I might carry a 357 carbine for protection against black bears and mountain lions...maybe. But I wouldn't go hunting for them with it. And I'd feel awful self conscious about hunting an elk with one.
According to some folks here bullet placement is most important.. You should be fine. Even a .22lr should do it according to this philosophy!!! For me that is bs..
Just curious, what state limits one to a 357? They will get a close range deer, would not try an Elk, unless really close. Heard of Shotgun only, and bullet size, velocity/energy restrictions but never 357 only/max.
I agree with others here. OK out to 50-75 yds on whitetail deer with good shot placement. I would not use it for Black Bear or Elk. Good chance you might not recover the animal. Bear and Elk are tough animals. They are more muscular and thicker than deer. Probably would not get a pass through with a 357. It makes it much more difficult to track them with only an entrance hole.
Just curious, what state limits one to a 357? They will get a close range deer, would not try an Elk, unless really close. Heard of Shotgun only, and bullet size, velocity/energy restrictions but never 357 only/max.
No limit to a 357 but several Midwest states have cartridge restrictions in place. The idea of the 357 is simply that I have a friend who is selling one and another friend in a restricted area that needs a deer (and someday elk) rifle for a young hunter.
thinking it maybe just the ticket after reading the posts here...with the assumption that the “someday elk”is not part of the equation.
The "stay at home order" has me cruising this site more often now. I seldom contribute, just read others comments. However on this subject I feel I can contribute. I was a big game guide for 9 years, mostly deer and elk. Have been in on over 100 elk kills and the same number of mule deer and antelope. I used the 357 on 3 mule deer, all does and one good sized buck antelope. I used Remington 158 grain JHP's on all backed by 15 grains of 2400. I was not impressed at all on its killing power. Most required several hits and considerable time to die. Before these experiences I believed some of the hype and crawled into a black bears den to finish off a wounded bear with a 357. I was young and inexperienced at the time. On elk I would vote a definite "no". They can take a lot of lead to stop on occasion. However in controlled conditions everything is possible. I know a guide that killed 2 elk with a Colt Woodsman 22, and both elk were dead before the echo was gone.
We haven't caught a 158 XTP in a deer yet, including some quartering shots. I load the FP version with 17.5 grn of Lil'Gun for a Marlin 1894 and Ruger 77/.357.
Why not get the .357 now and worry about the elk rifle when "someday" happens?
For elk an absolute NO!!!. For deer , maybe at 75 yds or closer & a smallish deer at 100 lbs or under. A 250 lb+ muley , no. The possibility of wounded & lost game is to high . Spend the money & get a more suitable rifle.
The "stay at home order" has me cruising this site more often now. I seldom contribute, just read others comments. However on this subject I feel I can contribute. I was a big game guide for 9 years, mostly deer and elk. Have been in on over 100 elk kills and the same number of mule deer and antelope. I used the 357 on 3 mule deer, all does and one good sized buck antelope. I used Remington 158 grain JHP's on all backed by 15 grains of 2400. I was not impressed at all on its killing power. Most required several hits and considerable time to die. Before these experiences I believed some of the hype and crawled into a black bears den to finish off a wounded bear with a 357. I was young and inexperienced at the time. On elk I would vote a definite "no". They can take a lot of lead to stop on occasion. However in controlled conditions everything is possible. I know a guide that killed 2 elk with a Colt Woodsman 22, and both elk were dead before the echo was gone.
If all that was from a .357 CARBINE then your shot placement sucked, plain and simple. From a carbine, muzzle velocity is generally 400-500+ fps higher than the same loads fired from a 6" revolver turning the .357 into a completely different animal. Those here saying the .357 CARBINE is only effective on deer at 50-75 yards are also full of shyt. When fired from a carbine, retained velocity/energy is significantly higher at 100 yards than the same load fired from a 6" revolver has at the muzzle. My Marlin proved effective on deer well beyond 100 yards on more than one occasion.
The "stay at home order" has me cruising this site more often now. I seldom contribute, just read others comments. However on this subject I feel I can contribute. I was a big game guide for 9 years, mostly deer and elk. Have been in on over 100 elk kills and the same number of mule deer and antelope. I used the 357 on 3 mule deer, all does and one good sized buck antelope. I used Remington 158 grain JHP's on all backed by 15 grains of 2400. I was not impressed at all on its killing power. Most required several hits and considerable time to die. Before these experiences I believed some of the hype and crawled into a black bears den to finish off a wounded bear with a 357. I was young and inexperienced at the time. On elk I would vote a definite "no". They can take a lot of lead to stop on occasion. However in controlled conditions everything is possible. I know a guide that killed 2 elk with a Colt Woodsman 22, and both elk were dead before the echo was gone.
If all that was from a .357 CARBINE then your shot placement sucked, plain and simple. From a carbine, muzzle velocity is generally 400-500+ fps higher than the same loads fired from a 6" revolver turning the .357 into a completely different animal. Those here saying the .357 CARBINE is only effective on deer at 50-75 yards are also full of shyt. When fired from a carbine, retained velocity/energy is significantly higher at 100 yards than the same load fired from a 6" revolver has at the muzzle. My Marlin proved effective on deer well beyond 100 yards on more than one occasion.
Well that’s because you are John J. Rambo of the Adirondacks. 😆
The "stay at home order" has me cruising this site more often now. I seldom contribute, just read others comments. However on this subject I feel I can contribute. I was a big game guide for 9 years, mostly deer and elk. Have been in on over 100 elk kills and the same number of mule deer and antelope. I used the 357 on 3 mule deer, all does and one good sized buck antelope. I used Remington 158 grain JHP's on all backed by 15 grains of 2400. I was not impressed at all on its killing power. Most required several hits and considerable time to die. Before these experiences I believed some of the hype and crawled into a black bears den to finish off a wounded bear with a 357. I was young and inexperienced at the time. On elk I would vote a definite "no". They can take a lot of lead to stop on occasion. However in controlled conditions everything is possible. I know a guide that killed 2 elk with a Colt Woodsman 22, and both elk were dead before the echo was gone.
If all that was from a .357 CARBINE then your shot placement sucked, plain and simple. From a carbine, muzzle velocity is generally 400-500+ fps higher than the same loads fired from a 6" revolver turning the .357 into a completely different animal. Those here saying the .357 CARBINE is only effective on deer at 50-75 yards are also full of shyt. When fired from a carbine, retained velocity/energy is significantly higher at 100 yards than the same load fired from a 6" revolver has at the muzzle. My Marlin proved effective on deer well beyond 100 yards on more than one occasion.
Well that’s because you are John J. Rambo of the Adirondacks. 😆
Hey carrot brain. Still trying to figure out how to tie your own shoes this afternoon ?
Blackheart brought up a point that I failed to mention. All my experiences , a total of 4 not counting the wounded bear, were with handguns. Two deer with a 8 3/8" barreled revolver and 2 with a 6" barreled revolver. And he also mentioned my shot placement sucked. Damn I didn't know there were any witnesses to my shooting. And yes on two of the animals shot placement was iffy. But one doe shot through the lungs stayed alive for a good 15 minutes and was still breathing when found. The buck antelope was perfect placement and did the usual 100 yard death run. A carbine would sure be a great improvement in energy and shot placement. I take no exception to his comments on my shooting. However ALWAYSOUTDOORS call me "Rambo of the Adirondacks" which my wife DID NOT call me when she found out about my encounter in the bear den. She was of a different opinion than ALWAYS. She called me "The Forest Gump of the Rockies".
The "stay at home order" has me cruising this site more often now. I seldom contribute, just read others comments. However on this subject I feel I can contribute. I was a big game guide for 9 years, mostly deer and elk. Have been in on over 100 elk kills and the same number of mule deer and antelope. I used the 357 on 3 mule deer, all does and one good sized buck antelope. I used Remington 158 grain JHP's on all backed by 15 grains of 2400. I was not impressed at all on its killing power. Most required several hits and considerable time to die. Before these experiences I believed some of the hype and crawled into a black bears den to finish off a wounded bear with a 357. I was young and inexperienced at the time. On elk I would vote a definite "no". They can take a lot of lead to stop on occasion. However in controlled conditions everything is possible. I know a guide that killed 2 elk with a Colt Woodsman 22, and both elk were dead before the echo was gone.
If all that was from a .357 CARBINE then your shot placement sucked, plain and simple. From a carbine, muzzle velocity is generally 400-500+ fps higher than the same loads fired from a 6" revolver turning the .357 into a completely different animal. Those here saying the .357 CARBINE is only effective on deer at 50-75 yards are also full of shyt. When fired from a carbine, retained velocity/energy is significantly higher at 100 yards than the same load fired from a 6" revolver has at the muzzle. My Marlin proved effective on deer well beyond 100 yards on more than one occasion.
Well that’s because you are John J. Rambo of the Adirondacks. 😆
Hey carrot brain. Still trying to figure out how to tie your own shoes this afternoon ?
If a kid/new hunter can't reliably place his/her shots in the vitals they aren't ready to go hunting period. Anybody who can reliably place their shots through a deer's lungs at 100 yards will make meat with an accurate .357 carbine.
![[Linked Image from i.postimg.cc]](https://i.postimg.cc/qMjL6f8C/27-FD3-F35-D9-CF-4-FC0-AE24-D01508-F7-AF1-C.gif)