Father Forkhorn

I ran into a single shot 357 handirifle today. I was wondering how it would function as a fur friendly gun for woodchucks, fox, bobcat, and varmint.

Am I right to thing it would be ok for this out to 100 yards? This gun has a scope mount.

My ideal gun would be a 22 hornet, but those guns are generally in a higher price bracket. I have a 357 mag handgun and already buy ammo for that caliber so it makes it easier on the wallet.

alleyyooper

Don't know how fur friendly it would be. Lot would depend on the ammo type.


Al

MudderChuck

222 Remington ammo is about the same price as the Hornet. The .222 has better ballistics than the Hornet. Hunting ammo (premium) for the .357 is maybe 3/4 the price of the 222 basic hunting ammo.

.357 is normally about a hundred yard round. The .222 or the Hornet is double that before it starts to fall off some.

I've got two Stevens, one is a 20 gauge .222 Remington combo, the other a clip feed bolt action in .222. Both were under $250 used, both are very accurate. The .222 seems to do the job well, it will take down most anything under 40 lbs. reliably.

A side note on my Stevens bolt action, the barrel is about shot out. The lands are well worn and it is still accurate.

Father Forkhorn

This is what I'm thinking. It may work out.

How fur friendly is the 222?

That's sort of what I'm figuring on the 357. There is Hornady's leverevolution ammo that might double that, based on reading.


I'm still interested hearing from others if anyone wants to weigh in.

MudderChuck

I use older Remington PSPBT (pointed soft point boat tail) 50 grain in my .222. Most times it is hole in, hole out, as long as you don't gut shoot them. I'd avoid hollow point or V Max type bullets.

I read where the 125 grain .357 has a similar velocity (ballistics) to my 35 Remington. My .35 wouldn't be my first choice for shooting a Hare. I want something left to eat.

I did gut shoot a Fox once with my .35 it wasn't pretty. Looked like I'd used hand grenade.

Like the .35 most of the ammo for the .357 is round nose, not the best choice IMO if you want to save the fur.

Father Forkhorn

That's something for me to think about for sure.

I'm still pondering.

Nomercy448

357mag will work fine for fur hunting, assuming it shoots precisely enough and you can manage the trajectory at your given range well enough to connect.

It's a big bullet, moving slowly - it'll find its way through light bodied varmints without issue. You do NOT want an expanding bullet if you're putting up fur, with the exception of coyotes. At really close range, a big bullet will make a mess of a hide, but give it about 50yrds to shed speed and it gets pretty well behaved. Out of a scoped rifle, on varmints, if you can connect at 200yrds, it'll kill. I used a Win 94 Trapper (about the only time you'll hear me admit to enjoying a Win 94) for many years as a feedlot rifle, and did well with it.

There's better stuff out there, the 22 Hornet being one option, but the 357mag in a rifle barrel isn't a bad choice.

Father Forkhorn

Let me make sure I interpret this correctly. You're saying no hollow points, no all- lead soft points, only fmj to save fur on fox and coyote?

Would that include something like a 38 special lead wadcutter?

Oldtimr

The whole idea of hollow pint ammo is expansion, you would not want to use them on fur, soft lead will expand and so will wad cutters. Wad cutters for .38 specials and .357 mags are the same bullet. FMJ would be the way to go if you don't want to ruin fur.

Father Forkhorn

38 special wadcutters work well for small game out of a revolver. I'm wondering about the rifle though.

Edit: I forgot to add, I am thinking along the same lines as you are. There'd be significant expansion with the rifle on a larger animal.