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

For me its a non issue.
With a .357 I can hit about anything I aim at.
With the majority of .40s I have shot including the one I own, I could not hit the side of a barn from the inside, unless the door was closed and you put another wall on the floor and ceiling......
Any gun that wont hit what you aim at has no effective stopping power for your threat.
What I dont understand is, why are so many .40s so miserably innacurate? Every 10mm I ever shot was a tackdriver.
 
There is no ideal backwoods gun for people who are inexperienced.
Click to expand...

Ain't that the truth! :D
Funny thing about experience though- the only way to get it, is through experience. ;)

Tell ya what. I wouldn't normally do this, but since it's somewhat pertinent to the discussion, I'll relate one story (out of several) that may help illustrate why I've come to my opinions.

"...I told my cousin to shoot, but he was still getting situated after just climbing the fence. The coon ran directly up a big steel pipe, that goes up through the dam & serves as an overflow control. We ran over, and I told my cousin to fire a shot into the pipe, thinking there was no way to miss. He propped the muzzle of his shotgun just inside the edge of the pipe & fired. That's not actually the way I intended for him to do it, as it was extremely loud... I figured that was that, and my cousin leaned down to check inside. He said he saw eyes. I asked, "Are they alive?", and he replied "Yeah, they're moving," or something like that. I quickly got on my knees to verify it, and sure enough the coon would move his head, and didn't act wounded. So, my cousin laid flat on his belly about 2 feet from the mouth of the pipe, and got out his Ruger 9mm (loaded with hardball) while I shined my light for him. When he shot, the coon moved, so he shot again. And again. The coon kept running right toward us, and as he got closer, my cousin fired faster & faster. By the time the coon was only like 4 feet away, he was reacting with every hit, and my cousin must have pumped a half dozen rounds into him those last few feet. (in addition to the several rounds he fired while the coon was still further up the pipe) But Mr. Coon kept coming without slowing down substantially, and finally came out right in front of us. I think we both jumped up at about that time, or maybe I jumped up first. Things happened so quick I don't remember. Anyway, once the coon hit the ground, he tried running to the east, and my cousin kept putting bullets through him in rapid succession. By now, I had drawn my Kimber and joined the foray. By the time the coon had gone two feet, I shot him 8 times, and my cousin finished emptying his 15 round mag, finally stopping the coon. It took us a moment to calm down, as it was a little exciting to have an angry coon coming at us only 2 feet away, and no way to quickly get out of his way since we were on the ground. We examined the carcass, and it was riddled with holes, including plenty that had to have happened while it was still coming at us in the pipe. One 9mm bullet had caught him just beneath the left eye; another solid hit in the right cheek area, a few in his chest, one shattered front leg, etc. I was actually very surprised that the head shots didn't stop him. I thought even though they missed the brain, the shock transmitted through the bone should have been enough, but I was wrong. I do remember after the first couple shots, I thought to myself, "Man, I hope he doesn't hit the edge of the pipe," as a square hit on the steel would have splattered our faces terribly, but he kept all his shots in the pipe. He may not have put every round up the coon's nose, but considering how much he's hunted/shot with pistols before, and then adding adrenaline from such an exciting scenario, I think he did mighty darned well. I have already been informed that he related this story to some coworkers, and they thought he was full of BS...."

This is actually one of the better stories, because my cousin actually hit the coon several times. Those extra shots still came in handy though, all the same.
 
My sig sauer shoots 2 1/2" to 2 3/4" groups at 25 yards which I find plenty good for self defence. But if I shot the 357 mag much better than the 40 S&W then I would take the 357 mag. Also if I had to choose between a 40 S&W revalver and a 357 mag revolver, I would choose the 357 revolver. But the 40 S&W sig I can shoot off hand much faster and accuratly than any revolver I ever owned. But that is just me. I had a Ruger 44 mag that shot great in a vise, 1 1/2" groops at twenty five yards but off hand I couldn't hit the broud side of a barn with it. For defence against bear though I would still take my 40 S&W 12 shot over my wife's 5 shot 357 mag, my wife included. And yes, most 40 S&W don't seem to shoot as accuratly as most 357 mags but I find the sigs are an exeption to that rule. Go with what you feel most comfortable with. After all it's your life at hand.
 
People who shoot better than I do shoot really well with my 2 40's. the sig and the walther are very accurate guns, especially with the ammo I make for them. Reduces the muzzle rise and still puts out nice numbrs 1015fps from the walther with 180gr loads. Personally I'd take the 40. Put 13 rounds in the gun and have 2 clips.
 
possum, I'm glad you did stop that coon though. I have herd similar stories from bear guides in Alaska when two or three men where armed with things like 338 win mags and 375 H&H and the like to have the bear drop just feet from them. With examination finding the lung and heart aria of the bear hamberger and rittled with bullets. I have shot potguts that seamed to be going on nothing also. Just to make it to there hole to die.
 
Five-seveN

Sure, except that a.) SS190 is no longer civvie-legal and b.) it tumbles and doesn't make it past about a foot of gel.
 
Biodemon, Who in their right mind would use buckshot against a bear. That is also a little off topic. Yes a shotgun with slugs would be more effective but you won't always have a shotgun with you. He didn't ask if a shotgun was more effective than .357 or .40. The original question was how the .40 and the .357 compare and also he didn't ask what's easier or more comfortable to shoot. He asked, ballistically which is more effective and it doesn't take a genious to figure that out. You're right though, if you can't handle a revolver effectively in the magnum rounds then you are better off with something you are more comfortable with. If you are comfortable with both the .357 and .40 loads then the .357 would be a better choice. That is all I was saying. For most of the hiking and mountain climbing I do here in Colorado, I use a Beretta 92. It's fun and cheap to shoot out in the wilderness and has bailed me out once against a cougar. The cougar dropped quickly. I've recently invested in a Ruger Speed Six .357 magnum for hiking purposes with a 6 round cylinder. It shoots great, and in general revolvers are more accurate than semi-autos.
 
I would choose 12 ga buckshot inside 25 yds over any handgun on a mad bear trying to eat me!!! At 50-75yds then yes slugs. But as you sead that's a bit off topic. What I was sayin is simple. Too many people talk caliber when they should also consider fire power. A 30-06 is better for killing bears than a 7.62x39. But if I were given the choice between a bolt action 30-06 with 3-4 rounds in it at a charging mad bear or an sks or ak 47 in 7.62x39 in semi auto with two 20-30 rd clips, Then by all means give me the gun with the most fire power- The sks or the ak 47! But we are talking about two very similar rounds- The 40 S&W and the 357 mag. Just because a round ends with the word mag dousn't make it that much more powerfull! It's like debating wether a 10mm or a 41 mag is more powerfull. And a 40 S&W is a slightly shortaned 10mm. A 357 sig is a ballistic twin give or take 50 fps to the 357 mag. Atleast in a 125 gr catigory. A 357 sig is basicaly a necked down 40 S&W. If I honestly thought that the 357 sig was that much better of a stopper than a 40 S&W then I would have a 357 sig. Even then I Feel equaly calibered with a 357 sig, 357 mag, 45acp, 40 S&W, or what have you as long as thay have quality bullets and I can shoot then reasonably well. I just want the one with the most fire power! I too would take a glock 20 in 10mm over a 44 mag revolver for defence. I feel the first rule in a gun fight for self defence is to have a gun. The second rule is to not run out of ammo. Why do you think the Police, CIA, FBI, DEA, SWAT, Speacial Forces, And the Military carry auto loading handguns? Why are thay not carrying a 357 revolver? Is it because the Auto Loaders have a better caliber? I think not. It's simply because the auto loaders have more fire power- or should I say more bullets at hand to use at a given time frame to save your life. I simply sead before and am saying again- Take the gun with the most fire power.
 
For the most part I agree with you. I live in the neighboring state of Colorado and I feel perfectly fine hiking with my Beretta 92. I'm pretty darn accurate with it as I have the most practice with it. I practice all different types of self defense scenarios. Most people think of accuracy as 25 yds. slow-fire but that isn't what you need in a self-defense situation. The .40 is an excellent cartridge and pretty much fills all of the needs of LEO's because it actually has more energy than a .45 but fits in a smaller frame gun and carries nearly as much ammo as 9mm. For large animals in semi-auto pistols you will wish you had loaded FMJ because any type of HP ammo will not penetrate enough, and that is where the difference between the .357 mag and the .40 or any other semi-auto cartridge comes. There are cartridges made for the .357mag that are specifically for penetration against animals. Not necessarily power or anything else but simply the cartridge design is more versatile. Also like JC said, you can make the bullet on a .357mag any way want to with complete disregard for reliability and this is one of the most overlooked areas of ballistics between the .357mag and semi-auto cartridges. It's easy to say that a +p has nearly the same energy as a .357mag but there are too many factors that still give the advantage to the .357mag except for the capacity as you pointed out. Like I said, though if you have a bear breathing down your throat 10yds away and closing in on you at 30mph, the first few shots are going to be critical because if the bears momentum isn't stopped he is going to run you right over like a cadillac in overdrive. The .357mag will more effectively penetrate into the bears vitals. That is all I'm saying. The rules of "fire-power" in an urban area are different those of the woods. The AK-47 would be pretty cool for black bear defense though. I don't know of anyone who recommends buckshot for bears. Some people will load buckshot and then slugs. The buckshot to the face to blind it and then a slug to kill it, but buckshot pellets will not penetrate into the bears vitals, and you would be better off throwing your shotgun at the bear.
 
cje1980, I agree that the 357 mag is more load versatle than a 40 S&W. But as far as reliabilaty- My sig has yet to fail me in that department thus far and I do shoot often. I would also choose a 357 mag over a 40 S&W for hunting. Simply for the fact that the 357 mag is more load versitile. As for what I use my handgun for though is not hunting so the 40 fits my train of thought better.
 
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!!!
Click to expand...

Well, if you used a 200 grain hardcast .357 load against any .40 load, you would be able to tell. Plus, the big, hard meplat of the .357 is designed to penetrate bone rather than bounce off at an angle.

Penetration relates to sectional density and the .357 has a really long case, so it can hold a long piece of lead. The .40 is shorter and fatter, great for feeding in an autoloader, but not for a deep-penetrating load. Penetration, incedentally, relates more to projectile weight (for a given diameter) than to velocity.

I think you should carry whatever you want, but just don't be under the illusion that it is an effective defense against bear. They are big and have thick bones.
 
Sounds great on paper and in theary but in real life I'll take my 12 shot clip with one in the chamber over any 357 mag 5-6 shot cylinder, especealy if I had an extra clip. I have both in the house to choose from as well. But hay that's just me. Any more debating is wirthless as we are both right in our own minds. And All handguns are pee shooters when it comes to bears. No 357 or 40 has a magic bellet to use regardless what some may think.
 
And All handguns are pee shooters when it comes to bears.
Click to expand...

When considering grizzly and brownies yes I would agree with that. Magnum revolvers are much more effective and can not be compared to semi-autos if we are talking your typical american black bear which is usually 250-350lbs. full grown. In the western part of the country they rarely get above 250. A .357mag will consistently kill black bears. 9mm, .40, and .45 will not. I still don't think you quite understand that the concept of "woods firepower" animals don't care if you have 500 bullets, they care if you have powerful firearms that will reach their vitals. You can empty a whole magazine of .40 and if not a single one reaches vitals, it won't do any good. Bears run 30mph and you usually won't see them from very far away, if you are going to try to tell me you can hit a moving target 12 times before it gets to you, I would like to see it. Like I said, if you use a semi-auto cartridge make sure you have some FMJ in the clip. What I do is I load the first with HP and every other one is a FMJ. What roscoe said is absolutely true, if you were using a HC .357 mag you wouldn't be able to find an effective .40 load that would come close in the penetration dept. But of course, you should carry what you feel comfortable with and can shoot accurately and quickly, and I stress quickly. It doesn't do any good to carry a .44mag if you can't hit the broad side of a barn with it. For most of my outdoors hiking I actually carry a Beretta 92. I know I can hit quickly with it. For more serious, more remote hiking I carry a .357mag. I was just trying to answer the original question about how the .40 and .357mag compare in the woods, and that is that they don't.
 
Some people have a skull so thick you need a magical 357 silver bullet to penatrate it because a 40 S&W just could not be capable. Herray! That little 357 magnom My wife has that I can shoot any Big grizzly down so much better than my little tiny 40 S&W. Herray!!! P.S. I never hunt with field points nore do I ever plan to. I use Field pointed arrows for practice only. I have found that even if a braud head dousn't exit the body every time that it kills things much faster than a field point that zips right through. And I have yet to see any 357 bullet I've shot expand to .70" and still go through 15 inches of ballistic gellitan such as a winchester 155gr silver tip. A 40S&W fedral 180 gr hydra shock 19.80" of ballistic jelatin- expantion .59". A 40S&W fedral 180 gr hi shock 24" of clothed ballistic gelitan-.47" expantion. 357mag is very similar but with a little less expantion and slightly more penatration. Both very comparable. Good Shooting All! And regardless of what calliber you shoot be it 9mm, 40 S&W,45acp,45gap,357sig,357mag,41mag,10mm,44mag,50ae,454,38sp,38super,or what ever else you prefer- My it save your life if need it be. Ta Ta
 
Last edited:
I didn't mean to come across as a wise-guy Biodemon. I carry a 9mm for most of my hikes here in Colorado. I'm sorry if my tone was a little off. Like I said, I was just trying to answer the original question truthfully. The .40 is one of the better semi-auto cartridges and I was in no way saying that it is weak and underpowered. You can actually take down a grizzly bear with a 9mm if you can hit accurately and know where to shoot. Everybody has what works for them. If you feel good with a .40 no problem man, I feel perfectly fine with my 9mm because I know that if I put my shots on target then I will most likely kill anything that wants to cause me harm. I was just saying that ballistically the .357mag has the advantage. The .40 is by no means a weak cartridge. It is the stonger cartridge of the 9mm, .40 and .45. I don't think any caliber makes up for poor marksmanship and many times can do more harm than good. If you carry a 9mm or .40 in the woods, you know you have to hit well with it in order to protect yourself and you will have practiced alot so that can certainly be an advantage. Whereas if you have a .44mag you might not have had as much practice and believe since it is such a powerful handgun that you don't need to hit as well with it. No matter what you use, that weapon needs to feel so comfortable to you, that it needs to feel as if it were an extension of your arm.
 
Bio

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.
Click to expand...

I am now mired in the predicament as defined by the trasnition of this thread. I have weapons chambered for both calibers. My son and I routinely fish in bear country. We are going into bear country over Memorial Day weekend. Still unresolved is the weapon that will accompany us. A log gun is too damn impractical. Therefore until I come into possession of an older version of the Model 57, I'll have to go with what I now have. The reality is a hard cast 180 grain .357 Mag will penetrate more deeply than will anything out of my .40 S&W. However, the critical question is whether the penetrating ability of a stout 180 grain .40 S&W is sufficient for black bear. If the answer to this is yes, then the .40 S&W with its greater capacity and easier-to-carry weapon is the way to go. Moreover, rivaling a .41 Mag for black bear is a good stainless .45 ACP with 230 grain high velocity projectiles. Finally, I do not think that there is enough difference in penetration between a 10MM and a .40 S&W to write home about.


Regards,

Leon Phelps
 
Jelly,

I am sorry, I overlooked the fact that you were referring to the .40 S&W. I think that as it now stands I would opt for either Golder Sabers or the Federal Tactical line, either being of 180 grain. For black bear, penetration is critical.


Sincerely,

Leon Phelps
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top