Differences in pistol cartridge efficacy as a backcountry sidearm

[ckt3]

We’ve seen the evidence for small rifle calibers’ efficacy on big game (eg. .223, .243, etc) and @Formidilosus presented a great summary/argument on “The Hunt Backcountry Podcast”.

What’s the current state of understanding here for pistol calibers?

A few considerations. I am most interested in (1):
1) Inherent differences in efficacy (ie. probability to substantially injure or kill, all else equal) between smaller and larger pistol calibers
2) Shooting smaller calibers more accurately due to lower recoil (this seems to be a given for both rifles and pistols, no need for debate)
3) Lower cost and more practice with smaller calibers (somewhat subjective, no need for discussion)

To tie (1) to a real world example: is 9mm practically less effective than 10mm against black and brown bears (in either a defensive or hunting situation)? Perhaps with modern bullets, any meaningful difference has been erased, or perhaps pistols are different enough than rifles in their wounding dynamics that 10mm is superior (and if needed, we could extend this further to find the tipping point: .44 mag, .454 Casull, etc).

I suspect a challenge here is a lack of empirical data like we have for rifles on game animals, though maybe theory and ballistic gel data could be enough.

 

[omicron1792]

Several long threads on here on this issue if you look it up.

TLDR. Many feel like 9mm is enough with right ammo. Easier to shoot and hit target. Some old schoolers disagree and stick with 10mm

 

[Afhunter1]

If I go where bears might be I take a p365x. If I go where bears probably are it’s a 1911 10mm. Underwood in both

 

[ckt3]

Several long threads on here on this issue if you look it up.

TLDR. Many feel like 9mm is enough with right ammo. Easier to shoot and hit target. Some old schoolers disagree and stick with 10mm

I’ve read through a couple and felt like it’s mostly opinion based. Was hoping there might be some more robust evidence, but maybe we just don’t have that data.

 

[Q_Sertorius]

It’s all opinion-based.

 

[AntelopeEater]

The best real world data I've seen so far is from Ammoland's often cited to compilation of all known defensive uses of a pistol/handgun for bear defense, they are up to 170 documented real world incidents so far:

Handgun Defenses Against Bear Attacks - 170 Documented Incidents, 98% Effective

There are now 170 documented cases, with 146 of those cases where handguns only are fired in defense against bear attacks. Handguns are effective 98% of the time.

www.ammoland.com

TL/DR version, in 98% of cases handguns were effective. One of the few failures was a .22 against a polar bear.

 

[akhunter3]

This has been beat to death 19 different ways.
-10mm for many
-9mm for some
-44 for the DH types

 

[RWT]

I am moving towards a S&W 5.7. 20+ rounds that are effective to 50yards with minimal drop and recoil. Plastic tipped expanding bullets and center fire for more reliability. All better options than a 22WMR PMR30 IMO. Planning on a few solo
Hunts and see value in this option.

Currently running a 380 bodyguard with underwood in it. It’s better than a poke in the eye with a pencil

 

[ckt3]

This has been beat to death 19 different ways.
-10mm for many
-9mm for some
-44 for the DH types

We don’t need to make it another long thread beating the dead horse of personal opinion. If we don’t have the requisite data, we can leave it at that.

 

[ckt3]

I am moving towards a S&W 5.7. 20+ rounds that are effective to 50yards with minimal drop and recoil. Plastic tipped expanding bullets and center fire for more reliability. All better options than a 22WMR PMR30 IMO. Planning on a few solo
Hunts and see value in this option.

Currently running a 380 bodyguard with underwood in it. It’s better than a poke in the eye with a pencil

5.7 is interesting

 

[Taudisio]

I finished off a bear last year with 2 9mm rounds to the shoulder. The first round made him moan and turn his head, the insurance shot was 2” from the first and he didn’t move again. Both made it to the offside shoulder from 15-20 yards. I would gravitate to a larger bore if I hunted in grizz country. But I can send 5-9mm bullets into a much smaller group, faster than I can with every larger caliber I have shot (up to 500s&w). Only other time I’ve shot a big game animal with a pistol was a wounded buck with 380 auto at 5ish yards to the back of the neck. Bullet did its job but did not exit the bone.

 

[Dave0317]

Form did a S2H podcast on pistol calibers for bear. There was lots of discussion about 22 mag.
Which comes with some caveats due to the way the round feeds, ammo quality, and some guns being better than others.

There is also objective data comparing wounds of 9 vs 10/.40 vs 44, 45, etc.
Bottom line there seems to be that you really can’t tell much difference in wound channel, so if you shoot a 9mm well, and the penetration is sufficient to reach CNS/vitals, then you can only lose hit rate as you move up in recoil/caliber, and gain almost nothing. The data in gel exists. Some studies on criminal encounters exist. But we don’t shoot bears at a high enough rate to really say definitively that one caliber or another is a huge winner. The data we do have, suggests that yes, kind of like rifle debates, people tend to want to choose huge rounds for subjective reasons, but objectively, hit rate and penetration sufficient to reach CNS are still what matters.

G19 and 2011s seem to get a lot of attention here.

 

[ckt3]

Form did a S2H podcast on pistol calibers for bear. There was lots of discussion about 22 mag.
Which comes with some caveats due to the way the round feeds, ammo quality, and some guns being better than others.

There is also objective data comparing wounds of 9 vs 10/.40 vs 44, 45, etc.
Bottom line there seems to be that you really can’t tell much difference in wound channel, so if you shoot a 9mm well, and the penetration is sufficient to reach CNS/vitals, then you can only lose hit rate as you move up in recoil/caliber, and gain almost nothing. The data in gel exists. Some studies on criminal encounters exist. But we don’t shoot bears at a high enough rate to really say definitively that one caliber or another is a huge winner. The data we do have, suggests that yes, kind of like rifle debates, people tend to want to choose huge rounds for subjective reasons, but objectively, hit rate and penetration sufficient to reach CNS are still what matters.

G19 and 2011s seem to get a lot of attention here.

Thanks, definitely listening to this. Seems like exactly what I was looking for.

 

[K9kodi]

We’ve seen the evidence for small rifle calibers’ efficacy on big game (eg. .223, .243, etc) and @Formidilosus presented a great summary/argument on “The Hunt Backcountry Podcast”.

What’s the current state of understanding here for pistol calibers?

A few considerations. I am most interested in (1):
1) Inherent differences in efficacy (ie. probability to substantially injure or kill, all else equal) between smaller and larger pistol calibers
2) Shooting smaller calibers more accurately due to lower recoil (this seems to be a given for both rifles and pistols, no need for debate)
3) Lower cost and more practice with smaller calibers (somewhat subjective, no need for discussion)

To tie (1) to a real world example: is 9mm practically less effective than 10mm against black and brown bears (in either a defensive or hunting situation)? Perhaps with modern bullets, any meaningful difference has been erased, or perhaps pistols are different enough than rifles in their wounding dynamics that 10mm is superior (and if needed, we could extend this further to find the tipping point: .44 mag, .454 Casull, etc).

I suspect a challenge here is a lack of empirical data like we have for rifles on game animals, though maybe theory and ballistic gel data could be enough.

Here’s what matters.
I’ve been a die hard 45acp fan for life. It’s just American.
9mm has stepped up their game with improvement in bullets. For the longest time i always asked, if there is a bullet capable of making the 9mm as good as the 45, in theory, why not run that same bullet in the 45 and it be better. It comes down to a whole lot of math and physics, velocities and something called energy.

I’ll be frank w you though, although my name is not frank fyi. It doesn’t matter what size bullet yiur pistol sends down the barrel, how big your pistol is, how many rounds you have, none of that matters if you don’t hit shit. If you said I could have a 500 sw revolver with 6 rounds only, or a Glock 9mm with a 21 rounder, I’ll take my chances with the 21 rounds.
There is always a trade off, and I assume your asking questions of other people about what works best for you, so you can make an informed decision, however, you need to train often, drawing and hitting a moving target. Until you can do that, or find a pistol platform that Accommodates your physical limitations or abilities to get a slug on target, id worry less about caliber.
There are so many long range hunters and bench shooters that send thousands and thousands of rounds down range each year perfecting their craft, and it is obvious, a person should understand that proficiency comes with reps and if you go somewhere to need a sidearm as protection, you should be putting in the same amount of time. I’d have zero issue carrying a 9mm as a sidearm, I’m proficient with it, on range and off. I’m comfortable.
And before anyone says it’s too small, I’d like to refer back to the 223 for deer black bear and moose thread.