Best bear defense ammo? & New Hornady Backcountry Defense/DGH?

[Harvey_NW]

Kind of a 2 part question that I hope will be informative for others as well (I looked through past posts and couldn't find anything other than hard cast because the MFG said it's best). Per the knowledge dumps of fact backed info on here, I'm slowly transitioning to more shootable platforms in all aspects and trying to learn more about the most effective delivery from each. In this situation I'm considering swapping the 10mm for a 9mm sidearm, with Grizzlies being reintroduced to the Cascades I'd really like to be outfitted as well as possible.

@Formidilosus in your last feature on the Backcountry Hunt Podcast you discussed sidearm ammo, you explained the differences in construction and how they work, but (IIRC) didn't have a specific suggestion. I understand you have to watch what you say on certain platforms, but from a bullet construction/terminal performance standpoint, do you have a recommendation for 9mm bear defense ammo?

Hornady Backcountry Defense ammo with DGH (Dangerous Game Handgun - 138gr 9mm) - in the podcast they mention it's a cannelured jacket with an interlock ring, and the front of the jacket is cupped back into the lead core. They say they intentionally designed it to NOT expand frontal diameter or fragment, and seem to be solely focused on penetration ("being measuind in feet, not inches"), which I feel negates a bit of the potential performance. They mention that they basically jacketed a hard cast for lead dust and fouling reasons. Do you guys think this design concept actually offers an advantage for terminal performance, or is it just a marketing niche?

 

[Formidilosus]

Kind of a 2 part question that I hope will be informative for others as well (I looked through past posts and couldn't find anything other than hard cast because the MFG said it's best). Per the knowledge dumps of fact backed info on here, I'm slowly transitioning to more shootable platforms in all aspects and trying to learn more about the most effective delivery from each. In this situation I'm considering swapping the 10mm for a 9mm sidearm, with Grizzlies being reintroduced to the Cascades I'd really like to be outfitted as well as possible.

@Formidilosus in your last feature on the Backcountry Hunt Podcast you discussed sidearm ammo, you explained the differences in construction and how they work, but (IIRC) didn't have a specific suggestion. I understand you have to watch what you say on certain platforms, but from a bullet construction/terminal performance standpoint, do you have a recommendation for 9mm bear defense ammo?

Two different camps:

1). Penetration above all else. This will mean hard cast flat nose (with sort of the new Hornady DGH).

2). Sufficient penetration (14-18”) to reach the CNS, with a slightly wider wound.


Both are viable, and I am comfortable with both. The main drawback to the readily available hard cast 9mm such at the BB 147gr, is that they are all +P loaded- a lot more recoil, muzzle flip, and snap. That gets 30-40 inches of penetration, but at a shootability cost. Conversely, the good FBI barrier blind duty ammo recoils noticeably less, penetrates straight line, but is in that 15-20 inch penetration range.

For me personally, I don’t change anything when around bears from normal carry. Everything I use is good barrier blind loads- generally 147gr Speer Goldot and G2 for 9mm, and the same for 45 auto in 230gr as well as Federal Hydra-Shok Deep 230gr.

Hornady Backcountry Defense ammo with DGH (Dangerous Game Handgun - 138gr 9mm) - in the podcast they mention it's a cannelured jacket with an interlock ring, and the front of the jacket is cupped back into the lead core. They say they intentionally designed it to NOT expand frontal diameter or fragment, and seem to be solely focused on penetration ("being measuind in feet, not inches"), which I feel negates a bit of the potential performance. They mention that they basically jacketed a hard cast for lead dust and fouling reasons. Do you guys think this design concept actually offers an advantage for terminal performance, or is it just a marketing niche?

It does what they say. Not quite as deep penetrating as say BB’s 147gr Hard cast, but it does fine.

 

[Thegman]

Do you guys think this design concept actually offers an advantage for terminal performance, or is it just a marketing niche?

I'm sure it works fine, but probably more of the latter.

FWIW, the cheap Federal FMJ 147 FP penetrates as well or better than any of the 147 hardcast bullets I've loaded. I just use those now. Can use most of the hardcast bullets I have for practice over time.

 

[Formidilosus]

I'm sure it works fine, but probably more of the latter.

FWIW, the cheap Federal FMJ 147 FP penetrates as well or better than any of the 147 hardcast bullets I've loaded. I just use those now. Can use most of the hardcast bullets I have for practice over time.View attachment 794824

Is the base exposed?

 

[Thegman]

Is the base exposed?

Good question. I don't recall for sure, but I don't think it's exposed. I might have kept a few. I'll check.

The base -is- exposed. These are some examples. All of these were shot into stacked 2x6s. Not sure how they'd differ penetration wise in an animal, but from my past experience, probably wouldn't be too different.

 

[Formidilosus]

Good question. I don't recall for sure, but I don't think it's exposed. I might have kept a few. I'll check.

The issue with almost all FMJ’s that I have seen is that they either skip off of hard objects too often (skull), and/or the lead gets squirted out the back when something hard is hit. Soft tissue penetration is often very deep, but straight line penetration against barriers is usually poor.

 

[Thegman]

The issue with almost all FMJ’s that I have seen is that they either skip off of hard objects too often (skull), and/or the lead gets squirted out the back when something hard is hit. Soft tissue penetration is often very deep, but straight line penetration against barriers is usually poor.

Those are probably good points. They're pretty hard, so I can imagine they might deflect more easily if hitting something hard at an angle, relative to a hardcast, which I imagine might conform to the shape better and continue through. Probably won't ever need them, but if I do, hopefully they'll do fine on my center-of-mass panic shooting.

 

[Formidilosus]

Those are probably good points. They're pretty hard, so I can imagine they might deflect more easily if hitting something hard at an angle, relative to a hardcast, which I imagine might conform to the shape better and continue through. Probably won't ever need them, but if I do, hopefully they'll do fine on my center-of-mass panic shooting.

I wasn’t saying they won’t work- they will.

 

[Thegman]

Speaking of bullets skipping off a hard object...

A couple of guys in another party had to shoot and kill a charging brown bear when I was on Kodiak. He was telling me about it that evening.

He said his first shot was with his scope cover still on. Said he hit it in the head and the bear "stopped like it hit a brick wall". Then three more shots from him and his buddy.

He said the first shot seemed to have glanced off its skull. He was shooting a 30-06. I asked what bullet and he didn't know. Said, "I don't know, Hornady 180 something". I guess either SSTs or Interlocks.

Anyway, I guess bullets skipping off a bear's skull can be a real thing...but apparently they don't like it much.

 

[Formidilosus]

Anyway, I guess bullets skipping off a bear's skull can be a real thing...but apparently they don't like it much.

It’s very common, and from my relatively limited experience, things tend to stop when they get smacked in the head.

Skulls are designed to glance blows off of it. A sharp leading edge on the bullet profile helps greatly (true full wad cutter), and a rounded ogive hurts.

Bowling pin shoots used to be a big thing, and bullets were specifically designed and engineered to “bite” into them on edge hits instead of glancing off.

The one on the left works well and feeds from semi-autos: