You can't say 'always.' Should have gone with a weasel word such as "usually."
www.eastidahonews.com
But with a marginal cartridge, your likelihood of needing followup hits goes up.
Yes, I've heard all the justifications before. I just don't think they're logical. IMHO, this is people applying self defense logic to something 10x bigger than the average human. Follow-up, follow-up, follow-up, heard it a million times. It doesn't mean much if you're using a marginal cartridge, where each bullet is incapable of stopping the threat. In other words, a broken shoulder and destroyed heart/lungs with one deep, solid hit is exponentially better than 10 minor wounds. People hunt elephants with .500's, not AK's.
I understand that. I also understand that even without a "marginal" cartridge, shooting in a hurry at a moving target there's still a good chance of needing a followup. Given that a followup is likely in either case, albeit perhaps a little more likely with a "marginal" cartridge, it doesn't make sense to take on too much of a handicap in terms of being able to deliver one--or 5 or 10.
I'll explain the difference between the three different scenarios although I suspect the issue is less that you don't understand it and more than you just don't agree with it.
That comment isn't really relevant to this particular discussion. In one incident, documented by game wardens, a 10mm bullet broke a grizzly's femur. Obviously a bullet that has the ability to break the largest bone in a bear's body is capable of killing the bear. So we have indisputable evidence that the bullets under discussion are definitely capable of stopping an attacking bear, even if the caliber isn't what some would consider ideal for the task.
Strawman. No one says they are all the same. There is, on the other hand, a lack of evidence that cartridges in the service pistol performance class, in spite of their differences, exhibit significantly different performance in terms of actually stopping human attackers. The issue is that human attackers are often (perhaps in the majority of cases) stopped psychologically. That is, they realize they have been shot and decide they do not wish to continue attacking. This creates a situation where the actual terminal performance of the cartridge used can end up playing a relatively minor role in the actual process of stopping a human attacker.
That's certainly part of it. But that's obviously not all of it or this discussion wouldn't be happening. People are clearly concerned that the cartridge have a good chance of being effective for what it's intended. The fact that it's possible to get that in a package that's easier to pack and easier to shoot is certainly something most people are going to consider, but not if it won't do the job. I suspect that another consideration is that it's obviously desirable if someone can use something they already own. So easier, yes, in more ways than one, but not without having been shown to have the capability to do the job by real-world evidence.
I don't understand it because it is illogical. You're going to depend on half a dozen or more hits on a critter that runs at 35mph and kills for a living. A charge is a charge. It is entirely illogical to choose a less effective cartridge on what is presumed to be an enraged critter. There's little time to place a dozen shots. A 220gr 10mm or 255gr .45ACP is a deer load, at best. Absolutely not enough for what may be a 1400lb enraged bear that is solid fur, muscle and bone. It doesn't take a lot to break a bone, even a big one. It does take a lot to break a major bone and continue on to destroy the vitals. Sorry but when 355gr .44's do not exit on a shoulder shot water buffalo, there is absolutely no way in hell I'd count on a 10mm to stop a big bear.
No, I want the possibility of half a dozen or more hits in case I need them. I'm depending on one good hit to stop the encounter, using a caliber that is known to have the capability to do the job, but planning for the possibility that in a dynamic encounter, there may be misses or less than ideal hits--something that is true with any caliber.
And you have a right to your opinion, but that doesn't change the fact that we know from multiple real-world encounters that it can do the job.
I don't have any plans to go anywhere there are bears, and I have handguns in both 10mm and .44Mag, so it's not about choices I have made, or even that I have plans to make. It's about logic and real-world evidence.
Sure. That's not even a matter of opinion. There have been multiple incidents listed on this thread where people have successfully used 10mm to stop grizzly attacks and we even have evidence that it can be done with lighter calibers than 10mm. In fact, the only clear failure I've seen of 10mm on attacking bears (although I'm sure there have been some that I haven't seen) is where the gun wasn't fired.
As you know, this thread isn't about "intentionally" shooting bears. It's about bear self-defense. Just as experts agree that if you're definitely on your way to a gunfight, you should arm yourself with a long arm while acknowledging that in the real world people almost invariably carry handguns for self defense, people agree that if you're on your way to intentionally shoot a bear, you want to use a heavy caliber, but acknowledge that in the real world, that's not what people are going to have on them for bear self-defense.
Sure, and if he makes a good hit with his first shot, that's almost certain to do the trick. But if he misses (perhaps not due to his own lack of skill, but due to the unpredictable motion of the bear), he's going to be hard pressed to get off a second shot before he's getting chewed on. That has to be a consideration for people operating in the real world. People miss--there's just no way around it. Even on stationary targets when they can take their time and using long guns. When shooting at a moving target with a handgun under just about the highest stress imaginable, misses are inevitable. A plan for survival that doesn't include a practical way to deal with a miss isn't realistic.
www.ammoland.com
www.ammoland.com
Oh yes, the "data". Of the 10mm examples:10mm Caliber Pistols & Their Defensive Use Against Bear Attacks
The 10mm pistol caliber is gaining supporters as a suitable pistol caliber for defense against bear attacks.
Handguns in Defense Against Bears by Caliber | .45 ACP
All documented incidents where a .45 acp handgun was fired to defend against bears.
This being a 45acp+p versus 10mm thread, I thought that I would go to the data! They both work for bear defense.
I'm going to be out of the house today with my carry gun, so I'm going to intentionally shoot someone today with my carry gun, by your "logic". Actually, my goal is to never shoot anyone with it, so if by "intentionally shooting something", you mean "intending never to shoot something" then I guess you're right.
You are 100% right that you'll only have time for so many shots, and the more the recoil/muzzle rise, the fewer the shots you'll have time for and the poorer the quality of the followups. This is why all the practical pistol competitions regulate scoring by power factor--a scaled version of momentum which relates directly to recoil. People shoot faster and better with calibers that don't recoil as much--there's really no room for debate on that. Given that fact, and the reality that defenders are going to miss and make less than perfect shots with a handgun when under high stress and shooting at a moving target, it doesn't make sense to unduly limit the number of shots that can be taken and the quality of those shots by going too high with recoil. The sweet spot is cartridges that are demonstrably capable of ending the threat but that don't incur too much of a recoil penalty.
Well, yeah, by definition, "...shooter lived..." is successful self-defense. More details is always good, but the bottom line is that we can see it has worked, and we can see by the penetration figures that it is capable of working.
I think that most people who are forced to use a handgun to defend themselves against a bear wouldn't do it again if they had the choice. In fact, I think that most people who haven't would rather that it stayed that way. That aside, we can see from the real world that 10mm and .45ACP work for bear self-defense.
I agree, but with one modification.
youtu.be
Not a 454, but a 44mag! 6 shots 1 second. I like watching Jerry he is a machine.
S&W 629 .44 Magnum 6 shots in 1 SECOND with Jerry Miculek!
www.Miculek.comOfficial Miculek T-shirts: http://miculek.com/t-shirts-and-clothing/Official products and gun accessories: http://miculek.com/catalogue/Jerry ...
