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

Jelly,

That is a good question, and my honest answer is that I do not know. Ideally, I would want to break a charging bear's shoulders or penetrate its skull. What a .40 S&W does offer is 13 extremely quick to fire and reasonably powerful rounds in a very easy-to-carry weapon. Moreover, I can reload another twelve very quickly. In contrast, I am not sure if even a hard chunk of lead out of a .357 Mag will break a bear's shoulder, but it should penetrate its skull. Finally, a .45 ACP with 230 grain P+ projectiles might be better than either of the two currently under review.


Sincerely,

Leon Phelps
 
Finally, a .45 ACP with 230 grain P+ projectiles might be better than either of the two currently under review.
Click to expand...

Could you expand upon this? Why might a .45 be superior to a .40?

Would a FMJ round be superior in that it could achieve higher penetration levels?
 
When using semi-autos, HPs are out of the question, they will not consistently penetrate enough. That was the point I was trying to make earlier on this thread. I think one of the biggest concepts that people don't grasp is that shot placement and penetration are the priorities. Expansion is a luxury, that's all. If a bullet expands to double its original diameter but falls 2 inches short of the vital area, it doesn't do a sliver of good. I also made a point that you want your first couple of shots to deliver a few blows. Against wild animals, you are not going to be able to get a lot of shots off before its mauling you. Think about it, bears are sneeky animals and they run about 30mph. Unless you are carrying your HG in your hand at all times, you will only be able to get 1 or 2 shots of if any. That is why the revolver is the king of the woods. Animals don't care if you have 50 shots on you because they will kill you before you get any of them off. With that said, black bears in general aren't very aggressive and usually run at the sight of humans. The only targets on a bear that is charging are the front shoulders and the head. I was stressing penetration because bear skulls are notorious for deflecting bullets both due to the thickness of bone and the angle at which it is situated, which is why a .357 with 180-200gr. HC bullets would be better because of their CS density and the fact they are easily going 100-200fps faster than an equivalent .40 load. The theme of this thread somehow changed to, "Is the .40 an effective backwoods caliber". The bottom line is that the .40 can be effective with good shot placement and non-expanding bullets, but then again so would a 9mm or .45. The .357 mag is superior and the .44mag is even more superior. If you think you can hit a moving target within a 5" circle that is moving 30mph directly at you, carry the firearm that you can do this with. But to think that you can get 13 shots off is silly. You will be lucky if you can even draw your weapon and get one well placed shot off.
 
contrast, I am not sure if even a hard chunk of lead out of a .357 Mag will break a bear's shoulder
Click to expand...

Actually, a 9mm will break a bear's shoulder. Last summer a 9mm was used to take down a charging brown bear in Alaska, which are considerably larger than any American black bear. The first shot hit the Browny square in the shoulder causing it to drop. Out of the 2 currently under discussion I would trust a fast and heavy HC .357 load more than a .40. But that is just me. With that said, I'm more concerned with Cougars than black bears and I know from experience what a 9mm will do to a cougar.
 
Jelly,

It is not why a .45 ACP might be superior to a .40 S&W; it is for various reasons. The .45 ACP has a higher Taylor value than does the .40 S&W which translates into more momentum hence deeper penetration. Moreover, a 230 grain P+ does have a greater likelihood of breaking bone.

Do you have info to the contrary?


Adios,

Leon Phelps
 
cje1980,

Actually, a 9mm will break a bear's shoulder. Last summer a 9mm was used to take down a charging brown bear in Alaska, which are considerably larger than any American black bear. The first shot hit the Browny square in the shoulder causing it to drop.
Click to expand...

Not denying your facts, but I would appreciate independent sources of a 9MM stopping a charging brown bear, with one shot no less! I mean, for me to believe this I would have to accept that someone up there in the last frontier thinks enough of the 9MM to arm him/herself with one as opposed to, oh, I don't know, maybe a .44 Mag? in griz country. This just seems too far-fetched to me. I guess Alaska Fish & Game would have taken the report on this incident, so shouldn't they have the facts? Anyway, please tell me where you got this info so I can look into it.


Thanks,

Leon Phelps
 
And the 45 throws people 9 feet through the air...


Aside from higher KE and momentum values and more per mag I really cant see much use to the 40 S&W

With modern ammo the holes are looking about the same, and tests in ballistics jello is showing that the difference isnt much. if you dont feel youve created a big enough crush cavity, then shoot them again. and again, and again, and again, and again,. My soon to be P220 Only has 9 in it, the P99 has 13. As long as they are still threatening me they will just keep getting more and holes put in em.


If i was to be in bear country, 10MM loaded hot, again numbers are the key.
 
Do you have info to the contrary?
Click to expand...

No reason to get defensive here.

I was just curious as to why the .45 was superior to the .40 in your eyes...not questioning anything. It's just when someone says X is better than Y at something, I want to know why they believe that to be...

Once again, with penetration being key here, what about the use of FMJ rounds? Would they be better?

By this, I'm thinking a .45" hole (or .40", or 9mm) in an animal is better than a large HP wound path that fails to penetrate.
 
Round nose FMJ bullets have a tendency to change direction when encountering bone or other resistance compared to a bullet with a flat point. If using FMJ bullets for bear protection loads, try to get flat point fmj bullets.

Taylor knockout value is much discussed. I have much less faith in it now than in the past, particularly after reading Taylors book. Taylor mentioned that it was a useful formula for comparing rounds shot into the head of an elephant, but was not very useful for other purposes. To use it for other purposes ignores Taylors own feelings on it, and it has too many variables that are not compensated for when trying to use it for other animals or purposes.
 
Leon, I posted the thread from TFL where the article came up. It was in the Anchorage news. One shot from a 9mm brought down the bear but didn't kill it. We are referring to Black Bears on this thread and I would not trust a 9mm in Alaska, as a matter of fact, I wouldn't trust a .44mag in Alaska. I don't know if you read my previous posts, but I was debating pretty heavily that the .357mag is vastly superior to .40, but that just about any handgun if used properly can give good results. Expanding bullets in general are not recommended for bears because they won't give you enough penetration. For most of the woods in the lower 48 a semi-auto chambered for any of the big3 will be ok, but for anything else only a fool would actually trust a 9mm, .40, or .45, especially in Alaska. I was just simply saying that if you are a good shot and can put your bullets on your target very quickly even a 9mm has the potential to kill a bear, but I wouldn't recommend it. People were trying to claim that .40 is equal to the .357 and because it has more rounds that it is better and has more firepower. I still think that when dealing with aggressive animals, every shot counts, you can't just blast off 10 rounds with complete disregard for where your bullets hit. When using a handgun against a bear, each shot has to be placed strategically to bring down the bear. Here is the link below to thread where the article was discussed.

http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-126393.html
 
Being new to owning a handgun, I chose Buffalo Bore's 125Gr. round for my 6" Ruger .357 Magnum. The numbers on that round, used in the same model pistol, show 1707fps with energy at around 816 ft. lbs.

Not knowing much at all about the various rounds available, I chose to go with the one that had the most energy I could find. Whether that energy translates into effectiveness or not, I can't answer. This round is my "protection" round for anything that I feel I need protection from whether that be man or beast.

Would you have other/better recommendation for me and this particular pistol?
 
The 125 grain .357 hollowpoint is widely thought to be the standard by which defensive pistol cartridges are judged; from packable revolvers, it achieves around 1350 fps. The .40 can match this with a bigger bullet. Typical 158 grain loadings of the .357 generally run about 1250 fps; the .40 will do it with 155's. On the other end of the spectrum, Alaska Backpacker's 200 grain hardcast .357 load produced 970 fps from my 2 1/4" Ruger SP101. Double-Tap offers a 200 grain .40 S&W load, with a similar bullet, that does 1050 fps from a Glock 23. Unless you load the .357 heavy, from a long barreled revolver- it's a fair statement to say the .40 S&W can run right along side of it.
Click to expand...

http://sargesrollcall.blogspot.com/2009/06/blog-post.html
 
IMO, the answer is perfectly clear and very simple.

40 sw 180-200 grain are 1,000 fps rounds.
.357 180-200 grain are 1,200

Since you are comparing weight for weight, obviously the .357 with the higher sectional density will penetrate deeper, at equal velocities with similar bullets. On top of the inherent superiority of the bullet's penetration, you will still find a 2-300 fps spread between .40 and .357.

there are specialty loads for .357 designed just for killing big animals. I don't think you'll find a .40 that is as good for heavy game.
 
I'd say they are both fairly comparable. The .357 will have the sectional density advantage with bullets of the same weight, and as such, penetration will be greater.

Compare the size of a 4" 357 to say, a Glock 35 or Glock 24. The Glock is lighter, holds more cartridges (lots more). Why pack a heavy 4" .357 revolver when you can carry a Glock 35, just as an example? I love the .357 Mag, but seriously I would never carry it over a .40.

I do reload for all my handguns, and I know that the .357 is formidable, but so is the .40...more so than most people think. With a longer pistol, the .40 can easily surpass 700 ft-lbs...even 800 ft-lbs. With little 135gr bullets, I've hit damn near 900 ft-lbs when using slow burning powder and a 6 inch barrel.

180's can hit 1300 fps from a 6" .40 and 200's can hit 1200 fps. The .357 can do that too and still have higher sectional density, but that's not bad for the little 'ole .40. Toss in far superior capacity and lighter weight, the .40 is damn formidable for what it is....a service cartridge.
 
40 S&W in the hottest factory loaded hardcast bullet from Double Tap:
Ballistics : 200gr. @ 1050fps / 490 ft/lbs- Glock 23 (4.0"bbl)

.357 from a 4" Ruger Service Six (my back packing gun) 185 grain beartooth bullet (LBT style hard cast) @ 1300 fps for 694 ft/lbs

The 40, as good of a self defense cartridge as it is, is not in the same class as the .357 for this role. With the 10mm, now you're talking close competition.
 
.357 from a 4" Ruger Service Six (my back packing gun) 185 grain beartooth bullet (LBT style hard cast) @ 1300 fps for 694 ft/lbs
Click to expand...

Chronographed? Published load? That is flat honkin' from a 4" revolver.

Regarding the above... my contention is not that that the .40 is faster, badder, better than the .357 mag with any load, in any gun. It can, with the right loads and from similar size guns, come so close that the shootee probably wouldn't note much difference.
 
Yes sarge chronographed, 15ft from the muzzle. Loaded per marshall Stanton's loading with a MAX charge of H110 and Winchester Small Pistol (NOT a magnum primer) seated out to 1.610" cartridge overall length so there is no way it could be seated into my dad's Model 19 on accident when we go hiking together.

The only guns I shoot this load from are my rugers and my S&W 627. This load took a 200# sow at 50 yards broadside two years ago. (I have to have my rear site cranked all the way down for this load)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top