Most reliable and shootable 9mm semi auto pistols

[Thegman]

The only way to stop a living creature on demand is to disrupt the CNS. It does not take a large diameter bullet to do so. How many inches of penetration does it take to reach a bears brain?

If we're talking about bear defense, IMO, this is a strawman argument for something like a PMR.

There are well beyond a hundred documented accounts of handgun use in defense against bears. Following the actual field data (much like the 223 thread) there are some clear trends that come out.

* 9mm and beyond, handguns are extremely effective (like 98+%) at stopping a potential bear attack.

* A CNS hit is absolutely not required to stop a bear attack. Not saying that you're saying this, but I frequently read things like "The only way to stop a bear with a handgun is a CNS hit, so....blah, blah, blah." If a CNS hit is what was required to stop a bear attack, handguns would rarely be effective.

*In the vast majority of successful handgun uses in potential bear attacks, well over 80% and probably closer to 95%, a CNS hit is not made. Sometimes the bear dies from the hits, sometimes it doesn't, but the attack doesn't happen, or is stopped.

*Very obviously, with the level of success handguns have shown to produce, expert level shooting is not what accounts for that success. If that were the case, handguns would seldom be successful. Few, if any of the accounts show signs that the shooter was an "upper echelon" expert with a handgun. There just aren't that many of those shooters out there for the success rate to be as high as it is, and they're certainly not stopping attacks with CNS hits. Exactly the opposite actually.

*The handguns that have the most inconsistent results are the many cases of rimfire handguns used in bear defense. Granted, as stated, 22WMR isn't the same as 22LR and 22LR is probably what has been used in most of those cases, but it's closer to 22LR than the rounds that consistently show very high percentage success rates. There's very little, if any data on how well it works compared to other rounds. Maybe it works great, IDK, but there's not much data at this point to say one way or the other.

 

[HighUintas]

The price of the 22wmr defense ammunition would be a win for shooting it a lot. It seems the 9mm defense ammunition is pretty expensive.

@Formidilosus , what are your thoughts on federal syntech defense 138gr jhp?

 

[Formidilosus]

If we're talking about bear defense, IMO, this is a strawman argument for something like a PMR.

No, not a strawman. One can not guarantee to stop any living creature with anything other than a CNS hit. Very often it doesn’t require a CNS to stop or divert an action, however that is a hope- not a on demand known event. If I want know what will happen, then CNS is required.

That’s the first step in effects.

There are well beyond a hundred documented accounts of handgun use in defense against bears. Following the actual field data (much like the 223 thread) there are some clear trends that come out.

* 9mm and beyond, handguns are extremely effective (like 98+%) at stopping a potential bear attack.

* A CNS hit is absolutely not required to stop a bear attack. Not saying that you're saying this, but I frequently read things like "The only way to stop a bear with a handgun is a CNS hit, so....blah, blah, blah." If a CNS hit is what was required to stop a bear attack, handguns would rarely be effective.

*In the vast majority of successful handgun uses in potential bear attacks, well over 80% and probably closer to 95%, a CNS hit is not made. Sometimes the bear dies from the hits, sometimes it doesn't, but the attack doesn't happen, or is stopped.

Yes, of course. However that is second order effects after acknowledging what is actually required terminally.

 

[StuckoYota99]

P365 xl comp. You can get them with manual safeties and optic cut. And it's popular enough there's accessories and holsters for it

 

[Formidilosus]

The price of the 22wmr defense ammunition would be a win for shooting it a lot. It seems the 9mm defense ammunition is pretty expensive.

Yes. Keep in mind my original comment was more tongue in cheek than suggesting you to use a 22WMR.

@Formidilosus , what are your thoughts on federal syntech defense 138gr jhp?

The issue is barrier performance- and skulls are a type of barrier. I would lean much more heavily to good, barrier blind heavy duty ammunition- 147gr HST, Gold Dot, G2, etc. of course the heavy hard cast options are the standard for most people.

 

[mustelid_master]

Where does the 5.7 fall in the recoil lineup compared to 22WMR and 9mm? Any reason to suppress a bear defense pistol if one could carrier a shorty K can effectively?

 

[solarshooter]

Haven't seen any votes for the CZ P10, but that's my preferred poison. I like the simplicity of striker fired pistols - some hammer fired guns with safeties, slide releases, disassembly levers, and mag releases feel like operating a mechanical computer to me. A striker fired gun is more like a brick that kills things, which I like. I have owned 2 Glocks and appreciate their reliability/ubiquity/aftermarket support, but I have never gotten along with the grip angle, shape, or trigger vagueness. The CZ P10 series basically solves those issues for me. When I first handled one and test shot it I was instantly sold and felt more proficient with it than my Glock within about 100rds. It has been extremely reliable for me, in fact I cannot recall a single jam or failure of any kind in 2k+ rds of at least 4 types of ammo cheap to expensive.

A metal framed CZ like an SP01 or Shadow is on my bucket list, but for some reason I keep spending all my gun money on Tikkas...

 

[HighUintas]

Yes. Keep in mind my original comment was more tongue in cheek than suggesting you to use a 22WMR.






The issue is barrier performance- and skulls are a type of barrier. I would lean much more heavily to good, barrier blind heavy duty ammunition- 147gr HST, Gold Dot, G2, etc. of course the heavy hard cast options are the standard for most people.

Yes with so little/no accounts of bear encounters and 22wmr use, I don't think I'd consider it at this point in time.

Those syntechs description said 12-18" penetration, so because they're defense rounds I wondered if they would be adequate. However I saw no mention of barrier, so perhaps they wouldn't do so well on a skull

 

[Formidilosus]

Those syntechs description said 12-18" penetration, so because they're defense rounds I wondered if they would be adequate. However I saw no mention of barrier, so perhaps they wouldn't do so well on a skull

The Syntech defense is specific about 12-18” of penetration through bare gel and heavy clothing. When you see that, it is almost a guarantee they aren’t making it through barriers well. With the low velocity of pistols, I am much more concerned with consistent straight line penetration of 14” inches or more, than potential secondary wounding. Mainly because all of the pistol bullets that fragment, etc have proven to be unreliable and have insurgent penetration to reach vitals at times.

 

[RockAndSage]

Soft focus or full on target focus works just fine for the vast majority of shots. Quite a few top action competitors use and teach only target focus with irons.

Target-only focus with irons is a very good way to get very dead very fast, at distances beyond 10 feet.

It is also a perfect way for the insufficiently trained to start "straight blasting while staring at the target - missing entire IPSC targets at 5+ yards". Before RDSs, that's exactly what everyone instructing people in handguns saw, all the time, every class, until front-sight focus was ingrained.

No matter what "top action competitors" use and teach - who, by definition, are elite shooters teaching refined skills to more advanced and dedicated shooters - it does not by default transfer to street and field realities. It's not an automatic qualifier - it's a point to note and evaluate against field realities, that is all.

Because they are also not dealing with someone trying to kill them. Shooting timed and "under pressure" with other people on the range is not the same thing as a tremendous adrenaline dump, or being gassed out while trying not to get killed.

The same amount of training to get reasonably accurate with a 'soft focus' on the front sight will get a new shooter damned competent with an RDS.

I might be a range-bro,

My comment about range-bros and tactical timmys was not directed at you.

or straight blasting while staring at the target- missing entire IPSC targets at 5+ yards

Tilt muzzle down slightly, tilt muzzle up, dot will appear. Add this to practicing over a weekend with 500 draw-and-presents dry-firing at home, problem solved in learning how to find the dot.

Because I see a lot of people with dots- almost all that aren’t competitors, that nearly every time it is anything but stand still and shoot a target with no stress- cannot/do not pick up the dot, and either end up hunting for it, or straight blasting while staring at the target-

It's even worse with irons, but instead of "hunting for the dot", they're shooting faster to make up for the misses caused by not focusing on the front sight.

And you believe the vast majority of people using and carrying red dot equipped pistols- check the battery, check the brightness, clean the lens and emitter every single day when they out the pistol on; check screw tightness, check zero, and and practice very unconventional positions with dots?

People don't even press-check their guns before putting them on, and keep chambering the same top-round over and over with their carry ammo. Most don't even put a box of their carry ammo downrange before relying on it, let alone 500 rounds of it in proofing it to the gun. I can come up with a dozen more valid or red-herring things people don't do when relying on a gun that are basic competencies for a professional. It doesn't mean their lower-level knowledge and competencies won't be sufficient to win a gunfight against a thug or a bear. The question is what will get them there the fastest.

You made some valid points about RDSs, and they should be considered.

My point is that on the balance, they don't even come close to negating the overall benefits of red dots in hitting faster and more consistently in the broadest range of situations.


EDIT: Having tall irons on a gun equipped with an RDS solves a lot of these issues.

 

[Thegman]

No, not a strawman. One can not guarantee to stop any living creature with anything other than a CNS hit. Very often it doesn’t require a CNS to stop or divert an action, however that is a hope- not a on demand known event. If I want know what will happen, then CNS is required.

That’s the first step in effects.





Yes, of course. However that is second order effects after acknowledging what is actually required terminally.

It's a strawman to imply that a CNS hit is what is required to stop a potential bear attack, ~95%/5% Non-CNS/CNS success is more than very often, it's closer to almost always. Yes CNS hits are great, but the data clearly shows they seldom ever happen in actual cases and absolutely do not account for the high percentage of success. Counting on a CNS hit for success, or implying one is needed, is literally taking 1:20 odds against what the actual field data clearly shows typically happens and is 98% successful.

To add: I have no idea how well or not a 22WMR pistol will work for bear defense, there is not enough data to know one way or the other, it might work very well. The data does indicate that counting on it, or any other handgun, to make CNS hits for it's success puts one at a severe disadvantage compared to other options that the data has shown to been extremely effective without CNS hits, and actually happen 95% of the time in actual incidents.

I think the whole "focus on CNS hits because that's the only 100% guarantee of stopping the animal" goes completely against what has shown to work over and over again. One has to reduce that percentage by the very small chance of a CNS hit actually happening in actual incidents. Non-CNS hits, while less effective, hit-for-hit, at immediate stopping, have a much higher chance of actually happening in actual events. Probably the same reason COM hits seem to be the preferred initial target against human threats?

 

[Formidilosus]

It's a strawman to imply that a CNS hit is what is required to stop a potential bear attack, ~95%/5% Non-CNS/CNS success is more than very often, it's closer to almost always. Yes CNS hits are great, but the data clearly shows they seldom ever happen in actual cases and absolutely do not account for the high percentage of success. Counting on a CNS hit for success, or implying one is needed, is literally taking 1:20 odds against what the actual field data clearly shows typically happens and is 98% successful.

We are talking past each other.

 

[Schmo]

You made some valid points about RDSs, and they should be considered.

My point is that on the balance, they don't even come close to negating the overall benefits of red dots in hitting faster and more consistently in the broadest range of situations.

I’d be curious what real life experience you have with this. Lee Weems, Bryan Eastridge, and Darryl Bolke (all those were officers for 20+ years, saw lots of action), as well as Erick Gelhaus, and others will echo what Form has said about RDS. These guys have been in gunfights, and train others to shoot. I’ll take their word they know what they’re talking about, since they have light years more experience than me

 

[Schmo]

People don't even press-check their guns before putting them on

Yes, some of us do.

 

[Schmo]

It's a strawman to imply that a CNS hit is what is required to stop a potential bear attack, ~95%/5% Non-CNS/CNS success is more than very often, it's closer to almost always. Yes CNS hits are great, but the data clearly shows they seldom ever happen in actual cases and absolutely do not account for the high percentage of success. Counting on a CNS hit for success, or implying one is needed, is literally taking 1:20 odds against what the actual field data clearly shows typically happens and is 98% successful.

An attack MAY be averted by any shot placement, but the only way can KNOW that the attack will be averted, is by a CNS hit. How can you argue otherwise?

 

[RockAndSage]

I’d be curious what real life experience you have with this. Lee Weems, Bryan Eastridge, and Darryl Bolke (all those were officers for 20+ years, saw lots of action), as well as Erick Gelhaus, and others will echo what Form has said about RDS. These guys have been in gunfights, and train others to shoot. I’ll take their word they know what they’re talking about, since they have light years more experience than me

And people who did all this before RDSs echo exactly what I've said about iron sights.

Form is bringing up some valid points that do need to be considered - and they also need to be considered in context of countervailing points on the benefits of RDSs over irons.

And I'll personally echo something Form sticks to religiously about his own background, and the information he shares: If you can't evaluate information without appealing to the authority of the "background" of someone who offers it, you're not properly evaluating that information. He doesn't share his background because he doesn't want someone invalidating or validating him and his info based on a label he once had. And he's right to keep his mouth shut about it. Because people treat invalid $h*t as God's truth because a "seal" or "sniper" said it. And they invalidate very valid info because that person belongs to a tribe someone else gets b*tchy about. So the info offered stands or doesn't stand, based off of you going out and trying it for yourself. I am just some guy on the internet, right?

Right.

 

[Schmo]

And I'll personally echo something Form sticks to religiously about his own background, and the information he shares: If you can't evaluate information without appealing to the authority of the "background" of someone who offers it, you're not properly evaluating that information. He doesn't share his background because he doesn't want someone invalidating or validating him and his info based on a label he once had. And he's right to keep his mouth shut about it. Because people treat invalid $h*t as God's truth because a "seal" or "sniper" said it. And they invalidate very valid info because that person belongs to a tribe someone else gets b*tchy about. So the info offered stands or doesn't stand, based off of you going out and trying it for yourself. I am just some guy on the internet, right?

I understand this, and I agree. However, this would not be a standard “appeal to authority”. I’ve personally trained under Bryan, so I have firsthand knowledge of his skill. Lee Weems is certified by Tom Givens (Rangemaster). To reach that certification, a quantifiable standard has to be met. Form has used the analogy of a USPSA GM. That’s a quantifiable standard. Same in my case. I’m not appealing to these simply because they were officers. That, and I’ve run a dot enough myself to know that the limitations that have been stated are in fact, correct.

 

[Thegman]

An attack MAY be averted by any shot placement, but the only way can KNOW that the attack will be averted, is by a CNS hit. How can you argue otherwise?

I'm not arguing against that, not at all.

"CNS hits" is a red herring with respect to the issue. They have almost nothing to do with the high success rate seen in handgun use in bear defense incidents. The data clearly indicates that relying on CNS hits for success would greatly reduce the actual level of success. It's close to pointless to perseverate on "CNS hits", which account for maybe 1 in 20 successes, and not giving much more attention to what is actually working in the other 19 cases.

I think this comes from the mantra I've heard so many times, "CNS hit is the only way to stop a bear with a handgun". That's fantasy. In the case of "bear defense", the issue isn't instantly dropping a bear, it's stopping an attack. The data actually says "CNS hits with a handgun seldom stop a bear attack, other hits do".

I'm just saying it's better to focus and bet on what actually happens 90+% of the time and not the hypothetical "best case scenario CNS hit", which seldom ever actually happens.

 

[king402]

I'm starting to look at pistols to carry while hunting and hiking as I'll be moving to an area with higher bear pop in a year or two. I haven't owned one and have minimal experience shooting a pistol.

I don't know if I'll buy one this year , but thought I should get one and become confident with it before moving.

Goal and use:
- probably won't conceal carry
- no competition plans
- mostly for backpacking, hunting, etc. So, lightweight. Not so small it hinders shootability
- 9mm
- great in reliability in factory (or nearly) form. I want a Tikka pistol. Shoot it dirty for it's life and it still works
- shootability - I've read Glocks are not particularly shootable
- speed - as it's mainly for bear protection, I want to be able to put as many rounds as quickly as I can into poi
- I don't really want to "need" to upgrade. One and done purchase.
- not sure on optic ... If it truly would help with speed and accuracy, then maybe. But it's another failure point to deal with
- prefer to have manual safety

That said, I've been looking into Glocks, Sig, and staccato.

- g19, g45, g48 - maybe g43 or 43x but they seem too small
- p320 m18, p320 x compact, p320 x carry, p365xl
- staccato c or cs

First question... Would I actually see any of the benefit of the staccato unless I became an extremely good shooter?

Because the g45 and g48 seem to be variants of the g19, are they just as reliable?

Does a slimmer grip generally hurt or hinder shootability (g48 vs g45)? I realize it's probably just a personal thing

Is there much difference in reliability between the Glocks and the p320/p365? Much difference in reliability between the different p320 models?

Having not carried a pistol before... For backpack hunters where weight/space is a concern, would a subcompact be better or are the sizes of those above small enough to not be an issue? (Again, probably personal preference)

Also, yes there is a range with rentals nearby and I'll do that before purchasing

I love my Sig P365. I carry it on the belt of my backpack every time I go hunting. Great little 9.

 

[Schmo]

I'm not arguing against that, not at all.

"CNS hits" is a red herring with respect to the issue. They have almost nothing to do with the high success rate seen in handgun use in bear defense incidents. The data clearly indicates that relying on CNS hits for success would greatly reduce the actual level of success. It's close to pointless to perseverate on "CNS hits", which account for maybe 1 in 20 successes, and not giving much more attention to what is actually working in the other 19 cases.

I think this comes from the mantra I've heard so many times, "CNS hit is the only way to stop a bear with a handgun". That's fantasy. In the case of "bear defense", the issue isn't instantly dropping a bear, it's stopping an attack. The data actually says "CNS hits with a handgun seldom stop a bear attack, other hits do".

I'm just saying it's better to focus and bet on what actually happens 90+% of the time and not the hypothetical "best case scenario CNS hit", which seldom ever actually happens.

Okay, so what is the minimum cartridge that would make a bear change its mind?