Handgun for bear

[ramont]

I couldn't care less what other people want to use for defense against a grizzly, I have my preference and that's what I use, I had a customer buy a .380 for grizzly defense, I thought she was an idiot but hey, she had a friend that was an expert tell her that the .380 was the perfect cartridge for grizzlies because it would just scare them off without really hurting them.

I always enjoy reading the experts claim that they know better than everyone else, even though they never seem to provide any proof, they just repeat the same crap over and over. Formidilosus, I don't know if you're just a troll or another incompetent federal employee but how about providing some kind of proof for your claims or is not providing proof for your claims something that you've learned working for the FBI? I'm not an expert but it only took me about 3 minutes to find a study that was written by two experts from Israel ("Wound Ballistics and Tissue Damage" by N. Rozen, Chief of Orthopaedic Surgery, Emek Medical Center, Afula, Israel and Bruce Rappaport Faculty of Medicine, Technion, Israel Institute of Technology, Haifa, Israel and I. Dudkiewicz, Head of Orthopaedic Rehabilitation Unit, Department of Rehabilitation, Tel Aviv Sourasky Medical Center, Tel Aviv, Israel) who say;

Projectile or bullet injuries may be classified as “lowenergy” or “high-energy,” which describe the amount of damage to the tissues. The factor that most affects the injury severity is the amount and the efficiency of energy transfer [1–5], which is mostly related to kinetic energy...

Additionally, you state that nobody can tell the difference in the size of a bullet wound but according the study the authors say;

The modified Red Cross classification for civilian injuries, [11] which incorporates the ballistic and clinical aspects of gunshot injuries in civilians, is based on energy dissipation, vital structures injured, type of wound created, severity of bony injury, degree of contamination, and the modified Gustilo–Anderson open fracture classification system in which low velocity gunshot wounds are designated as Grade I or Grade II, based on the size of the skin wound and high velocity gunshot injuries are designated as Grade III injuries, regardless of wound size

Other studies state that bullets of differing calibers that have the same Kinetic Energy can create the same wound damage if they both shed energy at the same rate. So yes, it's possible to say that different bullets can create similar wounds but it's also true that energy is the key to creating the wound. Combine the fact that the Red Cross uses a comparison system that is based on the size of the entrance wound then I would say that it's a pretty good bet that while most doctors would never allow themselves to be quoted making a statement about what caliber was used to create a wound I'd guess that a lot of experienced doctors will have a personal opinion about what caliber was used that would be pretty accurate in most cases. I know for a fact that you can easily tell the difference between a .22LR (pistol) and a .357 magnum pretty easily by just looking at the entrance wound. I've seen both and it's pretty obvious and based on that I could probably tell the difference between a 9mm and a .45 of some kind pretty easily.

 

[RumLover]

I partially agree on your first point. I've witnessed the difference between a 45 ACP and 9mm, both NATO ball, enter the anatomy of a target and the 45, without question, put the SOB down quicker. This is the reason that USASOC forces are using 45's instead of the 9mm NATO standard. That is agnostic from where each bullet was placed, but based on the final outcome. From what I've seen recently, energy distribution to the abdomen, where no bone structure is present, energy distribution was less impactful than a location where the bullet struck bone. However, if it does strike bone, it makes a huge difference since bullet deformation will dump more energy beyond the "touched" skeletal structure. If your intent is to simply state that energy won't put a target down, then 22 years of experience in xx douchebagastan says you are wrong.

I disagree on your second point. No, I didn't compare a pistol round to a rifle round. If you have a rifle, use it first. I never switch unless the rifle/carbine is down. I also disagree that "no one under stress" can put a bear (the topic of discussion and NOT a small target) down with XX caliber pistol. With PRACTICE and you can. For example, with practice, one can walk a Maw Deuce (50 BMG) on to your coffee cup without taking your hand off. If you have a rifle, use it.

If we are talking past each other, happy to discuss.

 

[MHWASH]

I won't quote ballistics or wound channels, but I'll base my choices from experience shooting various handguns, and watching lots of people shoot handguns.

I'm quite sure hits from my 9mm are going to be more of a deterrent to a grizz than a miss from a 454.

 

[Formidilosus]

Formidilosus, I don't know if you're just a troll or another incompetent federal employee but how about providing some kind of proof for your claims or is not providing proof for your claims something that you've learned working for the FBI? I'm not an expert but it only took me about 3 minutes to find a study that was written by two experts from Israel ("Wound Ballistics and Tissue Damage" by N. Rozen, Chief of Orthopaedic Surgery, Emek Medical Center, Afula, Israel and Bruce Rappaport Faculty of Medicine, Technion, Israel Institute of Technology, Haifa, Israel and I. Dudkiewicz, Head of Orthopaedic Rehabilitation Unit, Department of Rehabilitation, Tel Aviv Sourasky Medical Center, Tel Aviv, Israel) who say;
.

Neat.

First, I do not work for the FBI. Second. one should be very careful when using non US studies on ballistics as most sources (including the Israel’s) are 20+ years behind the US. The FBI ballistics lab is untouched by anyone, anywhere in resources, research, and scientifically measured and validated results- your ignorant jab at them notwithstanding. The question is whether you want to learn or argue?




If you want to learn-

Handgun Wounding factors And Effectiveness- http://gundata.org/images/fbi-handgun-ballistics.pdf

What’s Wrong With The Wound Ballistics Literature, And Why: Letterman Army Institute of Research, M.L. Fackler, M.D.- http://www.rkba.org/research/fackler/wrong.html


Civilian Gunshot Wounds and Ballistics: Dispelling The Myths- ://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0733862705703461?via%3Dihub


FBI Training Division: 9mm Justification- FBI 9MM Justification, FBI Training Division - Soldier Systems Daily


An excellent overview of rifle terminal performance- Best Choices for Self Defense Ammo




Further, anything written by Martin Fackler, Garry Roberts, or the FBI Terminal Ballistics Lab.

Additionally, you state that nobody can tell the difference in the size of a bullet wound but according the study the authors say;

Negative. What I said was- one cannot tell whether someone was shot by any of the common duty rounds by looking at the wound. And you can’t. No one can.

Other studies state that bullets of differing calibers that have the same Kinetic Energy can create the same wound damage if they both shed energy at the same rate. So yes, it's possible to say that different bullets can create similar wounds but it's also true that energy is the key to creating the wound. Combine the fact that the Red Cross uses a comparison system that is based on the size of the entrance wound then I would say that it's a pretty good bet that while most doctors would never allow themselves to be quoted making a statement about what caliber was used to create a wound I'd guess that a lot of experienced doctors will have a personal opinion about what caliber was used that would be pretty accurate in most cases. I know for a fact that you can easily tell the difference between a .22LR (pistol) and a .357 magnum pretty easily by just looking at the entrance wound. I've seen both and it's pretty obvious and based on that I could probably tell the difference between a 9mm and a .45 of some kind pretty easily.

Kinetic energy is not a wounding mechanism, can not tell you what a wound will look like, or how much tissue is damaged.

For the rest of this- you are ignorant of terminal ballistic realities. That is not a dig. A .22 LR and a duty round is different enough to generally see differences in entry wound size. There is little to no difference between 38special, 9mm, 357, 40, 10mm, 45 in tissue. Read the above linked documents and articles and you will learn why. If you do, you will understand what I have written. If you don’t, that’s fine, however your knowledge and understanding of wound ballistics will continue to be false.

 

[Formidilosus]

I partially agree on your first point. I've witnessed the difference between a 45 ACP and 9mm, both NATO ball, enter the anatomy of a target and the 45, without question, put the SOB down quicker. This is the reason that USASOC forces are using 45's instead of the 9mm NATO standard. That is agnostic from where each bullet was placed, but based on the final outcome. From what I've seen recently, energy distribution to the abdomen, where no bone structure is present, energy distribution was less impactful than a location where the bullet struck bone. However, if it does strike bone, it makes a huge difference since bullet deformation will dump more energy beyond the "touched" skeletal structure. If your intent is to simply state that energy won't put a target down, then 22 years of experience in xx douchebagastan says you are wrong.

I disagree on your second point. No, I didn't compare a pistol round to a rifle round. If you have a rifle, use it first. I never switch unless the rifle/carbine is down. I also disagree that "no one under stress" can put a bear (the topic of discussion and NOT a small target) down with XX caliber pistol. With PRACTICE and you can. For example, with practice, one can walk a Maw Deuce (50 BMG) on to your coffee cup without taking your hand off. If you have a rifle, use it.

If we are talking past each other, happy to discuss.

I’m pretty sure I’ve seen a 45 before...

[/URL][/IMG]








Coffee cup out of my hand with a 50cal machine gun huh...... If you want to tell war stories, that’s cool. But let’s stop with the nonsense. No one within USASOC is using 45 auto. The only organizations using 45’s are Marine Recon Battalions and Force Companies.

 

[Formidilosus]

To be clear, I am not trying to argue for the sake of arguing. I personally could care less what anyone uses or does. However, if you’re going to have a conversation about “What Handgun For Bear”, you probably want to know what bullets actually do in tissue and what you can actually do under stress to frame the discussion. Without a base understanding of both of those components it’s just ballistic and mental masterbation.

 

[backcountry_hunter]

Am I the only one who's interest in a thread increases 10 fold every time someone challenges Form's experience or knowledge?

nope .....X's 2

 

[hooker]

Does Phil Shoemaker post here? You might ask this at 24hrcampfire...

 

[jorgensen.travis]

This discussion has been going on for years and won’t be settled hear. I feel obligated to intervene because Formidilosus speaks of such an authority, I don’t want people to be misinformed. Although entitled to his obvious well thought out opinion, he’s in the minority with his choice of a 9mm for grizzly. The FBI changes it’s facts every few years about effective ballistics. There’s always politics, lobbyists, budget, and many other factors hat go into their decision making.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[wind gypsy]

This discussion has been going on for years and won’t be settled hear. I feel obligated to intervene because Formidilosus speaks of such an authority, I don’t want people to be misinformed. Although entitled to his obvious well thought out opinion, he’s in the minority with his choice of a 9mm for grizzly. The FBI changes it’s facts every few years about effective ballistics. There’s always politics, lobbyists, budget, and many other factors hat go into their decision making.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Are you extrapolating what you saw with hollow points designed for rapid expansion and minimal penetration in urban environments to hard cast bullets designed to maintain shape and penetrate deeply?

 

[jorgensen.travis]

Are you extrapolating what you saw with hollow points designed for rapid expansion and minimal penetration in urban environments to hard cast bullets designed to maintain shape and penetrate deeply?

By saying that the 9mm is not a popular choice for grizzly defense? No.
Whenever we comparing calibers, all things have to be equal. In this case I’d say hard Cast semi wadcutters or flat points. Which is another argument against 9mm. Ball ammo is thought to deflect too much for bear defense.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[wind gypsy]

I don’t think 9mm proponents are considering ball Ammo. Primarily looking at hard cast flat point ammo, which is designed to perform much differently than the hollow points you discussed testing.

 

[jorgensen.travis]

I don’t think 9mm proponents are considering ball Ammo. Primarily looking at hard cast flat point ammo, which is designed to perform much differently than the hollow points you discussed testing.

I get it now. I didn’t realize you were referring to my YouTube video. Yes those were hollow points in the 9mm and 10mm because the test in the video was intended for defense against people. I was referencing it because it shows a big difference in the performance between the two rounds. Maybe I’ll do a similar test with hard cast bullets. I would guess the visual difference upon impact won’t be as noticeable. However, if you want a bullet that will strike bone, shatter it into the vitals, and continue straight line penetration I would think the heavier and fast moving the better.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk