What is actually required for black bear?

[mbwtt]

In my search for the next ccw gun that may double for hiking sometimes, I came to reading about ballistics of .357 in 4" barrel vs 2" barrel and what not. Since I want something that is adequate for defense against anything up to a black bear, I was wondering if anyone knows what range of forces are actually required for black bear; what it takes to penetrate skull, break shoulder, etc.
I'm not interested in debate over whether .357 in a snubbie is manageable, as I will have to fire it for myself to judge whether or not I can shoot it. I also know the shot placement is more important than power, and that the ability to make follow up shots are also necessary. And, yes, I know a shotgun would be better than a handgun, and so on. I am interested in knowing if enough ballistic performance is lost in a 2" barrel to diminish to effectiveness of the .357 and what is actually required (ballistics) for black bear. Has anyone come across anything good on these subjects?

Thank you

 

[Prosser]

Are you hunting, or defending yourself?
Sounds like defense. Only a CNS hit is going to stop a black bear. Don't know about what is enough to turn one. Blast from a snubbie will at least get her attention;-)
You are going to be using FMJ bullets, or, cast bullets, I hope, that don't expand much, if at all.

Black bear have been killed by 22lrs, 9MM, with the proper shot placement.

Your question has no answer, since the situations that your discussing have so many variables. The only consistent variable is that there is no constant.

One guy that might be able to help you is Tim Sundles, at Buffalobore ammo. He
has had guys buy his ammo for black bear, large numbers of black bears, and he gets
feedback on how the ammo works.
IIRC, most of that data is on culling bears, not defending against them.

If it's any comfort, you probably shouldn't carry a gun, since it's statistically more
likely you'll get hit by lightening then attacked by a black bear, and, the gun would increase your chances of being hit.;-)

 

[Wolfeye]

I've not come across any conclusive findings. My childhood friend who lives at a fishcamp in Alaska had firsthand experience in shooting a blackbear in self-defense, though: I don't know the specific distance was and what ammo he was using, but his first shot from a .30-30 rifle appeared to bounce off the skull. He must have hit it just right, or just wrong depending on the point of view. The followup shot did the job.

I do a lot of hiking in the NW, and I usually feel comfortable wearing a 4" .357 provided it's loaded with 180-200 grain hardcasts. When I'm in upper WA or in most areas in AK, I also carry bear mace, as does my wife. It's lighter & easier to handle than a rifle or shotgun.

The ballistics charts I've seen tend to show that 4" of barrel will capture most of the power of .357 magnum - you get a pretty big jump in velocity from 2 to 4 inches, and much less of a jump going from 4 to 6 inches. 4" is best if you want optimal power vs. size. 2"-3" is fine if you're leaning more towards a daily carry weapon - you still get reliable expansion when using defensive ammo made for humans. With bear ammo, though, you'd want hardcast bullets; a mushrooming bullet might not even get past the fat tissue of a large animal. (My dad once helped skin a moose that his buddy tried to kill with .44 mag jhp. Not one shot made it to the muscle tissue, let alone the vivals.)

If I were to choose a gun to function as both a CCW and a hiking gun, I'd either pick a 3-4" .357 or a snub .44 magnum. Still concealable depending on your method of carry & choice of grip, and depending on where the hiking is, it might reach the minimum for blackbear protection. I usually add a can of bear spray to my belt if I remotely expect to come across bears.

 

[mbwtt]

Prosser, that is funny about the lightning

Wolfeye, I agree that a 4" would be better, but concealment is the main thing with this gun. I intend to still carry my Glock 29 10mm, while hiking, but if I find I can shoot a snub .357 at all well, I'd be tempted to maybe carry it while hiking sometimes. The reason for purchasing a new gun is to have something even more concealable than the Glock, and I'm leaning towards a Ruger LCR, or maybe a small S&W, so I figure I might as well get a .357. If I can't handle the snub .357, I could still shoot .38.

 

[dmazur]

concealment is the main thing with this gun.

Handguns are always a compromise, and having to conceal it well adds another dimension to the problem (so to speak.)

I've found that I can conceal a reasonably large handgun in a shoulder holster, and that a properly selected shoulder holster doesn't interfere with pack straps. (This decision was reached after a rather long trip with a conventional shoulder holster, not by using analysis and forethought... )

I can carry a 1911 or a Ruger .44 SBH (4-5/8") under a parka or an unbuttoned shirt. The strap is visible, but that doesn't seem to alarm people like open carry can.

So, you might consider something like an El Paso Saddlery "Tanker" shoulder holster. They make this model to fit pistols or revolvers in almost any barrel length. Then you could carry a .357 in a longer barrel length, like perhaps 4", that wouldn't "clip" the available power and would also provide a better sight radius.

 

[mbwtt]

dmazur, I wasn't being very clear. I'm more concerned with concealing in town than on the trail. The snubbie will likely be carried IWB for everyday carry. I agree that shoulder carry is good while backpacking though.

I just wanted to know if the less than 2" barrel on the LCR would reduce the performance of the .357 enough that it wouldn't be wise to carry in bear county if I decided to.

 

[dmazur]

In my search for the next ccw gun that may double for hiking sometimes,

Yep, you said it clearly enough. I'm just slow.

Anyway, I know of several who carry a 4" revolver IWB. It doesn't have to be a snub-nosed, though those are definitely easier.

I believe Wolfeye is correct, that there is a big jump in power from 2" to 4". As a handgun is already a second choice for defense against a large animal, I'm not sure I'd compromise it further with a snub barrel. (Although there was a suggestion that a .44 Mag snub would be better, and I agree. And a .44 Magnum can be used with .44 Specials for a lower-recoil CCW gun.)

So, I'll go with that suggestion. Get a stainless .44 Magnum snub length revolver for your dual-mission. If you shoot it extensively with .44 Special there is the same "crud ring" to consider as shooting .38 Specials in a .357 Magnum. However, if you reload, you can create "Spagnum" loads by using top-end .44 Special data in .44 Magnum cases. This will give you .45ACP level performance for CCW without the special cleaning problems, and handle .44 Magnum for bear.

http://www.ruger.com/products/superRedhawkAlaskan/models.html

 

[Armored farmer]

For me, the hiking gun/ccw is one and the same.
I have no experience with shooting bears, but I do know a big, heavy handgun offers little protection when it is in the safe because it is too heavy to carry easily.
Some of my hiking/fishing friends aren't "gun nuts" like me. My ccw offers protection without the fuss of a big-bore hunting gun on my hip.

 

[Antihero]

Well if you read some threads on here a 357mag loaded with 110gr bullets is the ballistic twin of a 12 gauge 1 oz slug, but here in reality a 357 mag would work, Buffalo Bore has a great hardcast 180gr load that hits nearly 1500fps in my 6 inch gp100 that would work for you.

 

[dmazur]

I do know a big, heavy handgun offers little protection when it is in the safe because it is too heavy to carry easily.

I'm "playing the odds", which is what we all have to do when we decide on what to do for CCW. (Stopping power vs. small enough to actually carry it.) The odds are remote that I'll need anything, and probably larger that I'll run into 2-legged trouble than the 4-legged variety. Thus the .45 ACP for most of my trips.

However, if we use our pontoon boats for a fly-fishing trip in an area where grizzlies are present, I would probably pack the .44 Magnum.

I always carry bear spray as the primary defense, so this might be something to consider, rather than relying completely on a handgun.

 

[franconialocal]

I don't know if this will help you much, but my two cents....

I've put plenty of bears, moose, and deer down from being struck by vehicles and through Fish and Game Dept. authorization (for threats to safety/homes, etc.) with my Sig P-220 (.45 Auto/ Hollow Point Federal Ammo), AR-15 (55 gr. Federal Hollow Point), and 12ga. shotgun (Sabot Slug) out on patrol. Most, if not all of my shots have been right behind the front shoulder blade for maximum lung/vitals hit. If you can consistently aim for this area, even with .357, you should have no problems. I'm also confident that it will work well with head shots, but I don't really have any experience in this area. If a black bear is standing upright facing you then you should also be aiming at the base of the neck between both shoulders. It's a tough shot to line up, and a head shot may be your only option in a pinch, but as with any animal (including humans) if you DO need to take a head shot then you should be aiming at the inter-ocular region (e.g. the nasal area) to maximize the potential of damage to the basal skull and spinal column. You should have no problem with a .357. It's a great round. I have a Ruger Blackhawk and Taurus Tracker in .357 and I would feel confident against a black bear any day with either of these guns.

 

[ArchAngelCD]

The reason for purchasing a new gun is to have something even more concealable than the Glock, and I'm leaning towards a Ruger LCR, or maybe a small S&W, so I figure I might as well get a .357. If I can't handle the snub .357, I could still shoot .38.

Both the S&W M640 and M649 are slightly heavier than the alloy revolvers (and twice the weight of the Aitlites) but much more controllable with .357 Magnum ammo. I own a M640 and quick followup shots are no problem when using 145gr Winchester Silvertip .357 Magnum ammo.

 

[Prosser]

dmazur, I wasn't being very clear. I'm more concerned with concealing in town than on the trail. The snubbie will likely be carried IWB for everyday carry. I agree that shoulder carry is good while backpacking though.

I just wanted to know if the less than 2" barrel on the LCR would reduce the performance of the .357 enough that it wouldn't be wise to carry in bear county if I decided to.

My two cents. I have a .357 snub. It runs 125's at 1204fps. 360PD. GREAT pocket gun.
Great human flash/bang hand grenade with bullet. Can't shoot heavy bullets with it.
Settled on 147 JHP's at 1130 fps, that's Fiocchi, or, Buffalobore 158 grain lead at 1040 fps, .38 Plus P. Recoil is the same.

IF I was going to buy another snubbie, I would buy a 3" Stainless Model 60. The jump from 2 to 3" is huge, and, CCW wise, your distance may vary.

You have, as far as I'm concerned, the second most powerful combo for CCW, a Glock 29. I'd take that with Double Tap ammo over the Model 60, and, I hate glocks, except for the 34 and 35.

IIRC the 60 comes in over 25 oz, and, the 29 around 32 oz loaded. Size is near the same.

If I wanted something smaller then the 29, I would get either the Kahr PM45 or PM 40.

I have the PM 9, and while it's easy to shoot, I would much rather have a bigger bullet,
and none expanding for what you are after.

If the LCR in .357 is the gun under consideration, the question should really be not if the 2" ballistic performance is lost, which I think it is, but, accuracy is lost.

The loads I would carry for a black bear are unshootable in my 360PD, which is a couple ounces heavier then the LCR. My 360PD, at 7 yards, is NOT a head shot gun. The recoil and package are just too hard to shoot accurately at that range. At that same range, with the PM9, I can put all my shots on a thumbnail.

Recoil numbers for the lightweight .357's are absolutely horrible. Decent heavy bullet loads are going to send the revolver back at over 50 fp per sec, with recoil in the 30 ftlb or more range. This stuff is in the 'one shot only' realm, or, 'damn, I just tore the muscles in my forearm, and, hurt my wrist. Oh, I forgot, my finger is cut as well."

If you want a .357, you want at least a 25 oz gun. If you don't, I have a wonderful 360PD for sale for 1300 dollars:

 

[mbwtt]

Prosser, that is a fine looking weapon. I've got a thing for wood grips...however that could be the problem. Have you tried shooting the thing with rubber grips? Less pretty, but that would absorb some of the muscle-tearing recoil.

At over double the cost of an LCR, I'm not interested, myself, but I can't bring myself to buy Harley-Davidson either. It sure is a good looking gun though.

 

[KodiakBeer]

For the record - bear skulls are NOT hard to penetrate. Most people just don't realize how low in the head a bear brain really is and so their shots are ineffective. The brain is actually very low behind the nose and mouth - not behind the eyes. So, if you shoot a bear between the eyes or in the forehead you aren't going to hit the brain, or at best you'll just crease the top of the skull cavity.

Shoot them in the nose.

 

[mbwtt]

Thanks KodiakBeer, that's good info. It seems, though, given the distance between nose and the pivot point of the head/neck, that the bear would have to be looking straight at you to shoot the brain through to nose mouth. In videos I've watched though, it looks like the bears hang their heads a bit, when walking, running. If that's the case, it seems like a nose/mouth shot would be to low to strike the brain. I'm not sure I'm correct, and I know that isn't the point you were making. Thank you for the info.

 

[Justin Holder]

Unless I'm mistaken the Ruger LCR is a 38 special +p not a 357 mag.

 

[KodiakBeer]

Well, if he's coming for you, he's looking right at you.

 

[mbwtt]

Ok. Thanks Kodiak.

Justin, Ruger just came out with the LCR in .357

 

[Antihero]

Either way its gonna be a compromise. If you lean towards a light 357 snubbie you are not gonna have fun firing full power bear loads in it, if you go for something heavier and better for woods walking its gonna suck for CCW.

As some one who regularly fires big bore handguns i can tell you that i have never had so little fun firing a gun as a Scandium snubby in 357 firing 158gr full house loads. Easily 4 times the recoil as my Blawkhawk 45colt firing 325 Buffalo Bores, it felt like i was trying to hold on to a slick exploding credit card.

 

[BADUNAME37]

The only black bear I ever shot was about 30 feet away and I had a .270 with 130 grain Hornady soft point handloads.

One shot to the left side of his neck and he dropped like a ton of bricks. The bullet literally broke his neck and put a fist-size hole in the middle of his neck - taking out main arteries/veins to the brain.

Now I hunt deer and black bear with my S&W 500 Magnum 4" barrel. I wear ProEar sound amplifier earmuffs which also serve to protect my hearing when I shoot. I am using 275g Barnes XPB (solid copper X Pistol Bullet). I have no doubt if I hit a bear in the lung/heart area, neck or head, he isn't going to go real far, at least I hope he isn't.

 

[Justin Holder]

News to me, I still wouldn't want one though.

 

[sonier]

Now a bear thread that i have experience in, i have seen a many black bears, they are very small compared, a 357 magnum with leadcast would do the trick whether its a snubby or not.

 

[BADUNAME37]

Now a bear thread that i have experience in, i have seen a many black bears, they are very small compared, a 357 magnum with leadcast would do the trick whether its a snubby or not.

You'd better be sure you hit him just right with that load, or you may find yourself with a charging bear - expecially if the bear is a female protecting her cub(s) that are in the area but that you don't see.

 

[Prosser]

Member


Join Date: August 11, 2009
Posts: 14

Prosser, that is a fine looking weapon. I've got a thing for wood grips...however that could be the problem. Have you tried shooting the thing with rubber grips? Less pretty, but that would absorb some of the muscle-tearing recoil.

At over double the cost of an LCR, I'm not interested, myself, but I can't bring myself to buy Harley-Davidson either. It sure is a good looking gun though.

Your original premise was to conceal the gun. It's a bit more manageable with longer plastic grips.



However, that looses it's concealability. It is NOT a bear gun for me. Any load I can put in the gun that is going to be accurate enough, and penetrate enough, to kill a charging bear is not going to be shootable. What I mean is, one shot, put the gun down and say,

"I'm NEVER doing that again."

With full power ammo, it's more the flashbang grenade approach for people, aiming at their chest. This is not a gun I'd be trying to brain shoot a charging bear with.

I find the dimensions of the gun larger then one would think. It's main conceal ability is it's light weight. It doesn't print much in a pocket holster.

If I had it to do over, I'd buy two Kahr PM40's, or, the new PM45. They are flatter, easier I think to conceal, and while recoil isn't wonderful, it's not as bad as a 12.5 oz revolver in .357. There is a HUGE difference in recoil between a 12.5 oz gun and a 25-30 ounce gun. It slows the recoil speed by nearly half. In this case, it's the speed, not the ft-lbs that really kills you. Having something jerk your arm and tendons at 45-55 fps, vs. 20-30 fps is a HUGE difference. The Kahr's give you the small size, heavy bullets, with solids, and, they weigh near twice the scandiums, which in this case is a REALLY good thing.

If I was carrying one for bear protection, I'd be using something like punch bullets, a solid that goes straight, and doesn't deform. I'd probably keep the speed down, under 1000 fps, for recoil reduction, and pray I could hit that bobbing nose as it charges at 35 miles an hour.

Bear spray is a LOT cheaper, and carry the 29.