Lightweight .357 for Backpacking?

Status
Not open for further replies.
I'm rather impressed by the overall velocity/energy figures attained by full-charge 140 & 146-gr loads in .357 Mag. Speer's 146-gr JSWCHP can be launced almost as fast as the 125-gr bullets, and at higher velocity/energy than the 158s. Their 3% Antinmony cores are nice and hard.

As a "something far better than nothing" load for bear, I'd lean toward that bullet weight. Even with the slightly less favorable BC, the high speed/energy keeps it hitting as hard as the 158s out to about 125 yds. Admittedly, that's not as much of a factor for avoiding a bear's bad breath in your face.

I'm a bit leery of using .357 SIG for bear medicine unless I'm using a nice hard FMJ. Has there been any load development for .357 SIG in the 147-gr weight? I'm skeptical about it being able to beat the .357 Mag. with those pills. Anyone know if I'm off base here?

BTW, I get 1350 fps with the Speer 146s, out of a 6-inch S&W, using a max charge of 296.
 
Rod WMG,

I did not put all of my specifications from my experiments in my post because they are somewhat lengthy. My experiments were done under controlled circumstances using only a high quality chronograph, my mediocre graduate-level knowledge of physics and statistics, and the previously mentioned guns.

I appreciate you questioning my use of the word "outperformed." What I did was compare the velocity of like-weight projectiles from different handguns, thereby determining energy and momentum through simple physics equations.

The results revealed, with statistical significance (p<0.05), that the 357 SIG could generate more velocity though similar-sized weapons (M887 vs. G33 and S&W M66 vs. G32) in projectile weights of 125 grains and 147/145 grains. I admit that the barrels of the compared weapons are not the same length, but revolvers and auto barrels are measured differently and the point was that the weapons, themsleves, were similar in size and their actual bore lengths were similar although not exact.

There are always variables (rifling design, individual manufacturing variances, winds, bullet design) and I in no way intended to indicate that my results were publishable material. They were, however, statistically sound, and reproducable.

Based on my results, it became clear that in 125- and 147/145-grain projectiles, my two particular 357 SIG's "outperfomed" my two 357 Magnums by generating more velocity (thereby more energy and momentum) and did so in a lighter, more manageble, high-capacity frame.

I appreciate your skepticism and I understand that any suggestion that the Mighty Magnums are less than ideal my be translated as sheer heresy. :) I encourage you to pick up a 37 oz., 9 1/2 inch long Smith 66 (4-inch bbl) and a Glock 32 at 21 1/2 oz., and 6.8 inches long. The Glock is infinitely easier to carry and holds more than twice the rounds.

That was my only point. I will concede that you can't stoke a 357 SIG to 158 grains, and that some might consider that an advantage in certain situations. In 125 and 147/145 grain bullets in 2 to 4 inch barrels the SIG will match and actually slightly edge out the Magnum. I also am reasonably cetain that the SIGs outperfomed the magnums because of the efficiency of the SIG in a short barrel.
Another good experiment would be to compare longer barreled 357s. I bet the 357 Magnum would really shine!

My exact figures are at you disposal if you are interrested in duplicating my data.

Best regards,

JR1

If it's any consolation -- I do miss my Smith! :)
 
Not to offend anyone but i thought my glock 33 to be a better woods gun than my short stack 357 wheel gun but after looking at what a revolver has to offer i had to do some serious back peddeling and ask myself some serious questions. 1. will my glock shoot shotshells for defence against jake the snake (more probable than bear) NO. 2. Will i be able to shoot low wt rounds to put meat in the stew pot in a pinch NO 3. will it shoot serious stuff for defence yes. After reviewing all the critera for a good woods gun i had to accept the fact that my glock was not as multipurpose as a good short barreled revolver and must stay home (broke it's poor heart). Any good gun with a 3" or longer barrel and a good selection of various ammo in speed loaders is a piece of mind in the wilds. wp
 
We can talk ourselves into anything. :)

Snake shot? Why bother? If you have time to draw and fire, you have time to get out of the way and leave it be. A big stick is better than snake shot anyway.

Low weight bullets? Yes, if you reload. Can load all the way down to 9mm/38 level if ya want to.

Still think the 357 auto is a better tool for all the jobs you mentioned than a 357 revolver. :)

------------------
>>>>---->
 
JR1,

Thanks for your reply. I sincerely meant it when I said I wasn't trying to flame you. I actually think it's extremely important that a person feel confident in his armament. And I prefer sixguns over autos, but I own and use both, having no illusions whatsoever about the relative lack of power of any handgun round one is likely to carry for "bear medicine." They're all relatively puny compared to other, longer guns.

I don't place much value on "energy" figures. I won't go into that right now, but, if kinetic energy is what is being measured when "energy" is cited, the facts don't add up (meaning animals are not thrown backward by the impact of a bullet, even when all the "energy is dumped" in the animal because the bullet doesn't exit).

I do sincerely believe that the only real laboratory is the field where shooting many head of a certain species under similar conditions with the same gun/ammo is very revealing about what that particular combo will do. None of us realistically have that luxury. There isn't enough time, enough game, the law doesn't allow it, etc.. Even guides aren't that likely to see bears shot under the same conditions with the same handguns and ammo consistently with significantly large numbers of animals taken under those circumstances.

Anecdotal data may not be very valuable in this case, but let me cite something. I have been told that the mountain lion is a real pushover for even a .22 mag. Such hasn't been my (limited) experience. I shot two with a 6" .44 mag S&W. I lost the first after wounding it (poor shooting at 10-15 feet) and the second (shot at 15 feet) was shot through the lungs and still had enough blood/gumption/life/energy left to run 100 yards. Each of these was shot on the ground after they responded to my varmint call.

I don't doubt the guys who've killed them cleanly with a .22 mag, but I certainly don't doubt my own experience either. What works once may not work again.

In all honesty, I don't think a .44 mag is too much for any bear and I think something bigger may very well be in order, since we want to put the down RIGHT NOW! That is only my opinion. Yours is at least equally valid. We just don't have enough experience shooting charging bears down, preventing mayhem. I hope none of us ever has to find out.

Good hunting.
 
Just saw some reloading data this weekend and .357 SIG 147-gr. loads top out, IIRC, about 1250 fps. Even in the 4-inch barrel, .357 Mag. does better.

Now I'd like to know the Jello® penetration figures for those loads... Would 18 inches be enough, or are we depending on nasal cavity brain shots for this last-ditch exercise?
 
Winchester 145 Silvertip 357 Magnum does about 1185 from my Ruger GP100 w 3 inch barrel.

My Glock 32 does 1190 fps with the 147 Hornady XTP.

The Glock is smaller, lighter, and holds more rounds.

From a Glock 35 w 357 SIG barrel I get close to 1300 fps, the same as the Silvertip 357 Magnum from a four inch barrel, and it's still smaller, lighter, and holds more rounds. :)

------------------
>>>>---->
 
I go with the Ruger SP101 21/4" bbl.
The reason that revolver is more ideal for backpacking is the ability to use "shotshell" loads in a revolver. Can't do that with a semi-auto.

------------------
If you want peace, prepare for war.
 
Thank you, Broken Arrow.

I was starting to think I was alone here!

Short-barrelled 357 Mags really get robbed of their full potential. A snub 357 Mag isn't really worth owning these days when they throw bullets out at 9mm velocities. Oops, I mean for me, anyway. Please no flames. Especially from the guy who just bought my Colt Magnum Carry! :)
 
The .357/38 caliber pistols are some of the most fun to shoot and reload. I own at least 10. That was after I got rid of the extraineous ones. I do not want toget into a debate I'll just give my opinion like everyone else. Here are a couple of points to take into consideration.

1. Do not DIS revolvers. You have a wider range of grip shapes and sizes and they have stood the test of time.
2. The .357 Magnum is the lowest power magnum cartridge. It is still verry effective.
3. Bears have been killed for years with sticks clubs and knives. In the south we prefer the Bowie knife.
4. A four inch barrel is usually the minimum that you need to attain near the listed Magnum velocity.
5. There are other options. I prefer the .41 Magnum Mt. Revolver by S&W. More power less weight than Most .357s but with enough heft to help.
6. Get magnaporting if you are shy.
7.The only reason I will kill anything is for self protection or eating. This includes snakes and varmits.

Cheers,

ts
 
I am considering getting the 41 ti taurus tracker (whenever it comes out). I already have the 38 spec+p multialloy and 44 special ti, which I like. THe 41 mag tracker should be one nasty little gun at 24 ounces and 4" barrel.
 
At the risk of being laughed off the planet, this is how I've decided to handle the backpacking risk.

I've been around a lot of bears over the last 30 years of long backpacking trips all over the country. I've even been awakened by some massive mother sniffing 1 inch from my face. (He walked away, uninterested.) The risk of being attacked by a bear is less than getting hit by lightning, and I don't pack around a lightning rod. So much for the bear risk, IMHO.

The big danger is humans, and that danger, in spite of the movie Deliverance (I live in the South) is still reasonably remote. However, just to be prepared, and knowing I'll have to pump at least two shots regardless of the caliber, I've decided to go with a Sig P232. I've evaluated all of the issues, but I know I stand a damn good chance of survival with a .380 IF some bad ass wants to rumble, and the weapon comes in at only 16.2 ounces. It's also a beauty and can be had for around $400.

It's all about risk evaluation, and with a pack pushing 60 lbs on a two week trip, I bring reasonable foul weather gear, reasonable first aid, and I think a great .380 is reasonable protection from the Bad Guys.

OK, I'm ready to be laughed off the planet. I hope not though, cause this is a great forum.

Cheers,
Joseph
 
This is a increasing problem in the western States. With animal activist lobbying to get laws past that make certain type of hunting methods illegal, animal populations are growing fast. So much is the problem in my home state of Oregon that there are proposed changes to the hunting seasons of bear and cougar. The proposal is in public feedback at the moment, but looks like Oregonians in order to control the cougar and bear populations, will be opening these season year round.
In my never ending quest for bigger game, it is driving me and other deeper and deeper into the woods. Where the animal have no fear of men and food chain rules apply. And yes, from personal experience, these animals do attack. They are hungry, you are the food.
As we ask ourselves, why do we carry firearms in our cities, in our home? I would ask, why not carry the same type of insurance policy in the woods. That is what it is, insurance. Some of us just end up filing some claims every once in a while.

Robert
 
I'm with Ed on the issue of taking a little extra weight in your gun to compensate for recoil, but everyone is different..
<<edit>> but as for less recoil "in case" the bear needs an extra shot.. I dunno about you, but if I have to go to arms, I'm gonna empty the better part of, if not all of a clip before I even check!>>
As for you Dr. Rob, you gotta be kidding me about pepper spray for a bear!!!
You won't ever see me getting close enough to a bear to use pepper spray... HELL NO!

[This message has been edited by Beretta Boy (edited November 18, 1999).]
 
DougB,
Has your friend given any serious thought as to how he/she will actually carry the gun?
The .357 Magnum is also versatile when it comes to holsters and ammo carry.
Having a large selection to choose from is important because a lot of trial and error is involved usually in finding the right combination for YOUR needs. Being able to pick from an inexpensive and readily available supply will benefit the novice shooter, especially.
I think you got some really good responses here.
I tend to think of trail guns as revolvers, but autos work too. Humans and NOT bears or snakes should be your greatest threat. BTW, CCI/Speer shotshells will cycle in the .45ACP and I read they work great.
 
If he is serious about defending himself from bears, the .357 Magnum is at the low end of marginal before you tack on the short barrel. The comparison of the .357 Sig, and the suggestion that the .357 Sig is in anyway adequate for the SCENARIO DESCRIBED is way off base. You are comparing apples to oranges. The .357 magnum with good antipersonnel ammunition (125 grain JHP) is at the upper end of effectiveness against humans (and the .357 probably will be as well). With good big game ammunition, the .357 magnum is at the low end of the effectiveness scale as a bif game round. Where you miss the boat is antipersonnel ammunition is not big game ammunition. As an antipersonnel round, the .357 magnum and Sig will probably be comparible with the Sig probably having a slight edge in the short barrel lengths. When it comes to big game, the .357 Sig is not in the same field. Until there are big game bullets for the .357 Sig (say, 158 grains +P JHPs at 1450 - 1500 fps), all your .357 Sig will do is piss off a hungry bear.
 
I vote for the SP-101 or GP-100. I shoot both and they are accurate. The sp has enough weight to shoot quickly something the titanium ones are not so good at. I would never take a Smith to the woods for protection unless I took a few spare parts. Most notably a firing pin rivet tool and a firing pin. Police armorers made a living off replacing these for years. Ruger is truly a modern gun that seldom if ever breaks. PS load up with federal 180 grain hollowpoints for bear or a good hard cast bullet of similiar weight.
 
When I am restricted to only a .357 I carry a matched set of S&W 3" K frames. I would check the specks for the Ti guns. I remember that the .41 Mag actually weighs less than the .357. The round is also more potent even with the short barrel and the recoil shouldn't be any more punishing than "hot" .357 loads.

I had a fellow instructor in AK that had a .357 Blackhawk for a Bear gun. He always said he would just shoot himself instead of the bear. It would be more effective. I agree.

Good Hunting,

ts
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top