Optimal is a pretty expansive concept. If we're looking exclusively at terminal performance, I think it's very hard to argue with that statement. When one looks at the overall picture including 'shootability', practice costs, ease of carry and all the rest, it starts to get easier to understand why a lot of people look at the problem and decide what's best for them is to carry an autopistol chambered for something like the .45ACP or 10mm. Does that make the choice optimal? Well, any time the word bear and handgun are mentioned in the same breath, there's some level of compromise going on, so probably not.
I don't think popularity counts for much. I mean, Taylor Swift is a billionaire.
I don't think popularity counts for much. I mean, Taylor Swift is a billionaire.
People pick 10mm's (Glocks in particular) because they're familiar and easy. The 10mm is at best a deer cartridge.
It's branched out a bit. At one point or another there have been people advocating for a number of calibers besides .45ACP and 10mm. The list has included .45 Super, .45 Colt, .44 Mag, .45-70 rifle, .41 Mag, 9mm, 44 Spl, .40S&W, .357Mag, .357SIG, 500 Linebaugh, and .460Rowland.
I was responding to a comment calling both the 10mm and .45ACP (including Super and Rowland) marginal. I was explaining why some might choose those cartridges for bear self-defense in spite of the fact that their terminal performance isn't "optimal" for shooting very large animals.
)
Good Point Craig.
If traveling into the wilderness of Alaska and I knew that I was going to need to defend myself against a brown bear I wouldn't choose a handgun for my 1st choice at all. Of my current firearms it would be my Mossberg 590 with a 20" barrel loaded with black magic slugs. (A guide gun Marlin/Ruger 45-70 would also be a good choice. New reason to buy a rifle.
My backup handgun would be my Glock 20 loaded with hardcast. Yes, I still would pick the 10mm over my 44mag S&W 69 4.25".
I would open carry in a chest rig.
Neither the 44mag, nor the 10mm have a good success rates for 1 shot stops on big bears. Either cartridge is capable of penetranting the skull which would quickly end the fight!
Why the 10mm over the 44mag.
The 10mm has 3 times the capacity.
The 10mm is faster with follow up shots.
The 10mm is much quicker to reload.
The 10mm is much easier to shoot with one hand, even weak handed.
If you can shoot a 44mag quickly, you can shoot a 10mm quicker!
It may take 3 or more shots to anchor a bear. Give me more shots.
Sure I like the 44mag and I bought the 69 with the purpose of a wilderness carry. I have carried it as a walkabout gun in Wisconsin.
I would not be afraid to use my 44mag revolvers for black bear hunting. Loaded with a good expanding bullets! But defense is different than hunting!!
If I knew I were going to be attacked by a bear, I would try to be somewhere else. If I HAD to go anyway, I would choose a long gun over a handgun. If I HAD to go and I HAD to carry a handgun, I would pick something that had enough penetration to have a good chance of being effective and something that I shot very well and reasonably rapidly. One thing that seems to be very common in bear attacks that involve handgun self defense is that multiple shots are fired in a hurry. Given that state of affairs, there's no way I'm going to pick something that handicaps me unduly in terms of being able to get rapid follow-ups on target. Carefully aimed shots seem to be an uncommon luxury in bear attacks. Besides, why go crazy with massive power when I have it on good authority that energy is totally meaningless. Based on that logic, it's clear that given adequate penetration, a non-deforming .40" bullet is actually better than a .375" solid and I don't think there are many who would argue against .375H&H with solids as being inadequate for bear. "
