Medium animal defense

[onemorevictim]

Hello all,

I own a couple 10mm firearms. and a Multitude of 10mm ammo:

Initially i bought a Glock 20 for my wife to Supplement me and my 454 Casull Ruger for wood carry, as i live in Alaska.
I fell in love with the 10mm ever since. Now my question:

For woods defense against medium/large animals being Black bear, moose, wolves, etc...
Is a heavier bullet better than lighter? I know penetration is key, how about Round nose vs JHP?

Currently for the woods i have 200gr Corbon RNPN. and Maybe some Double tap 200 Nosler JHP
Ive also got alot of Underwood 180gr gold dots, Hornady, and some others.

So are heavier JHPs the best? or FMJ/Round nose better for penetration?
What do you use for woods carry?

Thanks

[sqlbullet]

My woods load is a 200 grain WFN loaded to 1200 fps.  Underwood has a similar load as I recall.

[tommac919]

So are heavier JHPs the best? or FMJ/Round nose better for penetration?
What do you use for woods carry?

I usu carry the clip filled with 200gr XTPs loaded very warm/ hot ... but then Black bears aren't that big in VA.
( a slightly lower gr weight copy of the high end boutique brands from the pull down section )

[4949shooter]

I like the Underwood Extreme Penetrator. It was the only 10mm round that penetrated bullet proof glass. It also has "flutes" machined into the solid copper projectile which should cause more tissue disruption in the medium sized animals like wolves.

[DM1906]

My woods load is a 200 grain WFN loaded to 1200 fps.  Underwood has a similar load as I recall.

This.

Anything less, in bullet weight and/or velocity is a poor choice for 10mm Alaska woods defense carry. Realistically, any 10mm is a poor choice. Fancy bullet designs are just that. Fancy. The copper slugs will fail when it really matters. Hollow points at handgun velocities will either not penetrate enough, or fail to expand and offer some penetration (the "hollow" part of the bullet is sacrificed mass). Any bullet that has features requiring any circumstantial conditions to perform as designed will, in fact, fail to perform (statistically). These are designed and intended for "soft" human targets, and perhaps, urban-type barriers (never seen a gel penetration test to include spring-molt or tree branches). If a predator is behind bullet-proof glass, don't shoot it (it's probably in a zoo). Lighter bullets, while they are capable of higher velocities and FPE, fall short at effectiveness (the Taylor KO factor is the key). Velocity, at any small/medium handgun level, is no substitute for sectional density and mass. The Alaska (type) defense cartridges were developed for this purpose, and they are still less than 100% effective. The .454C is so far removed from the fullest capability of the 10mm, they cannot be considered in the same category. This is not to mention its bigger brothers (.460/.500 SWM's, Linebaugh's, etc.), which are still not perfect, or a substitute for a high power rifle (the preferred defense weapon). For the same reasons, the lowly .357M is a better option than 10mm, capacity notwithstanding. Similar bullet weights and velocities, but the .357M wins the sectional density battle, every time. Until you get beyond 1,000 FPE, you are working with a handicap. Fancy is not reliable. That leaves only brute force, such as it is, with the weaker calibers. Also keep in mind, there are (almost) no .40" hollow point bullets designed, nor intended, for more than .40SW velocities against "soft" human targets.

[Rojo27]

As you mentioned you live in Alaska; I'd strongly second or third the 200 grain WFN cast bullet by Underwood or Doubletap recommendation.  You have much bigger and meaner critters up there and the very deep penetration of the cast 200gr WFN would be critical in your neck of the woods.

Many of the other options mentioned (200gr. xtp or nosler, 180gr. xtp or gold dot, 200gr or 220gr WFN, extreme penetrator) would probably be perfectly acceptable in most of the lower 48.  However, not in a state with bears (black, brown & polar) that can range from 500lbs to 1500lbs (or more)...  You need deep, bone crushing penetration in your neighborhood IMHO.   

[onemorevictim]

Thanks all for the replies, and insight!

I understand 10mm isn't the premiere woods gun, I suppose i'll have to buy an Aftermarket glock barrel for them Hardcast.

Like i said I purchased it for my wife as shes familiar with the Glock manual of arms,
And i already have a 454 Casull with 360gr Underwood LWN-GC among other loads.

Again thank you for the replies.

[sqlbullet]

If you buy commercial you may need an aftermarket barrel.

I shoot my own cast bullets, and I size them .002" and have no issues with a factory Glock barrel.

[sep]

As a fellow Alaskan and a recent convert to the 10mm, I've been handloading 200 grain WFNGC bullets and some 200 grain Hornady XTPs for my Glock G40 and STI Perfect 10. I'm no bear whisperer but I have put bullets into 6 brown bears.  One by myself and five others backing up friends. So, I've seen firsthand how browns react to being hit with large caliber rifles. It's not impressive.

We have a couple well respected folks up here who advocate a 357 for bear defense.  Joe Nava in Fairbanks whose 4 daughters cut their teeth on the 357 and a guide from Grizzlyskins of Alaska. He carried a 357 magnum for years guiding browns and his daughter now carries the same pistol as she is guiding browns too.

My take on the issue of bear defense is this, you have to have enough bullet mass and velocity to penetrate the skull, neck vertebrae or spine of a bear at very close range. You have to be able to shoot quickly and accurately. The only sure way to stop a bear is by disrupting the central nervous system. If you chest shoot a bear with any gun you may or may not deter the charge.  Put a bullet in the brain, neck vertebrae or spine and it's game over for the bear.

I know one older gentleman who dispatched a small grizz outside of Fairbanks by shooting it through the head with a 44 magnum revolver shooting 240 grain XTPs. My dentist killed a brown on Kodiak while deer hunting by shooting it in the head from the hip with a 300 Weatherby, one of my co-workers brothers shot a big sow on Kodiak through the neck from the hip as he crested a hill while deer hunting. In all these cases, the hunters survived unscathed because they hit the bear in the right spot and these shots were all close.  No 15 or 25 yard shots here.

While I would never deliberately hunt browns or interior grizz with a 10mm, I'm confident it has enough juice with 200 grain bullets to do the job at close range if you hit it in the right spot. I can shoot my 10mms more quickly and more accurately than my 44 magnum revolvers so it's what I will be carrying this fall when I hunt Blacktails on Montague Island and when I'm fishing and dipnetting salmon.

Not sure which part of Alaska you are in but if you are near Fairbanks and want to talk 10mm feel free to PM me. I'd be happy to help.                   

[sqlbullet]

A 158 grain 357 has a sectional density of 177.  A 200 grain 10mm is 179.

I am not sure how they stack up velocity wise from comparable barrel lengths.  A 200 grain lead 10mm from a 6" barrel should make 1300 fps.  I think a 357 would be a bit faster, but not by much.

[sep]

It's too bad there is no real proxy for a bear's anatomy. So, to some degree we end up speculating about performance. There's a thread on another forum where the author test fired 300 grain XTPs in both a 44 magnum revolver and a 44 magnum rifle. In the handgun, it penetrated 20+ inches in clear ballistic gelatin. http://www.lightfighter.net/topic/44-magnum-general-purpose-loads

If you think a 300 grain XTP is sufficient for bear, contrast this performance with the ballistic gelatin tests of the 10mm on this very forum. A 200 grain XTP penetrated anywhere from 15-24 inches and 200 grain hardcast penetrated 37-39 inches. If these 10mm bullets can come close to, equal or better a 300 grain XTP out of a 44 magnum revolver in terms of penetration, the bear is in serious trouble. They're big but they're not bullet proof.

Put another way, I no longer have the skull from the brown bear I shot because my nephew dropped it and it broke but she is rugged and hangs on my living room wall. She was an 18 year old sow who measured roughly 8 1/2 feet. Her head measured across the ears is close to 18 inches. They do make bears bigger than her (and I'm still lookin for him) but I believe either of the 200 grain bullets mentioned would have penetrated her hide and into her brain. The neck and spine get more problematic because they are flanked by hide and muscle but I plan to shoot for the head since that's the part of the bear which will reach me first.     

         

[Pumpkinheaver]

My Glock 20 is generally loaded with 180 XTPs or my homecast amd powdercoated 180 bullets. Either pushed to about 1250 FPS.

[sqlbullet]

A 158 grain 357 has a sectional density of 177.  A 200 grain 10mm is 179.

I am not sure how they stack up velocity wise from comparable barrel lengths.  A 200 grain lead 10mm from a 6" barrel should make 1300 fps.  I think a 357 would be a bit faster, but not by much.

Now sqlbullet is talking my language. I think when comparing cartridges, it's important to be mindful of SD. Another way to look at it:

A 200 grain 10mm bullet (SD 179) has a greater SD than a 230 grain .45 ACP bullet (SD 162) and the equivalent of a 255 grain .45 ACP bullet, and is going alot faster than both.

They really don't even have to go all that fast to penetrate well.

That 10mm is barely behind a 240 grain 44 magnum in SD. It does lag behind a couple hundred FPS in velocity though.