Home Forums Lever Action Central Cowboy Levers .357 mag black bear loads

How much Lil' Gun?

Just took a look, 19.0 but not sure what book max is, would find out and go 10% under and work up.

I do use Rifle primers just because, not sure if that is needed or matters.

I'm surprised no one recommended Federal CastCore ammo. I think the 357 stuff is loaded with 180 grain bullets. If it cycles through your rifle, that should be all you'd need.

Fed. CC is good, and http://www.buffalobore.com/ammunition/default.htm#357

1850 mv w/180 at above link looks to be a solid performer, should penetrate well.

I'd just be sure to shoot only if I had to, not wait too till a bear gets too close before lead starts to fly and aim true.

Yes, a 45/70 lever, 350 mag, etc. would make me more comfortable if I planned to really need something for a defensive encounter.

Brian Pearce's writing at times is questionable. There are those who want to believe his articles but really should know better. I'll add his accounting of this right up there with his dubious story about a double cape buff kill with one shot from the 45-70.
Never mind the fact that he didn't want to be responsible for the second trophy fee on that fenced hunt or that by his own admission he couldn't account for all the lead he tossed.
Sadly that kind of non sense sells magazines and really IMO that's just what hunting a buffalo with a 45-70 or using a 357 lever action as a bear DEFENSE round is.......Non sense.
IIR a lady in the late 50's killed a massive grizzly in an attack with a 22lr.
Sure doesn't make it the right choice.

Thanks Stetson,

You may notice my post directly above yours (specifically last 2 sentences), not advocating, and certainly not as a defense round, but sometimes, when people get in tight corners, and use what they have.....it works. Can one put themselves at higher risk with a smaller gun as a choice? Sure. Up to the individual as to how or if they arm themselves with more 'insurance' but I do not disagree that there are better rounds.

Would I rather a 357 than a 22 handgun for defense against criminals? SURE, but would I want to go up against someone who can pump 10 shots into center mass in 2-3 seconds.....nada.

The least anyone can do is have proper loaded ammo, regardless of whatever they use. Maybe your last sentence could also say 'best choice' as it is a crap shoot and I am not sure any cartridge has a GUARANTEE to stop any dangerous animal from killing you.

Watch this...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o6Mq-5P-ebc

Now I'd be willing to bet these guys, MULTIPLE hunters/guns, lead flying.....were using big bore elephant class rounds. Their carrying such rifles perhaps gave them too much confidence.....damn near costs someone their life.

Egotistical hunters carrying large guns and are disillusioned into thinking they are guaranteed safe need to be humbled, PRIOR to an event like above. I do believe sometimes hunters have SO much gun, that they cannot shoot well and control them and would be better off with a gun they can handle better, and place their shots on the mark, as a miss....is just that.

I am not sure any reasonable hunter would think they were over-armed with a 357 in bear country, nor would search one out. Just pointing out that one can get killed no matter what they carry.....especially if operating under wrong perception of safety.

Your post is not w/o merit, but I want you to understand what I was conveying and that we are not so far off as to your perception that might have alluded you to believe.

I respect the OP wanting to hedge bets with ammo that has the best chance for penetrating and killing should he get in a jam, realizing his choice may not be viewed as the best in caliber.

IMO a 357 is a rather poor choice for the intent of thwarting a bear attack irrespective of how hot you load it. If the OP is incapable of taking handgun ammo to Canada then that pretty much rules out the 44 mag and the 357. I don't have a clue what your trying to show with that very old canned hunt clip although it wouldn't suprise me if Brian Pearce could spin a real good tale about the great hunt.
It's not like you have to carry a 700 H&H to do a bit better in stopping power than a 357.

Trying to show that someone about got killed, despite toting cannons. Agree a 700 not needed, as I said before your post, in mine, a 45/70 or 350 mag would be more comforting. Fact is, one never wants to be attacked, but whatever it is, you better aim true, and have bullets that penetrate.

Years back when hi-vel was new and in vogue read about a Leopard or Lion attack in Africa, hunter was killed as his 280 Ross bullet blew up, so PROPER loads + PROPER shot placement count.

Foot pounds matter, and velocity, but do not tell the whole story. Personally, a 338/06 in a 20" barrel, Sako Pre-Garcia action would give me 5 rounds of potent medicine w/250 Nosler partitions. THAT would be my pick, strong controllable package for ME, and that ME is a variable for all. Recoil tolerance is not the same for all, and I contend that a round must be chosen that is shootable by the individual, as well as adequate. True, not great abundance or surplus of 'power' on tap with a 357 rifle, but many owners tell that it is nigh identical to a 30/30 in performance, esp. at closer distances. I would be interested in seeing what a 170 30/30 does vs a 180 hardcast 357 Rifle load, re: penetration etc.

Now how many bears do you suppose have fallen to 30/30s since 1895?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.30-30_Winchester

Characteristics and use
The .30-30 is considered by many to be the "entry-class" for modern deer cartridges. While it will take deer- and black bear-sized game, it is limited in effective range to approximately 200 yards (183 m) for that purpose. It is common to define the characteristics of similar cartridges as being in ".30-30 class" when describing their effectiveness.

I stand that at ranges up to 100 yds, a properly loaded 357 rifle will match a 30/30 for killing power. If I am wrong, it must be shot placement IMHO. Ideal, no, but try arguing with the multitude of hunters who have fallen moose, elk and bear with 30/30s .....many many of them.

Will I choose one for bear country? Not if I had the opportunity to choose another rifle. If I was roaming the country and a 357 was what I had on hand, and a bear attacked would I hesitate to unload a lever 357 on it? Not for a second. At that point it's me or him......just don't expect the same results w/light HP bullets that will not penetrate as a heavy hardcast will.

I think Brian Pearce was illustrating the upper limits of what it can do, and has done when called to action, which was/is much more than many might give the 357 rifle performance credit for IMHO.

"Now how many bears do you suppose have fallen to 30/30s since 1895"

That's pretty much a totally moot point. I'm sure we all realize that much game has been taken with lesser cartridges in years prior, BP before that, bow and arrow before that etc.
The real question that needs to be asked is how many bears have succesfully fallen to the 357 in SELF DEFENSE not when one is taking the time for a well placed shot. Big difference. So the whole side bar about bullet construction, shot placement etc is valid but doesn't replace the simple fact that in self defense mode HP counts! As your article states the 30-30 is considered entry level and a 357 is a lesser cartridge when BOTH are loaded to their maximum capacity, for bear so to speak.
But hey that's just my .02 adjusted for inflation. But then I don't put much stock in a web site like Wiki that rates a 30-30 as a 200 yard gun.
I will conceed the 357 would be preferable to throwing rocks or even a 22. Still I'd even take the 30-30 over the 357. That's the beauty of having choices. You just use what ever trips yer trigger.

I can tell you, if a bullet test proves a 357 180 hardcast w/top loads penetrates better than a 30/30, and your 357 can be controlled better, aka more shots in less time, in a tighter group, what gun would you choose Stetson?

Horsepower counts, but so does accurate shot placement with bullets that reach vitals, and if real close, I'd be aiming for the head/neck with some of my 10 shots. A hard cast slug should penetrate bone well enough.

We both agree a 357 is not a top pick on bear, but I think your posts puts a 357 rifle near a 22 in killing power, whereas I believe its very close to a 30/30. As to a 'moot point' I don't think so.

Your Discounting the truckloads of game a 30/30 has killed, yet say you'd use one.....if you had a choice over a 357, yet you and I both know, there has not been a widespread use of a 357 rifle on game larger than deer to have any data to speak from so just because it does not have the history, does not make it drastically inferior to a 30/30 w/top loads.

Now I wonder how many bear have been killed when people had a 44 handgun as a back up? How many Alaskans tote 44's when fishing or meandering outdoors? In Grizzly country?

Now how does a 357 rifle load compare in HORSEPOWER to a 44 handgun? How many controlled shots in how much time can one get off with either?

I guess it matters if you are comparing the 357 rifle to a larger rifle cartridge, or to a large handgun i.e. 44 mag that is a standard that many feel comfortable to carry and few argue is a good choice in any bear country, WITH GOOD penetrating bullets.

Kinda sounds moot now to me why all the negatism by you towards a 357 rifle w/good loads. I'd rather have 10 shots on tap, with more accuracy and consistency, and speed, than a 44 handgun and 6 bullets. In fact some prefer a 10mm Glock w/more rounds than a 44, using penetrating bullets. Must be something to accuracy, penetration, and controlled multiple shot capability according to the hunters in AK and elsewhere who tote Glocks.

It seems the answer to why the lack of confidence lies in perception and not facts as again I'd like to see penetration test as I believe a 357 with good loads will give the penetration needed to get to vitals at close ranges. A 22 is rarely going to give it thru bones in a bear Stetson, you know that.

That is just me.

Enjoyed the debate.

The real question is how many black bears have seen through a attack after having a decent piece of lead shot into it.
Grizzlies would be pretty easy to come up with examples of such. Black bears?

I would think twice of shooting a large Grizz with a 357 rifle, unless it was last ditch and no doubt as to a definite attack.

ANY bear encounter I would suspect would best be not shoot upon site if not charging, and hope the bear moves on, but if it is close, very close, it could be a standoff, and running is not a good option.

Pepper spray is said to be effective and might be a great option for many to carry afield. I have seen footage of a bear leaving after sprayed, but we do know that cannot kill them, nor guarantee stopping but likely could thwart continued charge if used correctly.

Personally hope I never face that situation, but preparedness in what you carry, and a plan of action is a good thing.

I have no idea where you drempt that one up. The simple fact is that a 357 is less powerfull than a 30-30. Period. So I'd opt for the 30-30. I don't care what kind of wizz bang hardcast bullet you have. The bottom line is we both agree that the 357 is not the best choice so the rest is just twaddle.




It seems very early to be drinking so either you need a better pair of glasses or this cold is kicking my azz much harder than I thought. I think you need to point out where I "discounted truckloads of game killed by the 30-30". Do you just make this stuff up as you go? The fact is that you can't group in all the whitetails killed hunting with a 30-30 and make any sort of realistic comparison as a self defense bear weapon. And no the 357 is not "drasticlly inferior" just a bit inferior in a ballistic sense. You seem to continue to over look the fact that one is not obligated to use the most anemic 30-30 commercial rounds. I'm not even going touch your whole off topic rant about handguns except to say I strongly suspect that there a hella lot more 12 guages being used for this purpose or 45-70 guide guns than glocks.
I'm guessing your a Brian Pearce groupie.

I can't say I know but I've seen BB's eat a lot of lead. Bottom line for me is that if I had to take a lever gun and I couldn't take pistol ammo the 45-70 guide gun would be a top choice for me.

Sorry Stetson, no drinking going on here, I'd be VERY interested in seeing a ballistic comparison via test media, wound channel and depth and width of the 30/30 with your load of choice, and a 357 with a top load. My point is, I don't think there is a lot of difference that would be measurable by game within a hundred yards.

Yes, as I stated earlier also there are better choices. My deer I shot tonight w/357 did not argue. It dropped right in it's tracks and never got up.

It will be interesting to see how the 357 stacks up when the new Heavy 30-30 from Buffalo Bore is out.

That will be interesting. Should be a very good load if it is like all else they mfg. and good news to 30/30 owners.

I posted earlier this year about an experience I had trying to kill a large bear with a 357. There were replies from people that had seen several bears shot with 357s, and it did not get good reviews at all.
I have shot some deer with a 32 Special which is a ballistic twin to the 30/30 and can see that turning or stopping a bear. It does a heck of a lot of damage, especially at shorter ranges. I also have shot a lot of pistol and rifle bullets into home made test mediums, and can't see the 357 being even in the same class as a 30/30. Bill Jordan worked with Smith & Wesson to develope the 41 Magnum because the 357 was somewhat lacking as a people stopper.

Fred

Fred,

Was that 357 from a revolver or 357 from a carbine?

Plink

I was using a 4 inch barreled revolver-

The important info came from the other posts that responded- Not many thought well of the 357. I don't believe the difference in velocity between a handgun and a rifle is going to significantly increase the killing power.
There are very few people that have to deal with a charging black bear, and a miniscule number that have stopped several charges, so we have to go with what the researchers tell us.
Bear spray is the overwhelming winner when it comes to bear attacks that have been documented, from all the info I can gather.

Royce