S&W 357 or 44 Magnum for Black Bears ???

The 357 will be plenty adequate if you use stout loads. IIRC Phil Shoemaker's daughter Tia uses one as her carry piece while guiding for Alaskan Brown Bears. If Phil thinks it's good enough for his daughter and those big wooly bastards then it's good enough for me. Plus a 357 can be handled by more people than a rip-roaring 44.

Nice first post OP. A bear defense thread.
 
For bears up close? .. I don't like either round.

Maybe a short-barrelled 12-gauge pump with 00 shot ... *shrugs*
if so, then aim at the eyes, and keep shooting till it's time to RELOAD.

But personally, I have found that making a VERY loud noise (as if you are the predator, not him) usually works well.
For some strange reason, most of them instantly run from sudden loud noises.
Maybe their vision isn't so good and they are not sure what you really are?

And maybe its just been my good fortune that .. so far ..
I have not wandered in between a sow and her cubs.
 
paisley70 said:
A .41 Magnum, Model 57 S&W would be the best choice. Penetration is what matters, and this is it.
Click to expand...

Bingo! I loved my M57 Smith for IPSIC back in the 70's. Best caliber S&W put in the N-Frame for game or "purps".

The .357 has accounted for every species of game in North America from a handgun in the hands of folks that know the limits of their guns, loads & skill. I would not recommend it as bear medicine for folks with limited experience in hunting or action shooting.

The .44 magnum is a fine choice in a 4" gun for packin', but loses some velocity & energy compared to a 6" barreled unit. If you load a 300+ gr. cast boolit to 850 fps. in yer .44 and are proficient with it, then you should be set.

Practice a bunch with the beasty.:)
 
SHELL SHUCKER said:
Bingo! I loved my M57 Smith for IPSIC back in the 70's. Best caliber S&W put in the N-Frame for game or "purps".

The .357 has accounted for every species of game in North America from a handgun in the hands of folks that know the limits of their guns, loads & skill. I would not recommend it as bear medicine for folks with limited experience in hunting or action shooting.

The .44 magnum is a fine choice in a 4" gun for packin', but loses some velocity & energy compared to a 6" barreled unit. If you load a 300+ gr. cast boolit to 850 fps. in yer .44 and are proficient with it, then you should be set.

Practice a bunch with the beasty.:)
Click to expand...

My chronograph suggests 1150 fps for a hard cast 325 gr WFN out of my 45/8" Vaquero. IMHO, 850 fps, while not benign, leaves much on the table. If recoil is the issue, then a slightly lighter bullet could be driven faster, with less recoil. Here's something to consider though when thinking about the .357 for bear defense. When I need to shoot, I'm not shooting at a 1000 pound bear, I'm shooting at a 100 pound head. Anyone who has done any testing with a properly loaded .357 knows it is more than enough for defeating a 100 pound target. In the case of a black bear, the target size is proportionately smaller and lighter, so now we're dealing with perhaps a 25-50 pound target. Freedom Arms .500 Wyoming is perhaps the most powerful revolver cartridge I'm aware of, but it won't stop a bear reliably with a chest shot, because nothing will. A chest shot is the wrong way to do it.

I'm not sure that the .41 magnum does anything a .44 doesn't do better, but it would interesting to make a realistic comparison. What interests me about the .41 is that it came chambered in gun for which the .44 never was, the S&W M-58. A robust fixed sight 4" DA revolver has much to offer in terms of a wilderness protection gun. Now if loaded with say a 297 gr hard cast WFN, (the SD equivalent of a 325 gr .44) loaded to 1100 fps, it would be a viable option, but it would kick almost as hard as the .44. But the advantage would lie with the gun, more than the cartridge.
 
I read an article somewhere that essentially said bear spray was borderline useless, depends on aim, wind, and if the particular animal is rabid its even more pointless. Another story evolved a rabid wolf who didn't seem to mind the bear spray... Anyway I'm far from an expert but the article concluded a shotgun with slugs and buckshot alternated was the best option. That's what I went with myself, I have a short barrel pump with buckshot and slugs alternated, never had to use it but was close to once this summer!. Of course I'm not allowed to take a handgun with me in Canada... But when the adrenaline is pumping, you get scared, I think a shotgun with 5 shells might require less skill than a handgun. Of course if you are a good shot with a handgun, and have experience shooting bears maybe that could work for you. Nothing quite sends a chill down your like a bear growl!
 
K-Roc said:
I read an article somewhere that essentially said bear spray was borderline useless, depends on aim, wind, and if the particular animal is rabid its even more pointless. Another story evolved a rabid wolf who didn't seem to mind the bear spray... Anyway I'm far from an expert but the article concluded a shotgun with slugs and buckshot alternated was the best option. That's what I went with myself, I have a short barrel pump with buckshot and slugs alternated, never had to use it but was close to once this summer!. Of course I'm not allowed to take a handgun with me in Canada... But when the adrenaline is pumping, you get scared, I think a shotgun with 5 shells might require less skill than a handgun. Of course if you are a good shot with a handgun, and have experience shooting bears maybe that could work for you. Nothing quite sends a chill down your like a bear growl!
Click to expand...

Its not the growl, its the hiss. I've never been in a dangerous bear situation where the bear growled, but that hiss will make your knees weak, and the hair on the back of your neck stand up.

IMHO, a shotgun is an excellent defensive tool, but to alternate slugs with buckshot takes away from the advantage of choosing either. Buckshot has a very narrow and specific role, and is at its best when shooting must be in a populated area where the over penetration of a slug or a bullet can endanger others. If the subsequent round in the magazine is a slug, that doesn't help. By the way, at close range, a buckshot pattern is tight enough that the shotgun must be aimed with the precision of a rifle or you'll miss. In circumstances where you need another type of shell than what is in the magazine, practicing "shell select" drills, where you quickly get another type of shell, including less lethal types, into the chamber of the gun, grows into a valuable skill set.

The OP asked about the .357 revolver, not a shotgun though. One must admit that there are times when the long gun is impractical or inconvenient, and might well be left behind or placed some distance away. The handgun by contrast is worn not carried, so its always with you. That advantage might well overcome it's ballistic disadvantage to the long gun, but one must be in circumstances where its use is legal in order to enjoy it.
 
Personally... I would go with as long a stack of slugs as I could get in the gun... leave the buckshot for wabbitts....
 
You need to start by looking into both of the State's hunting regs(non-resident licences are horrendously expensive in Ca. They are in Ontario too though.) and U.S. Federal laws. No CCW for non-immigrant aliens, that'd be you, and a hunting licence does not give you any such licence. You'll need to look into possession laws for any State you drive through as well.
No firearms, at all, if you're bow hunting in CA. CA being far more restrictive than Canada too. For example, a Handgun Safety Certificate is required for residents. Start with Part 6 of the California Penal Code, beginning at section 16000.
In any case, if you're hunting with a rifle, why do you think a handgun would be needed?
 
Think it's better just to use slugs? Could be... I know the topic has already been beaten to death on various other threads... Someone said alternate buck and slugs to get the advantage of both. Others have said don't bother using buck shot on a bear... Slugs break bones... But may be harder to hit the target... Ect ect...
 
K-Roc said:
Think it's better just to use slugs? Could be... I know the topic has already been beaten to death on various other threads... Someone said alternate buck and slugs to get the advantage of both. Others have said don't bother using buck shot on a bear... Slugs break bones... But may be harder to hit the target... Ect ect...
Click to expand...

You said it yourself, slugs break bones, and they penetrate deeper than individual 50 gr pellets, assuming you choose 00, which rapidly give up velocity in denser than air mediums. There is no marksmanship benefit to using buckshot. If you miss with the slug, you won't get a hit with buckshot across bear defense ranges, which typically are measured in feet.
 
After reading all this as I just got back from a good hike in the back woods. With No firearm at my side! I Just moved to an area that has Black Bear, the house was empty for a few months prior to my getting it, & the neighbor told me that there has been allot of bears around, as the last person left allot of garbage I guess, which has since All been cleaned up/burned. Also I was told a pack of coyotes chased another neighbor while she walked with her dog!{about 2 years ago} only 50 yards up the road. I have only been taking a starter pistol/flare gun & some pepper spray, & my 2 dogs while hiking.. but now this thread has me thinking about bringing my .357 Mars Leg. With the 12' barrel, that should make it have some extra fsp/stopping power I'm guessing? Does a longer barrel equalize out the power for this type of situation? {compared to a 4'.357 or 44 Mag?}
 
Last edited:
sunray said:
You need to start by looking into both of the State's hunting regs(non-resident licences are horrendously expensive in Ca. They are in Ontario too though.) and U.S. Federal laws. No CCW for non-immigrant aliens, that'd be you, and a hunting licence does not give you any such licence. You'll need to look into possession laws for any State you drive through as well.
No firearms, at all, if you're bow hunting in CA. CA being far more restrictive than Canada too. For example, a Handgun Safety Certificate is required for residents. Start with Part 6 of the California Penal Code, beginning at section 16000.
In any case, if you're hunting with a rifle, why do you think a handgun would be needed?
Click to expand...

The OP said nothing about CCW, he intends to carry his revolver in the back country for bear defense. We don't know if he has duel citizenship, so we don't know what rules apply to him and which don't, but I bet he does. I think we can safely pass along the advice he seeks, with the assumption that his actions will be within US law.
 
Last edited:
Johnyy said:
After reading all this as I just got back from a good hike in the back woods. With No firearm at my side! I Just moved to an area that has Black Bear, the house was empty for a few months prior to my getting it, & the neighbor told me that there has been allot of bears around, as the last person left allot of garbage I guess, which has since All been cleaned up/burned. Also I was told a pack of coyotes chased another neighbor while she walked with her dog!{about 2 years ago} only 50 yards up the road. I have only been taking a started pistol/flare gun & some pepper spray, & my 2 dogs while hiking.. but now this thread has me thinking about bringing my .357 Mars Leg. With the 12' barrel, that should make it have some extra fsp/stopping power I'm guessing? Does a longer barrel equalize out the power for this type of situation? {compared to a 4'.357 or 44 Mag?}
Click to expand...

Your mares leg will prove to be a light handy rifle to pack along on your hikes, although my preference would be to add a butt stock to it. Except for those with ATCs, which are limited to individuals involved with commercial activities, the advantages of wearing a holstered handgun must be left to the imagination. The fact of the matter is, it will still be a rifle, which means that there will be times that it will be put down while you attend to other matters, or, if over a period of time no threat has manifested itself, it might well be left behind. That's the disadvantage over a gun that is worn. But when chambered for the same cartridge as a handgun, your carbine will be easier to hit with, and it might even be quicker to bring to bear, provided its in your hands when needed. The longer barrel combined and the closed chamber will produce significantly higher velocities, but not the velocity of a typical hunting rifle. If I had to carry a rifle anyway, I'd prefer it to have the ballistic advantage that I'd get from a rifle cartridge. Once that determination has been made, it comes down to how big and heavy a rifle you're prepared to put up with. If a black bear as the largest target that's likely to be encountered, a .30/30 wouldn't be the worst choice. The impact velocity of the 170 gr bullet would exceed 2000 fps, the rifle is light, short, and quick handling, and the ammunition is neither particularly heavy nor bulky. But if your preference is a mare's leg, and you shoot it well, you'll be far from unarmed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom