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

Status
Not open for further replies.
I believe the multi shot energy comparisons hold very little truth in the real world. Shot placement is key. I'd rather less in number but more powerful rounds in the bear defense case. The bear with seven rounds of 9mm in him that keeps coming at you is worse than the dead bear with two .357s in him. A charging bear offers little time to stop it. I'd prefer harder hitting rounds. Sure, 17 holes sounds better than 5 or 6, but if the hits are not effective, what good are they? Certainly neither round is the best choice, but I'd take the .357 over the 9mm.
 
Another no vote for the multiple shot theory. None of the three bear I've shot were that cooperative after the first shot motivated them.
 
Why do people say 9mm can't work on black bears? (has better stats than 357 d...

Your data might be accurate but you are basing your argument on total energy in the platform, which is silly. You need penetration to vitals for killing wounds. 1,000ft lbs of total energy delivered to the epidermis in 50 places means absolutely nothing. 500 ft lbs delivered to the heart or lungs is devastating.

Another reason this is a bad idea is the energy data you are presenting is no doubt muzzle energy as its really the only energy published. Unless you are walking up to a black bear and mag dumping at point blank range the actual energy delivered on target will be less than were talking about in your original post.

If I could get a hold of a belt fed .22 would you want to go bear hunting with it? I'd love to get that on video.
 
Last edited:
Josh wrote:
1.) 9mm +P , FMJ: 124 grains. Velocity = 1300. Energy ft/lbs= 465
2.) 9mm, FMJ, 115 grains. Velocity = 1260. Energy ft/lbs = 405.
3.) 9mm, FMJ, 124 grains. Velocity = 1225. Energy ft/lbs = 413.
So here's the math breakdown:
--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.

That's makes the 9mm have 4,045 MORE total energy ft/lbs than the .357 does if you used up all shots. BUT, even if you only fired half of the 9mm magazine, so 7 rounds of 9mm, that's still 3,255 ft/lbs energy which still has more ft-pounds energy than 5 rounds of 357 does..
Click to expand...

If your theory was correct a 12 gauge 1 1/2 oz. load of #9 shot would be superior to a 1 oz. slug for hunting whitetail deer. If your theory was correct why would states regulate shotgun shells, rifle cartridges or handgun cartridges for hunting?
 
Josh17:

I suppose a fellow could take a black bear with a 22 LR if wanting too. But its just not practical {and likely illegal.} Not very humane either. Just because a weapons caliber has similar speed and energy of a proper weapons caliber doesn't mean the (similar) is practical for the situation at hand. Hearing the death moan's of a badly wounded black bear bleeding to death are not easily forgotten. But prior to those moan's that animal can become the meanest scariest enraged thing you'll ever have to deal with if it turns and comes for you. If that were to happen. I doubt a 9-mm would hardly be your weapon of choice in that scenario.
 
well if the OP is to be believed, a 9mm with 124 grain fmj and a 15 round magazine will be more effective at hunting then a single hit of 670 grain 50 bmg.
 
Let me rephrase this entire question. Anyone have an answer to the below question??? (this thread was for SELF DEFENSE vs bear, NOT hunting. Also it's a situation where you DON'T have access to a larger gun, or you DIDN'T bring one. BTW, I never said I was "right" if you read my first post.)

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?


Also: I know my theory on "combined energy" probably is wrong, but if it's within a few seconds of each other it MAY hold some weight. BUT, even more important is this: with more rounds, you have MORE chances of hitting a vital on the bear in self-defense. Perhaps you may even hit a vital multiple times in self defense due to having so many more rounds. This is just my personal opinion, I'm not saying it's factual.
 
Last edited:
You have only 2 back-up guns to choose from: a 9mm with 15+1 rounds of HEAVY FMJ loads OR a snub-nose 357 revolver with 5 shots of FMJ.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't be thinking "calibre": I'd be reaching for whichever was closest to me or on the side of my strong arm. If they were side by side I might even grab both and blaze away.
With my level of skill, quantity would weigh in my favour over quality.

But if you take the baseball hit and hit the door 15 times very rapidly all within a few seconds the door will not simply get "dented 15 times" rather it will be broken due to the accumulated force hitting it rapidly in a short period of time (a few seconds).
Click to expand...

The problem with that comparison is that mammalian tissue is elastic and flexible. Wood fibres are much less so. If you hit and split wood, that damage makes the surrounding woody tissue less stable. Put a hole in muscle and the surrounding area still does not lose that much of its integrity, unless you are talking biiiig calibers that pulverise.

Now if you want to super-impose the door analogy onto the soft tissues of vitals, you would have to assume that bullet #2 would travel down exactly the same wound tract as bullet #1 and # would follow #2 etc.

This is not realistic.

If we consider a more realistic scenario and accept that a heavy 9mm round penetrates soft tissue to a depth of, say, about 12", then the first would travel to that depth in its wound tract.

Shot #2 would also travel 12" in its own wound tract.

Suppose the vitals are at 12.5" of depth in a bear, then none of those shots, whether it is 1, 2 or 15rds would incapacitate the bear particularly fast.

Now if a heavy .357 penetrates to 13", we can see that already a single shot could do what 15 rds of 9mm each failed to achieve: contact with vitals (in this situation)...

Those extra 43gr of bullet and extra 120ft/lbs of energy that the .357 produces could well make that difference.
 
Last edited:
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 with 15+1 rounds of HEAVY FMJ loads OR a snub-nose 357 revolver with 5 shots of FMJ. Which one do you choose, and why?
Click to expand...

The gun in your hand is better than the gun in your truck. If you feel better with the 9mm, carry it. Pay no attention to the nay-sayers, simply carry the gun you feel most comfortable carrying. Bears don't read the internet and they're not sure which is better either.

On the other hand, I've been shooting the .357 magnum a long time, and I don't believe I've ever seen or purchased (nor reloaded, for that matter) a single round of .357 magnum FMJ. I've used lots of .357 hollow points, lots of .357 soft points, but my favorite is a good, hard-cast, wide meplat bullet.

**I say snub-nose because most people will carry a snub nose sized revolver as a BACK-UP weapon in the woods -- most people don't carry a full-sized barrel revolver as a back-up. I said most, not all. **
Click to expand...

I don't know who "most people" is, but around my deer camp the most common belt gun is a 6" .357 magnum. Those are all "back-ups" because the main firearm is the deer rifle.

But, again, carry the firearm you feel comfortable carrying. The gun in your hand trumps the gun not in your hand.
 
It seems to me that the OP is trying to go back to the "commonly carried snub nose revolver" to create a straw man to attack.

The assumption that every shot's muzzle energy simply adds to the previous one is incorrect.

That said, I have a understanding of what works when it comes to shooting animals to kill them. Given the OP's only two choices, I would go with the .357 for the additional penetration.

Honestly I choose answer C. None of the above. .44 magnum
 
"...On the other hand, I've been shooting the .357 magnum a long time, and I don't believe I've ever seen or purchased (nor reloaded, for that matter) a single round of .357 magnum FMJ..."

I have...Fiochi 142gn TC-FMJ.
Fairly hot load, and seems like it would penetrate pretty well. I bought two 50rd boxes last year. Shot most of one box through a 2.5" Model 19, and finished last month in my current 357, a Ruger GP100 3".
Good accuracy, and like I said, seems hot enough. Still have a full box, I'll probably save it in my stash.
Regarding the OP, I like the 9mm just fine, and I would use it on black bear if the bear made it necessary...but I'd rather have my GP.
 
Why do people say 9mm can't work on black bears? (has better stats than 357 d...

I disagree with the whole premise that this whole thing is predicated on the .357 being snub nose. The reason people carry snubs is for concealability. In the woods there is no need to conceal.

People who know what they are doing aren't heading to the woods with snub nose revolvers. Most are about 3-4" barrels. That is the typical barrel length for a backup revolver in the "bear woods" for people who aren't city slickers.

So taking this situation/comparison in more realistic circumstances I am grabbing the .357.
 
It's not that it can or can't put down a black bear, generally a harmless forest creature, in a life-or-death pinch, but you have made the wrong choice set, between a 9mm and a .357 magnum.

If you are the careless type who leaves your 12-guage over there, while said bear is in your face, you need to make a different choice. Like a .44 or something similar. Same thing if you are just packing a pistol, and nothing else. Your decision paradigm is self-limited and needs to be re-examined.
 
lefteye said:
If your theory was correct a 12 gauge 1 1/2 oz. load of #9 shot would be superior to a 1 oz. slug for hunting whitetail deer. If your theory was correct why would states regulate shotgun shells, rifle cartridges or handgun cartridges for hunting?
Click to expand...

Maybe a drum-fed BB gun would be even better!!! With enough BBs, of course. :o
 
**I say snub-nose because most people will carry a snub nose sized revolver as a BACK-UP weapon in the woods -- most people don't carry a full-sized barrel revolver as a back-up. I said most, not all. **
Click to expand...


Mmmm-Kay ...... I don't know anybody who carries a snub nosed .357 as a woods gun...... the only snubby carriers I know pocket carry, and most of them carry .38+P .... for defense from two legged predators.

Belt gun guys going to bear country carry big bore revolvers .... .44Mag, .454Casull, hot loaded .45LC in a Ruger ...... and if they were going to carry a .357, it'd be a 6" barrelled gun loaded as hot and heavy as they dared. That's what I take camping to CO, as I don't have a .44 Mag ......
 
Well, I used to backpack in Pennsylvania black bear country...my carry piece evolved over the years from a 6" 44mag to a 38spl snub. I was more concerned with people than bears by that point.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top