Talk:.357 Magnum

Military history: Technology / Weaponry / North America / United States

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces: /  Military science, technology, and theory task force Weaponry task force North American military history task force United States military history task force

A .357 Magnum revolver will generally accept both .357 Magnum and .38 Special ammunition, ...

I removed "generally." I don't see how a 357 Magnum could not fire a 38 Special, but the firearms world has some strange stuff in it. Please correct if necessary. -- Mike Wilson 01:40, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The only instance where it would not be recommended to fire a 38 spec in a 357 is the 38 tends to leave lead rings in the cylinder. —  KaiserB 04:28, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have used a revolver that used both a .38 and a .357 Magnum. Dudtz 6/25/06 11:29 PM EST

A .357 magnum may not accept .357 loads after several .38 loads have been fired through it due to the accumulation of debris left by the shorter .38 cartridge. The slightly longer .357 will be met with resistance when trying to load them into the cylinder. --Professor London 05:37, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That wouldn't really be an issue since all that would do is require cleaning if the lead rings were heavy enough to stop the magnum from loading.

Digitallymade (talk) 17:07, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't have debris problems with the .357/.38 revolver that I used. Dudtz 9/25/06 7:10 PM EST

A 357 Magnum Desert Eagle will not fire 38 special. December —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.130.168.54 (talk) 19:20, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This statement: The .357 Magnum was a direct competitor with the .38 Super which was designed for semi-automatic pistols. The .38 Super can still give the .357 serious competition in barrels of equal length, but the .357 is more powerful especially as revolvers can have a long barrel that would be too clumsy for semi-auto designs. Is questionable at best. Why is the 357 Magnum (revolver round) a direct competitor with 38 Super (semi auto round)? This does not make sense. —  KaiserB 04:30, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The .357 Magnum is one of the cartridges for the Desert Eagle(semi auto pistols) family. Dudtz 11/29/06 6:30 PM EST

I can add my 2 cents worth that it may originate from the fact that the .357 mag was designed/offered as a direct response in '34/'35 to the .38 super auto,first offered in '29,as the .38 super was the only round that could penetrate bulletproof vests and such,and .357 came as a response.....cheers,Keserman (talk) 18:34, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The first sentence: "The .357 Magnum revolver cartridge was created by Elmer Keith and the firearms manufacturer Smith & Wesson" is not not quite accurate. According to John Taffin's Big Bore Sixguns, Doug Wesson recruited Keith and another famous "experimenter," Phil Sharpe, to test the limits of a heavy-framed .38 revolver. According to Taffin, Sharpe "was probably most influential in bringing about the new cartridge."

Also, though S&W developed the .357 revolver, Winchester developed the .357 cartridge.

Doug Wesson provoked the development of the .357, and played a large role in promotion of the .357, particularly as a hunting round.

The round was developed jointly by Doug Wesson and Phil Sharpe. Apparently because more people are aware of Elmer Keith than either Wesson or Sharpe, Keith gets top billing. Keith's contribution was to popularize the 357, a role he assumed enthusiastically apropos several handgun and even more rifle rounds. As far as I know, Phil Sharpe's narrative regarding the development of the cartridge in his 1937 book on handloading has never been contested.

is that one available in Resident Evil as well? I don't quite remember... (131.130.121.106 20:18, 5 June 2006 (UTC))[reply]

The WPMILHIST tag has been removed due to this article not being military related.--Oldwildbill 08:57, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It has much more stopping power on game than the .45 Long Colt.

I'd have to say, only compared to "standard" 45 LC loads intended to be safe in older revolvers. Careful handloaders have long been able to create heavy 45 LC loads for stronger, modern handguns that are better than the 357 on large game, and now there is factory +P ammunition such as that from Buffalo Bore.

But - I'm a 357 fan regardless.

Rossab 22:45, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I altered it to say that they're very similar, based on looking up results for both cartridges. Energy is almost identical for bullets of standard weight in each cartridge. The larger cross-section of the .45 would give it the edge in punch, the .357 has the edge on penetration based on the sectional density. I can provide data for anyone interested, but I thought it a bit much to add the comparison to the article, it would give too much weight to the .45, which after all isn't what the article is about. Arthurrh 00:15, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Before I go ahead to add them into See Also, I wanted to ask if it was appropriate to perhaps list a small number of prominent guns that use this cartridge. I was thinking of three examples:

• S&W Model 27
  , the first gun to use the round.
• Colt Python, probably one of the most famous guns to use the round.
• Desert Eagle, noteworthy as a semi-automatic that can use the round.

What do you think? —WhosAsking 12:36, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Go for it,especially the .357 Desert Eagle. Dudtz 11/29/06 6:33 PM ET

I just did a major cleanup. I removed a lot of the excess wikilinks that were repeated. Also added references. I took out the Marshall & Sanow data because it was unreferenced and from what I can find it's highly disputed.The Marshall & Sanow "Data" - Statistical Analysis Tells the Ugly Story

Marshall & Sanow's terminal ballistics research indicates a high likelihood of a "one-shot stop" with the .357 Magnum. However the .357 Magnum may produce muzzle blast beyond the tolerance levels of some shooters, especially from shorter-barreled revolvers.

I removed the claim to Winchester as being part of the design, unless someone has a ref to back it up. I couldn't find one. I also cleaned some unlikely claims, as well as generally trying to tighten the language. I'm sure someone can still polish it up quite a bit. Arthurrh 00:07, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This story at About.com states that Winchester created the specifications for the cartridge, so I added it as a reference. Bloodshedder 00:41, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. I also find it in my COTW. Arthurrh 04:52, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think this removal of Marshall and Sanow's data on OSS should have not been removed and the "controversial" nature is only purported by a direct, and the now defunct IWBA and Martin Fackler and his acolytes. The site references is no more authoritative than a gun magazine with paid advertisers. The debate between Fackler and Evan Marhshall & Ed Sanow descended into ad hominem attacks, mostly coming from Fackler's camp. Marshall and Sanow may not be lettered from the most prestigious universities but their street data is no less valid. Anyone with verifiable, provable data is not to be dismissed. I can EASILY disprove Fackler: his theory of deep penetrating, subsonic 9mm 147 gr., (Based from the Olin Super Match) as briefly adopted by the FBI was quickly realized to be ineffective, which in a gunfight situation IS a matter of life and death. However, the 9mm 115gr +P+ endorsed by Mashall and Sanow are still produced and widely used by many LE Agencies around the country. As it related to the .357 Magnum, Marshall and Sanow's compiled and most recent data shows 641 Shootings with the Federal 125 gr JHP .357 and 615 One Shot Stops for a 96% OSS Rating. The criteria for this is 1. Torso Shots Only 2. No Multiple Hits. 3. Hostilities must immediately cease, and if moving, movement ceases (w/o further hostile action) within 10 feet. (Source: Stopping Power: A Practical Analysis of the Latest Handgun Ammunition 2001) This is a potent argument for the .357, and should be displayed. If the only "objection" comes from the defunct, and elitist (read all the ad hominem attacks in the above link. Calling the author of ANY study foolish and ridiculous has NO place in a "peer review" and discounts the "reviewer") groups, then there is no valid objection.

I wrote more on this subject in the wikiFirearms Project page, but here is something pertinent to the .357 Magnum, and de facto evidence for Marshall & Sanow's validity. Consider the .357 SIG cartridge, when first developed by Federal Cartridge and SigSauer, it was designed to replicate the .357 Magnum's 125 JHP velocity and stopping power. To do so, the .357 SIG drives a .355" (as opposed to .357") 125 gr bullet to 1450 fps. Federal's stated intent was to duplicate the efficacy of their 125 gr .357 Magnum JHP and its well-known stopping power.Lmt 7816 (talk) 07:07, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do I understand correctly that the magnum refers to the cartridge being longer than usual? I always assumed that the epithet referred to the caliber. Thanks. Maikel (talk) 02:22, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On all the magnum cartridges I know of, the caliber of the bullet remains the same as the previous cartridge it was based on (assuming it was based on a previous cartridge, I don't think all "magnum" cartridges are). The .38 in .38 Special actually refers to the diameter of the case, not the bullet. The bullet is approx. 9 millimeters (0.358 inches) like the .357 Magnum. The cartridges were made longer, obviously, and this served two functions: to be able to hold more powder, and to prevent the cartridges from being used in older revolvers that would not hold up. Bloodshedder (talk) 09:27, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I saw this on a page with photos of many cartridges, but haven't found any info on what's different about it. The portion of the bullet visible is very odd shaped. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.228.178.123 (talk) 05:39, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article reassessed and graded as start class. [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Style

Why is the case capacity not mentioned anywhere? Some people want to know this. This is one of the many articles I've brought this up at, as half the articles on ammunition have them, half don't. I can't edit Wiki, due to technical problems with my computer, and I really don't know, so I can't fix it, otherwise I would. Avianmosquito (talk) 03:12, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note that an anon IP, now SPA, keeps insisting on removing the synonym for the round being listed as .357 Remington Magnum, despite a reference that confirms that this is a synonym. Comments? Yaf (talk) 00:06, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The following is copied from User:Yaf talk page:

The only two proper names for the standard .357 are .357 S&W Magnum and .357 Magnum, I admit that some call it the .357 Mag, however .357 Remington Magnum is a complete misnomer. If it were an accepted name for the .357 it would be in Cartridges of theWorld. Someone calling something by the wrong name does not make it correct. Nate.45 (talk) 00:22, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Those are the two most common names. As for the only proper names, that is an entirely different point. There are other names, too. The European name, 9x33mmR (Europe), and .357 Remington Magnum, and .357 Mag have also been used at times. Wikipedia is about verifiability. It is clearly verifiable that .357 Remington Magnum is another (although admittedly older) name for the .357 Magnum cartridge. CotW is not the only source about cartridges. (Yes, I have it, too.) We should not limit Wikipedia to using only one source for determining verifiability. Multiple sources are best for making sure to avoid holes in the coverage on Wikipedia in articles that would otherwise come from only using one source. Any reliable, verifiable source is acceptable. The older editions of the Loadbooks called it the .357 Remington Magnum. As for the newer editions of the Loadbooks, yes, they now call it by the now more common .357 Magnum name. (I have Loadbooks with both names, as well as additional reloading books with loads for the .357 Remington Maximum, an extended .357 Magnum, which I use in a T/C chambered in .357 Rem Max. Remington did research on the .357 Magnum cartridge, and extended it for use in the Dan Wesson, Ruger, and T/C pistols. Their name also got attached to the .357 Magnum cartridge in some sources around the same time.) Just because one reference (CotW) doesn't list a cartridge synonym is no reason to claim the synonym should not be used on Wikipedia. I added a cite for the older .357 Remington Magnum name, which you insisted on removing just because CotW doesn't list this alternative name as a synonym. This alternative name is clearly verifiable. It just doesn't happen to be mentioned in CotW. All of the verifiable synonyms should be in the article. Yaf (talk) 01:05, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

hey,to put in my 2 cents worth,the remington is SO incorrect,but this may be from the fact that the .44 mag,.41 mag,and even .357 remington MAXIMUM are all with "remington".but this is the .357 SMITH AND WESSON magnum.I can guess where it comes from,but this is still a mistake,though understandable by someone less knowlegable,and must be corrected if this is put in this valuable resource.Keserman (talk) 19:01, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Performance section recently had the tag of weasel words, which was probably not the best name for the problem it exhibits, but it does have wording problems that need to be addressed. The use of the term "gold standard" for instance, can not be verified with any source, thus does not belong in the article. Also the use of the term "fine small and medium game round" is a matter of opinion as there is no way to determine scientifically if a round is "fine" or not. Not to mention that the statement that the bullet will kill deer "very reliably at short range if the right loads (140 grain and heavier hollow-point bullet) are carefully used by a qualified marksman." Will the deer not be killed by any other load, and is there an actual standard by which one can be certified as a qualified or non-qualified marksman? I am not trying to be a pain here, but the truth is that the language reads as if this were an article in Field and Stream, not an encyclopedia. Mrathel (talk) 15:05, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think part of the problem is that the most "scholarly" source you're going to find is Field and Stream. I agree that the wording could be better, but I'd rather not delete content.

 EJNOGARB  15:09, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

which is precisely why i did not delete content:) I don't know anything about guns or rounds, so I have no idea how to replace the content with something more appropriate, but I do know that parts of the content can not be proven and need to be restated. I don't know how you would determine reliability of a weapon at certain ranges, but I am sure that there are ballistics experts who can say something like "this round shoots a consistent pattern with a variability of (..) at 100 yards when loaded with (...) grains" or something of the like. Mrathel (talk) 16:23, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you bring up a good point. I'm going to start looking for material from the most reliable sources we can muster ("Guns and Ammo" and "Field and Stream") to replace unsourced claims in this section.

 EJNOGARB  17:07, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

We all know that the .357 is a popular round and a solid performer, but this article makes it sound like it's the perfect round for any situation... And it simply is not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 214.13.82.22 (talk) 10:49, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Before .357, what was the most powerful pistol cartridge available? I'm never able to get a straight answer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.245.76.111 (talk) 03:22, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think I can tell you the most powerful cartridge,but the most powerful PISTOL was the Walker Colt,a percussion (cap and ball) revolver from the 1840's.I can tell you most powerful cartridge for handguns-though less powerful than the good ol' walker colt--the .38 super auto,a cartridge for semi-automatic pistols,and the only one that could "defeat" bulletproof vests and such.Introduced in '29,the good ol' .357 mag came as a direct response in '34/'35 or so.cheers,Keserman (talk) 18:54, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Has anyone here checked the hodgdon load data with 125grain projectiles using H-110 powder? From a longer barrel those handloads can approach 2,000 fps safely (without being over-pressure). H-110 is isn't a powder for novices to use (the burn rate is erratic if the powder charge isn't compressed correctly), so I suggest not putting up the recipe. However, the standard factory loads of approximately 1600fps can be easily exceeded. Please check into this, it always bugs me to see the milder loadings of magnum cartridges listed as the baseline.

Another thing, lots of mentions of hydrostatic shock for the popular handgun rounds but not much if any talk of energy dump/transfer. The kinetic energy of the bullet doesn't necessarily transfer to the target, so for hydrostatic shock to occur: bullet construction is paramount. A roundnosed bullet is very unlikely to do so unless it's built to fragment (sintered metal DRT, glaser safety slugs). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.134.52.136 (talk) 15:23, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

HAAzero (talk) 01:36, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was just skimming, so it is possible that I missed it, but I do not see barrel length anywhere in the article. It briefly mentions that a lever carbine should produce 1800FPS versus ~1600FPS for the handgun, but nothing is documented. BBL length and the powder used (fast burning/short bbl vs. slow burning/long bbl) are very important for determining the velocity that can be achieved. I think this article could easily mislead the novice or uninformed shooter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.125.2.104 (talk) 07:23, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The table on the side of the article calls this round rimmed, but the round shown in the picture appears to be semi-rimmed. Axeman (talk) 21:12, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would guess that it appears to be semi-rimmed to you because it has a groove inside the rim,but a lot of revolver cartridges have a small groove of this sort.as a cartridge fully designed for revolvers (but it has since been used in semi-auto pistols and rifles,though,but not designed originally for these),it has a full rim. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Keserman (talk • contribs) 18:28, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

• http://www.chuckhawks.com/subscribers/handgun_cartridge_page/357magnum.htm
  • In .357 Magnum on 2011-05-20 21:37:04, 401 Authorization Required
  • In .357 Magnum on 2011-05-31 12:43:12, 401 Authorization Required

--

• http://stoppingpower.info/index.php?title=.357_Magnum
  • In .357 Magnum on 2011-05-20 21:37:04, 404 Not Found
  • In .357 Magnum on 2011-05-31 12:44:42, 404 Not Found

--

The lead and the design section both say that Daniel B. Wesson was involved in the development in the early 1930s.

"Smith & Wesson developed the .357 Magnum, with Colonel D. B. Wesson leading the effort within Smith & Wesson"

D.B. Wesson died in 1906, so either the development happened much earlier than specified or Wesson was not involved. Also, the article refers to him as "Colonel", but the word does not appear in Daniel B. Wesson.

I am by no means expert on ammunition, so I may be missing something here, but as it stands this article and the one on Wesson are badly inconsistent. . . Jim - Jameslwoodward (talk to me • contribs) 22:43, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm assuming that he worked on the earlier .38 Special cartridge from which the .357 was developed, and so is credited for setting the groundwork of the cartridge. But, like you, I'm no expert. The claim was added during a series of edits in 2008 by User:Yaf who is retired but seems to be doing some editing lately. The claim is referenced to the 1937 edition Complete Guide to Handloading which was written by .357 co-designer Phillip B. Sharpe. As far as I can tell, it looks legit, but the timing does seem odd. It may be best to ask Yaf if he recalls the specifics? Woodroar (talk) 05:09, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's a reference to Daniel B. Wesson's grandson, Doug B. Wesson. From this source: "In 1935 Daniel Wesson’s grandson, Colonel Douglas B. Wesson, worked in conjunction with Winchester Ammunition, Elmer Keith and Phil Sharpe to develop the .357 Mag. cartridge and the Smith & Wesson .357 Mag. revolver." I'll add an efn in the article for clarity. Dmoore5556 (talk) 05:49, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The cylinder on a .38 Special and a .357 Magnum are .3809-381” diameter not .357” diameter.

OLD: The .38-44 revolvers were made by using a .44 Special size gun with the barrel and cylinder bored to .357 caliber (the true bullet diameter of the .38 Special).

NEW: The .38-44 revolvers were made by using a .44 Special size gun with the barrel bored to accept .357 caliber bullets (the true bullet diameter of the .38 Special) and the cylinder bored to accept .3801-.3809” cartridges (where the name “38 Special” originated). ^[1] page 120

173.12.162.230 (talk) 01:47, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's incorrect. The .38 Special name was chosen because other .36 caliber cartridges already existed. S&W wanted to convey the idea (correctly so) that the .38 Special was stronger than the existing .36. US cartridges have NEVER been named by their case diameter (at least not that I have heard of). Saami does not name cartridges, but they do make standardization recommendations and do some lobbying. In black powder some of the modern guns are actually .380 caliber, larger than either .36 or .38 Special. The .380 is 9mm Kurz, which like 9mm is .355" although some .38 calibers are actually .380"

Digitallymade (talk) 11:00, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on .357 Magnum. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070928121135/http://www.handloads.com/misc/saami.htm to http://www.handloads.com/misc/saami.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{

This message was posted before February 2018.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:53, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article appears rather celebratory, particularly with respect to this firearm's killing power. I wonder if the article might be balanced somewhat with perhaps a statement about the levels of human misery that have come and continue to come part-and-parcel to the very existence of firearms. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.34.226.62 (talk) 19:34, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Human misery started with starvation, cannibalism, and progressed to, stoning, evisceration, abassination, crucifixion, (is it Mohawk that were called man eaters) dismemberment, burning, hanging, garroting, and the many forms of torture that exist. Compared to other forms of mayhem firearms are one of, if not the most, the most humane. Knights in armor captured by foot soldiers were sometimes hacked to death with axes because there was no easy way to get into the armor. The Stiletto was the solution for that. No longer was the easy way to kill a knight in armor putting him on a fire. Even non-lethal treatments were inhumane compared to gunfire. Many a tax collector died from being covered in burning hot tar and then covered in features.

Compared to dying in a fiery automobile crash being shot is by far the more preferable. Handguns have been used to end the pain of being burned to death in crashes. Compared to working as a brakemen in the railroads prior to the Janney Safety Coupler (an invention of a US Civil War Veteran) where hundreds of thousands of men were killed or similarly working in a coal mine exposed to poison gas, burning, drowning, crushing, and starvation the firearm is positively humane. Compared to working on a farm where a hayrake might pierce your chest, or a tiller might slice you face open (I had this happen to me at age 5) or a combine might tear off your arms. The Firing Squad (at least as practiced in Colorado) is a quicker and more humane method of execution than hanging, electrocution (which is actually an unknown but breaks bones) and perhaps lethal injection (though I doubt that greatly).

Resetting to the real world today the ONLY civilizing influence to keep the increasing numbers of professionally trained criminals in check is the firearm. The greatest amount of human misery is created by one factor alone. That is ignorance, which those who have a pavlovian opposition to firearms seem to possess in abundance. Your snide comment is a reflection of political effeminate bias and ignorance. You should be ashamed of yourself.

The advances in efficient weapons have marched hand in hand with the reduction is societal violence that has made the USA (the world's most heavily armed populace and Switzerland (2nd in that regard) two of the safest nations on earth. Nations who have banned ownership of personal firearms or heavily restrict them are at the top of violence among advanced nations, which ranks Britain 1st and Australia high too. Digitallymade (talk) 11:16, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This page has the following statement:

At the time, the .38 Super was the only American pistol cartridge capable of defeating automobile cover and the early ballistic vests that were just beginning to emerge in the post-World War I "Gangster Era.

The first reference that was used to support this, says NOTHING about .38 Super. The 2nd reference is to a dead link. I have no doubt that the statement about .38 Super penetrating automobile bodies and early vests is accurate. But it's NOT related to velocity as such. It is related to what I'll call linear density of the projectile. It's also true that bullets that penetrate body armor tend to cause little wound trauma otherwise, but this is not universally true either.

Since these statements cannot be supported, and since I have tried to find references to support them, I am going to remove them.

 Digitallymade (talk) 17:23, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on .357 Magnum. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071014041459/http://leverguns.com/articles/saami_pressures.htm to http://www.leverguns.com/articles/saami_pressures.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.doubletapammo.com/php/catalog/index.php?cPath=21_27
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071227143506/http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0BQY/is_5_46/ai_60897647/pg_2 to http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0BQY/is_5_46/ai_60897647/pg_2

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:40, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on .357 Magnum. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927040132/http://www.federalcartridge.com/ballistics/ to http://www.federalcartridge.com/ballistics/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:26, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on .357 Magnum. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5gp2TRE81?url=http://www.doubletapammo.com/php/catalog/index.php?cPath=21_27 to http://www.doubletapammo.com/php/catalog/index.php?cPath=21_27

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:46, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unreliable sources "of a commercial nature" are not all allowed on Wikipedia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources#Vendor_and_e-commerce_sources prohibits linking to "Individual web pages that primarily exist to sell products or services".

Please review:

Generally it is wrong statement because it is very difficult to break speed of sound with black powder. 357 can do 1400 fps and more and it well above speed of sound. 203.219.83.10 (talk) 05:15, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The .357 Magnum is a revolver, not a rifle, but the picture of a gun that is up at the top of the article is a picture of a rifle. That is confusing. —BarrelProof (talk) 01:21, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The .357 Magnum is the round, not a gun. A large variety of guns can chamber .357 Mag, including revolvers and rifles. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:59, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If it is something that is used in both revolvers and rifles, why does the opening sentence say it "is a revolver cartridge" instead of saying something more general? —BarrelProof (talk) 20:20, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch, I'll take that out. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:48, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• IMI Magnum Desert eagle black.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:37, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The lede says that this cartridge started the "Magnum era", then immediately contradicts itself, saying that the "Magnum era" began with the .375 H&H rifle cartridge. The first statement is cited; the second claim is uncited, and isn't mentioned in the article body. I am accordingly deleting the latter claim.

[Edit] Reading the citation, it seems there is no mention in that article of the "Magnum era", nor does it say that the .357 Magnum is derived from the .38 Special. I'm going to delete this "Magnum era" claim as well, because it's not cited. FWIW, I prefer uncited claims to claims with a citation that doesn't support the claim.

MrDemeanour (talk) 15:33, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]