Better woods carry - heavy .40 or heavy .357mag?

[kgpcr]

I have spent a lot of time in Alaska. I have been chased by 2 moose and zero bears though i have seen many many grizz and blacks. one moose chasing was a very close call. I would take the .40 with a good hard cast bullet and rock and roll!

 

[Bionicrooster]

yeah, take the 40 if a 44 mag is not an option, the 40 with 16 shots will make you feel safer than 5 shots of anything, and feeling safe is what its al about. If you run into a griz or angry bull moose, either gun you own will not be enough anyway.

 

[LeontheProfessional]

If you run into a griz or angry bull moose, either gun you own will not be enough anyway

Well there are always exceptions to that.

 

[WTBguns10kOK]

Conventional wisdom through history suggests that a revolver is always the better choice for woods carry. Many of these "opinions" argue the tangential things like "16 shots is awesome", as opposed to the simplicity and reliability of a revolver, which is what you need most when on your own. Besides, simply look at the numbers between the two ammo choices, it's obvious...and DT's aren't even the most powerful loads for .357.

 

[cyclopsshooter]

i carry either a 3"sp101 357, a 3" or 4" smith 65 all with 158 grain when deep in the cascades

occasionally a 1911 or a model 10 if its a short range day trip

i own a 6" 29-2 but never really cared for the size or the caliber

 

[Harold Mayo]

If it's between the ones that you cited, the M&P would be best. More capacity, easier to shoot accurately under stress, good for human predators, etc.

 

[ShooterMcGavin]

I don't know which one I am most accurate with, since I just bought the SP101. However, of all my handguns (including a P7M8) I am most accurate with the M&P40. I don't think there is much chance that I am more accurate with the SP101. Actually, I am very good with a Smith Model 66 (4"), but it is pretty much a safe queen. I know, you are now all thinking that the 66 is the best option, but it's just too perfect to take into the woods.

They both have advantages and you guys brought up good points. I'm still not settled on one over the other. For longer trips into the woods, I am leaning towards the SP101. Totally reliable, smaller, and lighter. Also, I don't really expect to need more than 5 shots.

Ok, ammo? Buffalo Bore is better than DT for the woods application? The 180gr BB better than the flat nose 200gr DTs that I have??

 

[Oro]

Actually, I am very good with a Smith Model 66 (4"), but it is pretty much a safe queen. I know, you are now all thinking that the 66 is the best option, but it's just too perfect to take into the woods.

Head-smack. So you have a 4" 66 you didn't tell us about?

That's a great woods gun. In fact, somewhere on the inter-web, there's a great video of a park ranger wrestling an escaped grizzly in the back of a and behind a pick-up truck they were transporting him with. He dispatches him with his 4" 66 as I recall. Short of a .44, that's a great option.

There's no stainless gun that's "too nice" to take in the woods once in a while. High wear and not showing is what they are all about.

Ok, ammo? Buffalo Bore is better than DT for the woods application? The 180gr BB better than the flat nose 200gr DTs that I have??

Angels on the head of a pin. No one can tell you definitively which is better. I'd use either and if you already have one, then use it. This is not worth sweating over. I'd much, much rather launch either out of a 4" 66 than an SP101.

 

[bdb benzino]

I have been hunting in Eastern Oregon and also Western Oregon all my life and I have only come across 3 black bears one cat and countless deer and elk. No moose or grizz until you get closer to Canada. Honestly, you would have to worry about being trampled by elk would be the worst thing I could see happening besides freezing to death. Either pistol would serve you well, I personally carry a S&W 686p with 7 rounds of 357mag!

 

[golden]

Don't like either

McGAVIN,

I really don't like either choice.

The short barrel and light weight of the SP101 seem a bad choice with heavy bullet ammo that will have a hard kick and reduced muzzle velocity.

The M&P uses ammo that is primarily designed for anti personal use, not big game hunting.

When I lived in ALBERTA, CANADA, the farmers and ranchers liked a MOSSBERG cruiser style shotgun loaded with slugs for bear protection. That or a rifle like the MARLIN 1894 in .44 Magnum or a MARLIN GUIDE GUN would be my choice.

If I choose a handgun for bear or moose protection, it would be large bore, like the .41 or .44 magnum in at least an N-frame size gun with 4 or more inch barrel.

Between the two you listed, I would go with the S&W M&P. If you run into a problem with feral animals like dogs or criminals, which would be much more likely, it would be a much better choice.

Jim

 

[MCgunner]

The .357 is MUCH more handgun than any .40 so long as it has at least 4" of barrel. A 180 grain .357 will put up near 800 ft lbs, over 1400 fps from a 6" gun and not much less from a 4" gun and it will penetrate a lot better, better SD, better momentum even though the bullet may weigh a little less. The .357 compares to full power 10mm. .40s, .45s, .357 sigs, not even close.

Yeah, there are better choices, but the .357 beats the .40 hands down.