10mm Auto: Any Consensus re: Woods / Carry Loads?

[MickAK]

The real answer is take the pistol (9mm, .40, 10mm, .357 sig or mag, .45 ACP or super or long Colt, .44 spl or mag, etc.) that you shoot the best with 100% reliability and carry that. If big bears are really a threat where you are, vet your pistol with some form of penetrating bullet, then carry on.

But this is a gun forum, so there’s zero fun discussing the easy, non-controversial answer.

I would add that you can get out of the holster and in action quickly under bad circumstances but I suppose that goes along with shoots best.

A guy got mauled on Afognak about a decade ago and I happened to be in Kodiak town and talking with a good friend of his. Guy was apparently a terrific shot with his heavy revolver but never got the hammer strap off.

Most people with heavy revolvers are terrible at actually using them but not all. Some people love shooting them and they're downright fantastic shots with them as a result. But they're difficult weapons to both secure and deploy quickly under field conditions.

[Clusterfrack]

I would add that you can get out of the holster and in action quickly under bad circumstances but I suppose that goes along with shoots best.

A guy got mauled on Afognak about a decade ago and I happened to be in Kodiak town and talking with a good friend of his. Guy was apparently a terrific shot with his heavy revolver but never got the hammer strap off.

Most people with heavy revolvers are terrible at actually using them but not all. Some people love shooting them and they're downright fantastic shots with them as a result. But they're difficult weapons to both secure and deploy quickly under field conditions.

I was on Afognak two years ago. Getting ready to fly out, and a native guy said "Don't go to Afognak. The bears there are assholes."

[msstate56]

I would add that you can get out of the holster and in action quickly under bad circumstances but I suppose that goes along with shoots best.

A guy got mauled on Afognak about a decade ago and I happened to be in Kodiak town and talking with a good friend of his. Guy was apparently a terrific shot with his heavy revolver but never got the hammer strap off.

Most people with heavy revolvers are terrible at actually using them but not all. Some people love shooting them and they're downright fantastic shots with them as a result. But they're difficult weapons to both secure and deploy quickly under field conditions.

I’ve yet to meet anyone that can shoot a big magnum wheel gun well. And by well, I mean rapid repeatable hits on a small target under time pressure. In the amount of time the revo shooter with 300+ grain sledgehammers get off 2 hits- the same guy could get off 6 with a Glock 20. I posted some time ago about my back to back comparison of my 686 4” with 180 .357 mag hard casts vs a Glock 20 with 200 hard cast. It wasn’t even close in speed or hits on target. I believe the G20 is rapidly becoming the standard bear hand gun. I’ll gladly take 15- 200 grain hard casts (or more likely 140ish grain solid copper) that I can control, over 6 (or 5) 240-300+grain hard casts that I can’t keep on target.

[msstate56]

I have had excellent reliability with the Underwood Lehigh penetrator loads in 9, 40, 45, and 45 Super. I attribute that to the bullet profile of the Lehigh. I did experience an issue with the 10mm Lehigh load, and I believe that was because the velocity is so high. If they backed that off some, it would probably be fine. I also would prefer the 10mm load in 180 grain instead of 140.

I agree. Underwood should back off the 10mm XP by 75-100 fps. Then it would be better. I’ve also had several unexplained flyers with that load. E.G.= 7-8 rounds in the 10 ring, then 2 random out in the 8 or 7 ring on a B8. The G9 nor Lost River ammo exhibit this.

[Ghost Dog]

Yes, expansion of the Ranger T design is pretty darned reliable. If a test medium doesn't make it expand, odds are it's a faulty test medium.

If such an animal exists (a 10mm JHP that offers expansion and 16 '' - 18'' of penetration), it's the Hornady 10mm 180-grain XTP (#9126).

If....warning: assumptions ahead!...if we model the 10mm 180-grain XTP as leaving a barrel at the factory specified velocity of 1,275 fps, and it expands to 1.5x its original diameter (0.60'') and it retains 100% of its pre-launch weight, then current bullet penetration modeling pegs the average maximum terminal penetration depth at 17.50 inches.

mTHOR algorithm (Schwartz, 2014): 18.07 inches
Q-model (Schwartz, 2012): 17.98 inches
WTI (MacPherson, 1995): 17.12 inches
UTSI (Peters, 1990): 17.86 inches
US Army BRL (Sturdivan, 1973): 18.49 inches

Of course, the devil is in the details.

If expansion diameter, velocity, or retained mass vary, so will the terminal penetration depth. Testing can nail that down.

Unfortunately, I haven't gotten around to water testing that particular ammunition, but if the occasion arises where I need to head back to the range for some T&E, I'll try to pick up a box and run a couple of them through the process.

For animal lower 48 I'd just use .40 fmj, or maybe .357 158 gr Hydrashok if worried about both.

No hurry but out of curiosity what is euro almost nato 9mm 124 gr fmj

Vs either 115 FP Winchester m1152 or there slightly slower military grade?
Buffman Range & TNoutdoors9 have chrono on different barrel lengths so Maybe use a g19/4" as base. Less mass on the 115 but being a flat point or truncated cone type wondering how that would do.

TNoutdoors9 39,700 PSI in Gen 3 Polygonal Barrel Glocks G17=1297, G19=1263 G26 3.43"=1230 fps
Buffman Range 3"=1211 fps 4"=1275 fps 4.5" Delta L=1327 fps 5"=1379 fps 7.72" Scorpion=1449 fps 16" pcc=1587

[Ghost Dog]

Just listing to p&s & Chuck Haggard said m1152 went through 56" Clear Gel, now I'm not sure how would go through some bear bones being only 115, but likely less deflection than fmj maybe track straighter... I think I'd trust 180 fmjfp to retain momentum through bone more. Off tangent, but listening to this p&s now talking about vehicles, would a 124 fmj, or better yet NATO round go farther, or would the m1152 or military grade since faster in generally better through steel though not sure how the flat or truncated cone does in the vehicle context. Haggard was discussing Nato or military rounds are much harder basically than regular fmj, and wondering if the m1152 or Military Grade is included like real 124 Nato. Not sure what actual 230 FMJ is actual NATO hard ball now. Wood vs Steel first changes things. I guess tangent, just in case a cocaine bear is in your truck eating your lunch.

[the Schwartz]

For animal lower 48 I'd just use .40 fmj, or maybe .357 158 gr Hydrashok if worried about both.

No hurry but out of curiosity what is euro almost nato 9mm 124 gr fmj

Vs either 115 FP Winchester m1152 or there slightly slower military grade?
Buffman Range & TNoutdoors9 have chrono on different barrel lengths so Maybe use a g19/4" as base. Less mass on the 115 but being a flat point or truncated cone type wondering how that would do.

TNoutdoors9 39,700 PSI in Gen 3 Polygonal Barrel Glocks G17=1297, G19=1263 G26 3.43"=1230 fps
Buffman Range 3"=1211 fps 4"=1275 fps 4.5" Delta L=1327 fps 5"=1379 fps 7.72" Scorpion=1449 fps 16" pcc=1587

US Domestic ammunition is loaded to SAAMI pressure specs; European production is loaded to CIP pressure specs. Generally, the latter is taken to be loaded more potently than the former. Take that with the proverbial grain of salt.

Winchester M1152 ammunition is loaded to pressures that are 10% - 15% greater than SAAMI standard for the 9x19—says so right on the back of the box. Supposedly, it produces a mean velocity of 1,320 fps from a 4.7-inch barrel.

Fired from my plain-jane Glock 17.3, it chronographs at 1,305 fps ± 7 fps.

Even at 1,305 fps, as should be expected with ball ammo, it is a deep penetrator.

mTHOR algorithm (Schwartz, 2014): 30.24 inches
Q-model (Schwartz, 2012): 29.44 inches
WTI (MacPherson, 1995): 30.72 inches
UTSI (Peters, 1990): 29.26 inches
US Army BRL (Sturdivan, 1973): 30.41 inches

Average computed penetration depth: 30.01 inches
Average permanent cavity volume: 2.02 in³

Since we're discussing ''woods'' loads, M1152 is a reasonable option if you have a 9mm and want to maximize penetration.

Just listing to p&s & Chuck Haggard said m1152 went through 56" Clear Gel, now I'm not sure how would go through some bear bones being only 115, but likely less deflection than fmj maybe track straighter... I think I'd trust 180 fmjfp to retain momentum through bone more.

All test data obtained in the Clear Ballistic gel product should be viewed with suspicion; ignoring it should be considered a ''best practice''.

I've discussed at length the deficiencies of the CBG stuff here in the Ammunition sub-forum—perhaps a search of this forum is in order?

[Ghost Dog]

US Domestic ammunition is loaded to SAAMI pressure specs; European production is loaded to CIP pressure specs. Generally, the latter is taken to be loaded more potently than the former. Take that with the proverbial grain of salt.

Winchester M1152 ammunition is loaded to pressures that are 10% - 15% greater than SAAMI standard for the 9x19—says so right on the back of the box. Supposedly, it produces a mean velocity of 1,320 fps from a 4.7-inch barrel.

Fired from my plain-jane Glock 17.3, it chronographs at 1,305 fps ± 7 fps.

Even at 1,305 fps, as should be expected with ball ammo, it is a deep penetrator.

mTHOR algorithm (Schwartz, 2014): 30.24 inches
Q-model (Schwartz, 2012): 29.44 inches
WTI (MacPherson, 1995): 30.72 inches
UTSI (Peters, 1990): 29.26 inches
US Army BRL (Sturdivan, 1973): 30.41 inches

Average computed penetration depth: 30.01 inches
Average permanent cavity volume: 2.02 in³

Since we're discussing ''woods'' loads, M1152 is a reasonable option if you have a 9mm and want to maximize penetration.



All test data obtained in the Clear Ballistic gel product should be viewed with suspicion; ignoring it should be considered a ''best practice''.

I've discussed at length the deficiencies of the CBG stuff here in the Ammunition sub-forum—perhaps a search of this forum is in order?

Thanks for doing that. In general .40 w 180 fmj rock on, or if only a 9mm and it cycles fine micros may be too much slide velocity for one handed etc idk that m1152 should do it, both about the same. If you have any thoughts on m1152 for vehicle.
I think in .357 I'd use Hydrashok if worried about both 2 legged and 4 legged,or various 158 sjhp guessing both around 26". I'm not in the NW so don't have 180s or HC.

[the Schwartz]

If you have any thoughts on m1152 for vehicle.

I do. There's better.

Stick with anything that passes the FBI test protocols (which evaluates munitions against automotive glass and steel panel) and you should be just fine.

Doc's list here, is a good reference source: https://pistol-forum.com/showthread....f-Defense-Ammo

[GJM]

I would add that you can get out of the holster and in action quickly under bad circumstances but I suppose that goes along with shoots best.

A guy got mauled on Afognak about a decade ago and I happened to be in Kodiak town and talking with a good friend of his. Guy was apparently a terrific shot with his heavy revolver but never got the hammer strap off.

Most people with heavy revolvers are terrible at actually using them but not all. Some people love shooting them and they're downright fantastic shots with them as a result. But they're difficult weapons to both secure and deploy quickly under field conditions.

The man that was injured, was a friend of a friend, on a deer hunting trip with a number of friends. They sort of watched it unfold from the boat as they saw the sow and two cubs following them, as they dragged their deer downhill. He still has injuries from that attack today.

Just yesterday, a friend going to Kodiak hunting called me about a load for his new Glock 20, and I recommended Hornady XTP as something that I was confident would function and likely be available in Anchorage. He's trying to source some of the cutting edge loads. Unfortunately, you can't ship ammo to Alaska

When I spoke to Hornady, they told me that the critical duty is tougher yet than the XTP bullet.