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

Status
Not open for further replies.
To those who keep saying that I said the whole "combined energy theory" is a fact -- please read before you reply. I never said it was fact or true. If you read my posts I said the "energy combined theory" probably IS NOT CORRECT, but it *may* hold some weight just due to the fact that so many rounds within a few seconds of each other in extreme rapid succession **might** provide more power/energy. Key word: MIGHT. I just PERSONALLY think 15 rounds fired in rapid succession i.e within a few seconds would do more damage than firing 15 rounds spread out over 15 minutes. To those bringing up BB guns as a comparison, that's just stupid. Also you aren't even bothering to read before replying.

@Pond, James Pond.
Thank you for the detailed response. That does make sense. And it's a lot more intelligent than those comparing this to a BB gun. To those talking about BB guns: First off, a BB gun can't penetrate a bear. A 9mm can. That's all that matters. Apples and oranges comparison. If a BB gun could penetrate a bear's skull, then YES, firing 500 rounds probably could bring down a bear. Probably. But we know that a BB gun can't penetrate a bear, so it's invalid.

@PawPaw
Thanks for the response. You are right whatever you personally shoot better with is definitely the best choice. I personally think the recoil from a small sized 357, plus the major loss in power from a snub nose, I find the 357 personally not a good choice. But in your case, yeah, a 6 inch 357 is a whole another story. But from my research online, I've lost track of how many people say they carry a 357 snub nose for woods carry. There are so many who say that. But then again this is stuff I've just read online, so it's not a very accurate stat of what most people probably carry in real life in the woods. It could very well be different. Like this thread is the total opposite of what other people say on different forums. So maybe not as many people carry a snub nose 357 for woods carry as I originally thought!.

@Willie Lowman
Your assumption is wrong. I am not trying to make the .357 a "straw-man" like you say. It's carried by some people in the woods. Maybe not by you, or some people on this forum, but it IS carried by some people as a BACK-UP due to it's light weight, and ease to carry for an all-day out door event -- like camping. As for the ".44 magnum" I knew someone was going to say that. Again, the point of this thread is you DON'T have another weapon. For example: there are many people who can't afford to go out and buy a new .44 magnum revolver for their "once a year camping trip" and the rare event they *might* encounter a non-friendly bear -- or maybe they don't want to because they aren't good with the .44 magnum. I'm sure almost anyone would rather have a stronger weapon once they came across a bear-- but not everyone owns 44 magnum. And not everyone is going to buy one, and learn how to shoot it well, just for the RARE chance they might come across a bear on their once a year camping trip.
 
Last edited:
I'd say in either case, don risk it. Got get some bear pepper spray for 19.99 at bi mart. A wounded bear is a dangerous bear. If you can't afford a weapon that can reliably kill a bear quickly, then don't attempt to shoot it with something like a 9mm. I have seen smaller black bear get hit COM with a .416 and run a couple hundred yards threw thick trees. Bears have incredible sense of smell. The pepper spray would scare them off a lot more reliably.
 
so your argument is that it is more preferable to be hit with a 9mm than to get punched 20 times by a ten year old because the punches generate a total of 650 FTLBS and the 9mm generates 400?

I'm sorry but the OP is completely asinine and that comes from a guy that regularly packs a 9mm for blackbear. I would much rather a snub nosed 357 because penetration and expansion are better than anything in 9mm. you can try to reason away based on shere quantity but if none of those 15 rounds of 9mm could make it to the vital organs and only 1 of the 5 357 did then you can bet that they 357 is the more effective gun.
 
Last edited:
From the OP:

So if the 9mm produces more ft-pounds of energy than the 357 does why do people say the 357 is okay for bears and the 9mm isn't?
Click to expand...

The 9mm DOES NOT produce more "ft-pounds" of energy than the 357 does. A 9mm semi-auto pistol magazine typically holds more rounds than any .357 revolver, but that fact does not make a 9mm pistol more powerful than a .357 revolver.
 
Last edited:
From the OP: "You have only 2 back-up guns to choose from: a 9mm with 15+1 rounds of HEAVY FMJ loads OR a snub-nose 2.5 inch 357 revolver with 5 shots of FMJ."

Seems to me that sixteen chances of incapacitating hits is better than five.

It also seems to me that the 9mm is likely to be more controllable for repeated shots during a high-stress situation.

But no way at all that I'd tote a .357 snubbie with FMJ. Strikes me as silly. Something on the order of a HydraShok would be at least a rational choice.
 
@Art Eatman
Yeah, I didn't mean to say FMJ for .357. That was an error. Meant FMJ for the 9mm, since I don't think any 9MM HP would be a good idea vs a bear.

BTW to those that are still replying to the thing I said about "total energy" , I never said the combined energy thing was fact. I actually said it was very likely wrong, and just my personal opinion. I personally think that firing 15 rounds in rapid succession would cause more shock/impact/trauma since the rounds where fired at the same time vs 15 shots that where fired over 15 minutes. Again, that's just my personal opinion/preference. So to people like "tahunua001" who are still replying saying how stupid it is, it'd be nice if you bothered to read my posts first before replying. Also you saying a 357 snub is better than any 9mm isn't really true. They are pretty equal. With +P+ 9MM loads, though, the 9mm wins vs a snub nose .357.
Here they are:

.357 MAGNUM in Snub-Nose
--357 MAG, 135 Grains. Velocity: 990 fps and energy of 294 ft-lbs
From a Snub Nose, the .357 is hardly better than .38 special +P!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! That's pretty well known among snub-nose revolver people.

VS the 9MM:
--9mm 124 grain +P: Velocity of 1200FPS and energy of 380 ft-lbs
--9mm +P+: Produces average of 400 to 500 ft pounds of energy.

Answer= 9mm+P has 86 more ft-pounds of energy than the .357 snub does in the above numbers.


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.

That's giving the 9mm+P about 100 ft-pounds of energy more compared to a small snub nose .357 like the Ruger LCR.


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 9mm +P+ would work just as well in self-defense vs a bear as a snub-nosed revolver would -- in fact on paper the 9mm +P+ has better numbers. The .357 only shines in full size revolvers, it doesn't perform the same way in snub-nosed revolvers.
 
Last edited:
So, what have we learned here?

P+ 9mm is a good choice for defensive ammo.

Snubnose .357 magnums are dumb.

Most TFL members would choose a .357 with a regular length barrel (4" to 6") over a 9mm for a camping gun.
 
I have sometimes carried a g26 in the woods where there might be bears but it was mainly for defense against people. It was loaded with standard pressure 147 grain hp loads which I think are better than +p 124 grain fmj loads for defense against people or bears.

One of the advantages a .357 LCR would have over such a set up is that it is louder than the g26. I don't think firing warning shots is a good idea when dealing with people but it could be appropriate when dealing with an aggressive bear that hasn't committed to an attack.
 
Okay , if I was going to use a 9mm ( say my Browning Hi power ) for big animal protection it would be the Buffalo Bore +P+ 124 grain flat nose FMJ and not a rounded version . This has been tested to achieve a bit over 1300 fps in the Browning MK 111 Hi Power pistol !

On the other hand , out of a S&W J framed 3" barreled revolver they ( Buffalo Bore ) achieved a bit over 1300 fps with their heavy .357 magnum 180 grain hard cast lead flat nose load in test firing. Frankly , I would not want to shoot these out of a small revolver but I have used this load in my S&W 627 N framed 4" barreled revolver and they are hot but controllable. I have eight shots out of this handgun and it would be my choice of the two !

Then again , give me my 44 magnum or at least my 44 special loaded with at least a 255 grain Keith style bullet on the warm side anyday ! :D
 
Answer= 9mm+P has 86 more ft-pounds of energy than the .357 snub does in the above numbers.
Click to expand...
You kinda cherry picked ammo there, that's probably the weakest 357 factory loading on the market.
Also energy is a very poor yardstick to use for modeling penetration. which is why a 147gr 9mm will out penetrate 115gr 9mm even though the 115 has more energy.
And as far as the "a lot of people carry a snub in the woods" yes I do IN KANSAS WHERE THERE ARE NO GRIZZLYS
If I were to go camping somewhere and were forced to choose between my 357 and my 9mm. I would take my 3" SP101 loaded with my 172gr Keith SWC that chrono 1150 from my gun.
 
so please post the velocity for a +p+ ammo out of a 357 snub nose before you make such vement statements. your argument that a 9mm is better than a snub nosed revolver is completely flawed. you are posting low velocity(almost 38 special) loads in the 357 while posting loads for 9mm that are way above spec with most manufacturers and would undoubtedly beat the gun to pieces if you shoot it much. nobody say's to themselves, "I'm going to be in bear country today, better grab that budget brand, low velocity, target ammo for the 357". that logic just never crosses someone's mind. if you really want to be fair to both sides, grab data from either light loads, medium, or +p+ in both calibers, don't try to fudge the numbers by making an unlikely situation even more unlikely by making the person with the better caliber worse off by making a stupid decision with the ammo they bring.

if you take standard FMJ loads for a 9mm which are between 100 and 115gr have right around 300 FTLBS and standard 357 loads which have right about what you posted then the 357 has the obvious advantage. if you went one step further and gave them both the same bullet type in average weight, which is only fair, then no matter what you choose, the 357 has a clear advantage over 9mm.

taken right from midwayUSA.

357 buffalo bore 158GR JHP +P+(not safe to be fired from pistols weighing less than 16OZ) from a 2 1/2 inch barrel: 1100 FPS and 422FTLBs muzzle

9mm buffalo bore 147GR JHP +P+ from a 5 inch barrel: 1150Fps and 451 FTLBs muzzle.

that is a fair comparison of muzzle velocities between a snubnosed 357 and service sized 9mm. BUT, and there is always a but, have you stopped to see what those same bullets are doing at 25 yards? given an estimated BC of .13 for the 9mm(based on premium bullet selections) the 9mm is down to 385FTLBs at 25 yards. on the other hand the 357 with an estimated BC of .206(also estimated based on premium bullet selections) the 357 still has 398 FTLBs of energy at 25 yards.

this is all ignoring the fact that this is basing this on the fact that one user is using a 5 inch barrel and the other is using a 2 1/2. if the 357 happened to be a ruger GP100 with 5 inch barrel instead of an SP101 with 2 1/2 inch then the 357 would wipe the floor with the 9mm.

again this is coming from a guy that packs a 9mm for black bear. I do not doubt that a 9mm can stop a black bear but the entire process in which yo are attempting to justify it by pitting low quality 357 out of a pocket gun against premium 9mm out of a service pistol is completely counter-intuitive.
 
Last edited:
To those who keep saying that I said the whole "combined energy theory" is a fact -- please read before you reply. I never said it was fact or true.
Click to expand...

So why put it out there if it is neither fact or true?

Don't say it if you don't believe it to be so.
 
How many here have shot a bear front-on with a 357 magnum or 9mm? I've shot one with a 357 magnum and wasn't all that impressed. (He turned and ran the other way after a few hits).

For one thing calculating total bullet grains in the cylinder or mag is just plain silly. It's purely academic and has nothing to do with a heart racing moment where you have a split second to do what your going to do. Its very doubtful that anyone is going to get 15 rounds into a bear while he is coming at them. (they might if they keep shooting if the bear turns and runs)

Also, keep in mind that most 9mm ammunition is designed for humans and is hollow point. Against a bear you want something that is going to go through his skull or break a big bone. The ft/pounds don't matter because you aren't going to physically stop him. You just need that slug to get to his brain. I would say bullet construction is more important than the energy difference between 357 and 9mm.

In anycase, my one experience surely doesn't make me an expert, but I have learned in life that what looks one way on paper usually looks a lot different in real life.
 
@tahunua001 AND @ mavracer

Comparing a Glock 26 (which is the smallest Glock period) is a fair comparison to a Snub Nose Revolver like the RUGER LCR. Completely fair comparison. The .357 just is not meant to be fired from a tiny snub nose revolver. ALSO, the .357 +P rounds you mentioned are NOT safe to be fired from the Revolver I mentioned: the RUGER LCR. The reality is a .357 magnum really just isn't meant to be fired from a snub-nose revolver. It losses way too much power -- it's almost comparable to a 38 special +P in some cases. A .357 mag was meant to be fired from a full-sized revolver, that's where it really shines and has it's power. But anyways, here are LOTS of numbers below so you can tell I'm not just choosing "one poor performing 357 round".


**Note** both the .357 and 9mm are using quality rounds.
----Ruger SP101 .357 MAGNUM, 110gr, JHP. Velocity: 1,208 fps. Ft-pounds energy = 356.
----Ruger Speed Six .357 MAGNUM,125 JHP. Velocity: 1,248 fps. Ft-pounds energy = 432.
----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

Results: The SP101 and Tarus performed worse than both the Glock 26 and Glock 19. While the Ruger Speed Six performed the best of the 357 snub noses, beating the Glock 26 by a small margin, but losing to the Glock 19 by a tiny Margin. But either way, they look pretty damn equal IMO. But technically, the 9mm won on paper.

Now, here are results from a gun magazine.

----S&W 686, 110 grain, JHP. Velocity: 1,231 fps. Ft-pounds Energy: 370
----Taurus 617, 110 graim, JHP. Velocity: 1,206 fps. Ft-pounds Energy: 356
----S&W 686, 158 grain, JHP. Velocity: 1,068 fps. Ft-pounds energy: 400
VS
----Glock 19, 115 grain. Velocity: 1,268 fps. Ft-pounds energy: 410
----Glock 19, 124 grain. Velocity: 1,217 fps. Ft-pounds energy: 408

Results: Very close, but the 9mm still won on paper. They are so close you mine as well call them equal, but still technically, 9mm won -- on paper.

NOW SINCE ALL THE LOADS ABOVE WHERE "LIGHTER" LOADS HERE'S SOME MORE HEAVY DUTY LOADS FOR BOTH THE .357 MAGNUM AND 9MM. COMPARISON:

----Taurus 617, 180 grain, JHP. Velocity: 1,023 fps. Ft-pounds energy: 418
----S&W 686, 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

Results: The 9mm in +P won producing vastly higher Velocity speeds and higher ft-pounds of energy. But still, both rounds performed well and in real life tests you probably wouldn't notice the difference. BUT, on paper, the 9mm still won against a snub nosed .357.

I'm pretty sure that's enough numbers from various sources to show that a snub-nosed .357 is very, very, very different than a full-sized 6 inch barrel .357 is. In fact, the 9mm has better numbers than a 2-inch Snub Nose .357 magnum does

So to others reading this topic,we already have multiple people in this thread who said they would take a .357 snub any-day, and some even said they carry it in the woods!! So that's why I am comparing a .357 snub vs 9mm for a back-up woods gun. We already had some admit here they do carry a 357 snub. The thing is, they don't realize the 9mm is producing just as good (or better) numbers then their snub-nose .357 is. Numbers aren't everything, no, but it's all we have to go off. And I'll say it again, THIS ISN'T A HUNTING THREAD! It's for the rare situation where you might have to defend yourself against a bear in an expected situation (like out camping) therefore you might not have a higher powered handgun/rifle available to use.
 
Last edited:
animal bullet are being tested in balistics gelatin.

sd bullets are too.

not to many years ago that online magazine about guns and hunting and ammunition did a snub test. they found out stock 38 special snubs with 2 inch barrels were able to punch a 158 grain bullet through 2.5-3 feet of ballistics gel.

now how much did that +p+ 9mm load penetrate.....
 
@josh17 you're still equating energy to performance.
ENERGY IS A POOR METHOD OF PREDICTING PERFORMANCE
Click to expand...
Try looking at momentum and get back with us see if those 115 +p+ get close to the 180gr 357s;)
 
Let me try a medical tack.....

Josh, you seem to believe that kinetic energy will kill an animal.

A hit the Central Nervous System (Brain/Spine) might stop them from attacking you(or doing anything else, such as breathing) Hypoxia is what kills animals (at least in the near term- we are not concerned about starvation or toxicity due to infection, which are probably contributing factors to the deaths of most animals.

Disruption of biological systems that facilitate oxygenation of tissues is what causes that hypoxia .....


With respect to bears, those systems may be protected by a considerable amount of muscle and bone ....... a light, fast bullet like a 115gr 9mm is less likely to penetrate deep enough to damage those systems than a heavier, equally fast bullet, such as a 180gr .357Magnum .......

It's not "stats" that will kill the bear. The bear does not have any "stats"- no hit points, chits, status bar, etc. to wear down...... it has a small brain directing several hundred pounds of muscle, bone, claws and teeth, all supplied with food and oxygen (to make energy to power the biological machine that is the bear!) by circulatory,pulmonary and digestive systems ..... that last of which, if the bear in qustion is attacking you, it is attempting to feed ...... with YOU.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top