Why do people say 9mm can't work on black bears? (has better stats than 357 does!)

Status
Not open for further replies.
J

Josh17

New member
Let me rephrase this question, since some people just don't get it. BTW, this thread is for SELF DEFENSE vs bear, NOT hunting. Hunting a bear with a pistol is stupid, unless you got a .50 cal. Also it's a situation where you DON'T have access to a larger gun, or you simply DIDN'T bring one or don't even have one. This is a about a: .357 SNUB-NOSE vs 9mm in the woods for self-defense. Key word: snub nose.

Question:

You are out camping. You come across a bear, in SELF-DEFENSE. You can tell you are going to need a weapon. Your 12 gauge is completely out of reach, or you simply didn't bring it. You have only 2 back-up guns to choose from: a 9mm+P+ with 15+1 rounds of HEAVY FMJ loads OR a snub-nose 357 revolver with 5 shots. Which one do you choose, and why?

I say the 9mm. Especially if you can get off all 15 rounds of 9mm+P, it should do much more damage than 5 shots of a snub-nosed .357 would. At least that's my theory. The total energy out-put is also higher for the 9mm (which may or may not matter)



**Here's some quick numbers too, as to why I personally think the 9mm would work just as well (maybe even better) than a 357 snub nose would. **
Numbers:

.357 MAGNUM in Snub-Nose
---Ruger SP101 .357 MAGNUM, 110gr, JHP. Velocity: 1,208 fps. Ft-pounds energy = 356.
---Taurus, 125 grain, .357 MAGNUM, JHP. Velocity: 1,143 fps. Ft-pounds of energy: 363
VS
---Glock 26, 124 grain. Velocity:1,182 fps. Ft-pounds energy: 394
---Glock 19, 124 grain. Velocity: 1,238 fps. Ft-pounds energy: 433

Outcome: 9mm has slightly higher ft-pounds of energy being generated.

Here are some heavier loads to compare from both:

----Taurus 617, .357 MAGNUM, 180 grain, JHP. Velocity: 1,023 fps. Ft-pounds energy: 418
----S&W 686, .357 MAGNUM, 180 JHP. Velocity: 1,042 fps. Ft-pounds energy: 434
VS
----Glock 19, 9mm +P, 115 grain. Velocity: 1415. FT-pounds energy: 511.
----Glock 19, 9mm +P+, 115 grain. Velocity: 1400. Ft-pounds energy: 500

Outcome: the 9mm+P generates almost a 100 ft-pounds of energy more. Granted, it is 9mm+P. Although the .357 180grain is heavy stuff too, it just losses a lot of it's power when coming out of a 2 or 3 inch snub nose barrel. The .357 isn't meant to be fired from a Snub-Nose.


Round-----Barrel----Energy(ft-lb)-----Velocity(ft/s)
.357 Mag --- 2" ---- 250-300 --------- 900-1000 (Ruger LCR is here)
.357 Mag --- 3" ---- 410-440 -------- 1150-1250
9mm ------- 3" ---- 250-280 --------- 980-1050
9mm +P ---- 3" ---- 375-400 -------- 1150-1250 (Glock 26 is here)

So comparing the RUGER LCR .357 Snub vs GLOCK 26 9mm+P we get this:
--RUGER LCR .357 MAGNUM average Velocity is 900 too 1000 FPS and 250 to 300 energy.
--Glock 26 in 9mm+P average Velocity is 1150 to 1250 and 375 to 400 energy.

And we aren't even talking number of rounds! You can get 15 rounds of 9mm with those above numbers, or 5 rounds of 357 with the above numbers. It seems like the 9mm+P or +P+ would work better in self-defense vs a bear compared to a snub-nosed .357 revolver. At least the numbers make it seem like it would. The .357 only shines in full size or large barrels, it performs much more poorly in snub-nosed revolvers.

Also, my theory on combined energy I NEVER SAID it was fact, or that I was right. In fact I actually said "I very well could be wrong". I said it was my PERSONAL OPINION. I guess most people didn't bother to read, thus, I have to edit it for people to understand! I can have an opinion without it being fact.

(I said 15 rounds of 9mm produces thousands of pounds of more energy than 5 rounds of a .357 snub nose revolver does). Which is a fact. But, again, I never said total combined energy actually worked in taking down a target. Never said that. I simply presented the numbers and gave a personal opinion. I personally think having a high combined total energy output is a good thing, others say it's 100% pointless. Doesn't matter, it's just an opinion!
 
Last edited:
How many bears were shot 15 times by a 9mm? In order to physically stop an attacking bear, you must sufficiently damage it in a vital area. You don't have much time to do this.
 
You don't need all 15 rounds -- like I said in the above post, you only need 7 rounds of 9mm to have MORE energy out-put than 5 rounds of 357 coming from a 357 snub-nose. So you don't need to fire all 15 rounds. Although you are correct about hitting it in the right spot -- first shot is KEY.

But even then, there are many many stories of either cops/park rangers/hunters/etc who had to unload their entire magazines into the bear or whatever animal they where facing. So it happens more often than you think. But you do bring up a good point -- hitting the right spot on the bear is the key. Although if your first 9mm shot is good (aim for a vital), then if you follow up quickly with follow up shots, you'll dump thousands of pounds of energy into the bear. In theory, it seems like even if you don't hit the vitals on the follow up shots (first shot is most important of course) you'll dump so much energy into the bear that perhaps even one of the shots would break the bears shoulders, etc. 147 grain 9mm rounds are heavier than the standard 125 grain 357 round. Also the 147 grain 9mm is only a tiny bit smaller than the 158 grain 357 round in the stats/numbers comparison above.

But, I still don't know for sure. Maybe there's something I'm missing -- that's why I'm asking. I could very well be ENTIRELY WRONG! But looking at the numbers on paper, even firing 7 shots of 9mm still produces more ft-pounds of energy than a 5 rounds of a 357 snub nose revolver does. (That's not even including how much faster you can accurately shoot a 9mm with little recoil compared to a snub-nose 357 which has more recoil, thus longer follow up shots and much less rounds even if you do fire it quickly enough.) It seems like heavy, FMJ, 9mm rounds should work just as well as a 357 would.
 
Last edited:
Where are the numbers for .22 LR?
I'd be willing to bet that more than one person has saved their life with a .22 against a bear.
Neither the 9 mm nor the .357 would be considered ideal. I also have to ask, what's with the whole "Snub nosed .357" comparison? It's not as though 5 shot .357 snubbies are considered by many, to be good woods guns. Of course neither are 9 mm pistols.
Then there's the whole issue of tossing energy numbers around. "8 of these is better than 5 of them." There is much more to stopping power than simply regurgitated energy numbers. One quality hit from a .22 can stop things better than a whole mag of 9 mm HPs that don't hit anything critical. That still doesn't make either good bear loads.
Of course, if your headed into the woods w/ your .357, bring good ammo in a revolver with more than a 2.5" barrel.
https://www.buffalobore.com/index.php?l=product_detail&p=100
The math for 783 ft/lbs in a 7 or 8 shot S&W might be worth looking at too...

Of course at the end of it all, I'm not sure what the point of all this is. Convincing people that 9 mm is a adequate bear round is very likely a lost cause.
 
Last edited:
Are we talking defense or hunting bear with a 9mm?

Firstly, no. Secondly, 8 rounds of 9mm is about the same as 5 rounds of .357 Magnum is what you're saying? I don't know if that's true, but the fewer shots the better. Thirdly you're comparing a 6 shooter to a 15 round 9mm? The .357 Magnum has been made in some semi autos. The Desert Eagle holds 9 rounds. Plus S&W makes an 8 shot revolver in .357 Magnum. Regardless, more weaker shots aren't as good as fewer stronger shots. You may have all of the time in the world or just seconds to defend your self. Bears are pretty timid so chances are you won't need to defend yourself, but in a rage, even when wounded severely, they can attack you. A few shots with a 9mm may not be enough. I personally wouldn't want to carry a .357 Magnum for bear protection. Chances are though you're biggest threat will be poisonous snakes while in the woods and I haven't even seen those in the woods. Are you hunting bear or another animal in bear territory? Or just walking through the woods? Chances are whatever gun you're hunting with is strong enough. If you're going on a nature walk, bring the biggest gun you can.
 
I wonder how many shots with a Red Ryder it would take to exceed the cumulative muzzle energy of 5 .357 Magnums? :)



Larry
 
500 flicks in the nose with a finger probably delivers more total energy than a single solid punch to the snoot. Guess which one is more effective?
 
I think you're looking at energy all wrong. it's not the total accumulative energy, but what each individual shot does. Each shot needs to inflict damage to a bodily system that causes it to fail. Therefore, the more energy each individual hit delivers to a core bodily system is what is important here. More individual energy is what is necessary, not the cumulative effect. You're not firing all the bullets at once and they're not hitting the same place at the same time.

By your logic, a 17 shot 9mm is more effective than a single shot from something like a 308 or a 30.06. I don't have the exact energy numbers in front of me, but I'm trying to make a point.

Regardless, it's all about bullet placement. Not saying that a 9mm won't put down a bear, like you stated it's been done with a 22. Personally I'd bring something bigger.
 
Though it is an interesting thought, I'd have to disagree that 9mm would be more effective. It's a bit like thinking real life is like a video game character where you have a gradient of damage.

To continue the line of thought about cumulative damage to absurdity, the best bear defense would be an American 180 .22LR submachine gun with a 250 round magazine. 250 rounds of .22 would surely cause much more cumulative damage than 15 of 9mm.

I wonder how many shots with a Red Ryder it would take to exceed the cumulative muzzle energy of 5 .357 Magnums?
Click to expand...

I almost spit out my coffee laughing at this. I think it would cause bonus damage if you shot its eye out like the kid on A Christmas Story.
 
Here we have the shining example of the difference between theory and reality, coupled with the inability to recognize that difference in a common sense way.
 
This question is so ridiculous it should be on that MTV show Ridiculousness with Rob Dyrdek showing video clips of people trying (failing) to stop a bear attack while armed only with a 9mm.

A kid I knew always insisted that his Desert Eagle in .50ae is going to kill a bear with one shot every time, even if you don't hit it in a vital organ because 'its a 50 cal!'

Remember years ago there was a story of two fishers up here in AK on the Russian River who killed a mama bear with a 9mm? What the story didnt say is that one guy had a Ruger P89 and the other had a SKS. All people talked about was a bear killed by a 9mm.

:rolleyes:
 
The cumulative energy theory might hold some weight if each shot was fired into the exact same hole, and the wound channel didn't close between shots. :D

Anyway you look at it, if you can fire 15 rounds, or for that matter 7 rounds into a charging bear, he was never close enough to be a threat to begin with.

As for the bullistic comparison, suggesting 9mm has better numbers because its 124gr bullet is faster than light 158gr target ammo fired from a .357 snubbie is like saying that women are physically stronger than men because Xena the Warrior Princess can kick Peewee herman's butt.

Your 124gr 9mm bullet propelled by a .357 load and my revolver would be traveling about 600fps faster than from your gun.

Yes, a 9mm can kill a bear. It would not be humane or ethical to hunt them with one.
Yes, a 9mm could stop a charging bear. Its just depends on how much of a hurry you are in to stop him.

The good news is you are more likely to be attacked by a deer than a bear, and your 9mm might be sufficient.
 
It's not about cumulative energy dumped into the target.

The whole logic reminds me of the "Big Boss" Health Bar in old video games.

The more you shot him, the more it dropped until he succumbed to your shooting prowess.

Now I may be wrong (it has happened) but I'm pretty sure it doesn't work that way in the real world...:rolleyes:

To illustrate my point, imagine finding a cooperative bear and comparing 15 shots of 9mm to the tail region and one 357 to the head.
Which is most likely to give the desired outcome?
 
Last edited:
Here we have the shining example of the difference between theory and reality, coupled with the inability to recognize that difference in a common sense way.
Click to expand...


yep....and add to that the fact the FMJ ammo the OP is pushin' is illegal for hunting in most every state in the union. I've yet to hunt any wild animal where after it was shot once with an ineffective cartridge, it stood around long enough for you to put 8 or 9 more accurately into it.
 
If you are bent on hunting a bear with a 9mm or if that is your only option, sell it and buy a gun more suitable. The cumulative damage theory is ridiculous. Hunting by blasting as many rounds at and animal as you can is ignorant. If you are using your 9mm for bear protection, save the money you are going to spend on that "hot" 9mm ammo and buy some bear pepper spray.
 
Using 124/125 gr bullets in both, and against human attackers, the 9mm does have an edge over a 357 with barrels 3" or shorter. A lot of 357 fanboys don't want to admit that but the numbers don't lie. You have to use a 6" or longer barrel in a 357 to significantly beat 9mm numbers with lighter bullet weights. A 9mm from a comparable sized compact gun shoots that bullet weight faster.

But that doesn't tell the whole story. Energy never killed anything. Broken body parts are what kills and stops animal attacks. If you use the data correctly energy numbers can somewhat predict how much damage a bullet does. But in your example you are looking at the data wrong.

The 357 will shoot heavier 158-200 gr bullets that will far out penetrate anything you can do with a 9mm. Deeper penetration will do more damage, and break down more body parts on larger, tougher animals. The 124/125 gr bullets are adequate for human threats, but while their energy numbers may look better, they simply don't get deep enough to reliably damage vital organs on tougher animals.

Doesn't mean it wouldn't work. Shots like this require a lot of luck. If you happen to hit the brain or spine, even a 22 will put one down. The worlds record grizzly was killed in the 1950's with a single shot from a 22 rifle. That record has since been surpassed, but it proves a lucky shot can do the job. A hiker a year or so killed a grizzly in Denali NP with a 45 ACP which will penetrate LESS than typical 9mm loads. A camper here in GA killed a 350 lb bear that attacked his 4 year old son with a single blow with a stick of firewood 3-4 years ago.

I often carry a 9mm when hiking, but if there are any bear in the area I carry a 4" 357 loaded with 180-200 gr hardcast bullets, or a hot loaded 10mm with the same bullet weights. While smaller guns have worked, I want the odds a little more in my favor.
 
--5 shots of .357 magnum, FMJ, produces a total of 2,935 Energy ft/lbs.
--15 shots of 9mm, FMJ, produces a total of 6,975 energy ft/lbs.
Click to expand...

So multiple rounds of 9mm that don't penetrate thick muscle and bone are as good as one rifle bullet that penetrates a large bear from front to back because the accumulated energy is more?

Yes, if you're talking smaller black bear then that's a little different, but some black bears in the wild can reach 400 lb.s Not an expert on the subject, but I was under the impression that bear attacks can be rather sudden, precluding the ability to stand there and place multiple rounds on target until the "optimum energy" is reached. Your first shot might be your only one.
 
Doesn't matter what caliber, defensive shooting of a bear is going to involve shooting at an animal with thick hide and bones that could be running towards you at 30 mph. It isn't going to stop and wait for you to take aim at its vital organs, much less stay stilll long enough for you to get multiple hits on said organs.
Anyone who has survived a bear attack always looks back and marvels that they were lucky enough to survive. Even those who carry the 44 magnums or 12 gauges or 300 winmags considers themselves lucky to survive a bear attack.
 
Way off base

Go back and take a hard look at basic physics and get back to us.

It's ridiculous to add the energy of each round and compare totals. As a few others have said, it just does not work that way.

It is the energy of each individual round that is important, you CAN NOT add them up.

Even if it were somehow possible to put each round in exactly the same hole (obviously it's not possible) you still can not add all the energy together.

The best example was flicking your nose with a finger 500 times, vs. a solid punch in the nose. The added together energy of all those flicks would greatly exceed the one punch. Now which one would you choose if given the option............I'll take the 500 flicks to the nose thanks, I'm rather fond of not getting my schnoz broken.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top