Federal’s 327 Magnum is a griz cartridge

Status
Not open for further replies.
two shanks said:
The great Grizzly debate. I used to spend a lot of time in Alaska fishing and after seeing those Bears in the wild no way I'm taking a .327 out there. I used a Benelli super 90 but still felt like it wasn't enough. The people that live there carry a very large caliber bolt gun with a shorter barrel.
Click to expand...
I was just thinking that the Marlin 1895 Dark in .45-70 government sounds like a wonderful thing to have if you're in the frozen north all by yourself.
Having never hunted a bear myself, I can say that if I found myself on the angry end of a big brown bear and only had a 9mm, I'd be thinking mag dump and would be grateful I had 15 or more rounds along with another magazine. That's not much power for a big angry bear. Now, the next question I'd ask (as I sit in the comfort and safety of my living room, not being charged by anything) is which one would be a better choice; a full size 9mm auto with 15 or 17 or more rounds, or a .357 magnum with 6.
 
Clean97GTI said:
Now, the next question I'd ask (as I sit in the comfort and safety of my living room, not being charged by anything) is which one would be a better choice; a full size 9mm auto with 15 or 17 or more rounds, or a .357 magnum with 6.
Click to expand...

Hmmm... That's a toughy depending on ammo.

With the best 357 vs best 9mm, I think I'd take the 357.

Now, a 10mm vs a 357 would be a tough choice
 
JeeperCreeper said:
Hmmm... That's a toughy depending on ammo.

With the best 357 vs best 9mm, I think I'd take the 357.

Now, a 10mm vs a 357 would be a tough choice
Click to expand...
Phil Shoemaker who lives in bear country and is a licensed bear guide says his choice is a .357 Mag with a 180 grain hard cast bullet. His rationale is it will penetrate the skull, and you can probably get off two shots while the bear is charging.
 
Vern Humphrey said:
Phil Shoemaker who lives in bear country and is a licensed bear guide says his choice is a .357 Mag with a 180 grain hard cast bullet. His rationale is it will penetrate the skull, and you can probably get off two shots while the bear is charging.
Click to expand...
I don't disagree.

I'm no expert nor guide, and I carry a 357 in bear country (again, or 45 Super). I've tried to shoot 454 snubbies fast and accurate... It ain't happening for me.

Then again, I have carried 9mm as well when it's my only option.

Reiterating for this thread, the premise of 9mm being the ultimate is disingenuous... When the true statements are "if it's all you had"
 
JeeperCreeper said:
I don't disagree.

I'm no expert nor guide, and I carry a 357 in bear country (again, or 45 Super). I've tried to shoot 454 snubbies fast and accurate... It ain't happening for me.

Then again, I have carried 9mm as well when it's my only option.

Reiterating for this thread, the premise of 9mm being the ultimate is disingenuous... When the true statements are "if it's all you had"
Click to expand...
That's kind of like saying, "If all you had was a popsicle stick . . . "

And the proper reply is, "Why in the name of Holy Gilhooley would you be wandering around in bear country with only a popsicle stick?"
 
The idea that you want a bunch of rounds is amazing really. Bluntly......its lack of experience in the woods that says it's a good thing.

If a bear isnt charging you.....you don't need to shoot it. If it is charging you, you've got 1 or maybe 2 shots. Make them count.

The i-gots-me-a-whole-mess-o-rounds-bring-on-that-bear thing is basically birdshot versus buckshot. It doesnt matter how much you fire at something if it's ineffective. Why not just throw a handful of sand at the bear, that's thousands of individual grains there
 
Vern Humphrey said:
Phil Shoemaker who lives in bear country and is a licensed bear guide says his choice is a .357 Mag with a 180 grain hard cast bullet. His rationale is it will penetrate the skull, and you can probably get off two shots while the bear is charging.
Click to expand...

Phil normally carries a .44 Mag.
 
JeeperCreeper said:
Hmmm... That's a toughy depending on ammo.

With the best 357 vs best 9mm, I think I'd take the 357.

Now, a 10mm vs a 357 would be a tough choice
Click to expand...
See, with 10mm I'd go 10mm. A Glock 20 holds 15 rounds and you can get right into 357 mag territory with the hot stuff from Buffalo Bore. It's not quite up there with the hottest .357 Mag, but when you get nearly 3x the ammo without a reload, I think that makes the case for the 10mm right there. And you can get 30 round Glock 20 magazines. Also, there are PCCs out there which give 10mm some extra barrel that really helps and puts it on a closer footing with something like a .357 lever gun. Although that 357 lever gun usually holds something like 10 rounds and an extra 8-10 inches of barrel, which really helps .357.
Although if I'm carrying a long gun, I'm carrying a rifle caliber or a 12ga.

But if I had to stop at a gun store in Anchorage to buy one gun and ammo for said gun, I am buying a Glock 20 with a couple extra magazines and two boxes of the hottest stuff I can get from Buffalo Bore or Doubletap that can be miracled onto the shelf right then. The .357 Mag can sit on the shelf while I head up towards the North Slope. And I don't even particularly like Glocks.

9mm vs .357 is a tougher call. You need that extra 9mm ammo to make up for the lack of .357 oomph. 10mm doesn't have the same gap in performance. The added ammo isn't an equalizer, it's an advantage.
 
Antihero said:
The idea that you want a bunch of rounds is amazing really. Bluntly......its lack of experience in the woods that says it's a good thing.

If a bear isnt charging you.....you don't need to shoot it. If it is charging you, you've got 1 or maybe 2 shots. Make them count.

The i-gots-me-a-whole-mess-o-rounds-bring-on-that-bear thing is basically birdshot versus buckshot. It doesnt matter how much you fire at something if it's ineffective. Why not just throw a handful of sand at the bear, that's thousands of individual grains there
Click to expand...
Like I said, I've never hunted a bear. Last living thing I shot at was more than 20 years ago and had feathers. I posted that from the comfort and safety of my living room.
But, I keep reading that people want a headshot from their pistol if faced with a mad bear. 9mm and .357 are the same size bullet, so penetration becomes the key. I'm assuming we're talking the best of breed in both calibers. The heaviest solid bullet you can get in 9mm +P+ and a full house magnum load with the same solid bullet. If you're going for a headshot, either one will do the job. If you're going for deep penetration, I'd say a grizzly isn't going to stop right away. So, to my mind, more shots means more holes, especially when they are the same size bullet. 17 x .355 = 6.035" worth of holes in the bear. 6 x .357 = 2.142"
Birdshot and buckshot are two very different loads. 9mm and .357 are much more similar.
 
You know how to tell bears apart?

If it has berries and squirrel fur in its droppings, it's a black bear.
If it has little tinkling bells and its droppings smell like pepper, it's a grizzly bear.
If it's droppings are mostly liquid, it's a drizzly bear. :)
 
Clean97GTI said:
Like I said, I've never hunted a bear. Last living thing I shot at was more than 20 years ago and had feathers. I posted that from the comfort and safety of my living room.
But, I keep reading that people want a headshot from their pistol if faced with a mad bear. 9mm and .357 are the same size bullet, so penetration becomes the key. I'm assuming we're talking the best of breed in both calibers. The heaviest solid bullet you can get in 9mm +P+ and a full house magnum load with the same solid bullet. If you're going for a headshot, either one will do the job. If you're going for deep penetration, I'd say a grizzly isn't going to stop right away. So, to my mind, more shots means more holes, especially when they are the same size bullet. 17 x .355 = 6.035" worth of holes in the bear. 6 x .357 = 2.142"
Birdshot and buckshot are two very different loads. 9mm and .357 are much more similar.
Click to expand...

No, you are making the exact same comparison.

357mag and 9mm aren't anywhere similiar. Sure they are roughly the same diameter but so is 223 and 22 short, does that mean it's the same?

A 9mm+p+ would be firing a 147gr at 1100fps. A 357 is firing a 180gr at 1400fps, it's almost double the muzzle energy. They arent similar at all.

I know the math you posted makes some sort of sense to you but it's ridiculous. The reason why I say it's like birdshot vs buckshot is because a 9mm doesn't have the power to really penetrate and do what needs to be done and a bunch of little holes into the fat of a bear won't stop him from killing you. A 357 is still too small for me to carry in Alaska but at least it's a better chance than a 9mm.

To stop bear you usually want to break it down and stop it's ability to move so it won't eat you. They are huge, seriously go to a zoo or something and look at one in real life. They are way faster than you think, 35mph.

You get maybe two shots, more than likely 1 no matter what you are carrying you aren't mag dumping it in that time.
 
Antihero said:
No, you are making the exact same comparison.

357mag and 9mm aren't anywhere similiar. Sure they are roughly the same diameter but so is 223 and 22 short, does that mean it's the same?

A 9mm+p+ would be firing a 147gr at 1100fps. A 357 is firing a 180gr at 1400fps, it's almost double the muzzle energy. They arent similar at all.

I know the math you posted makes some sort of sense to you but it's ridiculous. The reason why I say it's like birdshot vs buckshot is because a 9mm doesn't have the power to really penetrate and do what needs to be done and a bunch of little holes into the fat of a bear won't stop him from killing you. A 357 is still too small for me to carry in Alaska but at least it's a better chance than a 9mm.

To stop bear you usually want to break it down and stop it's ability to move so it won't eat you. They are huge, seriously go to a zoo or something and look at one in real life. They are way faster than you think, 35mph.

You get maybe two shots, more than likely 1 no matter what you are carrying you aren't mag dumping it in that time.
Click to expand...

Looking at the old Fackler test of 9mm NATO in a gel block, it achieves roughly 70cm (~27") of penetration. Granted, that is a 124gr bullet, not 147 but NATO spec (36.5k PSI) is generally lower pressure than your hotter +P and +P+ (38k to ~42kPSI) commercial items. Provided you're not hitting the big bones of a bear, 9mm is not as weak as you're making it out to be. And we're not talking expanding ammo here, we're talking about bullets of the same diameter fired at handgun velocities.

Neither pistol round is going to stop a big angry bear in its tracks without a headshot. 357 Magnum is a powerful round but she ain't a rifle cartridge, even in rifles. So if you're under the assumption you are only getting 1 or 2 rounds off before the big angry beast is on you, you are kind of screwed either way. 9mm you are punching .355" holes. .357 Magnum, you are punching slightly deeper .357" holes. But the assumption here is that you'll only get a couple rounds off. This may or may not be true. And if it's true, you aren't gaining a lot with the more powerful cartridge in the same caliber. If it's not true, you stand to gain quite a bit with 2x or 3x the ammo capacity.
So again, which one serves you better? If you can punch more holes, you stand more chance of hitting a vital organ or blood vessel.


And bird shot vs buckshot is a piss poor analogy. You could compare 00 buck vs. #2 buck and be on better footing.
 
Clean97GTI said:
Looking at the old Fackler test of 9mm NATO in a gel block, it achieves roughly 70cm (~27") of penetration. Granted, that is a 124gr bullet, not 147 but NATO spec (36.5k PSI) is generally lower pressure than your hotter +P and +P+ (38k to ~42kPSI) commercial items. Provided you're not hitting the big bones of a bear, 9mm is not as weak as you're making it out to be.
Click to expand...
But of course you WANT to hit big bones -- the skull or spine -- to stop a charging bear.
 
Clean97GTI said:
Looking at the old Fackler test of 9mm NATO in a gel block, it achieves roughly 70cm (~27") of penetration. Granted, that is a 124gr bullet, not 147 but NATO spec (36.5k PSI) is generally lower pressure than your hotter +P and +P+ (38k to ~42kPSI) commercial items. Provided you're not hitting the big bones of a bear, 9mm is not as weak as you're making it out to be. And we're not talking expanding ammo here, we're talking about bullets of the same diameter fired at handgun velocities.

Neither pistol round is going to stop a big angry bear in its tracks without a headshot. 357 Magnum is a powerful round but she ain't a rifle cartridge, even in rifles. So if you're under the assumption you are only getting 1 or 2 rounds off before the big angry beast is on you, you are kind of screwed either way. 9mm you are punching .355" holes. .357 Magnum, you are punching slightly deeper .357" holes. But the assumption here is that you'll only get a couple rounds off. This may or may not be true. And if it's true, you aren't gaining a lot with the more powerful cartridge in the same caliber. If it's not true, you stand to gain quite a bit with 2x or 3x the ammo capacity.
So again, which one serves you better? If you can punch more holes, you stand more chance of hitting a vital organ or blood vessel.


And bird shot vs buckshot is a piss poor analogy. You could compare 00 buck vs. #2 buck and be on better footing.
Click to expand...

It's not piss poor it's literally fact, you just don't like it.

Both velocities I posted are the heaviest hard cast bullet for the calibers. Not hollow points. I'm even using the same brand, Underwood.

The 9mm +p 147gr hard cast hits 1100fps and 395ft-lbs. The 357 mag 180 gr hard cast hits 1400fps and 783ft-lbs. That's a huge difference. The 9mm isn't anywhere close. And no, neither is a rifle round but the 357 is almost literally double the power.

I'm gonna put this in caps so you really see it YOU WANT TO HIT BONES AND BE ABLE TO BREAK THEM.

The 9mm IS weak. It's a service cartridge and great for it's intended purpose. It's not intended for bear. The 357 isnt exactly meant for bear either but it can be loaded to be a hell of a lot better than the 9mm.

Bear threads are always funny, for some reason the fact that someone WANTS their opinion to be right it's considered right. It's not right. Yes, someone killed a bear with a 9mm, but has anyone looked around and seen how many failures to stop a 9mm has had in big bear?

The 357 is twice as powerful as a 9mm with the same basic loads. There is no opinion, there is only fact.
 
I just came across a youtube of handgun caliber performances after reviewing data from military, hospitals, police and coroner's report.

This video brings up a few intersting viewpoints.
 
Broadly speaking, it's basic physics that the bigger the hole, the more stuff can come out of it. "Stuff", in this case, being blood, guts, and will to fight.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top