Not another caliber debate but a question I have been pondering

[wtfd661]

Ok, so I have been pondering this today and am curious as to what others think about it. We have all been exposed to various opinions about caliber and the effectiveness of them in self defense situations, 9mm vs .45 vs .40 vs 10mm vs .380 etc., etc., etc.. I have been convinced that there is no real major difference between any of the major self defense calibers based on a lot of the articles/opinions I have seen over the past several years.

So that said, if you were handgun hunting wild boar, or if you were hiking in bear country and unable to carry a long gun would you prefer a 9mm, a .40, a .45, 10mm, .357 mag., .41 mag., 44 mag or some other caliber. I would assume that there are others like me that would much prefer a .44 mag or 10 mm in those situations. Now if that is the case wouldn't that imply that there is a difference in the effectiveness of different calibers.

For the record I carry both 9mm and .45 as my EDC, depending on where I am going and how effective I want to CC and feel comfortable with being able to defend myself.

 

[shawnba67]

The bullet selection would be as important as the caliber. In order of importance ability bullet, caliber.
And I agree there is a huge difference in calibers potential, just not enough to trump shooters ability.
People stop pretty easily in the real world, bears and dogs not so easily.

 

[Que]

This is a very interesting way to look at it. I think the fact that an animal such as a wild boar cannot climb a tree or shoot back plays a role in it. A man has the capability to shoot or find a way to cause harm even after evading him. That said, I want the best and the most rounds I can comfortably carry for a man. Unless I do something really stupid, I'm not sure that is the case with wild boar.

 

[wtfd661]

The bullet selection would be as important as the caliber. In order of importance ability bullet, caliber.
And I agree there is a huge difference in calibers potential, just not enough to trump shooters ability.
People stop pretty easily in the real world, bears and dogs not so easily.

I also was thinking bullet selection plays in it. I am not a hunter (except for finding the best deals at the grocery store ) but from what I have read, when in the woods a hard cast bullet, FMJ or SWC would be the preferred for the penetration depth.

This is a very interesting way to look at it. I think the fact that an animal such as a wild boar cannot climb a tree or shoot back plays a role in it. A man has the capability to shoot or find a way to cause harm even after evading him. That said, I want the best and the most rounds I can comfortably carry for a man. Unless I do something really stupid, I'm not sure that is the case with wild boar.

Most rounds also is another factor for me but I kind of thought that a 10 mm would fill that role nicely. I have only shot a 10 mm once (out of a Glock 29, my BIL's son referred to it as a poly pocket pistol ). While I definitely felt the recoil, it wasn't unpleasant to shoot but I don't think I am going to rush out and buy one.

 

[NKBJ]

.41Mag Ruger Blackhawk, no question. If I'm out running around I want a package that suits me with regards to tote weight as well as what I'll term thump and shootability.
Besides, I always wanted a .40-82 Model 1886 and the Ruger is a reasonable sub seeing as it fits my holster.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Go the other way. If you were hunting rabbits, would you be ok with a .22 short? Sure. Its a rabbit, a hard stare will kill it. Could you hunt rabbit with a 7mm magnum? Sure, it'd kill the bunny. What conclusions can we draw from that for self defense? None. People aren't bunnies (well, perhaps with some notable exceptions.)

In the same way, people aren't boars or bears. At a certain point, more penetration is useless because there's no more person to penetrate. At a certain point, the ability to break a thicker bone is useless because there are no thicker bones. Etc. Etc. The extra "oomph" of the .44 magnum may be largely wasted against a human target, and you'll end up with slower followup shots, which could be its own issue if the first shot misses, fails to stop, you have multiple attackers, etc.

 

[Bunnykid68]

Go the other way. If you were hunting rabbits, would you be ok with a .22 short? Sure. Its a rabbit, a hard stare will kill it. Could you hunt rabbit with a 7mm magnum? Sure, it'd kill the bunny. What conclusions can we draw from that for self defense? None. People aren't bunnies (well, perhaps with some notable exceptions.)

 

[45fan]

I can see your point, and to and extent, no, there isnt a big difference between the normal SD options on the street today. My preferred carry is my 1911, stuffed with 185 grain +P Hydarashoks. In my opinion, and speculation, this round would likely cause a large amount of trauma in a rapid fashion to the human body, if properly placed.

That being said, more times than not I will be found with a Smith J frame stuffed with 38 special +Ps, or my little Kahr 9mm, 124 grain Remington +Ps. Do I believe that either of the latter rounds will cause the damage of my 45? Not likely. Do I trust that either of them will do their job, as long as I do my part, most likely.

I dont believe that to be an effective SD round there needs to be holes that you could toss a baseball through, but it cant hurt in stopping a threat faster. If I am in a situation that I feel warrants elevated situational awareness, and higher probability that I may end up in an armed altercation, then I will carry the most effective option I have at my disposal. As a general rule, I try to avoid those situations, and for most situations, I feel the smaller options have a trade off, and for the situations that I opt for the lighter choice, its one I can live with.

If I feel as though I couldnt go into a situation without a long gun, and large quantities of ammunition, I generally just avoid that situation.

 

[bstewrat3]

I would be carrying a revolver chambered for anything 357 Mag and up with a hard cast bullet with a wide flat nose.

 

[DaKruiser]

I would want a Glock 20, 15 rounds of 10mm that's easy to carry and fast to reload. Perfect!

10mm, 200gr-1300fps
357mag, 200gr-1200fps

 

[wtfd661]

In the same way, people aren't boars or bears. At a certain point, more penetration is useless because there's no more person to penetrate. At a certain point, the ability to break a thicker bone is useless because there are no thicker bones. Etc. Etc. The extra "oomph" of the .44 magnum may be largely wasted against a human target, and you'll end up with slower followup shots, which could be its own issue if the first shot misses, fails to stop, you have multiple attackers, etc.

Yep, I was going to bring up the difference between self defense shooting against a human being and hunting (or last ditch gun) a medium or large animal (tougher bone/muscle structure of the animal vs the softer human) but I also thought that kind of makes a point on caliber selection. If you feel comfortable using a larger/more powerful caliber as a animal stopper then wouldn't that also make you want a quicker (not sure if quicker is the right word) or more "sure" (I am assuming more powerful, again maybe not the right word) caliber also. I agree the follow up ability of the more standard SD calibers are certainly a factor in caliber selection plus what Que brought up about capacity.

Something else I was wondering about, since I am not a hunter so I have no first hand experience in this, but say with handgun hunting a large animal does the preferred calibers have a more traumatic effect on the animal. I mean when they are shot with one of the more common hunting handgun rounds is it typical to drop the animal with one shot or do they typically require more than one shot. I know that shot placement is the most important factor but is the traumatic effect just as important. I have always assumed that not only the animals structure but the animals flight or fight instinct (or just plain toughness) might compensate against some of the more common smaller SD calibers.

 

[Hoosier45]

I think the two different scenarios (hunting hog vs hiking in bear country) would require two different guns.

If I was handgun hunting, I would want a long barrel revolver with a scope in a large caliber. In hunting, I want to be accurate and would most likely encounter the animal in a place of my choosing.

If I was hiking, I would want something that could be brought into action quicker, as the encounter would be spontaneous. Maybe a Glock 20 if I was hiking in black bear country, or a Ruger Alaskan with a shorter barrel if I was hiking in Grizzly-ville.

And most large animals don't just drop with a single shot, unless you get a perfect shot off. Which doesn't seem to happen when I am the one hunting.

 

[wtfd661]

I think the two different scenarios (hunting hog vs hiking in bear country) would require two different guns.

If I was handgun hunting, I would want a long barrel revolver with a scope in a large caliber. In hunting, I want to be accurate and would most likely encounter the animal in a place of my choosing.

If I was hiking, I would want something that could be brought into action quicker, as the encounter would be spontaneous. Maybe a Glock 20 if I was hiking in black bear country, or a Ruger Alaskan with a shorter barrel if I was hiking in Grizzly-ville.

And most large animals don't just drop with a single shot, unless you get a perfect shot off. Which doesn't seem to happen when I am the one hunting.

Thanks for the info, I have some friends that are hunters but they all hunt with long guns (which I know are a different "animal" than handguns ) and the stories I have heard them tell is usually they shot the animal (deer) and had to track it for a while but I guess I never asked how many shots are typical.

 

[kyotekilr]

Whoa whoa whoa.... There's different calibers?

 

[randyb]

When hiking in the Smoky mtn where hogs, bear and people could be a threat, I end up carrying one of my 9mm every time, simply because of the weight. I load up with a stoutly designed 147 grain bullet and hike away. Weight becomes an issue in long distances. If I was just say fishing, or puttering around camp. My .44 would be my choice. Of course I would not feel bad with me .357 or .45 either. Shot placement, ability to multiple rounds on target (and especially hiking) I have friends who carry too.

 

[Leo]

Talk to people who have been around wild boar. Talk to people who have been chased by a wild boar. We had lots of Hog problems down in Starret, TX. The tree lined ravine on the east side of our property was a place they would show up. Texas is pretty dry, and large trees are not all that common, so "just jump in a tree" is not all that helpful of advice. A full magazine in a wonder nine is not going to be any help. Period. Unless you were hanging in that tree will me I do not give two shakes about your opinion or an article by some internet expert. A 240 lb man 6 feet up a tree that is only about 3 inches diameter is not too secure with a wild bore attacking. Probably over 1/2 of the 9mm bullets actually hit the hog, and it didn't seem to phase it at all. It took an alert friend with a 30-06 to stop the aggravated animal and save my tail. The second time I was caught off guard I ran for it. Even with a 35 inch inseam and a bucket full of adrenaline the stinking thing was gaining on me. I jumped in a bed of a parked pickup and the hog hit the fender so hard it looked like you ran into it with a chevy. Again, a 30 Caliber rifle was the tool needed. I would consider .44 magnum the BOTTOM cartridge to be useful in heavy hog country. It is not like hunting deer or coyote where they are trying to get away from you. Wild boar is big, powerful, fast, and it wants to eat you. Magazine article theories will get you hurt.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

If you feel comfortable using a larger/more powerful caliber as a animal stopper then wouldn't that also make you want a quicker (not sure if quicker is the right word) or more "sure" (I am assuming more powerful, again maybe not the right word) caliber also. I agree the follow up ability of the more standard SD calibers are certainly a factor in caliber selection plus what Que brought up about capacity.

Remembering the original question of there is a difference in the effectiveness of different calibers. , let's look at that. Like I said above, after a certain point "more powerful" is just a waste. Let's say you hit a fat guy in the gut with a .380 and it goes completely through and comes out his back (real life example). What would "more powerful" do at that point? The same thing, it would go through and through. I've yet to see anything that indicates handgun rounds create any significant damage with cavitation. The only advantage a .44 magnum would have if the shot followed the exact same wound channel would be a fuzz bigger wound channel. Would that matter? Well, if it came within that fuzz of a major blood vessel or organ, maybe, but that's slim odds. Either way, a gut shot probably isn't going to instantly drop Fatty McGee, and let's say he's coming at you with a knife. Would you rather be able to shoot him again quicker, or would you rather have that first hole fractions of an inch larger? There's no disputing the .44 has more power, but power does not always translate into effectiveness against humans.

Now, I believe there *is* a difference between the common calibers. I also believe its almost impossible to truly know, given the number of variables that cannot be measured reliably. I also believe those differences to be minor compared to bullet selection, shot placement, wound tract, physical size and body composition of the target, state of mind of the target, etc.

Once you have a bullet that will reliably penetrate bone and will penetrate about 12-15" of tissue afterward, you've got an "effective" round in most any situation you could find yourself in for self-defense. For duty ammo, figure in the possibility of intermediate barriers, such as a windshield. Anything more than that, until you reach rifle rounds that can create damage via cavitation, is not going to make the bullet any more effective against people.

Think of it like a governor on a truck. If you're governed at 70mph, it doesn't matter if you add 50hp to your motor, you're still going to be maxed out at 70mph. More power didn't make you more effective, because you already had the power to do what the maximum was. Any of the common SD rounds will let you hit the human governor most of the time. Yes, there will always be that odd situation where the .44 would have made the difference, but from the shootings I've seen, the ability to put additional rounds on the target(s) faster makes a difference in way more situations.

Animals have different "governors" and more or less power may let you max out vs them. Boars are apparently governed at about 150mph, because they are freaking mean and even a crossbow bolt through the chest can just irritate them.

 

[Hohn]

I would want a Glock 20, 15 rounds of 10mm that's easy to carry and fast to reload. Perfect!

10mm, 200gr-1300fps
357mag, 200gr-1200fps

200gr@1300fps is a positively nuclear 10mm load. I'd never expect that with regularity to run in my G20.

Besides, the critter load of choice for 10mm is Underwood or Buffalo Bore 220gr hard cast @ 1200 fps.


And where are you finding 200gr .357 mag loads that hot? Buffalo Bore?

 

[mike45]

five seven nuf sed

 

[PGRChaplain]

Hogs & Bears, .44 Mag, .454, .500. Get the most Bang for big game.