing maximum out of a 4-5" barreled revolver is a good choice for use on deer. However, the same bullet and load out of an 8 3/8th revolver or a 10" Contender would not be a good choice. In the first, penatration and expansion would be good out to 40-50 yards. In the second, within the same 40-50 yard range, the velocity would be much higher, penetration poor and expansion violent.

The same holds true for .41s, .44s and .45s as it does with the .357 when considered for deer. We should match the expansion charactoristics of the bullet style with the muzzle/impact velocity. Jacketed bullets expand within certain impact velocity parameters. For best terminal performance we should match the type and weight of bullet to the known or estimated muzzle velocity of the load. The impact velocity parameter of effective expansion will also dictate the maximum effective range of the load. Beyond that effective range we may be able to hit the heart/lung area of a deer but terminal perfomance of the bullet will be disappointing. We should therefore "know our limitations" and refrain from those shots.

Given any of the mentioned calibers we will find the lighter weight bullets work well in 4-5" barreled revolvers, the medium weight bullets work well in the 6-7 1/2" barreled revolvers and the heavier bullets work well in the 8 3/8ths barrels. The heaviest bullets are most useful in 10"+ Contenders.

Some will say the solution is the hardcast bullet. To an extent they are correct but mostly in the case when a wrong choice has been made in jacketed bullet type and weight. While the 180 gr jacketed SP out of a 4" .357 will kill deer the performance of a hardcast bullet will generally be better. However, a good 125 gr HP pushing maximum out of the same 4" revolver and put in the heart/lung of a deer will almost always kill quicker than either the 180 SP or the hardcast.

Any .357 magnum bullet put into the heart/lung area of a deer will kill it. The question simply is a matter of how fast do you want to kill the deer (this is also directly proportional to how much tracking do you want to do). This choice of using the correct weight/type of bullet applies to the other calibers as well.

Larry Gibson

I have to say that the short 4" to 5" inch barrels do not belong in the hunting field. Accuracy is hard to achieve with them at longer ranges beyond 15 yd's. Use these only for backup guns! You are HUNTING, not seeing how small of a gun you can get away with.
I do not like any light, quick expanding handgun bullet for deer hunting in any caliber no matter what the velocity.
You fellas that have only taken one or two deer, have to listen to the most experienced hunters and choose what WORKS, ALL OF THE TIME!
Do many of you object to carrying a big hunk of iron around? Do you look for a 3# gun when rifle hunting? Do you look for the lightest bullets so you can carry 1000 rounds?
I go out with my cylinder full, no extra boolits. I only need one of those for my deer. The rest are in there so I don't have to worry about indexing a chamber to find a round.
If you are afraid of recoil from heavy boolits and larger calibers, DON'T HUNT!
Deer are there for two reasons. To watch and enjoy or to kill and eat them. They are not for plinking! I also have no regard at all for trophy hunters that only look for large racks and waste the meat. Every season I find carcases with the heads cut off for the antlers. Nothing more then slobs and they do not deserve to be called hunters.
I am seeing that handgun hunters are the worst when choosing a good hunting gun and bow hunters are starting to fall right in that category by using super fast bows and arrows that will not penetrate a deer because they can't judge distance and think that a light fast arrow is better.
Animals have not changed and they are no harder to kill then when nature created them but some guys think that lighter boolits and lighter arrows are better because they are easier to shoot and will really explode the deer---Well, they are wrong! A big, slow, heavy boolit and arrow will do the job every time.
I am not talking long range rifle hunting which is a different situation due to bullet construction and velocities. I am talking about close range handgun and archery hunting which share the same criteria.
If there is any doubt in your mind as to what a boolit or arrow will do, do not use it for hunting! If you lose a deer with a good hit, or have to track it all over the country, DO NOT USE THAT COMBINATION AGAIN! If you are deadset in your opinions and can not change your mind, stay home and shoot tin cans. I don't want you in my woods.

I agree with most bfrshooter has said in his post, although I've taken several deer at or near 100 yards with a 4 5/8" barreled revolver.

I only have a couple hundred deer kills under my belt and realize that my level of experience may be questioned by some; but my opinion is that a 125 grain .35 caliber pistol bullet is too light for deer. There is too little room for error and too much limitation to only "perfect" shots. Most of the handgun shooters I've seen just don't have the marksmanship to pull this off. Same goes for 200 grain bullets in a .44 magnum. One simply cannot flesh wound a deer to death very quickly.

Handguns do not usually generate the velocities obtainable in rifles. Therefore, penetration is both desired and required to achieve clean kills on big game.

Exit holes, not entrance, facilitate bleeding. Loss of blood not only kills, but provides a blood trail to reduce the chanes of losing game that bolts after being shot.

Heavy for caliber bullets also penetrate much better than do lighter ones. This is very important on quartering or stopping shots in the case of hunting dangerous game with a handgun. Driving bullets faster than 1200 fps appears to develop diminshing returns as expansion seems to take away from penetration.

Gee, I thought 180gr hardcast WAS heavy for .357 caliber.

It is and the best choice for this caliber in my opinion. I have some 190 grain cast bullets from Hunter Supply I intend to try out on a deer. I do not agree with using 125 grain .357" pistol bullets on deer, but then I don't agree with using 200 grain pistol bullets out of a .44 magnum for deer either.

Given the same set of circumstances, I'd done the very same thing you did acsteele.

Few questions in the handgun hunting realm generate more heat than the subject of the 357 Magnum in the game fields. I don't have the wide experience of many posters here on deer or larger game--just one with the 357 some 20 years ago. 3 steps and a collapsed critter. Would I use it again? Sure--but I would be very selective on shots, and when I carry the 357 I often have a slung rifle to make the shots that the 357 is inappropriate for--a scoped 30-06, usually. If the hunt is with handguns only, the Ruger BisHawk x 45 gets the duty.

I prefer the medium to heavy for caliber bullets in any handgun caliber in the hunting fields......158-180 x 357, 200 grainer for the 10mm (ANOTHER controversy there), 210-240 x 41, 240-255 x 44, and 250-270 x 45.

I hope we can generate more light and less heat when we discuss the 357 and 10mm. :-)

quote:

Gee, I thought 180gr hardcast WAS heavy for .357 caliber.

Damn....shoulda brought more ammo. -acsteele

AC,

I haven't figured out what all the hullabaloo is about on this thread. Your deer is dead. Dead as if you shot it with a 458 Lott or hit with an 18 Wheeler; dead. I think the fact that you killed it with a 357, with one shot, to the head, has some of the folks here stirred up with disbelief. I personally agree with your decision to A. do the retarded deer a favor (He was chasing the does off? Was he queer too?) and B. use a revolver you were comfortable with. And it worked... I can't fault you for success.

Enjoy the fried backstrap and gravy.

Tex