>>1550681The point is that the ballistics are much superior to pistols calibers in the traditional sense, and at those speeds it has much more power and a flatter trajectory than you seem to know. Since even 9mm handguns have taken bears, I have no doubt that a .357 would. Hell, for the sake of the argument let's say carbines aren't allowed in this discussion, since 9mm has taken bears, then .357 mag absolutely would.
>>1550683Literally half if not all of these were taken with a .44magnum.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=QSwjPWmC6N8Big game dropped by .44mag without a hitch. Remember, we're talking bear defense not deer hunting. A bullet that breaks up into very small pieces within a few inches won't give adequate penetration on a big game animal. For hunting big game it's preferable to have penetration over fragmentation or hydrostatic shock. This is why no one uses that meme liberty defense ammo that shoots 90 grain bullets at 2000fps put of handguns, it won't give adequate penetration. Shot placement and penetration are king and queen. Of course, what do you know about ballistics or terminal ballistics, you're just a low I.Q. hillbilly who got emotional and easily angered at something he's too stupid to understand. So long as it flies straight and hits your target that's all you care about (and that's fine too).
>>1550684In .357? Just one Winchester rifle, which has dropped hogs and deer with no problems, and one Elk to my name with. I prefer 7mm Rem Mag for deer actually, since it allows me to make clean shots at longer ranges. Just because I'm not stupid and I actually understand the hidden power of the .357 out of a carbine length barrel doesn't make me a clueless fanboy. And I actually prefer .45-70 or .44mag for hunting big game or bear defense. But I wouldn't feel under armed with a .357 and some 158 grain, 180 grain, or 200 grain hardcasts. The whole reason I'm defending .357 is to make an easy case for calibers like .44mag, .454cassul, and 460s&w
