Why .40 or .45 for larger animals?

[klewis]

New guy here, long time reader first time writer, so to speak. I have a respectful question for Doc, or anyone who else who might know the answer.

I've noticed in some of the threads about recommended service cartridges, that a reason given for the .40 S&W or .45acp is "if you are expecting to face larger animals" or something like that. I live in the Northwest, and one concern I have is being out in the woods and scaring an elk cow. To be clear here, I am NOT talking about hunting. I am talking about taking a walk/hike without a rifle or shotgun (which would be everyone's first choice for this situation, I know), and surprising the animal while carrying a service caliber handgun. For various health reasons that I won't bore anyone with, carrying a large bore revolver while hiking just isn't an option.

Having reviewed as many ballistics gel results as I can find, and reading (what feels like) every thread that's been posted here, on the 2 big AR-related sites, and on lightfighter, I cannot find an instance where either .40 or .45 seem to penetrate better than 9mm, but I see the recommendation that they would be batter against larger animals. I'm left puzzled, and I'm sure I'm just missing something that a more experienced person can tell me, so my question is:

What is it about .40 or .45 that is better against large animals than 9mm or 357Voodoo, and is there one of the standard ballistic tests that reflects this (steel, plywood, etc) so that I can look at it?

Thanks for any and all patience and help!

-Ken in Portland

[BWT]

FMJ bullets will penetrate much deeper than JHP, reaching internal organs on animals with thick layers of fat/bone/muscle much better. 12-18'' of penetration is ideal for self-defense against humans.

JHP are designed with a limited penetration in mind. FMJ isn't. In fact some poor performing JHP, when shooting denim tests, will clog and operate as an FMJ, this is Bad.

.45 ACP will penetrate over 30 inches of Ballistic Gelatin, when you're shooting an animal such as a bear or elk, you're going to want to be able to hit vital organs.

It's also a larger projectile (an FMJ will not expand).

If you're expecting wild game, especially something over 200 lbs. Such as a Bear, or Elk (which Wikipedia indicates weigh around 500 lbs), I'd get a .44 Magnum.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elk

Elk cows average 225 to 241 kg (500 to 530 lb), stand 1.3 m (4.3 ft) at the shoulder, and are 2.1 m (6.9 ft) from nose to tail. Bulls are some 40% larger than cows at maturity, weighing an average of 320 to 331 kg (710 to 730 lb), standing 1.5 m (4.9 ft) at the shoulder and averaging 2.45 m (8.0 ft) in length

750 lbs of animal and a rack of horns if you find a bull... I'd say carry a 12 GA with Slugs if you can.

ETA:

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/07/30...assault-rifle/

Not exactly a bad idea. I'd carry a 47 instead of a 74 in Alaska because 47 will penetrate and perform better on bears, etc.

But, hey, that is reality out in the middle of nowhere with large animals. The best advice is avoidance and de-escalation.

[GJM]

As I type this, at our remote cabin in Alaska, I am carrying a G22 with a KKM barrel and 200 hard cast, specifically as a penetrator load. I have no interest in .45 acp for this role, as I believe acp velocity is on the low side for penetrating the skull of a bear.

Whether 9 or 40, you want to be able to penetrate the brain, arguing for a non JHP load. The .40 has more mass and diameter, which may be an advantage in some circumstances. Assuming the 9 and .40 both will penetrate the skull, and you hit the brain, my guess is both will work.

[rathos]

I am just across the river from ya and when I go hiking I carry a k frame .357 with FMJ. I figure that when on a hike there is less chance of having to worry about over penetration and a good 158 grain FMJ would work for just about anything I would run across in the woods. I also generally carry a back up of a glock 26 in my pocket with hollow points in case of two legged varmits. When I get back to the truck after the hike I load up my standard hollow point defense loads and call it good. If you don't have one yet I would recommend a .357 revolver with at least a 3 inch barrel.

[klewis]

Thanks to all three of you who have commented to help me. It's appreciated, and I will consider a 357 Mag for a hiking gun.

That said, I'm more interested in the why here, so that I can understand the mechanism. I'm trying to figure out why a larger caliber bullet would stand a better chance against an animal than a smaller caliber one, given that both calibers penetrate the same distance in gel. I know I've seen this stated before, and I think it was by DocGKR, but of course I can't find it now...

I also know that in heavy-for-caliber standard loadings, all the sectional densities come out about the same. Maybe it's a physics question that I'm missing?

Call it trying to resolve cognitive dissonance, if you will.

Believe me, if I wanted an elk, I'd grab a .300 Win Mag and a tag and go get one, and if I lived in Alaska I'd use a shotgun with Brenneke Slugs as a walking stick. I'm not that brave!

[DanH]

That said, I'm more interested in the why here, so that I can understand the mechanism. I'm trying to figure out why a larger caliber bullet would stand a better chance against an animal than a smaller caliber one, given that both calibers penetrate the same distance in gel. I know I've seen this stated before, and I think it was by DocGKR, but of course I can't find it now...

I think the why is that they both penetrate the same, or similar, distance in gel with hollowpoints, which are actually designed more for defense against people than animals. When dealing with animals you sometimes need more penetration than is desirable against human predators, especially those animals which have denser musculature or bone structure.
In those cases, FMJ rounds would be more desirable in typical semi-auto calibers for the extra penetration. If you are going with FMJ the larger calibers might be better for the larger hole since expansion will be almost nonexistant. The extra penetration is also the reason for the revolver suggestions as both .357 mag and .44 mag have available loads with excellent penetration.

[JHC]

That said, I'm more interested in the why here, so that I can understand the mechanism.

As I understand it, assuming similar bullet construction and velocity - heavier bullets generally take longer to stop. You will often see barrier penetration listed as an advantage of heavier than 9mm bullets. Maybe a small advantage. Skull or shoulder bones might be considered "barriers" to get at organs. That's about it I reckon.

[DocGKR]

Mass generally trumps velocity when service caliber handgun bullets crush through bone.

[klewis]

Thanks! So it sounds like a momentum thing, and it's the bullet weight, not caliber itself. This makes a lot of sense.

[GJM]

It may also partly be psychological. In that 9 and 40 are the same size frame, if you were in a situation where you had one shot to penetrate the skull of a charging animal, would anyone think "gee, I wish I had my G17 instead of my G22, or .41 mag instead of my .44 today?"

That said, when you look at the statistics of bear attacks in Alaska, handguns are just as effective (actually a tad bit more effective purely by the numbers) as long guns, which probably represents a lot of psychological stops of bears that decide to go elsewhere after getting shot with anything center fire.

If I had a G17, shot it well, and didn't have a G22, I don't think I would run out and buy one -- especially given the general negatives associated with .40. If I owned a 17 and 22, which I do, I pack the .40 and hard cast -- and carry a long gun whenever possible (as I did this morning hiking in brown bear country).