Bit of an essay to follow, but the TLDR is a question - why haven't smaller, lighter rounds replaced heavier more powerful rounds in hunting and wilderness defense, the way they have in self defense applications?
The iconic handguns used over the years for self defense have steadily come down in size and power, from 45 long colt, to 45 ACP, to 357 magnum, to 40 S&W and now it's pretty much 9mm for everything.
One reason why the rounds have come down in size and power is technology has made them better, rounds like HST can deliver good consistent expansion and penetration under a wide range of circumstances. A second reason, though, is simply a better understanding of ballistics--we now know that no handgun round actually has any "stopping power", there's simply not enough energy in a handgun cartridge to inflict the "temporary wound channels" that a rifle round can. A handgun round simply pokes holes through things, and its "stopping power" depends entirely on poking a hole through something vital.
Since a larger round has only a marginally better chance of hitting something critical--a 9mm round would have to miss by less than 1mm for an 11mm round to hit with the same shot placement--handguns have come down in power in the hopes of achieving better shot placement, and to enable higher magazine capacities, while improved technology has ensured these rounds still have sufficient barrier penetration for common scenarios.
The same thing has not really happened with wildlife rounds, whether rounds carried for wildlife defense, or for hunting. It's still common to hear people say that you need a 44 magnum to face a grizzly bear, or to hunt large game animals ethically.
Yet the same factors must be true in wildlife scenarios as in self defense: the stopping power of a handgun round is still entirely determined by whether or not it poked a hole in something vital, and an 11mm hole is still not much more likely to do that than a 9mm hole. It still takes a rifle round to deliver enough energy to wound significantly beyond the hole itself.
Yes, there's a need for better penetration--animals, particularly big ones shot head on, have a lot more fur, fat, bone, and meat to punch through to get to something vital, but surely modern technology can solve for that? A 9mm round with a penetrating core should be able to poke holes just as well as a bigger, more powerful old fashioned round? If some degree of expansion is wanted, surely that can also be achieved through the kind of technology that made HST a reality?
So why have we not seen smaller calibers replace larger calibers in wilderness defense and hunting? Perhaps we would not get all the way down to 9mm, but surely a modern 40cal or at least 357 magnum round can be designed that out-performs the very best 45 caliber rounds of last century?
The iconic handguns used over the years for self defense have steadily come down in size and power, from 45 long colt, to 45 ACP, to 357 magnum, to 40 S&W and now it's pretty much 9mm for everything.
One reason why the rounds have come down in size and power is technology has made them better, rounds like HST can deliver good consistent expansion and penetration under a wide range of circumstances. A second reason, though, is simply a better understanding of ballistics--we now know that no handgun round actually has any "stopping power", there's simply not enough energy in a handgun cartridge to inflict the "temporary wound channels" that a rifle round can. A handgun round simply pokes holes through things, and its "stopping power" depends entirely on poking a hole through something vital.
Since a larger round has only a marginally better chance of hitting something critical--a 9mm round would have to miss by less than 1mm for an 11mm round to hit with the same shot placement--handguns have come down in power in the hopes of achieving better shot placement, and to enable higher magazine capacities, while improved technology has ensured these rounds still have sufficient barrier penetration for common scenarios.
The same thing has not really happened with wildlife rounds, whether rounds carried for wildlife defense, or for hunting. It's still common to hear people say that you need a 44 magnum to face a grizzly bear, or to hunt large game animals ethically.
Yet the same factors must be true in wildlife scenarios as in self defense: the stopping power of a handgun round is still entirely determined by whether or not it poked a hole in something vital, and an 11mm hole is still not much more likely to do that than a 9mm hole. It still takes a rifle round to deliver enough energy to wound significantly beyond the hole itself.
Yes, there's a need for better penetration--animals, particularly big ones shot head on, have a lot more fur, fat, bone, and meat to punch through to get to something vital, but surely modern technology can solve for that? A 9mm round with a penetrating core should be able to poke holes just as well as a bigger, more powerful old fashioned round? If some degree of expansion is wanted, surely that can also be achieved through the kind of technology that made HST a reality?
So why have we not seen smaller calibers replace larger calibers in wilderness defense and hunting? Perhaps we would not get all the way down to 9mm, but surely a modern 40cal or at least 357 magnum round can be designed that out-performs the very best 45 caliber rounds of last century?
