Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Alaska 357 magnum enough for bear?

I don't think people take Bear Defence serious enough,in the past few of years 1 girl mauled while riding her bike on a bike trail,another woman killed while jogging,these around the Anchorage Bowl,plus there has been numerous other encounters with hikers and joggers.

Should that keep us from enjoying what we do, I think not ,as for me I carry something that will put a picture window in one should the need ever arise again.

Fair Winds and following Seas

I have never hunted Alaska but i believe the 357 Mag with a good hard cast bullet would as good as any other handgun, if for no other reason than most people can get off more accurate shots with the 357 than with a big bore magnum such as the 44 mag or 454 max loaded, because accurate hit will be the only one that counts. Single action revolver would be my last choice regardless of cal, because you would have very little time and the double action would give you a edge over the slower action. I still don't believe the 10mm is as good as a full loaded 357 magnum in stopping power. Big bears and handgun just don't go together but i would rather die fighting with a handgun in my hand than a rock or stick. My opinion the 357 magnum would be as good as any other cal in the time span you would have to use it. Bullet choice would be the key to surviving with any handgun .

Here is a story and photo sequence on the grizzly that was killed in 1987 by the Montana game warden with a .357. It worked a lot better than a harsh word, a sharp stick or a rock would have:

http://www.fieldandstream.com/node/1000014248

I had forgotten the whole trap slid right out the back of the truck...

I've never shot a bear although I have encountered one that ran from me while hiking. So I can't say what it takes to effectively stop a bear. I do know that a .357 doesn't always stop a determined man immediately and a fataly wounded man can cause you a lot of damage before he expires. I also believe that a bear is tougher than a man.
So...
If I couldn't hit the vital area of a bear with a gun bigger than a .357, I would practice until I could.

A few years ago a friend of mine flew his family up to Alaska to visit his brother who was a USFW biologist. He is not really a "gun guy" so he asked to borrow a revolver for a float plane trip to a cabin in the bush for a week of fishing without the brother.

He decided a .44 was too much so I sent a .357 with hard cast 158s. Long story short, they were terrorized the whole time by a black bear that hung around. He even broke out a small window that he could get his head in but nothing else.

The guys at the float plane base had made fun of the .357 to the extent that he was afraid to use it. As he described it he could have just walked up to the the bear numerous times when the head was in the window and shot it point blank but he didn't.

Moral of the story is you never know and a .357 is better than nothing.

They were mighty happy when the float plane returned.

I don't trust black bears at all. we don't have any here but I never felt comfortable around them with those little beady eyes.....

Lots of things can happen when you put a hole in a bear. If it doesn't go as you hope, there is still more benefit in creating bigger trauma rather than smaller. There really is no upside to using a 357... unless the alternatives are, as some have said, a rock, a stick, or a knife. I know it has become popular to parade the minimum caliber this and that around the 'fire, perhaps, sometimes, to demonstrate some form of superiority. I've had enough "been there, done that" to suit my tastes. I've also seen enough less than ideal," I wish I had done that better" deals to learn a thing or three. There is no reason to carry a handgun, or any other form of protection, if you are not willing to become proficient. If you can become so "dead-nuts" precise and skilled with a 357 to become proficient enough to stop an ursine threat, imagine how much better armed you would be against big animals with a more power round, often at lesser pressures? Precision on erratically moving targets is hardly a place to play the margins.

Took my S&W 629 44 magnum for bear protection when I went to Alaska. First thing the bush pilot said to me when he saw it was "you might want to file the front sight off of that.". I thought for a second, then asked him if it was because bear charges happened so close. He said "no, it's so it doesn't hurt so much when the bear takes it away from you and shoves it up your azz.". True story... Left it in camp and kept the 30-06 with 200 grainers on me at all times...

..............You sir, cannot interpret or maybe comprehend properly what was posted, especially from me!!! I went back and re-read the entire thread.

First!....Can you please quote "ANYTHING" anyone has been trying to get across to me on this thread that had any good advice or substance that was directed towards me???!!!! I`d like to read it.

Secondly! And what exactly is it, THAT I don`t happen to get or don`t want to, that you in your last post happened to just now additionally throw in???

Thirdly! And what quote can you produce from this thread which was posted by me, where I told anyone what to do??? Hmmm? Where is that one??? Just decided to throw that one in there too???

As far as me "THINKING" that I know what to tell people what to do up there???? Where or how did I ever imply that one on this thread??? Show me that quote too! You just decided to throw that one in there too.

Furthermore, if I choose to have a different viewpoint, I`ll disagree with anyone I choose to, regardless of how much experience they have or don`t have.

The only thing that I have read on this thread regarding more experience than me, was that some have seen many more bears that I have which was their best rebuttal???? So damn what! Experience in seeing alot of bears or the experience in killing alot of bears, has nothing to do with a decision in carrying a seperate sidearm.

Not one time do I read any good advice from anyone on this thread directed "towards" me about carrying a sidearm or not carrying a sidearem in big bear territory. From Steelhead? Nope! Any others? Nope! From you? Nope!

The bottom line is, that what you and some others have clearly demonstrated, is that you "FELT" and interpreted in-correctly, that I was somehow telling people what to do. Btw and again! Please produce that quote or quotes from me and to whom they were directed, where I was telling anyone what to do!!! All I posted were my own viewpoints. And because of those false interpretations, then came along the obvious built-in resentments and the name callings due to the fact that I live in Calif.

Why hell! We can`t let someone from Calif tell us what to do up here IN OUR TERRITORY!!!! Again! Show me my quote where I stated as such!

I happen to be 58 years old. And you are calling me son???!! I also read from you,,,"inside your lines." Do you happen to have a sign on a border somewhere in Alaska that says Mule Deer territory??? I`ll have to watch out for that one!!!

Now when you reply, try to be specific with your answers without adding further additional feelings, lies and suppositions not seen previously on this thread!!! That may be difficult but try real hard!!!

It is a wonder any hunters survive in western and northern Canada without pistols.

I wonder how they do it.

Bruce

My dick is bigger than yours.

It's true. Most of us survive! The chance of Bear attack is low but it would be a very unpleasant way to go. A small number of folks are killed by bears from time to time.

I have all the books I could buy on Bear Attacks (6 on the shelf) and thought about this a fair bit since we started taking the kids on wilderness trips. If it was legal I would take a 44 Mag on my hip. It isn't legal here so Bear Spray is on there instead. In many cases I think it's probably a better solution from a statistical point of view. I have a little Ruger 44 Carbine, a 12.5" 870 Clone 12 Gauge and a 450 Marlin Guide Gun as well. Problem is I don't carry them at all times when outdoors. Maybe I should but even the little Ruger isn't that handy at5 times.

The Bear Spray... I always have. I do suspect some Canadian lads smuggle their hand guns into a shoulder holster and pack anyway. I don't. My only handgun is a WW1 Webley in 455. 270 grain bullet at 600Ft/Sec doesn't inspire as much confidence as the Spray. I'd be delighted to have the choice of a 357 Mag but I don't. I am, not that upset though as with the good statistics on the usefulness of bear spray I wouldn't be surprised if this actually makes us safer in the long run.

This one time in hunting camp.....


The only reason to use a handgun is if you don't have a rifle and there ain't much of a reason to not have a rifle.

does anyone actually know how thick a bear skull is at the 4" circular window of opportunity?

Might have to test this with these guns...maybe using steel. Looks like avg bone density is 1500 kg/m3 and steel is around 8000 kg/m3 so about 5.3x more dense.

an inch of skull would = .18" of steel that doesn't seem right I doubt much of anything could get through that steel. So either my math is off or the skull thickness is less than an inch.

DINGDINGDING!! You are the winner.

That is officially the One Millionth time someone has posted that on an internet hunting discussion board.

Don't know about skull thickness. Do know about steel penetration however. My uncle was a gun master and tested a bunch of rifles on 1 inch steel plate. On a very hard target velocity becomes the determining factor of penetration followed in a distant 2nd place by the area of the projectile.

WW!! confirmed this. The Germans did pretty good work with the high velocity 88, putting holes in Allied Tanks to 1500 meters. The American Sherman low velocity 75 in the mean time was scratching German paint. The 75 was better than the smaller low velocity rounds though.

Bone probably falls between flesh annd steel in hardness and doesn't require the same properties that either steel or flesh has in regards to penetration.

jwp, great pic and story.

I'm curious -- was that a one shot stop? What was the range? How quickly was the bear coming in? Where did you place your shot?

I've got a buddy with a freedom arms .454. I shot a cylinder of 360 grain buffalo bore doing 1425fps out of it. Certainly manageable enough and very accurate. It took a while to get it back on target after each shot though.

Bear skulls are not so very thick, but bone itself is some rather interesting stuff from a ballistic perspective.

I have done quite a bit of testing of various bullets from both rifle and revolver on a variety of bone; also had a few interesting bullet results while hunting where bone was involved. In my experience and opinion, a glancing bullet strike may be one of the most challenging expectations one can place on a bullet. Hitting even thick-walled, heavy bones straight on can "prove" some rather light bullets as adequate.



The bullets in this picture were all shot through the heavy leg bones (in the marrow-filled mid-sections) of a moose at close range. They were full power loads in a 45-70 chambered Ruger #1. The 300 Hornady HP is not generally considered a tough bullet, but it fared quite well.




Bone ends are an entirely different story. This bone end, the joint portion of a moose leg bone, completely stopped a heavy 45 Colt load. It was a 300 standard XTP fired at 1100-1200 fps from a revolver.



These bullets were also shot through the same type of target. (Same test session, same revolver, same loads except bullets.) The single upper bullet is a Sierra 300 JSP. The lefthand column is the 300 XTP Mag; the two to the right are Speer 300 SP, a Uni-Cor (plated/bonded jacket load). Next to those are moderately hard cast 320 grain bullets. The junk on the right are two 300 XTPs- the standard versions- which were not repelled by the bone in their test.



This last image shows two fired bullets from a 358 Winchester, both recovered from the same moose which was shot at over 200 yards, perhaps closer to 300, both at the same distance. On the left is an unfired Hornady 250 SP. The open bullet next to it is the same one, but found in the dead animal. It hit the humerus toward the edge, glanced off, and managed to penetrate the rib cage slightly. The leg bone was intact and perfect. The bullet on the right is a Barnes 225 XFB. The big "tooth mark" in the side is from an apparent bone strike. This bullet hit the spine and slid for a ways along the vertebrae without doing any damage to the bones. I'm not really certain why the animal went down. I know my buddy was prepared to give him some 300 Winchester, but it wasn't necessary. The "failure" was my fault since I chose to shoot when the distance was longer than I should have tried with the little 358. The fat bullet was a dispatch bullet fired from a Colt carbine at close range into the animal's neck. The bullet is the 300 XTP-Mag. A second bullet, a Speer 300 SP, struck the base of the skull and penetrated completely, exiting the lower jaw after breaking the heavy bone there.

By comparison, a bear's skull is not very thick. However, it has all kinds of angles as well as some heavy tissue protecting some areas. I suspect this is why bullets are known to have been deflected. I have seen the skull of at least one bear that had 22 LR bullets lodged against the bone and healed. Breaking a bear's skull with an adequate bullet is probably not the biggest challenge one would face in shooting a bear in self defense. They can move.

FWIW, this is a 12 gauge "good" slug I took out of the shoulder of a bear we had to put down.



No major bones were broken on the broadside shot. The animal loped off and laid down. Two bullets from a Colt Carbine, both 300s moving at close to Casull revolver speeds, striking the shoulder area into the length of the animal, penetrated about three feet and exited out the belly.