Glock 20 for grizzlies?

[agtman]

But then the 357 bullet would penetrate further all else being equal. wouldn't penetration be more important than a slightly larger diameter bullet when it comes to Grizzlies?

Not in the real world. The slight sectional-density advantage that the .357 is claimed to have, on paper, hardly makes the 10mm an underpenetrating round when loaded to full-power levels with the 200gn-220gn heavies mentioned in my earlier post.

Again, the bigger diameter bullet has a higher probability of striking internal organs, bone, et al., that the smaller diameter projectile might miss. And that applies as much to a situation where you're forced to shoot a big bruin coming at you as to having to shoot a large, hostile bad guy in self-defense.

 

[agtman]

* * * [W]hen two calibers are so close that we must turn to comparing the common platforms for which they are chambered as opposed to focusing on the cartridges themselves, I think that...well, you know.

I don't get that. Maybe you don't understand.

The use of "platforms" that are identical (1911 v. 1911), or nearly so, except for the relevant test-factor of the particular cartridges involved, is what creates a valid and useful mechanism for comparing/evaluating the competing cartridges in terms of their ballistic output. It eliminates appeals to the differences in the internal designs of the platforms and their mechanical functions as being outcome determinative of the cartridges' ballistic performance. It pits cartridges against cartridge, and the platform ceases to be a variable.

Understand?

 

[JohnKSa]

Again, the bigger diameter bullet has a higher probability of striking internal organs, bone, et al., that the smaller diameter projectile might miss.

It is true that it has a higher probability. It is also true that the probability difference is smaller than one might expect.

Let's say two friends shoot at a 10" circular target with a 5" bullseye--one using a .40 caliber handgun and the other using a .357 caliber handgun.

Assuming a random distribution of shots across the entire 10" circle, how much more often will the guy using the .40 caliber hit the bullseye than his friend with the .357?

Tuns out the guy with the .40 cal handgun will score a bullseye 0.46% more often. That means after the friends shoot 1,000 times each, odds are that the guy with the .40 cal handgun will be be 4 or 5 bullseyes ahead.

That's a simplified situation, of course. Animals aren't targets with bullseyes painted on them, but the general principle still applies.

So what about the penetration difference due to the sectional density? It's hard to say. If the extra penetration afforded by the better sectional density means that one bullet gets through a large bone to hit a vital organ while the other one doesn't, then it could make a big difference.

How often would that happen? It's just a guess, but maybe 4 or 5 times out of 1,000. Given how close the two cartridges are in performance.

 

[JohnKSa]

The use of "platforms" that are identical (1911 v. 1911), or nearly so, except for the relevant test-factor of the particular cartridges involved, is what creates a valid and useful mechanism for comparing/evaluating the competing cartridges in terms of their ballistic output. It eliminates appeals to the differences in the internal designs of the platforms and their mechanical functions as being outcome determinative of the cartridges' ballistic performance. It pits cartridges against cartridge, and the platform ceases to be a variable.

Makes perfect sense.

Did you look at the post I was responding to? It was someone comparing an autopistol (Glock 20 with a non-standard barrel length) to a revolver, in order to make the point that one cartridge was better than the other.

Hardly what you would call "platforms that are identical or nearly so".

 

[agtman]

Did you look at the post I was responding to? It was someone comparing an autopistol (Glock 20 with a non-standard barrel length) to a revolver, in order to make the point that one cartridge was better than the other. * * *

I was responding to your statement about "comparing the common platforms for which they are chambered as opposed to focusing on the cartridges themselves * * *," which plainly suggested you meant two platforms of the same design - i.e., 1911 v. 1911 or revolver v. revolver.

Not a problem, John. Now I understand that you simply misspoke.

 

[Nom de Forum]

I understand. However, when two calibers are so close that we must turn to comparing the common platforms for which they are chambered as opposed to focusing on the cartridges themselves, I think that...well, you know.

John,

Takem406’s thread is about whether a G20 would be sufficient for defense against Montana grizzlies while deer hunting. Since he does not like, is not and does not want to become proficient with revolvers especially .44 magnum revolvers, but apparently is proficient with a Glock, “platform” is important in this thread. The .357 is a great caliber but in a less the advantageous platform when compared to a G20 of similar size and weight. To make a .357 cartridge a better ballistic choice than the 10mm it must be fired in a longer barrel and handgun than the 10mm, even a Coogan .357 semiauto is a little longer. So when you compare all the factors of size, weight, power, capacity, accuracy, and ease of very fast and accurate shooting my conclusion is the 10mm is a better cartridge than the .357 magnum because a cartridge can only be as good as the platforms available to shoot it. My answer to Takem406 is the G20 can be just barely sufficient if the right type of ammunition is fired with speed and accuracy and a much better choice than a more powerful handgun he is incapable of firing fast and accurately.

 

[JohnKSa]

I was responding to your statement about "comparing the common platforms for which they are chambered as opposed to focusing on the cartridges themselves ...

I got that since that's what you quoted in your post.

...which plainly suggested you meant two platforms of the same design - i.e., 1911 v. 1911 or revolver v. revolver.

No, that's not what I meant at all. I was using "common" in the sense of "most oftenly" or the opposite of "rare" as opposed to "common" in the sense of "shared".

Not a problem, John. Now I understand that you simply misspoke.

Well, I said what I intended to. That said, what I intended to say could be wrong--you be the judge. My comment was about the "common platforms for which they are chambered" and by that I meant the common platform for which the 10mm is chambered is the autopistol (more particularly the G20) the common platform for which the .357Mag is chambered is the revolver. That was the comparison being used in the post which I responded to and that's why I used that particular phrase.

Takem406’s thread is about whether a G20 ... a much better choice than a more powerful handgun he is incapable of firing fast and accurately.

Your comparison was correct as far as it goes and it's probably even true that the G20 is a better choice for him than a revolver. But I think taking that to the next step and saying that proves the 10mm is better than the .357Mag is going a step too far.

 

[agtman]

No, that's not what I meant at all. I was using "common" in the sense of "most oftenly" or the opposite of "rare" as opposed to "common" in the sense of "shared".

* * * [T]he "common platforms for which they are chambered" and by that I meant the common platform for which the 10mm is chambered is the autopistol (more particularly the G20) the common platform for which the .357Mag is chambered is the revolver. That was the comparison being used in the post which I responded to and that's why I used that particular phrase.

Alright, thanks for clarifying that.

 

[JohnKSa]

Yeah--it seemed clear in my head while I was typing it, but after I read it back with your comments, I realized it could be taken two ways.

 

[Harry1969]

not in the real world. The slight sectional-density advantage that the .357 is claimed to have, on paper, hardly makes the 10mm an underpenetrating round when loaded to full-power levels with the 200gn-220gn heavies mentioned in my earlier post.

So what you're saying is the laws of physics don't apply to the 10mm Norma cartridge. With all else being equal Weight, bullet shape and velocity the 357 is going to penetrate further. I don't see how you can deny that.

 

[Kman314]

On the Buffalo Bore website, Tim Sundles has some great articles on guns, ammo, and shooting. One of the articles is "'Stopping' bears with handgun or rifle cartridges." Might be worth your reading.

https://www.buffalobore.com/index.php?l=product_list&c=108

 

[OregonJohnny]

Since the discussion has turned toward ".357 vs 10mm", and therefore ".357 revolver vs 10mm semi-auto" - I'll throw my opinion in here on which platform I prefer for this. "This" being the carry of a sidearm in the woods/wilderness for protection against whatever threat I could possibly come across in my particular geographical region.

In looking for the heaviest hardcast commercial loads for each of these cartridges, I found the following Double Tap loads. Both are hardcast flat nose bullets. The .357 Magnum specs are listed as from a 4" GP100, and the 10mm from a 4.6" G20. Knowing that the GP100 actually has a 4.2" barrel, and that the Glock has at least .6" of chamber that gets added into the total barrel length, let's just say they both have about 4" barrels:

.........................357......10mm
weight:..............200gr....230gr.
velocity:............1,200.....1,120
energy:..............639........641
diameter:......... .358...... .400
sec. dens.:........ .224...... .205

Those numbers are so close, I call them about equal - with a slight advantage in weight and diameter going to the 10mm, and a slight advantage in sectional density going to the .357. So, if we can agree that the heavy, high-end "woods" loads for these 2 cartridges are equally effective, let's look at the 2 platforms - the 4" Ruger GP100 and the Glock 20. Here is where things separate quite a bit, in favor of the semi-auto:

.......................4" GP100......Glock 20
capacity:................6...............16
loaded weight:......44oz...........41oz.
trigger pull:.........10lbs...........5.5lbs.
sight radius:...........6"..............6.8"
length:.................9.5"............8.2"
height:..................6"..............5.5"

So compared to the Glock 20, the GP100 is taller, longer, heavier, with shorter sight radius, twice as heavy of a trigger pull, and only about 1/3 the rounds on hand. When I factor in that I'm much faster with initial draw and first shot with my G20 vs. my GP100, plus I can get back on target much faster, the choice for my woods gun is easy. I love my 4" stainless GP100, it used to be my dad's and it was one of the first "real" handguns I ever shot. I think my Glock 20SF is just ok, it's very ugly and I have absolutely no attachment to it. But in my opinion, the G20 is the better choice for a general purpose woods gun.

Notice I didn't even mention bears once. Oops, I just did!

Now, back to the discussion.

 

[Cee Zee]

Notice I didn't even mention bears once. Oops, I just did!

It's OK this time. This thread is about bears.

 

[agtman]

So what you're saying is the laws of physics don't apply to the 10mm Norma cartridge. * * *

Dude, can you point to anywhere I said that?

Let's agree that for 2015 your reading comprehension needs work. That task is your newest best friend ....

* * * With all else being equal Weight, bullet shape and velocity the 357 is going to penetrate further. I don't see how you can deny that.

I never did.

But I see no net advantage in using a cartridge that fires a (typically) lighter-weight, smaller-diameter bullet which might penetrate slightly farther than a heavier .40-cal/10mm bullet, but which then misses vital organs and bones that the larger .40/10mm slug would've hit.

 

[Mainsail]

It's OK this time. This thread is about bears.

Not only that, but it's about grizzly bears. Unique hey?

It seems like 'bear' is a minefield topic. Someone mentions hiking, camping (or actual backpacking), walking in the woods, woods gun, view of the woods from the roof of their apartment, etc., then it's about angry grizzly bears that are unstoppable with anything short of a GAU-12/U Equalizer.

bear = grizzly bear
black bear = grizzly bear
koala bear = grizzly bear
bearskin rug = grizzly bear
Yogi bear = grizzly bear

I was just excited to see a thread about grizzly bears that was about grizzly bears. Since I have no experience with grizzly bears I've kept my opinion to myself- I can't add much other than to say that I have hiked, backpacked, and done some mid-level scrambling over extreme terrain and I learned one thing- light is right. Oh, and that hypothermia and falls are far more of a concern for people out in the 'woods' than bears of any type. I also recognize Alaska is unique as well, as browns are some tough and mean SOBs. My gunsmith was fishing in Alaska and was charged by a BIG grizzly as he was standing in a stream, with little warning. He dropped it with a single shot from a 1911 through the roof of its pie hole, it landed half in and half out of the water.

 

[Harry1969]

Dude, can you point to anywhere I said that?

Yes right here plain as day

not in the real world.

Let's agree that for 2015 your reading comprehension needs work. That task is your newest best friend ....

Try not to take things so personal. I know you're emotionally invested in your 10mm handguns, but that's no reason to be ass.