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/alaska-man-kills-charging-bear-with-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! :D

[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. :D

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. :D

[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).

[Cookie Monster]

We got all the big predators in my area and I am frequently out in the middle of no where. I am figuring and/or hoping that anything shot in the face will tend to leave me alone, I carry the same 9mm for all duties.

On Doc's comment I might get some 147 grain though instead of my 124.

Cookie Monster

[GJM]

Buffalo Bore and Double Tap make 9mm FMJ penetrator loads that I would check out for the woods application. I would look for some thing with a flat point like this:

https://www.buffalobore.com/index.php?l=product_detail&p=225

[Mr_White]

klewis - I am in your geographical area. Although I don't spend a lot of time in the woods, when I do I just carry my normal stuff (9mm 124gr + P Gold Dot) since it's what I shoot the best and the predators I have been concerned about are cougar and black bear, which in our area, are both pretty much human-sized I believe. Hadn't thought of a rogue cow elk, but not that you've brought it to my attention I will continue carrying my normal 9mm stuff. And I guess I better shoot well. ;)

[Chuck Haggard]

When I think about this problem I often mentally wander back to conversations I had with Jim Cirillo and the likelyhood of a bullet glancing off of a skull. I assume that a bear's head would be more likely to cause this than a person's head.

I'd go for whatever bullet worked well in my pistol that had the most aggressive ogive I could find. An example would be that the Winchester 9mm Ranger-T line has almost a wadcutter edge to the ogive and those bullets tend to dig into what they hit instead of glancing off.

If I was to choose a wheelgun I would figure out a way to launch a solid copper wadcutter from it.

[LHS]

If I was to choose a wheelgun I would figure out a way to launch a solid copper wadcutter from it.

Does anyone make such a projo?

[SJC3081]

Have you considered the Glock 20, 16 rounds of full power 10mm in a light package and only slightly heavier than a G22. Sixteen rounds of 10mm 200 grain FMJ at 1200fps should bridge the gap between 44mag and 40S&W.

[GJM]

No knock on the Glock 20, and I carried one for years, but I bet 200 flat nose hard cast out of the G22 will way out penetrate 200 FMJ out of a 10mm. I would be tempted to switch barrels in the G20, and shoot a modest velocity hard cast, as I both believe it will out penetrate FMJ and be more reliable in function. As you increase bullet weight and velocity in the G20, I believe you get further away from the center of the reliability envelope. For example, neither the Corbon or Buffalo Bore 200 FMJ penetrator loads feed reliably in multiple G20 and 20SF's we own.

In a wheel gun, folks have been killing big stuff for years with flap point hard cast of 250 or more grains at 1,000 - 1,200 fps.

I don't believe penetrating an elk's skull is anywhere near as difficult as a bear. Several years ago, I finished off two large bull elk with brain shots, with Corbon 185+P out of an HK 45C, and both penetrated the skull.

[klewis]

klewis - I am in your geographical area. Although I don't spend a lot of time in the woods, when I do I just carry my normal stuff (9mm 124gr + P Gold Dot) since it's what I shoot the best and the predators I have been concerned about are cougar and black bear, which in our area, are both pretty much human-sized I believe. Hadn't thought of a rogue cow elk, but not that you've brought it to my attention I will continue carrying my normal 9mm stuff. And I guess I better shoot well. ;)

Ha! Well, sorry to give you nightmares! ;)

SJC: I have looked at the 10mm, but I've never shot one, and I won't buy until I know if I can hit anything with it. Biggest problem I have is that arthritis (gout, actually, but close enough) just knocked out my right/primary hand, so I'm learning to shoot left handed. I can still use thew right as a support hand, but the tendon in the thumb joint is fried. Hence the "no big bore revolvers" note I made in the original post. I'm just not sure of my recoil control with my formerly "off"-hand yet. Good excuse to buy new holsters, though! :D

GJM: Thanks for all the good info here, on a variety of aspects!

tpd: That makes sense, thanks for the tip!

Thanks to all I haven't addressed specifically, too. I have lots to think about and experiment with!

[41magfan]

More times than not, a humans response to being shot is “psychological”, regardless of where they are hit. Lacking the influence of emotion and hard-wired to perceive pain much differently than humans, warm-blooded critters on the other hand offer no chance of being influenced by fear, intimidation, or threat of physical harm. You must stop them by an interruption of the CNS or a loss of blood pressure.

So, as it relates to most handgun cartridges, a larger bullet will offer a better chance at influencing either of these physiological functions and penetration is generally critical in making that happen. With most handgun cartridges, penetration in flesh and bone is accomplished by bullet shape and construction, not just velocity.

Find an experienced woodsman that’s shot many critters with a handgun and see what he’s carrying – it’s not likely to be a 9mm.

[GJM]

More times than not, a humans response to being shot is “psychological”, regardless of where they are hit. Lacking the influence of emotion and hard-wired to perceive pain much differently than humans, warm-blooded critters on the other hand offer no chance of being influenced by fear, intimidation, or threat of physical harm. You must stop them by an interruption of the CNS or a loss of blood pressure.
.

Sounds logical, but do you have any proof for this statement as regards animals?

The longest term study on bear attacks, covering 269 incidents, found handguns slightly more effective than long guns at stopping bear attacks (stopping attacks not killing bears). Since many of those handguns were in very bear inappropriate calibers, it sure suggests to me that bears don't like being shot any more than humans.

[BLR]

I dunno.

For every one physiological and especially psychological study offering up a conclusion, I can find several that disagree.

Anecdotal studies, ballistic gel, old wives tales, and quasi-academic studies not withstanding, there is a reason no clearly defined set of parameters exist. Every living being is different, and added to that, every animal (people included) react differently to different stimuli under different states of mind. A deer shot grazing will typically not run as far with a bullet in it as one that has been alerted w/ adrenaline flowing in its veins all else equal.

As for penetrating skulls - I'd be willing to be lunch money that many a rifle round has glanced off the skull of a bear. This is more to do with incident angle than anything else. That's one reason sloped armor is so effective.

All that said, I carry a 10mm w/ 180g XTPs in bear/cat country.

[ToddG]

More times than not, a humans response to being shot is “psychological”, regardless of where they are hit.

Sorry, but in terms of humans being shot there is absolutely no evidence to support that presumption. "Psychological stop" became the wimpy-sounding catchall used by certain ballistics researchers to describe any event in which a person was "stopped" but their proposed criteria (CNS damage or significant TBV loss) were not met.

In other words, it was code for, "He stopped resisting, and we cannot explain why."

It was circular logic. First they hypothesized that only CNS/TBV wounds could cause a physical disability. Then any time they found an instance in which someone dropped like a stone without an "approved" wound, it was declared psychological. Why? Because the hypothesis said so. Then it was brought back full circle when it was used as proof the hypothesis was correct.

CNS/TBV are proven incapacitation methods. There is also strong evidence showing that some people who are physically capable of fighting nonetheless surrender when shot. But that doesn't mean every single "stop" is automatically and necessarily a result of one or the other.

[Chuck Haggard]

DB and I have talked about this at length. We concluded that we didn't care why they stopped. Sure, turning the bad guy into a red mist with one hit is optimal, but not always possible.

We were on the conversation of short barrel .357mags used back in the day with 125gr full house loads. The criticism was that many of the "stops" made by this gun/ammo combo were psychological. So what?

Flash-bangs work off of psychological effects, but no one I know has stopped using them because that's all they accomplish.

[41magfan]

Sorry, but in terms of humans being shot there is absolutely no evidence to support that presumption. "Psychological stop" became the wimpy-sounding catchall used by certain ballistics researchers to describe any event in which a person was "stopped" but their proposed criteria (CNS damage or significant TBV loss) were not met.

In other words, it was code for, "He stopped resisting, and we cannot explain why."

It was circular logic. First they hypothesized that only CNS/TBV wounds could cause a physical disability. Then any time they found an instance in which someone dropped like a stone without an "approved" wound, it was declared psychological. Why? Because the hypothesis said so. Then it was brought back full circle when it was used as proof the hypothesis was correct.

CNS/TBV are proven incapacitation methods. There is also strong evidence showing that some people who are physically capable of fighting nonetheless surrender when shot. But that doesn't mean every single "stop" is automatically and necessarily a result of one or the other.


I've tried to connect the dots between what I posted and this response and I keep coming up empty ..... sorry. I was simply trying to make a distinction in the motivations of humans and animals.

To the OP's topic: Personally, I believe the efficacy of ANY firearm in “stopping” or “deterring” animal or human attacks is much too fluid with too many variables to be captured in a static analysis. Heck, there are studies out there that would lead one to believe that “bear spray” is much better “protection” against bears than a gun, but I’ve not seen or heard of many experienced people - that deliberately interact with dangerous animals - buying into that notion.

All warm blooded creatures stop deliberate activity when their CNS is disrupted or they lose an adequate blood pressure. Humans cease deliberate activity for a host of other reasons – some logical, some not so logical. I can change the mind (and therefore the actions) of a human without firing a shot – but animals aren’t influenced by anything but instinct and their physiology.

That’s the only point I was trying to make.

[DocGKR]

Dr. Fackler and LAIR first were the first researchers I am aware of to differentiate between Physiological and Psychological incapacitation. I believe this is valid terminology, as long as the appropriate definitions are used. With Physiological incapacitation, the aggressor is forced to involuntarily halt their activity and cannot function, no matter how much they desire to continue. With Psychological incapacitation, the aggressor voluntarily chooses to cease their actions, but could physiologically continue to function if they had the motivation to do so. These are very clear cut distinctions which I have directly seen numerous times.

Based on post shooting interviews and OIS incident reports, Dr, Fackler estimated that fifty percent of those individuals rapidly incapacitated by bullet wounds are probably incapacitated for Psychological rather than Physiological reasons. People are often rapidly Psychologically Incapacitated by minor wounds which are not immediately Physiologically Incapacitating. Psychological factors are also the reason people can receive severe, even non-survivable wounds and continue functioning for short periods of time. Psychological Incapacitation is an extremely erratic, highly variable, and completely unpredictable human response, independent of any inherent characteristics of a bullet. There are cases where individuals have been Psychologically Incapacitated without sustaining any Physiological injures...

[JHC]

I seem to recall something caught on video years ago of someone falling down like a pole axed steer at the shot - which missed completely. ;)

[rudy99]

Dr. Fackler and LAIR first were the first researchers I am aware of to differentiate between Physiological and Psychological incapacitation. I believe this is valid terminology, as long as the appropriate definitions are used. With Physiological incapacitation, the aggressor is forced to involuntarily halt their activity and cannot function, no matter how much they desire to continue. With Psychological incapacitation, the aggressor voluntarily chooses to cease their actions, but could physiologically continue to function if they had the motivation to do so. These are very clear cut distinctions which I have directly seen numerous times.

Based on post shooting interviews and OIS incident reports, Dr, Fackler estimated that fifty percent of those individuals rapidly incapacitated by bullet wounds are probably incapacitated for Psychological rather than Physiological reasons. People are often rapidly Psychologically Incapacitated by minor wounds which are not immediately Physiologically Incapacitating. Psychological factors are also the reason people can receive severe, even non-survivable wounds and continue functioning for short periods of time. Psychological Incapacitation is an extremely erratic, highly variable, and completely unpredictable human response, independent of any inherent characteristics of a bullet. There are cases where individuals have been Psychologically Incapacitated without sustaining any Physiological injures...

In a Scott Warren class I attended, he brought this up in the discussion of mindset. The example given was a comparison between a secret service agent who took a .22lr round from John Hinckley (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reagan_assassination_attempt) and went down immediately and one of the baddies involved in the Miama/FBI (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1986_FBI_Miami_shootout#Suspects) getting shot 12 times before going down. According to Warren, the SS Agent was quoted as saying he always knew/feared he would get shot in the line of duty, which I guess is a poor mindset that led to him being Psychologically Incapacitated.

[ToddG]

I've tried to connect the dots between what I posted and this response and I keep coming up empty ..... sorry.

I was responding specifically to the sentence I quoted. Hopefully in that context, all the dots line up.


Dr. Fackler and LAIR first were the first researchers I am aware of to differentiate between Physiological and Psychological incapacitation. I believe this is valid terminology, as long as the appropriate definitions are used. With Physiological incapacitation, the aggressor is forced to involuntarily halt their activity and cannot function, no matter how much they desire to continue. With Psychological incapacitation, the aggressor voluntarily chooses to cease their actions, but could physiologically continue to function if they had the motivation to do so. These are very clear cut distinctions which I have directly seen numerous times.

I agree 100% with those definitions. The problem is that many researches took a step further and defined any "stop" that wasn't within the context of CNS/TBV as automatically psychological. The very purposeful inference was that anything but CNS/TBV was "lesser" and could be overcome by someone with enough mindset. Comments in this thread have already echoed that very attitude.

The problem is that ignores two indisputable facts:


We lack the technology and science to model or understand the sum total of all the anatomical effects of a high velocity projectile traversing the body. We can examine all sorts of permanent effects by looking at corpses or hospital patients but we certainly know there is a plethora of other things happening (physiologically) to the human body that may be temporary.
We know that there are countless things that cause physical incapacitation but don't leave major permanent telltales.


So "don't know everything that is happening" plus "there are avenues to incapacitation that don't leave behind evidence" leads me to believe it's improper and unscientific to label any unidentifiable cause as "psychological."

None of which is meant to suggest that mindset is unimportant or deny that there are times when people are psychologically defeated even though they are physically capable of continuing the fight. I just hate seeing that label applied as a fact when there's nothing but conjecture pretending to be evidence.

[GJM]

All warm blooded creatures stop deliberate activity when their CNS is disrupted or they lose an adequate blood pressure. Humans cease deliberate activity for a host of other reasons – some logical, some not so logical. I can change the mind (and therefore the actions) of a human without firing a shot – but animals aren’t influenced by anything but instinct and their physiology.

Back to the matter at hand -- animals.

Animals may stop charging you because of all sorts of actions, ranging from merely yelling, standing upright, waving your hands, a warning shot, through bear spray, a non fatal shot, or a shot that ultimately is fatal (but not for some time), all the way to an upper CNS shot on the far end of that same continuum. Regardless of whether you call it a psychological stop or something different, there are a lot of animals that decide to stop attacking you with defensive action less than an upper CNS shot. Ideally you will pick a firearm that allows you to reliably penetrate the upper CNS, but if each bear attack only stopped with an upper CNS shot, the statistics would look a lot different, with many more bears winning.

[Salamander]

More times than not, a humans response to being shot is “psychological”, regardless of where they are hit. Lacking the influence of emotion and hard-wired to perceive pain much differently than humans, warm-blooded critters on the other hand offer no chance of being influenced by fear, intimidation, or threat of physical harm. You must stop them by an interruption of the CNS or a loss of blood pressure.

So, as it relates to most handgun cartridges, a larger bullet will offer a better chance at influencing either of these physiological functions and penetration is generally critical in making that happen. With most handgun cartridges, penetration in flesh and bone is accomplished by bullet shape and construction, not just velocity.

Find an experienced woodsman that’s shot many critters with a handgun and see what he’s carrying – it’s not likely to be a 9mm.

I encounter critters fairly frequently in the woods. I manage a group of biologists for a multinational consulting firm, which means I'm often the first one in to a remote project site to assess what kind of resources will be needed to get the job done. What I'm most likely to encounter depends on where the project site is and on the prevalent habitat type.

In northern California and throughout the PNW, black bear encounters are fairly common. In every case so far, the bear has headed in the opposite direction immediately. To me, that suggests fear of humans. Bear that do not show fear are common only where tourists feed them, and even then making lots of noise will often encourage a slow retreat.

As for elk, they're pretty common in these parts. These are Roosevelt elk, which can get pretty big. Years ago I very nearly tripped over a bedded down bull in a backcountry wilderness area, came within 10 meters. It never even stood up, just watched as I walked by. However I don't worry a lot about them except perhaps in the September-October rutting season.

Mountain lion are around, I see scat and tracks but rarely the animal. One animal can have a home range of a hundred square km or more, so at any given time the odds of an animal being present in a given spot are low. There's been only one attack in recent memory, and that was by a half-starved 70-lb juvenile on a frail old guy out for a hike. His wife beat it off with a branch. I don't consider them a significant threat to an average adult male human.

The much bigger risk here is dogs associated with meth labs or grows. Twice I've encountered rottweilers roaming loose at a large coastal site. So far I've been lucky and have seen them at a long distance and with the wind in my favor, and the dogs were not aware of my presence. In both cases ranges were over 100 meters. I'm assuming it's just a matter of time til I have a more serious encounter with one of these since we're anticipating several more years of work on that site.

Just a little south of here feral hogs become a potential problem, might need to think more about that next year when we have some things scheduled on a known site. East of the Rockies I've never encountered anything bigger than a coyote, and those have usually been in the process of making themselves scarce. In the Ozarks the wildlife related "problems" have been the little annoyance-level things like ticks and scorpions and bees that a gun can't do much about.

I'm in the process of a routine re-evaluation of what I carry onto more remote sites where the risk of critter interactions is higher. In town it's usually 9mm, but in the backcountry I'm currently carrying either .45acp or .357 sig; mass vs. velocity, and I'm presently undecided which is better. Probably it depends on the individual situation.

[DocGKR]

There are few places in the lower 48 states, even in Sierra wilderness areas, where I would feel under-armed with a 9 mm. Places with Brown bears, then I want a 12 ga with effective slugs or a .45-70......

[Dan_S]

There are few places in the lower 48 states, even in Sierra wilderness areas, where I would feel under-armed with a 9 mm. Places with Brown bears, then I want a 12 ga with effective slugs or a .45-70......

For my work, I'm finding myself going into a part of the country where grizzlies and wolves can be a concern, and I'm in the midst of trying to figure out what I should carry.

I'm finding the concept of a 9mm against a grizzly a little concerning, so in that case, have been leaning (in my ignorance) towards a Glock 20 in 10mm. The only reason why I don't want to go the 10mm route would be the cost of the ammunition, but, having an effective round takes priority.

I would prefer to stick with a semi-auto, rather than a revolver, but, your input would be greatly appreciated!

[DocGKR]

There is a reason Alaskan guides carry shotguns or large caliber rifles. You need something like a 12 gauge shotgun with deep penetrating slugs, a .45-70 with quality bullets, a .338 or .375 Mag.

[tomr]

Klewis asked, "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?"

Implicit in his first post as I read it was the standard hunting recommendation that bigger is better for big critters. The debate between 9,40 and 45 in human defensive situations that has raged on for years and seems addressed now by modern ammunition and better understanding of shootability/hitability of handguns against the relatively stable size of human targets doesn't seem to answer his question.

Theres the old momentum vs kinetic energy debate, (momentum and "power factor" being essentially the same) as the way older outdoor writers liked to opine why a 458 win mag was needed for cape buffalo rather than a puny '06. Big, heavy, solid bullets being able to drive through feet of skin, muscle, bone and cartilage, while light bullets cant get to the heart of things. Roy Weatherby's fantastic 300 Magnum, didn't I think change the minds of Professional hunters (or gun writers). But how do we apply this big game rifle logic to defensive handguns for larger wild animals? This methinks is a different question Klewis is asking.

[Chuck Haggard]

The toughest of the FBI tests is the auto glass. If a bullet is going to fail it always seems to happen there.

If looking at a service caliber handgun round for bigger animals I'd go with whatever did the best on that test as far as penetration.

[DocGKR]

Concur.

[GJM]

Here is the testing tool:

http://www.winchester.com/SiteCollectionDocuments/flash-SWFs/law_bullit.swf

The 147 9mm Bonded, 180 .40 bonded and 125 .357 Sig Bonded are all very close in auto glass, although the .357 Sig penetrates slightly deeper in auto glass, and quite a bit deeper in steel.

Or, pick what the FBI did, and save yourself some trouble. Isn't that the 147 Ranger bonded in 9, and the 180 bonded in .40? I run the 180 bonded as my animal JHP load.

Seems like this is pretty simple, carry a rifle or shotgun, along with either a DA revolver in .41/44 magnum, or a semi auto in .357 Sig, .40 or 10mm depending upon your risk assessment and familiarity with wheel guns versus an auto?

[Chuck Haggard]

I think it was Chuck Karwan that wrote and article about using service caliber handguns on large animals for defensive use as opposed to hunting.

Him was of the opinion that if you got into such a mess that you would have to hit the brain, thus one should choose a caliber that could do so in a pistol that you could shoot really well under stress.

Seems to make sense.