.455_Hunter
Member
Paging Mr. Prasac, Mr. Max Prasac.
Please pick-up a white courtesy phone...
Please pick-up a white courtesy phone...
Modern ammo got self-defense calibers down to 9mm, why hasn't the same happened for wilderness?
- Status
If we're talking about rifles, there's a lot that can happen at very high energies, where the shock wave produced by the bullet does complex kinds of damage.
But we're talking about handguns, and none of the handguns we have are capable of accelerating a round to the level of energy needed for that.
So we're really talking about two things only: how wide is the hole, is it a 8mm hole, or an 11mm hole, and how deep did the hole go?
Clearly it takes more to punch through grizzly skull than typical self defense ammo is designed to do BUT when you look at the ways self defense ammo fails these days it's OVER penetration that is the concern. Most SD ammo has all kinds of clever materials design features to make it penetrate LESS.
So it seems that you could adjust that design to penetrate MORE, and specifically target the level of penetration desired when shooting a grizzly that is charging in your direction, or the deer, hog, elk, etc.
With a rifle there are additional considerations around the energy delivered, but with a handgun it's simply whether the hole is going to go through something that incapacitates or not: a bigger faster hole isn't going to stop the bear, or drop the deer faster, only better shot placement will.
The only question is whether the hole penetrates as deeply at it needs to. If it stops short of a vital organ that it would have hit with a bit more penetration, that's the problem to solve.
memtb
Member
These are just my opinions! Humans, unless on drugs or mentally deranged, “generally” realize that they have been shot and choose to take cover or retreat .....fearing more shots to come. Animals do not rationalize being shot....they only continue the attack....either in defense of young, themselves, or their food! They do not associate a gunshot, or the wound as life threatening. They have no fear of something they do not understand! Humans “generally” fear weapons!
Most humans do not press the attack even if only confronted by a weapon. An animal must be “stopped”!
Summary: big guns stop things better than small guns!
memtb
Most humans do not press the attack even if only confronted by a weapon. An animal must be “stopped”!
Summary: big guns stop things better than small guns!
memtb
Mosin77
Member
- Joined
- Oct 7, 2019
- Messages
- 1,587
Because a 9mm has “adequate” penetration for its role against other humans, assuming reasonable choice of ammunition. Technology gave us .45 performance in a 9mm form factor. But technology has not given us a 9mm form factor which packs the power and expansion to take care of large animals. A larger round combined with higher velocity is still necessary to ensure adequate+ penetration on something big, tough, and bad tempered. You see commonly carried round size increasing rather than decreasing for wilderness protection, because the formerly used smaller calibers just weren’t very reliably effective. Hence lots of folks gravitated from the .357/.44spl to the .44 mag, to the .454 Casull, to the .460, .500, etc.
Why has this not happened to hunting ammo? Because hunting is not subject to hiring "small stature" and/or not "into" guns.
Taking / deleting the
emoticon off that line of my post changes it; that part of my post was humor, why I used the emoticon. I've killed 30+ deer and while there were exceptions, my general take away is bigger holes are better (ie... more blood on the ground, shorter tracking).
If I naively apply my take away to SD, slightly bigger holes (more) - comparing expanded diameters of .60/.70/.80 - more aint a disadvantage (may help).
The goal of SD is ASAP incapacitation and IMO larger holes have better ASAP incapacitation potential, same shot placement is implied/given/understood.
As in my example (posted in linked thread) of a deer I shot with a 10mm 155 XTP that made .95 - 1 1/4'' holes.
https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...dgun-bullet-causes-wounding-in-a-body.885559/
IMO the 10mm 155 XTP has better ASAP potential than any 380 (or 9mm, to be thread specific) - "more" does help - my opinion.
RON in PA
Member
Can't give a reference, but there have been several threads on taking out bears with handguns. Guess what, the 9mm has been very successful. Never forget the poor polar bear resident in the Bronx zoo that was taken out by a NYC cop with a .38 special revolver because some moron decided that it might be fun to climb some fences and be friendly with the bears. Of course the bear didn't like the idea and eliminated the intruder. Why the cop felt it was necessary to terminate the bear is beyond me, but +P lead SWC did the trick.
BLACKHAWKNJ
Member
- Joined
- Dec 30, 2007
- Messages
- 1,122
Seems to me as much a matter of fashion, national character, perhaps logistics. We adopted the 38 Long Colt in the 1890s, that was found wanting in the Moro Rebellion, hence the Army specified a minimum of .45 caliber for its replacement handguns. In Europe .32ACP (7.65MM if you prefer) was seen as a police caliber, 9MM the military caliber-though the Norwegians used the 45ACP. The U.K. shifted from the .455 to the 380/200, found it somewhat easier to train troops with, the Soviets used the 7.63 Mauser as the basis for the 7.62 Tokarev. How many decisions to adopt cartridges are made by real firearms aficionados, people who are active shooters-read Hatcher, e.g. Jeff Cooper answered a reader's letter "As much as I favor the 45, I wear a 44 in bear country."
RetiredUSNChief
Member
I haven't read all the posts, so if someone has already touched on this forgive me.
There's a rather large difference between the firearms used for self-defense and the firearms used for hunting. Namely, the former typically involves handguns and the latter nominally involves long guns.
Handguns are a compromise in power and portability/concealability. They are inherently more limited in power than their long gun cousins by physics...they're smaller. Their effective range is also far more limited as well.
So optimizing terminal ballistic performance for handguns is constrained by the physics that are inherent with the size of the handguns.
Long guns allow for much higher power and significantly longer effective ranges.
You want penetration? No problem. There's a caliber and load for a long gun out there somewhere that will give you all the penetration you want. Right up to elephant hunting.
Because it's EASY. You don't have to develop all kinds of fancy, magical expanding bullets trying to make the best of a tiny amount of power available. You can have all the power you want.
You want an expanding round that would be excellent for small game? Plenty available out there, because it's easy to make it in a long gun...for whatever power you need.
Mass makes for excellent penetration and outstanding terminal ballistics in animals. Less mass means you have to make other adjustments to get similar performance. But it's not that simple when it comes to terminal ballistics because the physics involved isn't as simple as upping velocity when lowering mass. It's all a balance of what you want (or can achieve) in terminal ballistics.
However, it IS worth noting that there are, in fact, quite a few "smaller, lighter" rounds out there. A great many, in fact, in the .22 caliber range alone. (.223, 5.56, 22-270, etc.)
There's a rather large difference between the firearms used for self-defense and the firearms used for hunting. Namely, the former typically involves handguns and the latter nominally involves long guns.
Handguns are a compromise in power and portability/concealability. They are inherently more limited in power than their long gun cousins by physics...they're smaller. Their effective range is also far more limited as well.
So optimizing terminal ballistic performance for handguns is constrained by the physics that are inherent with the size of the handguns.
Long guns allow for much higher power and significantly longer effective ranges.
You want penetration? No problem. There's a caliber and load for a long gun out there somewhere that will give you all the penetration you want. Right up to elephant hunting.
Because it's EASY. You don't have to develop all kinds of fancy, magical expanding bullets trying to make the best of a tiny amount of power available. You can have all the power you want.
You want an expanding round that would be excellent for small game? Plenty available out there, because it's easy to make it in a long gun...for whatever power you need.
Mass makes for excellent penetration and outstanding terminal ballistics in animals. Less mass means you have to make other adjustments to get similar performance. But it's not that simple when it comes to terminal ballistics because the physics involved isn't as simple as upping velocity when lowering mass. It's all a balance of what you want (or can achieve) in terminal ballistics.
However, it IS worth noting that there are, in fact, quite a few "smaller, lighter" rounds out there. A great many, in fact, in the .22 caliber range alone. (.223, 5.56, 22-270, etc.)
But "implied/given/understood" is not reality. The defender has very little time, and for a good chance at effective shot placement, which will be largely a matter of statistical likelihood, heavier recoil is a disadvantage when it domes to firing a sufficient number of controlled shots very quickly.
In the interest of this comparative discussion , it would be helpful to establish some rules about targeted life forms in the wilderness , such as -
- Bears may not exceed 275#
- Deer and other hooved game animals will remain within 20 yards of hunters
And so on.
- Bears may not exceed 275#
- Deer and other hooved game animals will remain within 20 yards of hunters
And so on.
The reason the 9mm is taking over as the preferred handgun cartridge designed for self-defense against people is that the current, generally accepted performance criteria easily can be met by the 9mm with less recoil in a higher capacity firearm. The design criteria for defense against humans are not necessarily applicable to self-defense against 4 legged critters (frontal shots against something shaped differently than humans), nor are either necessarily applicable to hunting applications against 4 legged critters (preferable side shot against unalarmed animal). It is an apples to oranges to blueberries comparison. Each category has its own different set of requirements and preferences.
Some manufacturers do manufacture critter self-defense ammo in 9mm (I don’t know if I would call it hunting ammo, but if you punch both lungs a critter will die), but it is niche ammo that won’t get the T&E that goes into mainstream self-defense ammo for use against people because that is not the primary market for 9mm guns.
Some manufacturers do manufacture critter self-defense ammo in 9mm (I don’t know if I would call it hunting ammo, but if you punch both lungs a critter will die), but it is niche ammo that won’t get the T&E that goes into mainstream self-defense ammo for use against people because that is not the primary market for 9mm guns.
bassjam
Member
There's two completely different requirements being discussed here, and it's not just defending against 2 legged and 4 legged creatures.
Hunting is viewed today as an ethical sport. One shot - one kill. No longer do we drive our prey off a cliff and then bash it's skull in with a large rock to finish it off. We make one precise shot with the intention of taking as much pain out of the animal as possible and to ensure it runs very little distance after being shot.
Defense is a little different. Here we need to just "stop the threat". Whether the attacker drops like a sack of potatoes or turns and runs away, the firearm and round being shot did it's job. And if the first shot didn't work, you have several more ready to quickly go and lower recoil helps those follow up shots come faster and more accurate. Many of us are comfortable using a single shot rifle or even a muzzleloader for hunting because that idea of an ethical kill is driven into our heads that we have confidence that one .50 cal slug will do the job when it's placed in the vitals. But when it comes to defending our lives not many of us would choose to carry a T/C Contender in 30/06, because while we know a 30/06 round in the vitals of a human has a very high likelihood of stopping them, there's a high risk in a defense situation of not hitting the person at all so having 7 more rounds of even .32 acp is the better bet.
And on a completely different note, OP says that defense caliber sizes have gone down, but he may remember that first they went up. The conceal carry handguns of a century or two ago where on the smaller side of .30. While a soldier or someone who had a high likelihood of needing a handgun would have a .40 or larger caliber, your average gentleman in the city would feel perfectly happy with a small .30 cal derringer or even a .25 acp with ball ammo. And european armies were fielding those .380's for sidearms while we were pretending that a .45acp would knock a man 10ft in the air.
Hunting is viewed today as an ethical sport. One shot - one kill. No longer do we drive our prey off a cliff and then bash it's skull in with a large rock to finish it off. We make one precise shot with the intention of taking as much pain out of the animal as possible and to ensure it runs very little distance after being shot.
Defense is a little different. Here we need to just "stop the threat". Whether the attacker drops like a sack of potatoes or turns and runs away, the firearm and round being shot did it's job. And if the first shot didn't work, you have several more ready to quickly go and lower recoil helps those follow up shots come faster and more accurate. Many of us are comfortable using a single shot rifle or even a muzzleloader for hunting because that idea of an ethical kill is driven into our heads that we have confidence that one .50 cal slug will do the job when it's placed in the vitals. But when it comes to defending our lives not many of us would choose to carry a T/C Contender in 30/06, because while we know a 30/06 round in the vitals of a human has a very high likelihood of stopping them, there's a high risk in a defense situation of not hitting the person at all so having 7 more rounds of even .32 acp is the better bet.
And on a completely different note, OP says that defense caliber sizes have gone down, but he may remember that first they went up. The conceal carry handguns of a century or two ago where on the smaller side of .30. While a soldier or someone who had a high likelihood of needing a handgun would have a .40 or larger caliber, your average gentleman in the city would feel perfectly happy with a small .30 cal derringer or even a .25 acp with ball ammo. And european armies were fielding those .380's for sidearms while we were pretending that a .45acp would knock a man 10ft in the air.
It has.
I've been carrying a 10mm Glock pistol into bear country for protection since the 1990's choosing to leave my 44 mag at home. I've camped twice in Yellowstone in grizzly country with the 10mm and slept just as well with it as I would have the 44 mag. That's not saying I was perfectly comfortable, but the 44 wouldn't have made me feel any better.
Numerous studies have proven that more common rounds such as 9mm, 40 S&W, 45 ACP, and 10mm are just as effective when it comes to bear protection as the bigger magnum revolvers. The big guns advantage is better accuracy and more energy at longer ranges when hunting. Not at close range defense.
Of the 73 bear defense cases profiled here the smaller guns proved just as effective.
Handgun or Pistol Defense Against Bear Attack: 73 cases, 96% Effective (ammoland.com)
Even the tiny 9mm with proper bullets has proven it will stop some pretty big bear. The 147 gr load used in this situation has proven to penetrate over 60" in gel. That is farther than any bullet tested even from larger calibers.
The Story of the Alaska Man Who Killed a Charging Brown Bear with a 9mm Pistol (wideopenspaces.com)
Even when it comes to hunting numerous tests are starting to show that anything larger than about 30 caliber is probably wasted in North America even on the largest game.
Don't know if I really agree with the settling on 9mm part. I do have several 9mms and like them, but there's no doubt that cartridges like the .40 or .45 perform better. I think it's more along the lines that the 9mm has be thrust on us by manufacturers, which is to say there are a lot of good quality, good capacity small 9mm's on the market that often times are never offered in a larger caliber. In that sense, in certain ways people are essentially being coaxed into the 9mm. Bullet tech has helped the 9mm but it's helped them all, sure maybe it helped the 9mm the most, but it still doesn't make it a .40 or a .45.
For hunting, especially with handguns, bigger is better (as it is with humans) which is why people who have hunted bigger game with handguns will go for bigger bullets because they cut a bigger hole and penetrate more. I would say for game up to and including deer, pig and black bear, service calibers like the 357, .40 and .45 are usable. Would a 44 be better? Yes. Would a 454 or 475 be better still? Sure but at times it's about convenience.
For hunting, especially with handguns, bigger is better (as it is with humans) which is why people who have hunted bigger game with handguns will go for bigger bullets because they cut a bigger hole and penetrate more. I would say for game up to and including deer, pig and black bear, service calibers like the 357, .40 and .45 are usable. Would a 44 be better? Yes. Would a 454 or 475 be better still? Sure but at times it's about convenience.
Last edited:
Seem to remember reading an article about a lady killing a huge grizzly with a 22lr. A miss with a 44 mag want do anything. But a good hit with a 22 will take them down.
I think many people are satisfied with 9mm in anything but grizzly country. With wide-meplat heavy hardcast 9mm loads (Buffalo Bore, Doubletap, Underwood, or roll your own), the 9mm is a good penetrator. A 9mm Shield is lightweight security if you are backpacking. And even in the woods, humans are the greater threat.
It is all a risk/benefit calculation. I judge, based on statistics, the likelihood of being eaten by an animal as low. You are more likely to crash in your car driving to the trailhead.
Not that I don't have a Blackhawk that can blast 330 grain loads at 1300 fps, but I have never needed to stop a runaway dump truck either.
It is all a risk/benefit calculation. I judge, based on statistics, the likelihood of being eaten by an animal as low. You are more likely to crash in your car driving to the trailhead.
Not that I don't have a Blackhawk that can blast 330 grain loads at 1300 fps, but I have never needed to stop a runaway dump truck either.
Last edited:
entropy
Member
IIRC, you are from Minnesota. A friend's son shot a 550# bear in central MN 2 years ago. With a bow. With one shot. He worked to get that one, but you can't pick and choose what size of bear you happen upon in the woods, nor the level of adrenaline coursing through it's veins.
The only times I have been able to get deer to stay within 20 yards of me for more than a few seconds is when they were dead.
Kind of like saying "Since I carry a .380, nobody larger than 150# can attack me, and no closer than 5 yards, nor more than 15." Sorry, you 350# meth head biker, come back when I'm carrying my .45.
md7
Member
I’m not a caliber or ballistics expert, but I’ve killed a lot of whitetail over the years and have seen lots more killed by others.
All I can say is that I’ve personally witnessed deer run about 150 yards after being shot broad side through the heart and lungs with a high power rifle using modern hunting ammo. And that stuff happens a lot more often than you might think.
Never shot a human, but I cannot imagine a human running 150 yards after taking a 30-06 through both lungs and having his heart blown to bits.
I don’t know how, exactly, to put into words what I’m trying to say here. But I’m not sure comparing light, fast loads for defense against people translates the same when it comes to taking wild game. Even medium game, like deer, can be remarkably hard to kill despite using substantial rifle calibers, ammo, and we’ll placed shots.
All I can say is that I’ve personally witnessed deer run about 150 yards after being shot broad side through the heart and lungs with a high power rifle using modern hunting ammo. And that stuff happens a lot more often than you might think.
Never shot a human, but I cannot imagine a human running 150 yards after taking a 30-06 through both lungs and having his heart blown to bits.
I don’t know how, exactly, to put into words what I’m trying to say here. But I’m not sure comparing light, fast loads for defense against people translates the same when it comes to taking wild game. Even medium game, like deer, can be remarkably hard to kill despite using substantial rifle calibers, ammo, and we’ll placed shots.
I guess my reaction to that is that shot placement is all that matters. Whether the hole through the heart and lungs is 9mm or 10mm or 11mm wide, and whether it was made at 900fps or 1900fps, the deer is probably going to do the same thing, whether that's drop dead on the spot, or whether it's run 150 yards. Adding more velocity or more caliber may not change the result, and similarly, reducing it may not change the result, unless you reduce it so much that the round no longer penetrates far enough to make the hole.
That's the realization that drove self defense ammo down to 9mm luger: better to hit with the lowest recoil cartridge possible (that still penetrates adequately after travelling through common barriers like auto glass and clothing) to increase the odds of getting the right shot placement, with fast follow on rounds in case you miss.
So what happens with hunting? It might not reduce down to 9mm luger, but maybe anything more than 40 s&w is overkill, or maybe it's 357 sig, or maybe it's 357 magnum. I don't know, but the minimum recoil, maximum capacity cartridge that punches the hole you need is, to me, where it should end up.
And fundamentally, "I shot it clean through with a 40 s&w and it still ran around" is not an argument, because as you note, the exact same shot with a 30-06 might have had the same result. Shot placement pretty much has to be perfect to get the instant drop and more power isn't necessarily the answer--better aim probably is.
Now if it's, "I shot it with a 40 s&w and the bullet stopped short of hitting the heart" - now that would be an argument that at the very least you need more velocity.
md7
Member
Well said.
entropy
Member
If only shot placement mattered, those who could place shots at will could hunt with BB guns.
If only velocity/power mattered, game would fall dead from the bang of a .375 H&H or bigger, even if the shooter did not hit the animal. (I actually have killed squirrels suchly, 'barking' them. NOT with a .375 H&H, however!) )
Obviously, there is a continuum in between there where shot placement and velocity/power are effective together in downing game.
There are many physiological variables; as I mentioned before, an animal's alert state is a major one. If a deer is on high alert, i. e. has just been shot at or chased, they might run after a lung shot from a .300 Mag. If they didn't know you were there when you shot, any centerfire rifle round will do, and many pistol rounds.
As stated before, animals don't know "they're supposed to die instantly" when shot, like some people "know".
Also as stated , concealment of the weapon is not a factor in hunting, thus larger, more powerful weapons can be used. Most hunting pistols (some just rifle actions built as a pistol) are very large, not very concealable, and usually in caliber generally not used for concealed carry.
To me, hunting deer with a .223 as I do is akin to fly fishing trout; it takes more finesse, accuracy, and willingness to pass up shots I could have taken with my 7.62 (either x39 or x 54R) or 8mm. Were putting meat in my freezer my first concern, it might not be the choice I'd make. (A crossbow would actually be.)
OTOH, many kids in recent years have taken their first deer with a .223, as it has little recoil, and even the basic M&P AR or DPMS Oracle is plenty accurate for deer at the shorter ranges they are taken at around here.
Recommendation: Pick a gun and caliber. learn to shoot it to the best of your ability. (Handloading helps here.) Learn the anatomy of your game, and the best ethical shots from any angle you might have to shoot from. Don't out shoot your ability; be willing to pass up shots beyond your ability. Learn how to care for game meat after it is harvested. Learn the game laws where you hunt. Enjoy!
If only velocity/power mattered, game would fall dead from the bang of a .375 H&H or bigger, even if the shooter did not hit the animal. (I actually have killed squirrels suchly, 'barking' them. NOT with a .375 H&H, however!) )
Obviously, there is a continuum in between there where shot placement and velocity/power are effective together in downing game.
There are many physiological variables; as I mentioned before, an animal's alert state is a major one. If a deer is on high alert, i. e. has just been shot at or chased, they might run after a lung shot from a .300 Mag. If they didn't know you were there when you shot, any centerfire rifle round will do, and many pistol rounds.
As stated before, animals don't know "they're supposed to die instantly" when shot, like some people "know".
Also as stated , concealment of the weapon is not a factor in hunting, thus larger, more powerful weapons can be used. Most hunting pistols (some just rifle actions built as a pistol) are very large, not very concealable, and usually in caliber generally not used for concealed carry.
To me, hunting deer with a .223 as I do is akin to fly fishing trout; it takes more finesse, accuracy, and willingness to pass up shots I could have taken with my 7.62 (either x39 or x 54R) or 8mm. Were putting meat in my freezer my first concern, it might not be the choice I'd make. (A crossbow would actually be.)
OTOH, many kids in recent years have taken their first deer with a .223, as it has little recoil, and even the basic M&P AR or DPMS Oracle is plenty accurate for deer at the shorter ranges they are taken at around here.
Recommendation: Pick a gun and caliber. learn to shoot it to the best of your ability. (Handloading helps here.) Learn the anatomy of your game, and the best ethical shots from any angle you might have to shoot from. Don't out shoot your ability; be willing to pass up shots beyond your ability. Learn how to care for game meat after it is harvested. Learn the game laws where you hunt. Enjoy!
Has anyone yet mentioned that humans are erect bipeds, nicely presenting many of the vital organs, during a frontal attack, to a defender’s/opponent’s penetrating weapons? A attacking quadruped is, of course, normally presenting its head, but the brain is a small target, and some quadrupeds have much thicker skulls, and/or horns, that complicate penetration of a bullet to the brain. A quadruped’s head, lowered for the attack, is an intervening cover, or shield, for the organs in the thorax.
Human brains are relatively larger targets than animal brains.
Martin248 already addressed penetration, very well, in post #34.
Human brains are relatively larger targets than animal brains.
Martin248 already addressed penetration, very well, in post #34.
Let us also remember that one BIG reason that 9mm ammo has been engineered for controlled-expansion, with a penetration depth specified by FBI, is that a 9mm JHP bullet, fired by an FBI agent, with expert shot placement, had to first pass through the offender’s upper arm, before continuing into the offender’s heart/lung area. The bullet penetrated one lung, and entered the heart, but failed to penetrate the more-distant lung. The FBI wanted defensive ammo that would penetrate better than that bullet, used in the Eighties.
Of course, other duty and street-defense ammo has received this same engineering attention, so, from .38 Special to .45 ACP, penetration depth is much the same. In indoor and other urban environments, we normally want defensive ammo that penetrates enough, but not too much.
The 9mm ammo that Phil Shoemaker famously used, on that charging Grizzly, was NOT duty/street 9mm, but a heavy-for caliber, hard-cast-bullet load designed for “outdoors” use.
Of course, other duty and street-defense ammo has received this same engineering attention, so, from .38 Special to .45 ACP, penetration depth is much the same. In indoor and other urban environments, we normally want defensive ammo that penetrates enough, but not too much.
The 9mm ammo that Phil Shoemaker famously used, on that charging Grizzly, was NOT duty/street 9mm, but a heavy-for caliber, hard-cast-bullet load designed for “outdoors” use.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
