I hike and backpack quite a bit. I carry a full sized 10mm Glock 20 with 200gr JHP (1250fps) when I go. I am comfortable that this gun will take down cougars and black bears if needed. However, I also do a lot of very light weight speed-hiking that involves several miles of running, and at times I still wish for a lighter gun that is easier to carry. I have been considering buying the .357 sig Glock 33 or .40 cal Glock 27. Fully loaded, my Glock 20 weighs about 2.5 lbs and is a bit bulky for a guy in nothing but athletic shorts and a CamelBak hydration system. A fully loaded Glock 27/33 weighs about 1.6 lbs and is 1 inch shorter in the slide and .5 inches shorter in the grip. I like the size and weight of these guns for speed-hiking/running. But heres the question will the .357 sig or .40 do the trick on a cougar or black bear? Ive posed this question to you hunters because you I dont care what these loads would do to a human through a windshield. I want to know how they will perform on medium sized dangerous animals in the wild and Im hoping that some of you have real world experience with either of these calibers. I am aware of the smaller 10mm Glock 29, but for my purpose I really dont save enough weight or size to switch. I really have to go to the smaller .357 sig/.40 Glock models to get any real weight and size advantage. If the .357 sig or .40 just wont cut it in the wild then Ill stick with my Glock 20. Its not that bad to carry really. But when Im running through the mountains for 4 hours I measure my equipment in ounces not lbs. Any weight I can shed is very noticeable and Ill shed it if I can. Thanks for your help.