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.
@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: