357 magnum or 40 S&W on Black Bear

[jboller4]

on occassion i hike in areas where it is possible to come upon a black bear. I have been carrying a Glock 23 loaded with 13 rounds of 180 grain FMJ.

Recently i came upon informtion about the 357 magnum HSM 'Bear Load', a 180 grain hard cast load with a rating of 886 fp at 1489 fps out of a 4 inch barrel.

To me that sounded like a pretty potent load to be carrying.

Now i only have a 2 3/4 inch barrel 357, so i realize the fps and fp will be some what lower.

Question: Which to carry, revolver or semi-auto, or both. again realizing that in an emergency i would probably only have time for one or two shots, if i am lucky.

I have shot the 'Bear Load' in my revolver and it is manageable.

Any thoughts from the group?

 

[beatledog7]

Maybe the question can be answered by comparing the platforms rather than the ammo.

Given comparable bullet weight and velocity, many would choose a revolver's inherent reliability over a semi-auto's higher capacity for scenarios in which concealment is not an issue and where getting off more than 2-3 shots is unlikely.

I surely would.

 

[Snowbandit]

Short of contact distance I think it's six of one, half dozen of the other. Either will probably work roughly as well. The autos generally hold a few more rounds but, as you say, you're probably only going to get one or two anyway. Once Mr. bear closes the gap the advantages of the revolver start to shine. You can shove it into any place you can find fur and pull the trigger expecting it to go off and keep doing it until it's empty. With the auto that's only likely to happen once if at all. For myself I prefer the round one.

 

[Kachok]

Given the choice I would go with the .40 since the 357 is a snub nose which takes away it's only advantage (speed) Now I would perfer a 44 mag like 100:1 over either one of them due to it's heavy bullets, exelent penatration, and serious proven killing power at close range.

 

[MCgunner]

If you can hit with that short barrel, chances are that heavy load is still packin WAY more than a .40, even from a 2.5" barrel. I've done some barrel length comparisons over my Chrony. The 125 grain hot loads (18 grains 2400) lose a lot, but heavies are in the barrel longer, catch more of the pressure peak from a short barrel. Anyway, my 180 grain load consists of 13.8 grains AA#9 and a Hornady XTP. Don't sound QUITE a hot as the load you quote as I get 1400 fps from a 6.5" Ruger blackhawk, 785 ft lbs. But, in a 2.25" Ruger SP101, it's still clockin somewhere around 1300 fps, 662 ft lbs. That's still hotter than any .40 I know of. I've taken hogs from the Blackhawk with this load. It's a good penetrator.

.357 is often maligned by the big bore crowd, but it's an excellent caliber for medium game and it won't bounce off a black bear, I assure you. I'd trust it a lot more than a .40, especially with a hard cast Keith style SWC of 180 grains. Hell, that XTP is danged decent for penetration even in hollow point form. And, I can tell you that heavy .357s WORK from short barrels pretty well, better than ANY pop gun .40 load. Not talkin ' 10mm here, takin' .40 short and weak. I speak from actual chronograph and hunting experience, not internet "knowledge".

 

[jboller4]

357 and 40 S&W on Black Bear

Thanks for your inputs....... and in my mind my Ruger Security Six loaded with 6 rounds of HSM 180 grain 'Bear Load's' will be my companion when hiking in bear country.

Thanks again for your inputs......... and the info from MCgunner..........

take care all..........

jimb

 

[brnmuenchow]

A co-worker I work with took down a black bear in Michigan several years ago with a .357 Mag. he claimed it was a one shot one kill hit. ( I would say it was most likley a luck shot or he has really good shot placement for an attacking bear.)-- If I had to choose between the two, I would go with the .357 Mag.

 

[dprice3844444]

if using the 357,i would get one them 7 or 8 shot smiths.7 or 8 better than 6.

 

[KodiakBeer]

Anything that will take down a deer will take down a black bear.

 

[MCgunner]

if using the 357,i would get one them 7 or 8 shot smiths.7 or 8 better than 6.

If the bear is attacking you, one is all you're likely going to be able to get off before he's on top of you. That Smith would just be harder to maneuver. I'd feel fine with a 5 shot SP101, myself. If he makes it too me, the gun is easier to control, lighter, less bulky. Black bear are not armor plated, though, dispite the net reputation. .357 is more'n enough for 'em with a heavy load. In fact, the bullet having better sectional density, I'd prefer it over a 10mm. Needs to be fired out of a longer barrel, though, to match the 10 for energy.

At any rate, an attack from a black bear is NOT that big a threat, maybe slightly more than from, say, a wild hog. Both have these undeserved nasty reputations probably from hunters tracking wounded animals. Ain't like they're toing to eat a human for super, preditor/prey type thing.

 

[wombat13]

If the bear is attacking you, one is all you're likely going to be able to get off before he's on top of you. That Smith would just be harder to maneuver. I'd feel fine with a 5 shot SP101, myself. If he makes it too me, the gun is easier to control, lighter, less bulky. Black bear are not armor plated, though, dispite the net reputation. .357 is more'n enough for 'em with a heavy load. In fact, the bullet having better sectional density, I'd prefer it over a 10mm. Needs to be fired out of a longer barrel, though, to match the 10 for energy.

At any rate, an attack from a black bear is NOT that big a threat, maybe slightly more than from, say, a wild hog. Both have these undeserved nasty reputations probably from hunters tracking wounded animals. Ain't like they're toing to eat a human for super, preditor/prey type thing.

Sorry if I misunderstood your post, but although black bear attacks are very rare, the vast majority of fatal black bear attacks are predatory.

http://www.alaskadispatch.com/article/lone-predatory-black-bears-responsible-most-human-attacks

On the other hand, the majority of brown bear attacks are defensive. Google Stephen Herrero if you want to read more of his work.

 

[MCgunner]

That's what they say, but I'm not sure I believe it. I just ain't that scared of bears. I have hiked a many a mile in bear country with no defense back in the day. I generally carry a handgun now, but for the two legged predators which have gotten a lot worse over the years, especially if I'm in proximity to the border with Mexico and especially since there is little cell service in such locations and danged little human population density. You're own your own in such places if the SHTF with the drug cartel or something. I don't really worry any about wildlife. If I lived in griz country, I might be a bit more worried. If i walked with the polar bears, i'd carry a .375 H&H Magnum.

 

[KodiakBeer]

As a rule of thumb (only meaning "most" of the time), black bear attacks are an escalating series of intrusions where they test you. "Most" of the time you'll have opportunity and time to shoot the critter in the head as it ramps up the aggression.

Grizzly attacks are almost always a sudden rush from cover or from behind, that is a full out attack with a warning of a second or two at most - the sound of breaking brush before it hits you is the only warning. They stalk and rush.

Grizzly warnings where the animal makes a terrifying threat display almost never result in an actual attack. It's just a territorial display that is harmless 99% of the time. It just wants you to back off. You don't need to shoot, just give ground (slowly) and defuse the situation.

Statistically, grizzlies are about 100 times more likely to attack you when encountered. HOWEVER, about the same number of people are killed by black bears as are killed by grizzlies. In essence, grizzlies usually attack because of territorial imperatives and are usually satisfied once you are down and no longer viewed as a threat. A black bear attack (even though it's far less likely to happen) is far more likely to result in death.

Black bear attacks are usually predatory - it wants to eat you. Grizzly attacks are usually territorial, it wants to eliminate a threat.

I hope my articulation is clear...? If actually attacked, you are far more likely to survive a grizzly attack than a black bear attack. If you are armed, you can generally stop a black bear before it gets ugly. If it's a grizzly, you'll be lucky to get a shot off since it's a surprise attack.

Black bears aren't usually a threat, but when an actual attack does occur you will almost certainly have opportunity to shoot the critter dead. They (generally) harass you for 15 to 30 minutes before coming in for the kill.

Grizzly attacks are instantaneous and if you don't get a shot off, your best bet is to play dead. Most of the time they'll back off after punishing you for a period.

My advice (for what it's worth) is to carry a heavy hitter in grizzly country - a shotgun or rifle with iron sights. In black bear country, a handgun will probably serve. I'd go with a .357 over a .40, would prefer a .44 mag or larger.

Again, this is just a rule of thumb. Sometimes grizzlies eat people and sometimes blacks want you to back off. Keep your head and try to interpret what's happening.

 

[sugarmaker]

Realistically, either one. If the bear is P!$$ed off enough to ignore being hit by a relative popgun at close range, you're in trouble either way. If it's gonna turn, it'll probably turn with a .380 as quickly as it would from a .40.

 

[25cschaefer]

I have a similar situation, H&K USP 40 Compact or Taurus snub 5 shot. I am way more accurate and practiced with my 40 and it has 13 shots. HSM bear loads out of that short barrel are, "wowch!"

I carry my 40 because if a bear/wolf/wolves/mtn lion attacks, more than likely I wont be standing still and that extra 8 shots, though less powerful, would be nice.

I little gun is better than no gun.

 

[hipoint]

just trolling here, but I'd say use whatever gun you can shoot best. Can you hit a head size target with either one better than the other? Do you typically carry the .40 with one in the pipe? The time to draw and rack an action might be a bummer. I live in black bear country and while they are typically animals that will run away, the attacks from black bear are on the rise. I carry my .45 whenever I'm in bear country, while the .45 might not be the best gun for the job, I'm good with it and it's the only handgun I own.

 

[Sunray]

"...will be some what lower..." A lot lower.
"...If the bear is attacking you..." It's too late. Yogi can cover 100 yards in under 6 seconds. You'll never be fast enough. No handgun cartridge will stop anything, never mind Yogi(and he's not that tough), in his tracks.

 

[sixgunner455]

I have here an older reloading manual that was printed in 1970. The publishers did some testing of .357 Magnum and .38 Special loads, comparing identical loads in the 6" revolvers they developed them in against short-barreled revolvers people actually carry. For the .38, they used 2" guns, and for the .357, 2.5".

The velocity difference in the typical .357 load was a loss of about 100fps, going from the 6" to the 2.5".

There is a website called Beartooth Bullets, http://www.beartoothbullets.com/ They do sell bullets, which, IIRC are all hard-cast lead. The key point for the hunting loads they promote is that a wide, flat-nosed, hard-cast lead bullet that is somewhat heavy for caliber, moving between 1100 and 1200 fps will plow through game, leave a permanent wound channel that is measurably wider than the bullet itself - some testing showed 2" permanent wound channels - and kill all out of proportion to what you would think if you are coming from the perspective of energy and velocity are where it's at in killing big game with handguns.

I'm new to the magnum handgun scene, but I did buy a .357 so that I would have a gun that I felt better about carrying in black bear and lion country. The WFN, HC lead bullet theories make sense to me. Combined with the ballistic testing that shows that loads that make good speed out of long-barreled guns will still be making respectable velocities out of shorter barreled guns, I bought a 3" barreled .357 and am very confident that my 158gr WFN, HC lead bullets that are pushing 1200fps will kill bears. A 180gr bullet should do the job just fine.

The reason the theorists give for not loading the bullets hotter is that more velocity reduces penetration in their tests, and they consider penetration to be much more important than additional pounds-feet of energy given by adding velocity. The 1100-1200 fps loads are easier to shoot than the hotter ones, and easier on the gun, too.

I am sure that a .40 S&W will also kill a bear, but I am much more confident carrying a magnum revolver for that purpose than an automatic, for a variety of reasons.

Sorry for rambling. If you want to read more about that, go read the loads and forum at Beartooth. Those guys know way more about it than I do. I spent way too much time hanging around there myself, but it did convince me.

 

[jboller4]

367 vs 40 for black beaar

thanks 'sixgunner455' for the info........... really what i was hoping to get. and to put my mind to rest that in fact i did the correct thing ......

i did notice that there was not nearly as much muzzle flash from the 'Bear Load' as from the 110 grain JHP's........... from my 2 3/4 inch barrel 357.

again.... thanks for the data and link.

jimb

 

[sixgunner455]

No problem, hope it helps.