2" .44 Mag vs. 6" .357 Mag

[Religious Shooter]

Maybe you guys can help me with this. I want a revolver for camping/hiking/hunting.

Revolvers available at my local store is a 2" .44 mag stainless and a 6" .357 blued. Both Rugers (Super Redhawk Alaskan and GP100).

I was looking to get a 6" stainless .357. They only have it blued. Will probably carry it in a belt holster and will also carry it in a bag.

Let's say:

2" 44 Mag = 240gr @ 944 fps

6" 357 Mag = 158 gr @ 1485 fps

http://www.ballisticsbytheinch.com/44mag.html

http://www.ballisticsbytheinch.com/357mag.html

For what I want to use it for, which would be better, a 2" 44 Mag or a 6" 357 Mag or even a 4" 357 Mag?

Would a blued gun be OK? Or should I hold out for stainless?

If you have both a 2"/4"/6" do you find the sight radius difference be significant for accuracy and the type of carry I'm planning?

Thanks.

[BHill]

How much hiking will you be doing? I carry an ultra light weight (340) revolver for long range hiking but would up the anti a bit if I was in dangerous bear areas. For hunting smaller critters I would stay with the 357 at 6" vs the 44 with a 2". Mostly for the better sight radius as shot placement trumps power in my book.

True answer is it depends on what you will do the most of. All decisions of this kind will be based on the best compromise. Best of luck.

[Flatland Shooter]

Would a 10mm make a good bear gun?

I know you asked about a revolver, but the extra rounds in a nice light Glock might be a consideration.

[Poppa Bear]

I have a 2 3/4", a 4" and a 6" Ruger Security Six.357 Mag. I am most comfortable with the 2 3/4" for general use. The deciding factors for me are based on two areas. The short length is more concealable, and it actually has the best action of the three. The accuracy is very close with all three so that is why I prefer the shortest one. That said it is not legal for hunting with because we have a minimum of a 4" barrel for a handgun to be legal.

[56hawk]

I would go with a 4" 44 Mag if that was an option. 6" barrel is kind of a pain to carry, and you lose a lot of velocity with a 2" barrel.

[Thehotrodpig]

I would go with a 4" 44 Mag if that was an option. 6" barrel is kind of a pain to carry, and you lose a lot of velocity with a 2" barrel.

I often carry a 340pd j frame .357 while hunting, not really to hunt with though. If I'm going to carry something that is more multi purpose to actually hunt with or if I am in bear country, I carry my 4" redhawk in 44 mag. It is pretty much a perfect do all handgun and is easy to shoot. It is a little heavy but with my simply rugged holster it carries well. I wouldn't do either of the guns you listed. I'd run a stainless 4".

[Religious Shooter]

The chart says I will loose about 175 fps with the 158 grain load if I go with a 4" 357 vs. a 6".

175 fps... given what I want it for... significant or not significant?

I don't carry pistols much. But from what I've read it's usually the grip that prints. The barrel length isn't much of a factor. I don't really feel much of a difference in just carrying when I use a G17 vs. a G34/35. Will 2" of barrel make that much of a difference for relatively long term open carry?

2" 44 Alaskan = 45oz

6" GP100 = 45 oz

4" GP100 = 40 oz

Edited January 27, 2014 by Religious Shooter

[thegunnerd]

Do you live in an area where bears would be a problem ? Or would you use this gun more for handgun hunting ? Bear protection a .44 mag would be a better choice . If you're not as concerned with larger animals like that a .357 is just fine . A 4" .357 would be the best of both worlds . Velocity and concealment . If i went 4" for a .44 mag i'd get it ported or have a comp installed , unless you find a ported factory gun.

[ebg3]

Stainless steel is very nice for a trail gun. If you are going to handload, you will be able to get much better performance out of the 2" 44 mag than what you posted above. I would go with the 44 mag.

[steviesterno]

really depends where you life I think. If giant bears or raging pigs are a concern, I would go with the 44 or up. If i was going hiking a south or west of here, drug runners would be more of a concern than bears, so my choice would be different. a 6" gp100 will be a pain to carry eventually. I had a 4" i'd carry hunting but with my pack and stuff, it would poke and prod me and stick places when I tried to sit down. I'm thinking a 6" would be worse.

another consideration would be follow up. I can get rounds quickly out of a 357, but a snub 44 will bark hard and take a lot more to control, I think.

[kneelingatlas]

2" 44 Alaskan = 45oz

6" GP100 = 45 oz

4" GP100 = 40 oz

I'm willing to bet these weights are empty, weight six .44mag cartridges and compare to the .357.

I don't remember if you've mentioned the threat yet???

[Religious Shooter]

Possible threats are anything you would find in the SW and West Coast --- snakes, black bears, mountain lions, canines, etc. I couldn't tell you what the probability of each one would be. If I thought any of them was highly probable I wouldn't go.

I think what's relevant is the difference between the two cartridges. Just 6 bullets alone 240-158=82 grains; 82x6=492 grains; 492/7000=.070286 lbs; .07286x16 = 1.124oz. So add the difference in the cases and powder for 12 rounds... so say 4-5 oz difference in ammo weight between .44 vs. .357? I don't see it as much of a factor.

[Shadowrider]

It would be a no-brainer for me, I'd go with the 6" .357.

A 2" .44 is very intimidating to look at but you are losing a whole lot of it's potential with that short 2" barrel. The 6" .357 is just so much more versatile of the two you mention.

Edit: Forgot to mention steels. Stainless is generally better for most people (read lazy like myself) because it corrosion resistant. But typical blued alloy steels are a little better wearing (the gun, not the finish) in gun applications. It boils down to how diligent you are with maintaining it. If you are fairly meticulous there's not a thing wrong with blued guns.

Edited January 27, 2014 by Shadowrider

[The_Vigilante]

I would suggest you try looking for a 4" Ruger Redhawk .45 Colt

[kneelingatlas]

Between those two I would go for the 6" GP100, I have a nice right handed Bianchi cross draw/strong side holster for it I'd be willing to sell you

[Alaskapopo]

Maybe you guys can help me with this. I want a revolver for camping/hiking/hunting.

Revolvers available at my local store is a 2" .44 mag stainless and a 6" .357 blued. Both Rugers (Super Redhawk Alaskan and GP100).

I was looking to get a 6" stainless .357. They only have it blued. Will probably carry it in a belt holster and will also carry it in a bag.

Let's say:

2" 44 Mag = 240gr @ 944 fps

6" 357 Mag = 158 gr @ 1485 fps

http://www.ballisticsbytheinch.com/44mag.html

http://www.ballisticsbytheinch.com/357mag.html

For what I want to use it for, which would be better, a 2" 44 Mag or a 6" 357 Mag or even a 4" 357 Mag?

Would a blued gun be OK? Or should I hold out for stainless?

If you have both a 2"/4"/6" do you find the sight radius difference be significant for accuracy and the type of carry I'm planning?

Thanks.

2 inch 44 definitely. But neither gun you listed would be what I want. A 4 inch 44 mag or a Glock 20 with hot loads would be my top choices. I carry my Glock 20 when I am in the woods these days. The issue with the 6 inch .357 mag is the barrel is so long as it will be difficult to fire once the bear gets on top of you and starts mauling you. I know it sounds like a harsh reality but you have to plan for the worst case. Bears are fast and will be on you before you know it. I have been charged before and if I did not have my shotgun out and ready I would have been seriously injured. The bear did not stop its charge until it was just 2 feet from me and I had hit it with 3 slugs. You don't want a revolver with a barrel that is long and cumbersome.

I recently switched my line of thinking from carrying a larger 5 shot custom hand cannon in 45 colt (loaded to .454 casual power levels) from Hamilton Bowen to the Glock 20.

My reasons are as follows.

1. I shoot Glocks and auto pistols a lot more than I do revolvers. They are more second nature to me and muscle memory is on my side.

2. With handguns you need to hit the CNS on a bear. A 10mm pistol as well as a .40sw with FMJ's will penetrate a bears skull. A friend of mine who was a fish and wildlife trooper did some testing about 10 years back on brown bear skulls and various rounds. He started carrying a .357 sig after that. Anyway back on point with an auto your rate of fire and hit probability are much higher than with a lower capacity higher recoiling double action revolver. You are not going to take the bear down in one shot don't count on it.

Here in Alaska the Glock 20 is a popular gun. A Glock rep told me they sell 90% of their Glock 20's to Alaska.

3. The Glock is a far easier gun to carry due to the lighter weight. My 5 shot revolver got heavy on long hikes up mountain trails.

Its a personal choice rather you go with a big bore revolver or a semi auto in 10mm. For me it was about what do I shoot the best as that is whats going to matter the most. The new L frame 44 mag from Smith looks like a good option for those wanting a easy to pack but still powerful revolver for a woods gun in bear country. Also if you can carry a long gun.

The .357 mag seems to offer the worst of both worlds. Low power and low capacity. Pretty much no one up here carries a .357 revolver for a woods gun. Its always at least a .44 mag in revolvers or a 10mm auto at the smallest.

Pat

Edited January 27, 2014 by Alaskapopo

[Forrest Halley]

I agree with a lot of what Alaskapopo has said. I carry a G29 on the trail. Mainly for it's concealability and firepower contained in a nice small and light package. The auto lends itself to several advantages in the woods: Ammunition is less bulky for a higher round payload.

Easier to maintain if it becomes wet or muddy or sandy.

Weapon is all around slimmer and takes up less space in a jacket or pack.

I know you'd mentioned open carry, but consider how many other people you see carrying firearms openly on the trail. Consider also how easy it is to fit in versus how many questions you might have to answer from Ranger Rick or anyone in general. I like to be well armed and not too noticeable. That way I can enjoy the fellowship of the trail, help others easily, and be helped if I need it; all the while I am secure. If you won't consider the auto route, go with the short .44 for your purposes.

[P.E. Kelley]

This Pat is with the other Pat. G20 all the way.

[Religious Shooter]

A friend of mine who was a fish and wildlife trooper did some testing about 10 years back on brown bear skulls and various rounds. He started carrying a .357 sig after that.

Can you ask your friend with the .357 Sig what gun he carries? What are the specs on his load? Bullet weight, velocity, type/brand of bullet, etc.

I already have a 21SF that I can shoot .45 Super out of and if I can find one I can put in a Storm Lake 10mm conversion barrel. I also have a 10MM Kimber and a G35 that I can covert to .357 SIG.

I don't have a center fire revolver and I just have a hankering for one. For this go around I decide on a 4" SP101 in .357 Magnum. After renting and shooting a 4" GP100 and a 6" S&W in .44 MAG, I think they are physically too big for hiking/fishing.

[Alaskapopo]

Not sure what he carries today as this was back in 2003 or so and he has since retired. But back then he bought a Glock 33 from me and he already had a Glock 31. He was using 125 grain Federal FMJ's at the time for use in the woods. That load in my Glock 31 back then was doing 1400 fps.
Pat

[Alaskapopo]

I would take a long hard look at the Smith 629 Mountain gun or the new 69 5 shot 44 mag. The 629 mountain gun is a good balance of power and weight and shootability if you prefer revolvers.
Pat

[Gussers]

I'll have to find the link, but I recall someone testing 2" barrels on a .357 and coming to the conclusion that anything over a .38 SPL +P wasn't worth it out of that barrel. The .357 rounds generated more noise and flash, but no more velocity than the .38 SPL loads from the same gun. For the .357 rounds, it was all just wasted potential. The story changed entirely with a 6" barrel, however. The velocities and M/E was significantly different.

I have to imagine that's just the same for a .44 mag. The mags use much slower powders and so it's just flung out of the short barrel while it's still burning. If you can't find a 4" or 6" .44 Mag, I'd go with the .357. However, I don't know that I'd be comfortable using a .357 to defend myself against a Grizzly either.

I'll see if I can find it. Regardless, the shorter barrel on the .44 is just going to be obnoxious! Try it and you'll see.

[Alaskapopo]

That is not correct. .357 mags generate the same proporionat more velocity out of a 2 inches as they would form a 4 or 6 inch barrel. There is extra noise and flash but you also get more velocity to go with it. Example I have a 340PD in 357 mag 125 grain magnums run 1150 fps out of it while 125 grain +p 38's run around 850.

Pat

[Alaskapopo]

I would rather have a 2.5 inch 44 mag than a 6 inch one. But a 4 is my favorite for a woods packing gun in that caliber.

[Shadowrider]

That is not correct. .357 mags generate the same proporionat more velocity out of a 2 inches as they would form a 4 or 6 inch barrel. There is extra noise and flash but you also get more velocity to go with it. Example I have a 340PD in 357 mag 125 grain magnums run 1150 fps out of it while 125 grain +p 38's run around 850.

Pat

This is very true. I have a handload with a 158gr XTP bullet that averages 1236 out of my 2.5" Model 66. That's a 158 NOT a 125 and it's a starting load from the manufacturers data.

For reference that same batch clocked 1389 out of a 6" 686.

Edit: There's also also data on the snubnose files site that shows what AKpopo is saying. Basically if it's a "faster" load in a longer gun it will be "faster" in a short gun. The slow powders won't burn in a short barrel is an old wives tale.

Edited February 1, 2014 by Shadowrider