.40 s&w glock or .357 mag ruger v.....hiking defense against bear
 

I plan on hiking the mountains of Northern NY (Clinton County next to the Canadian boarder) to get in better shape in the spring time.

I have a block semi auto in .40 cal S and W. I also have a pair of .357 Rugers Vaquero single action revolvers.

The bears in my area mostly go 180 pounds but there are some approaching 400 pounds. I don't expect a bear encounter but I'd like to have something more than a knife to protect myself.

I don't reload so the ammo will have to be factory.

I am a very good shot with the revolver.....hitting the bar code at 40 yards on a soup can is no problem. I am not such a good shot with the 40 but I can at least hit a pie tin at 40 yards.

Which would you carry if you were me. Please keep discussion between these two fire arms b/c money is tight and I don't have the extra cash for something bigger.

You are more accurate with the .357. Choose a load with penetration in mind and go with it.

You are acceptably accurate with the .40 -- you get more shots and quicker follow ups -- if you happen to get charged by a bear, your accuracy may suffer a bit anyway, so I'd choose quantity over quality any day.

Thanks WTrapper. I check out what the local hunting and supply store has for ammo.

Murdy......so I gather from what you're saying you're telling me that the .357 hits harder and if I had only one shot that the .357 would do more damage....but.....because the Glock is semi and I can put out more lead/copper that the 40 should be carried. Did I say that right?

I would go with the 40. If you do get charged by a bear chance are you won't have much time. The glock will be easier to get out of the holster and lead down range. Also with the 357 being accurate on a range or at something you are ready for is different than a charging animal. Just pick up a full metal jacket or hard cast bullet for the 40 and stay away from hollow points.

With the guns you stated, the .40 would be better. I am a .357 fanatic but would't use a single action revolver for bear defense. Double action revolvers like the GP-100 or 686 is a .357 revolver more suited to bear defense.

Yep, that's what I would say. I think the two cartridges are fairly similar, slight nod to the .357, but, I also agree with d80hunter's comment on single action revolvers

[QUOTE=d80hunter;4123389] I ... would't use a single action revolver for bear defense. QUOTE]

Now you tell me! Here I've been carrying my Ruger Super Blackhawk in bear country for almost 40 years.

In all those years, almost every black bear that I encountered immediately ran away, I only had one grizzly encounter. Two friends and I were camped at the end of a road near West Yellowstone, MT. We had the quarters of 2 bull elk and a bull moose hanging in the stock rack in the back of my truck. One night just before going to bed I went outside and was standing on the side of the road when a grizzly woofed at me from the top of the cutbank, 30 feet above me.

I had my .44 on my hip, so I held the flashlight on him with one hand and fired a shot over his head. He didn't react at all to the shot, and continued to click his teeth at me, so I fired another shot into a pine tree next to him. He still stood there clicking his teeth.

So I then holstered my .44, picked up a baseball size rock that I threw and hit him. He then turned and ran off into the darkness.

He was wearing a collar, and I later found out that he had been a problem bear near Cooke City that had been trapped and relocated to the mountains north of West Yellowstone.

As to the OPs question, a .357 has a little more energy than a .40 S&W, and either will kill a black bear. I killed my first black bear with a single shot from a .45 acp, and it has less energy than either a .357 or a .40 S&W. The Glock has the ability of putting out more lead faster than a SA Ruger, but only shot(s) in the vitals of the target count.

I'd carry the 40, not for bears but for humans. For bears I would be a little noisey and carry a can of bear spray.