.357 mag vs 44-40 accuracy in a rifle

[Obie73]

Is the 357 mag generally more accurate than 44-40 in a rilfe, or would the difference in group size at 100m be pretty negligible? The 44-40 probably has the more curved trajectory and might need the rear sight adjusted for elevation for different ranges eg. 25, 50 and 100m, and the 357 be slightly flatter shooting, but I don't mind adjusting the rear sight. The main thing is will the 357 generally get you smaller groups at 100m? Or is it a case of "it ain't necessarily so"? I've noticed on youtube that a lot of 44-40 rifles have the longer 24" barrel and wondered if this means that this calibre needs the extra sight radius advantage. A lot of 357 rifles have the 20" barrel.

[Larry]

Its a hard question to answer given the type of rifle that these two cartridges come in and the age of the cartridge. In my experience the only 44-40 loads you can buy are cowboy action loads very soft about 960fps. The rifles are normally lever actions with iron sights and those sights are not the best available either.
The fun factor makes up for any loss in accuracy learn to shoot the rifle you want to have to the best of its availability and it will do the job it was intended for.

[bigrich]

A lot of firearms makers use the same barrel profile for both caliber and the 44mag . I’ve found the 357 to be more accurate as the barrel wall is thicker and less prone to walking with barrel heat after multiple rounds. JMHO

[bladeracer]

Is the 357 mag generally more accurate than 44-40 in a rifle, or would the difference in group size at 100m be pretty negligible? The 44-40 probably has the more curved trajectory and might need the rear sight adjusted for elevation for different ranges eg. 25, 50 and 100m, and the 357 be slightly flatter shooting, but I don't mind adjusting the rear sight. The main thing is will the 357 generally get you smaller groups at 100m? Or is it a case of "it ain't necessarily so"? I've noticed on youtube that a lot of 44-40 rifles have the longer 24" barrel and wondered if this means that this calibre needs the extra sight radius advantage. A lot of 357 rifles have the 20" barrel.

I have .44-40 brass and bullets but never did get around to a rifle. I have .44Mag, .38Special, and .357Mag rifles. All are different designs though - Winchester 1892 (Rossi) 24", Winchester 1866 (Uberti) 24", and Marlin 1894 20". To make such a determination I'd want all three chamberings in the same design. For me I would put the .357Mag as being a little more accurate than the .44Mag but not by a huge amount, both are still old-school lever-rifles. Scoped off the bench with jacketed bullets they can group around 80mm at 100m - this is acceptable to me for their purpose so I haven't done any significant load development with either. The .38 Special is range-limited by its subsonic velocity which effects its grouping ability at 100m - I would be surprised to get a group much under 150mm at 100m off a bench scoped, 200mm is more achievable. If you're comparing low-velocity .44-40 loads to hot .357 loads I would expect similar results. Fat, flat-nose bullets travelling at low velocities are not conducive to long-range accuracy. Cast bullets just exacerbate this.

For sight radius, if you put a receiver aperture sight on them the difference in barrel length makes little difference. With the mid-mounted rear notch sights the difference at the target between a 24" rifle and a 16" carbine would probably be pretty significant, but lots of practice should make it less so. A lot of practice should let you build a consistent cheek weld which really makes the rear sight less important, you learn to sight along the rifle and just use the front sight on the target.

The Rossi with the 24" octagonal barrel is noticeably front heavy, I would recommend handling one before buying it so you know what to expect. I really prefer the handiness of the carbines but I ended up with rifles

[bigrich]

The Rossi with the 24" octagonal barrel is noticeably front heavy, I would recommend handling one before buying it so you know what to expect. I really prefer the handiness of the carbines but I ended up with rifles

i have one of these. it's really accurate with factory 158gn magtech hollow points. if my blood sugar is good so my eye sight is at it's best , i have shot 4" at 100.
but the best thing is taking on trips and shooting at water filled beer cans at varying ranges . i have used it out to over 150 meters like this and it's proved itself to be more capable than people might think . that 24" barrel helps with velocity and sight radius for sure . if i could get 2205 i'd consider loading for it

[Gamerancher]

What do you intend to shoot with it?
Paper target, Metallic Silhouette, Gallery rifle or just general shooting?

[in2anity]

Sight radius is a signficant factor. Presuming the rear sight is indeed rear mounted, it is truly easier to accurately place shots with a 24" vs a 20". It's why overall SMLE-No4s beat SMLE-No5s, not to mention the luxurious radius of a 27" Pattern14/m17. The sights are just finer and crisper with that extra 4"+ of radius - hard to explain without properly experiencing the comparison for yourself. Even for standing "off-hand" - with a longer radius it's just easier and sharper to place that front sight neatly in the target. Forget all that rubbish about trajectory comparison - they are both rainbow pistols. Both will require you to figure out how many clicks you'll need at varying distances. Both will yield similar accuracy in like-for-like rifles. Accurate enough to consistently punch beer cans at 50m from offhand, if you're doing your part...

[Obie73]

What do you intend to shoot with it?
Paper target, Metallic Silhouette, Gallery rifle or just general shooting?

Strictly paper targets only at 25, 50, and 100m. My hunting days are over -- too busy with other things. My goal is to get around 4" groups or better at 100m with open sights, rested. Don't know if I can do it. But I want to try.

It's very frustrating finding information on the internet about what I want to do. Nearly all the forums and youtube videos are obsessed with energy. Couldn't care less about those things. I just want to get the smallest groups I can get. I think because in north America they have bears and so they're kind of obsessed with hitting power.

[Obie73]

Double post

[Obie73]

Thanks everyone. Great information. Thanks for all the replies. Keep 'em coming.

[bladeracer]

What do you intend to shoot with it?
Paper target, Metallic Silhouette, Gallery rifle or just general shooting?

Strictly paper targets only at 25, 50, and 100m. My hunting days are over -- too busy with other things. My goal is to get around 4" groups or better at 100m with open sights, rested. Don't know if I can do it. But I want to try.

If you're only shooting paper I would lean toward the .357Mag then. If you get something with a tight twist rate, like 20"-twist you can run heavier bullets to beat wind perhaps. My .38 Special is 18.75"-twist and shoots 200gn jacketed bullets fine. As long as your eyesight is up to it I think 4" 100m groups is doable with jacketed or even plated bullets.

[in2anity]

Strictly paper targets only at 25, 50, and 100m. My hunting days are over -- too busy with other things. My goal is to get around 4" groups or better at 100m with open sights, rested. Don't know if I can do it. But I want to try.

Let's clarify, a true 4" group at 100m from standing, is a pretty phenominally good offhand group, even with an efficient sighting system like some sort of telescope, on an inherently accurate modern package. That's even the case with further stabilising gear like a heavy CMP or better jacket. And by "group" I presume you mean a string of x5 or x10? This means ALL of the string go into 4" - not 4/5 or 9/10 - we are talking ALL, of the shots go into your imagined circle, under average wind conditions (i.e. a natural degree of wind).

A really important detail is whether you intend on putting the rifle down between shots. If you watch an olympic standing event, notice the little stand next to them they place the rifle on between shots. I don't know the technical terms, but you only get a relatively small window of time to break the shot before you get the "jelly arms" and start shaking, to the detriment of the group. That stand is there as a relief for the muscles between shots.The same principal is seen in high power silhoutte shooting - while you drop the rifle to single feed the next round into the action, you take the weight off your arms giving your arms a moment to recover.

Now in a CMP service match over in the United States, you will see heavy CMP jackets being used. Furthermore, the rifle "balances" on the support arm, which is tucked in tight onto the hip bone. The shooter leans back into the jacket hich is tight across the shoulders, acting like a cradle - and the rifle "balances" down in a straight line of bone through the popped out hip. Really brings into light the importance of the balance fulcrum for a given rifle. This is how they counter the "jelly arms" (when the discipline demands that the shooter required to hold the rifle for duration of the stage). BTW here is a very good offhand field shooter from Sydney, I took this video myself: https://youtu.be/b-eynCdJHZE - heavy CMP style jackets not permitted in service rifle in Aus.

Getting back to your "4 at 100m" goal - a slow 22lr at 100m under a full value wind that has a fair bit of variance to it (so around a 20km/h perpendicular that's gusting and fishing) will not mechanically group much better than 4". Add user error on top of that, and suddenly you are larger than 4". I reckon the rainbow 357 or 44-40, on a rather crappy day like that would similarly only BENCH into 4" let alone offhand. If you go to a faster cal like a 223 or better say a 6mm intermediary, you'll perhaps shave off an inch or two from that, making 4" offhand in the realms of possible. A gun like those, on a day like that, might subsequantly group into 2" at 100m, if you dropped into the prone position with a triangulating sling. Groups would come in a bit if you took the wind out. But a small straight wall cartridge? Nah I reckon keeping them all on say an 8-10" plate at 100m from offhand would be a more realistic expectation.

So yeah OP - if you can consistently put x10 in a row, into an 8" circle at 100m, using a peep-sighted 357 or 44-40(take your pick, same sh!t different smell), with open sights - you will doing pretty well. Maybe that might be a better starting goal? Work toward getting that down to 6"?

[Obie73]

Yep, I agree 8" and 6" groups are good starting goals. 4" is my eventual goal ...not my starting goal. I'd be ecstatic if I could get 4" groups at 100m off hand. By 4" groups my goal is specifically 5 shots (all the shots, not 4/5) all within a 4" circle. I did write that my intention was firing rested. By that I mean resting the rifle on a bench rest or standing with the left arm holding a post with the forestock resting in that hand. I saw my brother in law shoot 10 shots (that's all 10, with no outliers) into a 3.5" group at 100m while standing just like this, resting his left arm against a post, during a lever action competition and this was his first competition. That's what inspired me. This was with a 30-30, with a tiny, basic receiver-mounted peep sight. Obviously, he's a great shot. Since following his and his father's advice my shooting has improved greatly so I feel my goal is worth trying for. I've seen on youtube that the 357 lever rifles are capable of this sort of accuracy. I'd rather shoot 357 than 30-30 but either is possible.

My starting goal is actually to get 10" groups (all 5 shots) most times at 100m, off hand shooting, or failing that, 12" groups. Yes, with open sights, smaller groups aren't easy to achieve off hand. Thanks for your information and advice!

[bladeracer]

Yep, I agree 8" and 6" groups are good starting goals. 4" is my eventual goal ...not my starting goal. I'd be ecstatic if I could get 4" groups at 100m off hand. By 4" groups my goal is specifically 5 shots (all the shots, not 4/5) all within a 4" circle. I did write that my intention was firing rested. By that I mean resting the rifle on a bench rest or standing with the left arm holding a post with the forestock resting in that hand. I saw my brother in law shoot 10 shots (that's all 10, with no outliers) into a 3.5" group at 100m while standing just like this, resting his left arm against a post, during a lever action competition and this was his first competition. That's what inspired me. This was with a 30-30, with a tiny, basic receiver-mounted peep sight. Obviously, he's a great shot. Since following his and his father's advice my shooting has improved greatly so I feel my goal is worth trying for. I've seen on youtube that the 357 lever rifles are capable of this sort of accuracy. I'd rather shoot 357 than 30-30 but either is possible.

My starting goal is actually to get 10" groups (all 5 shots) most times at 100m, off hand shooting, or failing that, 12" groups. Yes, with open sights, smaller groups aren't easy to achieve off hand. Thanks for your information and advice!

I haven't scoped my Winchester 1894 in .30-30 to see just what it is capable of. But with full power 150gn jacketed bullets off a bench it'll group around 40mm for me with the Lyman aperture at 50m. The .30-30 will make around 2300fps with 150gn bullets and 2100fps with 170gn bullets, probably around 500fps more than you'll see from the .357 Magnum with similar bullet weights. That could be advantageous in shooting targets, especially if it's windy. If you don't mind single-loading you also have a very wide range of bullet designs to choose from in .30-cal that you don't have in .357-cal. I suspect the .30-30 will have a little more inherent accuracy over the fat and flat .357 bullets. Since your brother-in-law already has the .30-30 I would see if you can't spend an hour or two with it and see how you get on before deciding on the .357.

For offhand practicing I strongly recommend getting a .22LR, like the Henry H001, and just put case after case down range at every opportunity. A case of 5000rds of .22LR is still well under a thousand dollars. I bought half-scale silhouettes purely for this practice.

[in2anity]

Yep, I agree 8" and 6" groups are good starting goals. 4" is my eventual goal ...not my starting goal. I'd be ecstatic if I could get 4" groups at 100m off hand. By 4" groups my goal is specifically 5 shots (all the shots, not 4/5) all within a 4" circle. I did write that my intention was firing rested. By that I mean resting the rifle on a bench rest or standing with the left arm holding a post with the forestock resting in that hand. I saw my brother in law shoot 10 shots (that's all 10, with no outliers) into a 3.5" group at 100m while standing just like this, resting his left arm against a post, during a lever action competition and this was his first competition. That's what inspired me. This was with a 30-30, with a tiny, basic receiver-mounted peep sight. Obviously, he's a great shot. Since following his and his father's advice my shooting has improved greatly so I feel my goal is worth trying for. I've seen on youtube that the 357 lever rifles are capable of this sort of accuracy. I'd rather shoot 357 than 30-30 but either is possible.

My starting goal is actually to get 10" groups (all 5 shots) most times at 100m, off hand shooting, or failing that, 12" groups. Yes, with open sights, smaller groups aren't easy to achieve off hand. Thanks for your information and advice!

All sounds doable. However remember the 30/30 is inherently more accurate than a mild straight wall - the 30/30 is a fair bit faster - a highly tuned 30/30 can be a 2moa grouper - so that 3.5" for x10 sounds about right for a nice sturdy hold like a post to lean on. Nonethelss, I think maybe if you worked hard you might be able to tune up a 357 load to give you better than 4" at 100m, under easy wind. Shooting accurately with iron sights is all about sight picture. If you have a nice crisp, contrasting picture you can shoot them almost as well as a scope. Us service shooters tend to put a dot of white paint on the front blade to help with this, just depends on how the targets contrast with your front sight and their backdrop - maybe a six-oclock hold might something you might want to consider? I've shot a TR 48/50 at 700m with an m1917 before, with the factory blade at the front six-oclocking the fullbore circular face, using wind adjustable central range sight on the back. 8/10 into sub 2moa at 700m with the front battle blade.

I have a Marlin 94 straight wall that slings lead like this: https://youtu.be/FgFWgdY8tYM as you can see it's probably better than a 4moa gun at 100m, but falls apart at 200m cause of the poor velocity. The wind just destroys it.

Meanwhile my Pattern 14 will probably shoot into better than 4"/2moa at 200m if the sight picture was even more optimal than this: https://youtu.be/L7aFX0dGamc ... velocity and bullet shape counts at distance!

[Obie73]

[quote="bladeracer"] "I suspect the .30-30 will have a little more inherent accuracy over the fat and flat .357 bullets. Since your brother-in-law already has the .30-30 I would see if you can't spend an hour or two with it and see how you get on before deciding on the .357."

Is .357 Mag or 30-30 easier to get primers for at the moment? I'm thinking of using AR2207.

[Obie73]

Great videos in2anity. Nice shooting.

[bladeracer]

"I suspect the .30-30 will have a little more inherent accuracy over the fat and flat .357 bullets. Since your brother-in-law already has the .30-30 I would see if you can't spend an hour or two with it and see how you get on before deciding on the .357."

Is .357 Mag or 30-30 easier to get primers for at the moment? I'm thinking of using AR2207.

Right at this moment I would say you'll have more luck getting small pistol primers for the .357Mag as there was a shipment of Argentinian pistol primers recently. By the time you get a permit through that might have changed one way or the other, I would grab primers first, even if you get both until you decide which cartridge you want to load for - you won't have any difficulty moving on whichever you don't end up using.
If you're near Brisbane Rebels have some stock of pistol and rifle. https://www.rebelgunworks.com.au/collections/primers

You'll want AR2207 for the .357Mag but AR2205 is more useful if you can get it. The .30-30 is fine with AR2206H or AR2208, both of which are readily available still. AR2207 will work in the .30-30 but I wouldn't expect to get quite the velocities of the slower powders. And when you run out of AR2205 or AR2207 you might struggle to get more of it, check if your dealer actually has some first, and grab it if he does. Trying to use the same powder in a case near half the capacity of another is quite a compromise. A slow powder to optimise the larger case will be poor in the smaller case, and vice versa.

Personally, I would go with the .30-30 and AR2206H. This will allow you to load right down to 60gn bullets from subsonic to 2800fps or more, 150gn bullets at 2300fps, or perhaps even 200gn bullets near 2000fps (depending on the twist rate of your rifle). It's fairly versatile compared to the .357Mag as it's offers more velocity.
That's assuming you can get large rifle primers for it.

[Obie73]

Yep, I agree 8" and 6" groups are good starting goals. 4" is my eventual goal ...not my starting goal. I'd be ecstatic if I could get 4" groups at 100m off hand. By 4" groups my goal is specifically 5 shots (all the shots, not 4/5) all within a 4" circle. I did write that my intention was firing rested. By that I mean resting the rifle on a bench rest or standing with the left arm holding a post with the forestock resting in that hand. I saw my brother in law shoot 10 shots (that's all 10, with no outliers) into a 3.5" group at 100m while standing just like this, resting his left arm against a post, during a lever action competition and this was his first competition. That's what inspired me. This was with a 30-30, with a tiny, basic receiver-mounted peep sight. Obviously, he's a great shot. Since following his and his father's advice my shooting has improved greatly so I feel my goal is worth trying for. I've seen on youtube that the 357 lever rifles are capable of this sort of accuracy. I'd rather shoot 357 than 30-30 but either is possible.

My starting goal is actually to get 10" groups (all 5 shots) most times at 100m, off hand shooting, or failing that, 12" groups. Yes, with open sights, smaller groups aren't easy to achieve off hand. Thanks for your information and advice!

All sounds doable. However remember the 30/30 is inherently more accurate than a mild straight wall - the 30/30 is a fair bit faster - a highly tuned 30/30 can be a 2moa grouper - so that 3.5" for x10 sounds about right for a nice sturdy hold like a post to lean on. Nonethelss, I think maybe if you worked hard you might be able to tune up a 357 load to give you better than 4" at 100m, under easy wind. Shooting accurately with iron sights is all about sight picture. If you have a nice crisp, contrasting picture you can shoot them almost as well as a scope. Us service shooters tend to put a dot of white paint on the front blade to help with this, just depends on how the targets contrast with your front sight and their backdrop - maybe a six-oclock hold might something you might want to consider? I've shot a TR 48/50 at 700m with an m1917 before, with the factory blade at the front six-oclocking the fullbore circular face, using wind adjustable central range sight on the back. 8/10 into sub 2moa at 700m with the front battle blade.

I have a Marlin 94 straight wall that slings lead like this: https://youtu.be/FgFWgdY8tYM as you can see it's probably better than a 4moa gun at 100m, but falls apart at 200m cause of the poor velocity. The wind just destroys it.

Meanwhile my Pattern 14 will probably shoot into better than 4"/2moa at 200m if the sight picture was even more optimal than this: https://youtu.be/L7aFX0dGamc ... velocity and bullet shape counts at distance!

When you say iron sights do you mean with rear notch sight or does the term include peep sights? I really like using standard notch-type rear sights, that come fitted to lever actions when you buy them such as semi-buckhorn or ladder type rear sights. This gives me a lot of pleasure shooting with these. I like the challenge. I've found I have to be careful to do things like hold the rifle consistently vertical (no leaning either side) and place the bead in the same place in the notch each time.

[JohnV]

I would go the 357 for sure . The 357 case it better to reload than the thin 44-40 cases .
44-40 factory ammo is down loaded to allow for someone who might have an old black powder unproofed gun .

[bladeracer]

When you say iron sights do you mean with rear notch sight or does the term include peep sights? I really like using standard notch-type rear sights, that come fitted to lever actions when you buy them such as semi-buckhorn or ladder type rear sights. This gives me a lot of pleasure shooting with these. I like the challenge. I've found I have to be careful to do things like hold the rifle consistently vertical (no leaning either side) and place the bead in the same place in the notch each time.

Iron sights generally means non-optical, open sights means not aperture.
I like the theory of buckhorn sights being a basic BDC system, but I think it would take a lot of practice to become fluent with it. You can place the bead in the notch like a conventional sight, in the centre of the ghost ring formed by the "horns, and in between the tips of the horns for three different distances.

[Larry]

Yes when I said iron sights I was referring to the Buckhorn sights that come as standard on most rifles. I find the Buckhorn very hard to use the vertical positioning is much harder to see with old eyes than a flat plate.

[bladeracer]

Nearly all the forums and youtube videos are obsessed with energy. Couldn't care less about those things. I just want to get the smallest groups I can get. I think because in north America they have bears and so they're kind of obsessed with hitting power.

I think "an obsession with accuracy" and "old school lever rifles" probably don't belong in the same paragraph. The design from the ground up is not conducive to accuracy. Being forced by that design to also use flat-nosed bullets further degrades accuracy potential. I think the Savage 99 was the first major offering to try to address these issues but doing away with the tube magazine. The BLR went further by going to a rotating bolt head, like an AR15 for better lock-up.

[Obie73]

Nearly all the forums and youtube videos are obsessed with energy. Couldn't care less about those things. I just want to get the smallest groups I can get. I think because in north America they have bears and so they're kind of obsessed with hitting power.

I think "an obsession with accuracy" and "old school lever rifles" probably don't belong in the same paragraph. The design from the ground up is not conducive to accuracy. Being forced by that design to also use flat-nosed bullets further degrades accuracy potential. I think the Savage 99 was the first major offering to try to address these issues but doing away with the tube magazine. The BLR went further by going to a rotating bolt head, like an AR15 for better lock-up.

Compared to bolt actions and BLR lever action rifles traditional tube magazine lever actions really aren't all that accurate, sure. But I like them, and the challenge of shooting them as accurately as I can with open sights. I can appreciate that not everyone gets that. One of my other brothers-in-law loves bolt actions with scopes, thinks pin point accuracy is the number one thing, and can't understand how anyone would be interested in lever actions. To me lever actions are fun. I find bolt actions boring. If accuracy was the only thing I cared about, for instance if I was dependent on a rifle to regularly find food, I wouldn't muck around with lever actions. I'd have a bolt action .243 with a scope.

[bladeracer]

Compared to bolt actions and BLR lever action rifles traditional tube magazine lever actions really aren't all that accurate, sure. But I like them, and the challenge of shooting them as accurately as I can with open sights. I can appreciate that not everyone gets that. One of my other brothers-in-law loves bolt actions with scopes, thinks pin point accuracy is the number one thing, and can't understand how anyone would be interested in lever actions. To me lever actions are fun. I find bolt actions boring. If accuracy was the only thing I cared about, for instance if I was dependent on a rifle to regularly find food, I wouldn't muck around with lever actions. I'd have a bolt action .243 with a scope.

Yep, I never had any time for levers but somehow I ended up with six or seven of them
They're good for learning that not everything has to be about half-inch groups.
You were the one that said you had an obsession with accuracy
Levers are great for having fun, bolts are great for getting jobs done.

[Obie73]

This guy on youtube demonstrates accurate shooting with an old-fashioned rifle with open sights: accurate in terms of what that type of rifle can inherently do. I didn't say I was obsessed with accuracy (I'm not) - I was talking about others always talking about energy all the time.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oBTgNxOj9Eg

[in2anity]

This guy on youtube demonstrates accurate shooting with an old-fashioned rifle with open sights: accurate in terms of what that type of rifle can inherently do. I didn't say I was obsessed with accuracy (I'm not) - I was talking about others always talking about energy all the time.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oBTgNxOj9Eg

That guy really wrings the accuracy out of levers and black powder rifles - valuable information.

Obie might appreciate these guys: https://youtu.be/MCe0wiKBNEI that’s IMO good shootin.

[Obie73]

Cool. Good shooting alright.

My latest plan is to have both 30-30 and 357. Best of both worlds. I won't bother with a rifle in 44-40.

[JohnV]

The Browning BLR does not have a tube magazine it has a box mag and they are quite accurate .

[in2anity]

357 and 30/30 are both great calibers for different reasons. Good choices. Leave the 44-40 for dress ups. There are some amazing SMLE No1 shooters in our club and they have the v-notch style. It’s all about sight picture; if you can form a consistent picture, you can get a consistent group. Simply repeat thousands of times, until it goes up to your cheek exactly he same way.. every time. Dry fire helps. Then it’s just a matter of ensuring the group is where you desire it to be... that's a different matter The rear peep is just easier and faster to get to that place, a bit of a shortcut if you will.