Jack O'Conner
New member
There are powerful pepper sprays on the market that are better choices than a revolver.
Jack
Jack
.357 Rem Maximum vs .44 Mag for grizzly/polar bear defense?
- Thread starter MC_MuHyeon
- Start date
I've done a lot of thinking about this. are you referring to most factory loads in the .44 with the .240gran at 1,200 or the hot factory loads with that bullet at about 1,500? or are you talking about the super monster rounds?
The most appropriate round for bear that the maximum has is a 210 grain bullet at about 1,600. the sd of the maximum is .223 vs .185 adding to penetration potential. This thing is going to penetrate far deeper than the .44. There isn't any question about that, with proper bullets that limit expansion, it has a better penetration potential by a long margin. This is approaching the velocity range and bullet profile of the .35 remington, a very good round from a rifle. It ought to increase overall penetration and damage by maybe half again over the .240 grain magnum. I don't believe that a diameter increase of only .07 is going to be a deciding factor. in any way.
If you compare the maximum to the 270 grain and larger high powered rounds, it gets fuzzy and power alone won't answer that question, imo. At some point the .44 magnum will have both weight and velocity levels that can drive it deeper and inflict a greater wound than the maximum will. Neither of the rounds are going to have a great advantage beyond what the weight is, the velocity is, and the sectional density or penetration capability. It seems quite obvious to me that a 300 grain .44 round at full capacity will be more deadly on big and heavy critters like a grizzly.
The most appropriate round for bear that the maximum has is a 210 grain bullet at about 1,600. the sd of the maximum is .223 vs .185 adding to penetration potential. This thing is going to penetrate far deeper than the .44. There isn't any question about that, with proper bullets that limit expansion, it has a better penetration potential by a long margin. This is approaching the velocity range and bullet profile of the .35 remington, a very good round from a rifle. It ought to increase overall penetration and damage by maybe half again over the .240 grain magnum. I don't believe that a diameter increase of only .07 is going to be a deciding factor. in any way.
If you compare the maximum to the 270 grain and larger high powered rounds, it gets fuzzy and power alone won't answer that question, imo. At some point the .44 magnum will have both weight and velocity levels that can drive it deeper and inflict a greater wound than the maximum will. Neither of the rounds are going to have a great advantage beyond what the weight is, the velocity is, and the sectional density or penetration capability. It seems quite obvious to me that a 300 grain .44 round at full capacity will be more deadly on big and heavy critters like a grizzly.
Correctamundo, Mr. O'Heir. Have never liked these threads. Research I've done with the available Alaska Guides point the use of large caliber rifles. If you look at https://alaskafairchaseguiding.com/brown-bear , you'll notice the size of those beasts. My minimum would be a 45-70, 405gr bullet that will blow through it at any angle at 2000fps.
Last edited:
@briandg, Just my 2¢ without any scientific knowledge or and practical experience with either caliber, I would think that the 44 magnum with the 240 grain bulllet at 1200 fps would be a better choice than the 210 grain bullet at 1600 fps from the maximum.
The reason I think this is that the maximum would dump all its energy upon impact at 1600 fps causing the bullet to expand faster thus not penetrating as deep as the slower heavier bullet moving at 1200 fps still retaining some of its shape with minimal expansion.
But as I stated I have no experience with either caliber but I do have experience with hard cast bullets for my .357 and 45/70 sharps rifle.
The reason I think this is that the maximum would dump all its energy upon impact at 1600 fps causing the bullet to expand faster thus not penetrating as deep as the slower heavier bullet moving at 1200 fps still retaining some of its shape with minimal expansion.
But as I stated I have no experience with either caliber but I do have experience with hard cast bullets for my .357 and 45/70 sharps rifle.
stinkeypete
New member
.375 H&H magnum if you are really serious. 7mm mag or 30-06 if you are sort of serious.
.357 Max is interesting in that .357 magnum is already at the point where carbine length barrels have good benefit. Then make a cartridge that is more so. As much as I tried to love it, I could not. I learned a lot, though. I learned that for handguns, you just can’t beat a big hole.
If you want to shoot past 50 yards, get funny fancy calibers.if you NEED to shoot past 50 yards, get a rifle.
If your plan is to shoot.38 special out of your .357 Max, get a .38. Little handgun bullets going fast just isn’t as effective on game animals as a big lead golf ball like .44 or .45 or .50
If you can’t reload a cowboy load .44, time to buy some dies, a scale, and start! But not for polar bears.
.357 Max is interesting in that .357 magnum is already at the point where carbine length barrels have good benefit. Then make a cartridge that is more so. As much as I tried to love it, I could not. I learned a lot, though. I learned that for handguns, you just can’t beat a big hole.
If you want to shoot past 50 yards, get funny fancy calibers.if you NEED to shoot past 50 yards, get a rifle.
If your plan is to shoot.38 special out of your .357 Max, get a .38. Little handgun bullets going fast just isn’t as effective on game animals as a big lead golf ball like .44 or .45 or .50
If you can’t reload a cowboy load .44, time to buy some dies, a scale, and start! But not for polar bears.
Last edited:
Handgun wise, 44 Magnum as a minimum, no question about it. Bigger and heavier bullets are going to work better. I was shooting my swinging steel plate, for reference a .22 LR will barely move it, but I hit it with 230gr ball .45 ACP and a 125gr 357 Magnum, and the 230gr .45 moved it much better than the 357 did. Does that prove anything? Maybe not, but bigger and heavier bullets certainly have an advantage.
I would pick the gun I had the most range time with even if it seemed inferior on paper. Far too often people go out and buy a hand cannon when the 357 magnum they've been shooting their whole life would be the much better choice when loaded with good ammo. That bear is going to be moving fast, and so will the adrenaline through your body.
If I was worried about polar bears I'd want a long gun I could shoot with gloves on.
If I was worried about polar bears I'd want a long gun I could shoot with gloves on.
Ok, fine. Where do you get that, and what do you shoot it out of??
No body has made any repeating handguns in .357 Max for quite a few years now. And I the data I have shows only a couple loads cracking 1600fps with a 200gr bullet, from a 10" barrel Contender, and NONE from a repeater. So, I'll take leave to doubt that you can get a 200gr .357 bullet to 1600fps from the barrel of any repeating pistol that might be practical to carry for bear befense.
Not sure what you mean by "approaching", though I suppose if you're ten miles away, you're "approaching" my house...
The .35 Remington will throw that 200gr bullet over 400fps faster than the .357 Max, again, out of a long Contender barrel (not going to find any .35 Rem revolvers...) and while I would allow 100fps difference as "approaching" 400fps is just too far away to be considered such, in my opinion.
The .357Maximum was created to obtain an advantage in a particular shooting game. Only a very few guns were ever chambered for it, and it got a reputation for eating forcing cones pretty quick. When the rules of the game were changed to allow single shot pistols (and in calibers with more power than the .357Max) interest in the .357 Max essentially evaporated.
It's still an impressive round on paper, but bears don't read ballistic tables.
44
Since the 210 seems to be the biggest one available for the max, I believe that it would be better than the lighter ones but still not great. So, If we can get past the problems of getting a revolver in max, we are still holding a 210 grain bullet set at 1,600. The velocity I quoted was sourced from accurate by the site that I got it from. Accurate doesn't list it now, if they actually did.
This was listed as a contender load at 16 inches at a barrel maker's site.
https://matchgrademachine.com/encore-contender-357-magnum-maximum-load-development-results/
Here's what accurate lists now for handguns, with other loads for contender. I don't know what this barrel length is.
Now, seriously, if we can get this 1,500 in a revolver at 200 grains, would it possibly be better than a 240 .44 magnum at 1,200 factory? I think that it might, but once we get past that, like I said earlier, the maximum can't hold a candle to the brutal .44 rounds, and it's nothing compared to the really big guns.
Yes, the 200 grain in a handgun for the maximum at 1,500 fps is approaching the 2,000 fps of the remington in a rifle. You're right, in context, that's pretty good drive getting there. I should have left that out. but when we screw around with all of the other thoughts that we can compare things to, such as the .500 smith, 300 grains at 2,000 fps eats them all alive.
The whole discussion is just a million bits of 'what if' and I just put some numbers there to think about. From the beginning the maximum seemed to be doomed, it wasn't a good idea. Now that we have all of the other alternatives, there's very little reason for it to exist.
Since the 210 seems to be the biggest one available for the max, I believe that it would be better than the lighter ones but still not great. So, If we can get past the problems of getting a revolver in max, we are still holding a 210 grain bullet set at 1,600. The velocity I quoted was sourced from accurate by the site that I got it from. Accurate doesn't list it now, if they actually did.
This was listed as a contender load at 16 inches at a barrel maker's site.
https://matchgrademachine.com/encore-contender-357-magnum-maximum-load-development-results/
Here's what accurate lists now for handguns, with other loads for contender. I don't know what this barrel length is.
Now, seriously, if we can get this 1,500 in a revolver at 200 grains, would it possibly be better than a 240 .44 magnum at 1,200 factory? I think that it might, but once we get past that, like I said earlier, the maximum can't hold a candle to the brutal .44 rounds, and it's nothing compared to the really big guns.
Yes, the 200 grain in a handgun for the maximum at 1,500 fps is approaching the 2,000 fps of the remington in a rifle. You're right, in context, that's pretty good drive getting there. I should have left that out. but when we screw around with all of the other thoughts that we can compare things to, such as the .500 smith, 300 grains at 2,000 fps eats them all alive.
The whole discussion is just a million bits of 'what if' and I just put some numbers there to think about. From the beginning the maximum seemed to be doomed, it wasn't a good idea. Now that we have all of the other alternatives, there's very little reason for it to exist.
I don't know of any 16" revolvers. Not saying there aren't any, but they're certainly not common.
I'm willing to bet that no one who is using a handgun for bear self-defense would consider using one with a 16" barrel, certainly not a single shot like the Encore.
The Contender is another single-shot hunting-type handgun. Typical barrel lengths are 12" to 14" or so. Again, not a handgun or handgun barrel length anyone would choose for bear self-defense.
Keep in mind that some of those loads are not only being tested in what amount to rifles, they may be loaded so that they are too long for a .357Max revolver chamber.
In a repeating .357Max handgun, one that would be a fairly reasonable choice for bear self-defense, I think that 1600fps is pretty optimistic for a 210gr bullet. I'm thinking that 1500fps in a 7.5" revolver barrel with a 190gr bullet might be doable. But 30gr heavier and 100fps faster? A tall order.
I'm willing to bet that no one who is using a handgun for bear self-defense would consider using one with a 16" barrel, certainly not a single shot like the Encore.
The Contender is another single-shot hunting-type handgun. Typical barrel lengths are 12" to 14" or so. Again, not a handgun or handgun barrel length anyone would choose for bear self-defense.
Keep in mind that some of those loads are not only being tested in what amount to rifles, they may be loaded so that they are too long for a .357Max revolver chamber.
In a repeating .357Max handgun, one that would be a fairly reasonable choice for bear self-defense, I think that 1600fps is pretty optimistic for a 210gr bullet. I'm thinking that 1500fps in a 7.5" revolver barrel with a 190gr bullet might be doable. But 30gr heavier and 100fps faster? A tall order.
Last edited:
In a .35 cal cartridge, out of a revolver, with a barrel length of say 8" or less, yes, its a tall order. In a .44Mag 1600fps from a 7.5" barrel is possible with a 200gr bullet.
Now, here's a question, why bother comparing the hottest possible (factory?) loads in .357 Max with the "factory 1200fps" .44 Mag loads which are NOT the hottest possible factory loads in that caliber?
Seems to me to be a bit like comparing a Maverick with a V8 (and yes they did make them) to a Mustang with a straight 6 engine. It simply not a valid comparison in many ways.
44
I wasn't saying that it was a fair comparison between the strongest of one to the weakest of the other, I pretty clearly said that once you get past the bottom line of factory .44 the maximum was left in the dust.
I guess that part of the point that I was trying to make is that if we have co compare the most extreme measures of capability, the .357 maximum is just not the answer for bear protection, even if you could get one. Bear rounds for the .44 are ubiquitous. Too bad they can't be loaded with .38 special, since that seems to be one of the only benefits to the maximum. (other than it would probably be a good deer round.)
I do, however, like the idea of a custom made ruger 16" buntline and if I ever find one at the pawn shop I'm probably going to replace my current carry weapon with it. that doggy will get twenty inches of penetration in jelly nothing will. Well, maybe a pistol that would reach my knees might not be a great carry weapon.
https://news.guns.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/colt-buntline-saa.jpg
(guns.com)
Oh, boy, wouldn't that just be too cool to have one in .454 casull? I'd draw that baby out at the local range, and everybody would be talking about how cool I am.
I wasn't saying that it was a fair comparison between the strongest of one to the weakest of the other, I pretty clearly said that once you get past the bottom line of factory .44 the maximum was left in the dust.
I guess that part of the point that I was trying to make is that if we have co compare the most extreme measures of capability, the .357 maximum is just not the answer for bear protection, even if you could get one. Bear rounds for the .44 are ubiquitous. Too bad they can't be loaded with .38 special, since that seems to be one of the only benefits to the maximum. (other than it would probably be a good deer round.)
I do, however, like the idea of a custom made ruger 16" buntline and if I ever find one at the pawn shop I'm probably going to replace my current carry weapon with it. that doggy will get twenty inches of penetration in jelly nothing will. Well, maybe a pistol that would reach my knees might not be a great carry weapon.
https://news.guns.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/colt-buntline-saa.jpg
(guns.com)
Oh, boy, wouldn't that just be too cool to have one in .454 casull? I'd draw that baby out at the local range, and everybody would be talking about how cool I am.
Last edited:
I saw a maverick with a V8 once. Back then I thought that it was one of the coolest things that I had ever seen, but I also thought that about the Opel GT. Times and minds change.
After the mustang II was released with a 302 V8, we essentially had a pinto with a V8. things don't change much.
RaySendero
New member
Prof Young
New member
Get some bear spray!
Everyone I talked to in Alaska from park rangers to hunting guides to the guy behind the counter at the gun store said your gun is your second line of defense against bears. Spray is the first line.
For Bear Hunting I'd assume you'd want the most powerful gun you can shoot well.
Life is good.
Prof Young
Everyone I talked to in Alaska from park rangers to hunting guides to the guy behind the counter at the gun store said your gun is your second line of defense against bears. Spray is the first line.
For Bear Hunting I'd assume you'd want the most powerful gun you can shoot well.
Life is good.
Prof Young
RaySendero
New member
Did you notice the high wind and direction in that video?
hounddog409
New member
" .340 Weatherby Three hits....five 220-grain CoreLokts from his .300 H&H"
well, I would suggest none were good hits, making another posters point. Bears are not mythical or supernatural animals. Take out lungs/heart/brain and it will die. Quickly.
Expecting a bear to die from 300 super mags in the leg or other non-vital areas is just silly.
well, I would suggest none were good hits, making another posters point. Bears are not mythical or supernatural animals. Take out lungs/heart/brain and it will die. Quickly.
Expecting a bear to die from 300 super mags in the leg or other non-vital areas is just silly.