Ammo differences

All else being equal, muzzle energy will have the most impact. At distance (>200 yards), heavier bullets will (generally) retain their energy better, but 10MM isn't a distance round. So, I would use the 220-grain. Heavier bullet, hitting with more energy, (USUALLY) means more damage.

I doubt that the bear would be able to tell the difference.
I would go with the heavier bullet for deeper penetration.

418

" no Grizzly"

Ok, moose, then, as they can be aggressive and are easily 1,500 pounds on the hoof. Usually encountered near water which restricts your movement.

Would you want to be armed with just a 10mm in a herd of 1,500 pound animals which require you to defend yourself? Compare that to say, .458 or .375 SOCOM with at least 2,000 foot pounds and 2,000 fps from the muzzle. My point is to show the slight, incremental difference of the 10mm cartridges is largely insignificant in the big picture. Trying to turn one or more galloping moose might need a lot more power and effort.

Of course, I say that having been out hunting whitetail with an AR pistol yesterday, the alternative choice was .45ACP. It was an easy choice, the 5.56 has 1,000 foot pounds of energy at 80m while the .45 doesn't rate that at the muzzle. Another example of what is or isn't a significant difference. Me, I would buy the less expensive 10mm ammo IF it's been shot enough to trust as a reliable in that pistol. As is, the minor ballistic advantage of one over the other is just one tick mark on a longer list of what to use.

With respect to the two examples you give, the difference is pretty much insignificant!

Which one is better? The one you can make faster, more accurate hits with. The difference is negligible

I'd carry either of those loads in grizzly country. Both are more than enough for black bear

badkarmamib said:

All else being equal, muzzle energy will have the most impact. At distance (>200 yards), heavier bullets will (generally) retain their energy better, but 10MM isn't a distance round. So, I would use the 220-grain. Heavier bullet, hitting with more energy, (USUALLY) means more damage.

Click to expand...

I can't wait for the day that people stop paying attention to energy figures, especially when it comes to handguns. It's a meaningless number and most effective as a marketing tool.

What's important with cast bullets in handguns is weight, nose profile and meplat diameter. Smaller meplats penetrate better, larger meplats make larger wound channels. Heavier bullets tend to penetrate better than lighter ones. There could be a real, measurable difference between the two and there could be none. Generally speaking, bullets of similar sectional density and profile/shape tend to penetrate similarly. Velocity and energy don't even enter into the equation. The shortcoming of the 10mm is bullet weight, it is limited. While a 220gr is heavy for the caliber, it is not what would be considered a "heavy" bullet. So that 220gr at 1200fps load is comparable to Elmer Keith's heavy .44Spl load, only smaller. A far cry from the heavy +300gr .44 and .45 loads. Not a load I would want to use on something as large as moose and certainly not brown bears.

CraigC said:

Generally speaking, bullets of similar sectional density and profile/shape tend to penetrate similarly. Velocity and energy don't even enter into the equation.

Click to expand...

Wow, that is news to me. I would think that a bullet traveling 800 FPS would penetrate better than one traveling, say, 300 FPS (numbers being irrelevant). While mass holds energy ?mass? better through the impact, I am enlightened that the speed and energy have no consequence.

Ridiculous examples do not apply but it is a true statement that a cast bullet traveling at 1400fps won't penetrate any better than it would at 1200fps. Energy tells us nothing useful.