Backwoods Power & Effectiveness Comparison: .357 Magnum vs. .40 S&W

I use a Glock 23 with Nigh Sights & M3 Tactical light to hunt pigs at night, and when I load it with Speer 125 Gr. Gold Dot hollowpoints, it drops them in their tracks.
Click to expand...

Mr. Assualt-
I was wondering if you'd care to share some more details about your experiences in this area. You mean they just fall over where they're standing? Are you making brain shots? How big are these animals? How many have you shot like this? I've heard plenty of stories from guys who don't get consistant results like this with much bigger rounds.
 
If we're talking stuf that doesn't outweigh you, then either will work.

Something you weight/size involed that has teeth and claws and could/might eat you?
Then it's time for a 357 loaded with a 158 or heavier "deep penatrating" slug design.

In these situations I carry my 357 rewdhawk full of 180gr hornady XTPs loaded to 1500fps. (not a typo, works fine in this gun, but definately outside SAMMI specs.)

500 pounds plus with teeth and claws a possibility? Then the 357 stays home, and the 44 comes along for the walk.

All this is personal opinion. YMMV
 
double tap bear tooth

here are the specs

Caliber : 10mm

Bullet : 200gr WFN Beartooth

Ballistics : 1300fps/ 750 ft./lbs. - Glock 20

from a 15 round magazine!

This is the load that you have been hearing about! This hardcast Wide Flat Nose gas - checked bullet will not deform on impact, and will create a large deep wound channel. Excellent for hunting or woods protection!
 
TXlewis:

Don't try hunting with that load here in GA, at least not for deer/bear. State law here says that you must use some sort of expanding bullet -- except for feral hogs. It is kinda silly, but I can see where they are coming from. Personally, I'd rather use maxi-blaster hard lead SWCs for bear defense (out of my .357 Mag, that is -- I don't have a 10mm), but you can't do that here.
 
It all depends on what the threats are. If mostly wild dogs, cougars and other nuisances. The .357 Mag would be better but the .40 should be ok. As far as how they compare, well its simple, they don't. Another thing when considering auto vs revolver cartridges is not only are the revolver cartridges significantly more powerful, the bullet designs are better and offer better terminal ballistics because they don't have to feed in the gun, like semi-autos do. In semi-autos, we are limited in the bullet design category because the bullets have to reliably feed in the gun. The absolute hottest .40 loads are like watered down .357 mag loads. There is no comparison really. Buffalo Bore and Doubletap have some pretty powerful loads for the .357, as well as the .40. The .357 can handle just about anything in the lower 48 states. Even smaller black bears with the "right ammo". As .44Magnum stated if you are dealing with 400+ pound bears then a .44Mag is up your alley. For alaskan defense, go with a .454 Casull or .500S&W Mag and pray. The .357 Mag is a very versatile cartridge and probably the best known man-stopper in a pistol cartridge. Heavy loads are good for small-medium sized game and have been known to take out some bears from time to time.
 
In response to the initial question, I'd give the theoretical edge to the .357. If we're talking about critters dog sized and smaller, (i.e., the most likely animals that would bother you) then I'd load it with high velocity lightweight bullets so they transfer their energy quickly to the target. If we're talking about using non-expanding ammo, then I don't think it really matters which round you choose, as both will simply punch a hole straight through. If one round has more "power", it will only be wasted on the backstop if we're using non-expanding ammo.

Having said that, I think the gun should be chosen before caliber. Take whichever one you shoot best. If you are fairly inexperienced at shooting pistols in the field, then I'd recommend the auto for its capacity. I've seen too many guys turn into lousy shots once they were shooting at something besides paper. And, even the little critters can be rather tough to stop. Don't ever expect one round to be enough, unless you nail the brain. Just keep shooting!
 
I have a G23 with 13rd high caps and would count on it as much as a .357. With good modern day expanding bullets a .40 will do enough damage and penatrate just fine. I shot an old freezer in the woods and it went through both sides and just ripped holes like I couldn't believe. This was an old heavy duty freezer, not like these new cheap things they build now. I would feel safe in the woods with a .40 unless you are very likely to encounter bears then I would probably feel safer with a .44mag or bigger.
 
I have a G23 with 13rd high caps and would count on it as much as a .357.
Click to expand...

Show me a .40 that can penetrate as much as a 158gr. or 180gr. .357mag load going 1,300+fps. The .40 and .357 are not even remotely comparable. The .357 mag is a valid and legitimate hunting round, while the .40 is not even close to being a legitimate hunting round. Hot .357 loads have about 700ft.lbs of energy. I don't know of any .40 loads that even come within 200ft/lbs of this. While I agree, for most of the woods in America the .40 would be fine the original question was how the .40 and the .357 compare and how they compare against animals. Its quite simple, they don't. The .40 was designed to consistently incapacitate humans while the .357 was designed to incapacitate both humans and agressive animals and has done quite well in this regard.
 
If we're talking about using non-expanding ammo, then I don't think it really matters which round you choose, as both will simply punch a hole straight through.
Click to expand...

I think it depends whether we are discussing something you want to eat or something that wants to eat (or kill) you. Bears have pretty thick skulls.
 
And revolver bullets can have nice flat or cupped ends--they don't have to feed out of a magazine. FMJ is not the way to go.
Click to expand...

Very good point JC, one which is often over-looked when considering the effectiveness of calibers. People think that by making a 9mm or .357sig nearly as fast as a .357mag that it is just as effective. You can make the bullet on a .357 mag anyway you want without having to worry about reliability issues which is obviously not the case with semi-autos. Ammunition manufacturers can tailor the .357 mag or any revolver round for maximum effectiveness where as the semi-auto loads need to be tailored for maximum effectiveness while retaining reliability.
 
Gentlemen-
Just to clarify, my comments were all about smaller animals, since I figure they are more common. I have no experience with bears, and there's hundreds of folks who love to discuss them, so I'll stay out of that one.

And, really, since I was talking about smaller animals, I should've just gone ahead and said don't use FMJ or hardcast ammo. Hollowpoints still go deep enough.

I stand by my opinion that I would not recommend a pistol that only holds 6 shots to an inexperienced person, regardless of how effective it's ammo might be. For someone more experienced in field pistolcraft, (I.E., many of you reading this) you wouldn't be asking the first place.
 
My wife shoots a 357 mag, I shoot a 40 S&W. After alot of shooting both guns I must say both calibers are very similar in performance with the right load. Both my wife and I agree though that a 40 S&W with 10-12 shots vs. 5-6 in a revolver, Both of us would feel better armed with the 40 S&W for defence from a bear.
 
Both of us would feel better armed with the 40 S&W for defence from a bear.
Click to expand...
I respectfully disagree. A .357 will give much better penetration, and that is paramount with bear. You don't want expansion, etc. that you would get with a .40 defense load, or the deformation of the fmj load.

A good .357 will penetrate something like 50% more than even a heavy .40 bullet (180grn). And that does not include factors like the hardcast of the .357 and the meplat. I am willing to bet that .357 penetration might double the .40, all factors included.

10 mm is really the only competetor to .357 and comes in hardcast as well.
 
Bo
th of us would feel better armed with the 40 S&W for defence from a bear.
Click to expand...

Just make sure you use FMJ because HP's in .40 won't penetrate nearly enough to kill a bear. You can shoot a bear 12 times and if the rounds don't penetrate enough, your dead. You may have less shots with the .357 but the cartridge was designed for both human and animal self-defense. The .40 was not. Actually the .40 is a wimpy version of the 10mm, which actually is similar to the .357. I don't know how you figure the performance of the .357 and the .40 are similar. They are not. Also, animals are a lot quicker than humans, you better be able to hit your target within the first few shots. There is a saying about the revolver vs semi-auto debate that if you can't get the job done with less than six rounds you're in the wrong fight with the wrong weapon. For the most part, this holds. For most civilian defense situations both in urban and backwoods defense, the first few shots are critical and define if you will survive. High capacity autos were really designed for LE and Military who may face several combatants at the same time. You won't have time to miss 12 times against a wild animal. Many times you won't even get one shot off before you are being mauled, especially against cougars. There is no ideal backwoods gun for people who are inexperienced. It doesn't matter what gun you have, if you can't quickly put a couple rounds on your target within a couple of seconds of drawing your weapon you're not going to live to tell about it.
 
Please forgive me here, I could be way off, however if you are worried about a .40S&W or .357SIG not doing the job, what about a FN Five Seven? 20 rounds per clip, and ammo that is supposed to go through kevlar. Set aside the fact that the gun and ammo are a little high when it comes to price, could the gun do the job? I suppose you could use a Desert Eagle, but not that many rounds in a clip, and it can be hard to fire quickly.
 
roscoe, If I were to shoot into 3ft of wet newspaper with a 40 S&W and then a 357 mag while you worrant looking and didn't let you see the entry holes YOU COULD NOT TELL BY PENATRATION!!! I know from exeriance shooting both guns allot!!! I get an extra inch or two with the 357 mag but a bigger whole with the 40S&W. But Both are penatrating 18-20". But penatration with the two depends more on the loads being used!!! USE a good heavey hp and both give pretty equal performance. I would rather shoot the bear more times with a little bigger bullet and have a better chance of hitting a vital part of the bear than wory about 2" of penatration!!! Period!!!
 
So now a heavy 180gr .40 HP going 1,000-1,100fps can penetrate and do as much damage as a 180gr. HC .357Mag hunting load going 1,300+fps. That is a new one on me. No matter how you look at it, the .357 mag is better for dealing with large animals and is really the minimum that I would feel safe with. Just because the .40 starts of as a larger caliber doesn't mean that the hole or damage is going to be bigger. Have you ever shot water jugs with a hot .357mag load? They shred the snot out of the entire jug not just penetrate them and make holes like 9mm, .40, or .45. Semi-auto rounds just don't do as much damage as magnum revolver rounds. They are not comparable.
 
If you had a shotgun full of buck shot would you say your going to use your 357 mag instead! One single buck shot pellet carries verry little actual power. They travel at about 1100-1200 fps. Add that by multiple pellits and you've got power. I have yet to see much differance between a 165 gr. 40 S&W at 1175-1200 fps and a 357 at 1300 or 1350 fps. Why not shoot a bear with one of each and see which one hert him the most chances are it would be the one that hit were it counts. Not the one that penatrated two inches more. If I got shot with both while blindfolted I don't think I could tell you which one hert more. And any handgun is under powered for bears! Incuding a 44 mag. Most handguns generate between 400-700ft lbs. Please, if given the choice give me a rifle with at least 2000ft lbs for bear. A 13 year old girl in Alaska shot and killed a big brown bear as it came in through the front door with her dad's 22 Lr. The bullet went in through the neck and stpped in the spine. But please don't make me have to use a 22. Any gun is better than no gun. But ask any Alaskin Bear guide and he'd rather use a shotgun filled with buck shot over any handgun including a 44 mag. Myself included. I would also take a 40 S&W with 12 shots and a back up clip over a 357 revalver with 5-6 shots and a speed loader. Two inches of penetration is not worth the sacrifice of having twice as many bullets when fighting bears in my opinion. But if you like your 357 by all means take it as that is much better than nothing. A handgun is for fighting your way back to your rifle or shotgun. But if I have a handgun give me allot of bullets.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top