Most reliable and shootable 9mm semi auto pistols

[Thegman]

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

Dean Weingarten and associates have done a ton of work compiling actual handgun bear defense cases. I think they're up to 170 or so cases at this point, Well worth reading them to get a picture of what these incidents typically look like and get an idea of trends.

Handgun or Pistol Against Bear Attacks 104 cases, 97% Effective

In the latest update on how effective pistols and handguns are when used to defend against bears, 104 documented cases show a success rate of 97%.

www.ammoland.com

In summary, everything from 22LR and up have worked to stop attacks, but success is much more sporadic and unpredictable at the 22LR level; not really surprising. When hits are made, from 9mm up, success approaches 100% on black bears and grizzlies. The data from these incidents is the main reason I went "down" to 9mm for a bear defense pistol. Using something at that level or higher, and making hits with it, is what the data indicates is most important. 9mm might lower my round-for-round effectiveness over my 44, but I can make hits with it faster and more accurately, and at that level, that's what the data seems to indicate is most important.

 

[HuntHarder]

This thread... unreal

 

[jonpall]

In summary, everything from 22LR and up have worked to stop attacks, but success is much more sporadic and unpredictable at the 22LR level; not really surprising. When hits are made, from 9mm up, success approaches 100% on black bears and grizzlies. The data from these incidents is the main reason I went "down" to 9mm for a bear defense pistol. Using something at that level or higher, and making hits with it, is what the data indicates is most important. 9mm might lower my round-for-round effectiveness over my 44, but I can make hits with it faster and more accurately, and at that level, that's what the data seems to indicate is most important.

From that article I only see 3 failures out of the 104 cases. The one failure with the 22 was with a polar bear. The other two were with a .38 and a 357.

 

[HighUintas]

22 on a polar bear! I can't imagine the state my of my pants in that scenario

 

[ElPollo]

I suspect the fireball coming out of the muzzle of a PMR 30 would burn the shit out of the roof of the bear’s mouth like a bowl of hot chile, thereby ruining its appetite and making it reconsider its life choices. Every time I eat hot chile and burn the roof of my mouth, I respond similarly.

 

[Thegman]

From that article I only see 3 failures out of the 104 cases. The one failure with the 22 was with a polar bear. The other two were with a .38 and a 357.

Good point. That's why I add "when hits are made". The 357 failure had possibly no hits, the guy wasn't sure. The reactions I read from the 22LR incidents seem to be a lot less predictable in the bear's response, but not necessarily "failures", although a failure on a polar bear wouldn't make me bet it's going to be as reliable with a grizzly either.

Once you get to 9mm and up in the cases, again, when hits are made, the outcome becomes more predictable and definitely highly successful. I guess if you take out the probable misses with the one 357 case, 9mm and up are 100% effective.

 

[B_Reynolds_AK]

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?

@Thegman


I can see his point, as well as Forms.
They are following a different line of reasoning.

However,
BOTH lines of thought bring you to the same conclusion, that a light recoiling and accurate handgun with proper bullets will most likely stop a bear attack. In Forms reasoning, this is a 9 or 22 WMR to get a CNS hit. In Thegman’s, it’s a small caliber as well, not to get CNS, but to avert the attack.

You could follow both lines of thought and still end up with an effective handgun with similar outcomes, despite what you give the most weight in your decision.

 

[RWT]

With the discussion about the PMR 30, and in light of the posts about 1911's, grip ergonomics etc.. I handled one of these today in a local shop. Holy hell.. the grip on those are absolutely the worst thing I have ever put in my hand. Super skinny and about twice as deep as any 1911 I've handled. I felt like a fat girl with an iphone max in her hand. The freaking thing needs a Pop Socket on it to be able to hold on to.

That is the reason I sold mine. Lots of fun to plink with, but not comfortable or consistent with the grip. Felt like I am grabbing a 1x4. Where the grip hits the web of my hand made for an odd trigger reach.

 

[GunsNotGroceries]

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

Glock 19 MOS Gen 5 is perfect first pistol. You can leave it irons or try a red dot. World's most common handgun for a reason.

 

[Thegman]

@Thegman


I can see his point, as well as Forms.
They are following a different line of reasoning.

However,
BOTH lines of thought bring you to the same conclusion, that a light recoiling and accurate handgun with proper bullets will most likely stop a bear attack. In Forms reasoning, this is a 9 or 22 WMR to get a CNS hit. In Thegman’s, it’s a small caliber as well, not to get CNS, but to avert the attack.

You could follow both lines of thought and still end up with an effective handgun with similar outcomes, despite what you give the most weight in your decision.

My main point on CNS hits, is that from reading actual events, they're rarely ever pulled off, and account for very little success %, so probably not a wise decision for most to actually count on if ever needed.

 

[Schmo]

My main point on CNS hits, is that from reading actual events, they're rarely ever pulled off, and account for very little success %, so probably not a wise decision for most to actually count on if ever needed.

And I’d like to pose a question directly to that answer. Why are CNS shots rarely pulled off? I understand that situation would be incredibly intense, so I’m not minimizing that. Is it the fact that most Joe Average hunters aren’t really that good with a pistol, especially under speed and stress, that the wheels just fall off and they’re lucky to hit at all? I believe it is just that. Same goes for protection against other humans.

If this is why, then we shouldn’t fall to the standard of the average. Instead, we should rise, become highly proficient under stress and the clock, and be at our best. Just because the average fails, doesn’t mean we should adopt the average mindset and equipment.

 

[Formidilosus]

My main point on CNS hits, is that from reading actual events, they're rarely ever pulled off, and account for very little success %,

That’s because people do not know, nor have the skill. I am aware of several in the last couple of years that were shot in the head on purpose on the first shot, and the events were nonissues because of it.

There’s a very large difference between “it isn’t done much” and “it can’t be done on demand”.

so probably not a wise decision for most to actually count on if ever needed.

It’s not about “counting on”, it’s about “training to”. Bears are wusses in general when attacked back- shoot them with about anything in the front end and usually they stop trying to bite you. However, to a logical person that is not a roadmap to success. “Hoping” that anything will stop with hits anywhere, or saying “well most of the time they stop when shot” is all well and great- until you get an animal that doesn’t care what the numbers say.

I’m a nobody and I don’t know anything. However my limited experience with things that want to harm me, is that when shot in the face- they stop. Immediately. When shot anywhere in else’s… ehhhh who knows.

 

[Thegman]

And I’d like to pose a question directly to that answer. Why are CNS shots rarely pulled off? I understand that situation would be incredibly intense, so I’m not minimizing that. Is it the fact that most Joe Average hunters aren’t really that good with a pistol, especially under speed and stress, that the wheels just fall off and they’re lucky to hit at all? I believe it is just that. Same goes for protection against other humans.

If this is why, then we shouldn’t fall to the standard of the average. Instead, we should rise, become highly proficient under stress and the clock, and be at our best. Just because the average fails, doesn’t mean we should adopt the average mindset and equipment.

All true, I suspect. Yet at this point, Joe Average is batting 1000 with what he's doing...and I have no illusion that I'd be much closer to Joe Average than I am to Jerry Miculek in said situation with a grizzly.

 

[Schmo]

All true, I suspect. Yet at this point, Joe Average is batting 1000 with what he's doing...and I have no illusion that I'd be much closer to Joe Average than I am to Jerry Miculek in said situation with a grizzly.

What I’m trying to get at: Without focusing on a CNS hit, you’re just hoping that the bear will stop. You can’t be sure. I’d like to be sure.

 

[Thegman]

It’s not about “counting on”, it’s about “training to”.

When shot anywhere in else’s… ehhhh who knows.

I'm not saying you're suggesting this, but my whole point is if one chooses a handgun with the specific intent that it will be effective as long as a head shot can be made (PMR e.g.), then yes, one is counting on a head shot in a situation of which one will likely have limited control, time, etc.

When shot anywhere else, with 9mm+, we actually do have a very good idea of what happens, like I say, the data makes that part pretty clear as well, over and over.

On Kodiak this year, a couple of guys had to shoot a charging brown bear up close (with rifles) in the alders. I heard the story first hand and knew exactly where it happened, as I'd been standing in the same spot by myself a couple of days earlier. I can't speak for others, but for myself, I definitely wouldn't limit myself to gun I thought would require a head shot to be adequate in said situation.

 

[Thegman]

What I’m trying to get at: Without focusing on a CNS hit, you’re just hoping that the bear will stop. You can’t be sure. I’d like to be sure.

Being sure would be great, but I don't think that's possible. What I'm saying is the data suggests getting a head shot in these situations isn't likely, and non-cns hits are also highly effective.

Making up some totally fake math: Let's say you're 10x better than Joe Average who has a 5% chance of a head shot in these actual events (according to the data). 50% x 100% success (assuming no bullet deflection, etc) = 50% chance of success.

Or, you have a 90% chance of COM+CNS hit times 90% effectiveness with a firearm that has shown it works well with COM type hits and is less dependent on a CNS hit (seems reasonable from data). 90% × 90% success = 81% success (which is much lower than what we see in reality).

And really, my only point is that I don't think it's a good idea to go with something I'm mentally banking on CNS shots in order to be successful. There are plenty of options that are still easy to shoot well, but also appear very effective with non-cns shots. That just seems like -too much- of an unnecessary compromise, to me, anyway.

 

[Formidilosus]

Being sure would be great, but I don't think that's possible. What I'm saying is the data suggests getting a head shot in these situations isn't likely, and non-cns hits are also highly effective.

No- that is not what “data suggests”. You are making inferences that do not exist.

Making up some totally fake math: Let's say you're 10x better than Joe Average who has a 5% chance of a head shot in these actual events (according to the data). 50% x 100% success (assuming no bullet deflection, etc) = 50% chance of success.

Where in the data is it stated that every person aimed at the head?

That would be the only way you could even begin to say what you are stating.

And really, my only point is that I don't think it's a good idea to go with something I'm mentally banking on CNS shots in order to be successful. There are plenty of options that are still easy to shoot well, but also appear very effective with non-cns shots. That just seems like -too much- of an unnecessary compromise, to me, anyway.

Where are you getting this whole line of thinking?

How many bears were shot with 22 WMR?

How many were failures?

If the answer is “0” for both questions, than your whole premise here is a non sequitur.


A non expanding 9mm isn’t dramatilly wider than an expanded Federal Punch or Gold Dot from a 22 WMR. There is nothing in “the data” that would suggest a body shot from one is any real different than a body shot with the other. The reason 22LR may tend to not be great is the lack of penetration- sub 10” with lots of ammunition.

 

[Thegman]

No- that is not what “data suggests”. You are making inferences that do not exist.




Where in the data is it stated that every person aimed at the head?

That would be the only way you could even begin to say what you are stating.

Where does it say they weren't? Neither of us know where they were aiming. The point is, according to the case data, head shots it don't happen very often, ergo, they're unlikely. You perhaps are inferring why, IDK. I'm simply saying they don't happen very often. That's not an inference, that's directly from the data.

Where are you getting this whole line of thinking?

How many bears were shot with 22 WMR?

How many were failures?

If the answer is “0” for both questions, than your whole premise here is a non sequitur.


A non expanding 9mm isn’t dramatilly wider than an expanded Federal Punch or Gold Dot from a 22 WMR. There is nothing in “the data” that would suggest a body shot from one is any real different than a body shot with the other. The reason 22LR may tend to not be great is the lack of penetration- sub 10” with lots of ammunition.

As I said earlier, a 22WMR pistol might work great, I don't know. As you say, if there's "0" use data, and I haven't seen any, we can't know. But I didn't say it's the best field pistol for bear county, with no actual use data on bears...??

Seemed like you were implying one could just make head shots with it to make up for other limitations. That just seems like an unforced limitation, but it might work great, IDK.

 

[atmat]

How many bears were shot with 22 WMR?

This is really the crux of the debate.

If we don’t have data on this because people haven’t tested it, then we can’t and shouldn’t say it doesn’t work.

Most people having success against bears with 9mm and above is probably correlation (to the high number of users of 9mm+) than causation.

 

[Thegman]

This is really the crux of the debate.

If we don’t have data on this because people haven’t tested it, then we can’t and shouldn’t say it doesn’t work.

Most people having success against bears with 9mm and above is probably correlation (to the high number of users of 9mm+) than causation.

Good point, and more importantly, can't say it does/will work, without some data there as well.

I had no issues beta testing the 223 on a frontal shot grizzly...but I had lots of personal data, and data from others before testing that idea out. Someone else can beta test this one. That said, especially with better information, a lot of people have come away from "44 mag at a minimum for bear defense", maybe this will be the same (?).