Large Caliber Revolvers

[rah45]

So I was thinking today about how nice it would be, if you were going out into a wilderness sort of area, to have a pistol that is capable of effectively defending against medium sized predators, like coyotes. I have a 9mm semi-auto, but if I were going into such an area, I'd be tempted to take a long arm for the firepower. I've shot a lightweight .357 revolver before, both with .38 and .357, and neither were comfortable or natural feeling for me.

Does anyone else here have experience with revolvers in calibers in at least .357 or .44 mag? What are your thoughts on carrying for self-defense? Is the extra power in the cartridge such a game changer compared to the typical semi-auto offerings?

[Nemo]

Short answer, Yes.  My standard woods carry is a Colt Trooper Mk III, 357, with a 6 inch barrel.  It handles 357 recoil very well and has the potency to handle what I might need of it.  The first 2 cylinders are loaded standard 38 shotshells and the rest with 125gr JSP, 357mag cartridges.  I also wear a belt pouch of 2 speedloaders.  The left one is 2 shotshell and 4 solids and the right is standard 6 rounds of JSP.

I have the 2 shotshells up for first rounds because a venomous reptile is my most likely necessary fire and if not that, it don't take long to get to the solid ones with the first 2 good for blinding or changing the mind of the target critter.  You would not really have that option in a 9 or 40 or 45 or any autoloader.

Short of a brown or grizzly bear, a 357 or more should handle anything I will run into east of the Mississippi river.

Nemo

[Reaver]

I have the Raging Judge and that thing is awesome.  One of my never sells unless dire need arises lol. 454 is expensive but worth it when one needs it. The biggest thing in FL can easily be dropped with an intermediate load. That or I can effectively disabled any military vehicle I can think of with proper placement and load.

Recoil is incredibly manageable do to grip shape and texture as well as pistol weight.

Did I mention I can hunt snakes and squirrel as well?

[DMCakhunter]

The revolver is much more versatile than any auto handgun. You can load down for fun or lesser critters and use full bore loads when needed. Just figure out what the biggest critter you may come across and size the gun accordingly. Any handgun is a poor substitute for a rife, it is all about trade-offs. I always carry a revolver when hunting in alaska. My favorite for sheep hunting is an S&W 329PD. Light weight and much easier to carry while still having the power to get the job done. Bear hunting I carry a modified ruger redhawk which ups the power a lot. It is all about portability, a big oversized S&W X frame looks good on paper, but is a pain in the butt to carry, especially with a backpack.  The ruger in 500 Linebaugh is much easier to carry.
As far as snakes, get an S&W governor or a taurus judge. The .410 loads are way better than the shot loads for pistol ammo and a 45 long colt is a good round on it's own with good bullets.

[rah45]

Cool, thanks for the info guys. I really don't know much about revolvers.

[RONSERESURPLUS]

Hey all


I do see the Large frame revolver as a viable option, I myself, opted for a 1917 Revolver in 45acp it will drop a Lot of game and men so it works for me!

Ron L

[Grudgie]

I don't know, to me a semi auto just seems more practical unless we are talking about moose or bear. Then you might want the .44 magnum.

Decide for yourself:
.40 smith & Wesson http://www.ballistics101.com/40_caliber_sw.php
.357 magnum http://www.ballistics101.com/357_magnum.php

It's the difference between a 180 grain bullet going 990fps or 1180fps. Is that extra range and penetration that important? Personally I would rather take the semi auto with 15 rounds as opposed to the revolver's six. A modern semi auto is usually lighter anyway.

As for self defense, I have read a lot of negative things about the .44 magnum in self defense. Ballistically speaking. Take what I say with a grain of salt. I'd take the semi auto again.

Is a large caliber revolver viable: Yes.
Is a large caliber revolver preferable: In my opinion no.

[Nemo]

.40 smith & Wesson http://www.ballistics101.com/40_caliber_sw.php
.357 magnum http://www.ballistics101.com/357_magnum.php

It's the difference between a 180 grain bullet going 990fps or 1180fps. Is that extra range and penetration that important? Personally I would rather take the semi auto with 15 rounds as opposed to the revolver's six. A modern semi auto is usually lighter anyway.

Thats why I go more for the lighter projectile. 357 With a 125 JSP gives you 583 FtLb at the muzzle with 1450fps.  A 40 with 125 XP gives 536 at 1390.  Only 50 more than the 180gr but every bit helps.  Also consider the reliability.  An autoloader can get stuck alot quicker and with less grime than most wheelguns.  Unless it is a 1911 and one made a while ago.  Newer closer tolerances can lessen dirt tolerance IMHO.

IF you need more than 6 rounds you are in probably dead anyway.  A good 357 with 6 can discourage any animal in the US except the buffalo or brown or grizzly bear.  If you have a chance of running into them, you would be carrying at least a 45/70 anyway.

With the shotshell availability and reliability I would really recommend the wheelgun over the autoloader.  But then again, I am a wheelgun guy from way back.

Nemo

[DMCakhunter]

The question was framed for the wilderness, not the south side of Chicago. Again, you have to size the ammo to the largest threat you may encounter. A 125 grain .357 is great for deer or smaller critters but weak on larger animals. It is all about penetration, not expansion.
For portsble auto's, the only viable cartridge is a 10mm, and it is still a little small for good blood loss.

[thatGuy]

dude, if you can't kill a coyote with a 9mm you're not gonna fair any better with .357... just saying

[JohnyMac]

A well placed shot with a 22LR can drop a Coyote. I use to know a guy who poached deer using a .22LR. Common sound in a rural area vs. a 30/30 in none hunting season and head shots were deadly.

On another note: I always chuckle to myself concerning these kind of discussions as everybody is right to a degree.  With that said, shot placement, shot placement and shot placement.

You don't need to go to a larger caliber to compensate for poor shot placement - Or do YOU?     

[DMCakhunter]

Yes JM,
These discussions are a lot of fun.
There are times when a .22 is good:

And times when it isn't:

[Nemo]

One other nice thing about the revolver is the lever or pump action rifle in the same caliber you can get.  Then again there are the Hi Point handguns and carbines.  They are ugly as bricks but just as tough and reliable.

Nemo

[rah45]

I think DMC is echoing my own thoughts. My biggest concern is shot penetrating through the hide, fat and muscle of medium - large wildlife. I just don't think that an animal is going to give anyone an easy headshot, so you need something that will penetrate through to the heart or lungs.

[special-k]

I've heard it said that if you had to go up against a bear with a .357 mag, you would be better off using FMJ rather than JHP.

[brat]

The question was framed for the wilderness, not the south side of Chicago.

 

[DMCakhunter]

rah45 & special-k,
A hard cast lead bullet is the best thing for penetration. Wider the nose the better it is. You will not get any expansion and that is why the larger calibers work better. A handgun doesn't have the shock factor that a rifle has, so you have to go for blood loss, break bones or central nervous system hits.