10mm Auto for bear defense?

[bigbore442001]

Hello All:

One of the dangers of watching too much Youtube is that you get exposed to all kinds of ideas from others and it begins to make you think a bit.

It seems that there is a current fad to use the 10mm Auto with heavy hard cast bullets or some of the new machined copper rounds with the Philips head style of projectile for defense against dangerous animals.

I kind of like the idea and understand the logic. A Glock M40 with 15 rounds of hardcast handloads would be effective against something as well as possibly being a tad easier to shoot.

But I do wonder in the real world how effective a 220 hardcast bullet at 12-1250 fps would actually be?

What are your opinions?

Thank you

[badguybuster]

10mm is MINIMUM for big bodied animal defense. There is a youtube channel called Alaskan Ballistics that does some pretty thorough testing. That being said, a long gun is always a better choice in big bear country. I tested some of the buffalo bore 200gr hard casr from my Dan Wesson Wraith. At 20 yards it penetrated a deer hide, a side of pork ribs (broke 3 ribs) and then 22" of ballistic gel. I was pretty impressed with it but the recoil was terrible from a 5" 1911. They also had a tendency to jam up when entering the breech. I switched to 180s.made by Montana Bulletworks. The meplat isnt as large but they feed 100% of the time and are SMOKING out of the barrel

[725]

Without experience with a cast boolit in the 10 mm, I can tell you that a jacketed factory round is very effective against an angry 300# pig. Shot and wounded by another hunter using a .44 mag rifle, I was charged by a very mobile and aggressive boar. As it closed on me, two taps with the 10 mm had it doing somersaults to a DRT resting place. This story is to comment on my general approval of the 10 mm.

As to it's use against bears, there are a few items that come to mind. 1)If encumbered by anything that restricts the slide movement, failures may follow. 2)Failure from a "limp" wrist or otherwise awkward purchase on the grip. 3)Auto's have safeties and when fine motor skills diminish (normal fear reaction), it's just one more thing to have to do. Of course, the Glock doesn't have that problem. 4)Capacities beyond the 5 or 6 rounds from a revolver is a plus.

So, if you are cool with planning to need multiple shots to stop the threat, as opposed to fewer shots from an ubersupermagblaster revolver, and are willing to take the fail to function possibilities inherit with autos, I'd say go with it. Best of luck.

[memtb]

No thanks! Much better than nothing.... but, “NOT” my first choice!

Too many people rely on the number of rounds that they “MIGHT” be able to fire “at” a bear.....rather than concentrating on one or two well placed, large diameter, heavy, non-expanding bullets. Attacks generally happen quickly, from close range with little to no warning. Many encounters indicate that “NO” shots were fired.....expending a magazine full is unlikely, fired accurately.....ain’t happening! memtb

[rintinglen]

If You could get that level of performance (220 gr @ 1200-1250) I'd say good enough! That would put you in the realm of a 41 Magnum 4", which is not the worst place to be.

Unfortunately, that level of performance does not seem to be had in pressure tested, published load data, at least from standard length auto pistol barrels. In the Speer #13, they list one load that breaks the 1250 fps barrier, but it is a 180 grain bullet, not a 220, or even a 200. Hodgdon lists loads for a cast 220, but none break the 1000 fps barrier. Now I have seen higher velocities reported, but from Contenders with 10 inch barrels. Lyman lists a 200 grain Hornady at a top end of 1148 fps with a healthy charge of Blue Dot. A hot .357 from a 6 or 8 inch barrel can get awfully close to that. In fact, a .357 Coonan 6", or a LAR 6 1/2" will do that, if you can find one. Still, if you are a skilled pistol shooter, or like myself, you need only be wary of black bears or feral dogs , a 10 mm would be ample. Likewise, if you prowl the woods where hostile druggies are probable adversaries, you might well be served with a high capacity mag or two.

But ballistically speaking, the 10 mm is not a 41 magnum, and certainly not a 44, a 454 nor any of the really big bores. At the end of the day, there's no substitute for displacement.

[Cast10]

Remember, 10mm is at 37500 psi. Not much load data goes that high. Proceed with caution.

[jonp]

Bears....we have been here haven't we?

[beechbum444]

I think we need a bigger boat.......

[Paul105]

FWIW,

https://www.ammoland.com/2021/06/han...-97-effective/

[44MAG#1]

AA#9 with 200 grain is my heavy load powder. Hornady has data for it. Brian Pierce did a chrono session with it.

[1hole]

Sitting here in my recliner tonight, I feel comfortable thinking of a 10 mm against a 125 +/- bear. I might feel different out in the woods if the bear was headed my way tho. ?? Then ... thank God for my lovely old bright blue S&W M29!

[Mk42gunner]

I don't know how realistic a 220 at 1200fps or more is out of a 10mm; I will say it will be a handful. I remember shooting some of the original Norma loads from a Colt Delta Elite and it was just about as much fun as a person wanted to hang onto.

I have never held a Glock Model 40, but back in the nineties I did shoot a buddies Model 20 and 21 quite a bit. I have large hands (size 10) and they felt uncomfortably large to me.

If I were to carry a handgun for bear protection; I would want it to comfortably fit my hands, and I would practice-- a lot.

Raw horsepower seems helpful in this situation, but I think controllability and penetration trumps it. I may be wrong, I don't live in bear country, so its kind of a theoretical question for me.

Robert

[dla]

I still carry a 31oz loaded, 329pd 44mag with 270gr WFN @1150fps. I've looked at the 40+oz loaded Glock 20, but I don't feel comfortable going up in weight, down in power, for more shots I'll never get off.

[Idaho45guy]

Depends on the bear. For Black bears, 10mm is fine. For Grizzly bears, it's marginal for about 80% of them, and not good enough for the big ones. We're talking 500 - 800 lb bruins.

Funny how arguments for self-defense against humans get thrown out the window for self-defense against bears.

Shot placement and being able to hit your target is critical in human self-defense, but with bears, having the biggest hand cannon is more important than being able to get hits on target quickly. I don't get it.

A 9mm is just fine for 250lb humans, but a 10mm is not enough for 150lb bears?

A lot of fuzzy math is involved in bear threads.

[ddixie884]

10mm may be a good choice if a magnum revolver is not available. Cost and availability is the main reason along with shootability for the user. I would be careful of ending up with .40 S&W ballistics from 10mm lite factory loads. I think a lot of .40s are being used, too. I go back to the old .40, 200grFP, and 1,000fps minimum and for bears 1200fps would be even better. I have never shot a bear but probably would be more at ease with a Ruger only .45Colt...........

[badguybuster]

Something to keep in mind, is that during a bear attack it usually happens so fast you are lucky to.get 3 to 4 rounds out before the bear is on you. So, it doesnt do any good to carry a magnum if you cannot.hit your target. very few people.practice enough to be accurate in a high stress situation. Now, that being said and handgun is only.good.to.fight your way to the long gun you.SHOULD HAVE HAD THE WHOLE.TIME ��

[memtb]

Depends on the bear. For Black bears, 10mm is fine. For Grizzly bears, it's marginal for about 80% of them, and not good enough for the big ones. We're talking 500 - 800 lb bruins.

Funny how arguments for self-defense against humans get thrown out the window for self-defense against bears.

Shot placement and being able to hit your target is critical in human self-defense, but with bears, having the biggest hand cannon is more important than being able to get hits on target quickly. I don't get it.

A 9mm is just fine for 250lb humans, but a 10mm is not enough for 150lb bears?

A lot of fuzzy math is involved in bear threads.

There is one important defining deference between animals and most humans when firearms are involved. Unless a human is mentally incapacitated through mental illness or drugs.....most give up the attack when fired upon. Add to this, very few humans in one on one fight with a determined 100 pound bear would win.

An animal, bears in this instance, do not have an innate fear of firearms or injury if they are pumped with adrenaline during an attack are very difficult to stop......they are fearless!

There is no logical way to compare humans to animals in this context! memtb

[Jtarm]

10mm is MINIMUM for big bodied animal defense. There is a youtube channel called Alaskan Ballistics that does some pretty thorough testing. That being said, a long gun is always a better choice in big bear country. I tested some of the buffalo bore 200gr hard casr from my Dan Wesson Wraith. At 20 yards it penetrated a deer hide, a side of pork ribs (broke 3 ribs) and then 22" of ballistic gel. I was pretty impressed with it but the recoil was terrible from a 5" 1911. They also had a tendency to jam up when entering the breech. I switched to 180s.made by Montana Bulletworks. The meplat isnt as large but they feed 100% of the time and are SMOKING out of the barrel

I watched their top 10 and thought it was pretty insightful. I’ve always been tickled by people wanting a bear handgun when they’re hunting other big game: your HP hunting rifle is probably better than any handgun.

His thoughts on the 12-gauge slug were interesting as well.

[Bigslug]

I drank the 10mm Kool Aid in the late 1980's. I've since gotten over it. In the time since I have learned:

1. I can get all the penetration necessary and more out of .45 ACP, 9x19,.38/357 at tame recoil levels with proper manipulation of alloy, shape, or jacketing, and no need to acquire a quasi-exotic round or a crew-served handgun to deliver it.

2. I've totally jettisoned the idea of foot-pounds of energy providing anything really meaningful. If you aren't knocked on your butt by the recoil, a bear won't be knocked on his butt by the impact.

3. The FBI's theory of hydrostatic displacement causing additional damage beyond bullet diameter not being significant until you are striking at around 2000 fps or more pretty much takes ALL handguns off the table if that is what you are trying to accomplish.

That leaves us with bore diameter being the only really difference between anything you're going to launch out of a pistol, and a very large animal is highly unlikely to know or care if it is bleeding out from a .35 or .45 caliber hole, or a collection of them.

If Mr. Griz wants to eat me, I'll be trying to thread one in through the soft tissues of his nasal tunnel into his brain. A small swarm of 9mm solid flat points above 130 grains should do in that scenario as well as anything. A fatter round of equal penetrating capability might be better at breaking the larger, supporting skeletal bones, but that's more of a bear hunting answer and less of a bear defense one.

The 10mm is essentially a re-packaged 38-.40, which has - what? - a 150+ year history of successfully killing all kinds of stuff. Sure, it'll work, but there's nothing mystical about it or any other round. Placement, penetration, and speed of blood loss are what it's all about, and a great many things can provide that.

[Jtarm]

Fun thread, if totally academic (at least for me).

If roaming the wilderness where an encounter with a grizzly or brown bear were a real possibility, I think I’d still want the extra margin provided by a big bore (not a 10mm though).

A hit to the skull from the wrong angle is not going to kill the bear, but a glancing blow from a 300-grain .44 slug would, I think, persuade the bear to take a different route, vs a 9mm that might not even make him blink. Also breaking the shoulder on a four-legged animal will pretty much stop their advance, or at least cause a drastic change in speed and direction.

You don’t need a .458 magnum to brain an elephant. Ivory hunter W.D.M. Bell did it regularly with cartridges as light as the 256 Newton using heavy-for-caliber FMJ bullets. His contemporaries, who were mere mortals with a rifle, opted for calibers starting with a 5 and up. This provided a margin for error should they miss the brain, as all those extra ft-lbs would turn or even knock down a charging jumbo.

Granted, the .500 Nitro (my choice for a bear defense gun) generates several times as many foot-lbs as a .44 magnum, but a bears skull isn’t nearly as thick as an elephant.