.45 ACP or 10mm (Woods Carry)

[cybersnow46]

I currently am trying to decide whether to carry my Sig P227 (double stack .45 ACP) or my Dan Wesson (single stack 10mm) while fishing the rivers here in Idaho. I carry Buffalo Bore rounds in both guns. I seem to be able to fire more rounds accurately in a 5 second timed shoot out of the .45. There are a lot of folks on different forums saying that the weapon to carry is the 10 mm. Since I wade fish carrying a rifle is too awkward. Looking for experienced opinions!

Read More

 

[Koda]

Take the gun you shoot the best, the most important part is your using the right ammo.
Im a huge 10mm fan for woods carry but reality its not that much more powerful than a 45acp, capacity wins.
Paul Harrel put out a couple of videos comparing the 45 and 10 on his famouse meat target and the difference was minimal, worth looking up that video on YouTube.

 

[lucusloc]

The correct answer is the one you shoot the best. Especially in the lower 48 .45 with solids is plenty adequate for anything you might run into. The ability to put more rounds on target more accurately is going to be the most important factor.

For wild animal defense I would not be worried about double-stack or single. The situation will be over well before you run dry either way; either the animal will go down or you will. This is why picking what you shoot best is the correct answer (within reason); the more effective rounds you can put on target the more chances you have in a worst case scenario.

What is the likelihood of that worst case scenario? Probably pretty small. I have seen more bears run off with a few shots of 9mm or .22lr into the ground than I have bears stopped mid charge with any pistol. Wildlife is not typically looking for a fight, and simply demonstrating you are more formidable than you first seem is often more than enough to carry the day. The most important part is to have something that gives that impression to the animal. Hell, in my much younger years I ran off a big cat with nothing more than an open jacket and a large knife. Animals want an easy meal, not a fair fight. Even if they are protecting cubs the prospect of a fair fight will give them pause.

But of course we all know the real answer is the 10mm. Nothing survives a 10mm, and that is what I carry in the woods. Anything else is wrong.

 

[cybersnow46]

I shoot my double stack on a regular basis and feel very comfortable with it, but you are right. Every instance where I have needed to draw and fire has been over in less than 5 seconds. It is the reason I train in speed shooting. Years ago I did pretty well shooting unmodified pistol in action oriented competition. Again, along with other factors, accuracy and time was critical.
In addition, I wonder if the .05 difference in caliber makes a difference. It may be worth a call to one of the manufacturers of ammunition for things like grizzly defense.

 

[titsonritz]

Take the gun you shoot the best, the most important part is your using the right ammo.
Im a huge 10mm fan for woods carry but reality its not that much more powerful than a 45acp, capacity wins.
Paul Harrel put out a couple of videos comparing the 45 and 10 on his famouse meat target and the difference was minimal, worth looking up that video on YouTube.

The 10mm has substantially more penetration potential and no disrespect to Paul but shooting groceries of any type has no basis in reality.

 

[Koda]

The 10mm has substantially more penetration potential and no disrespect to Paul but shooting groceries of any type has no basis in reality.

Same thing can be said for ballistic gel, water jugs, ballistic dummies, cement blocks, plywood, sheet rock and everything else people have used to compare penetration.
At the end of the day the 10mm showed a marginal improvement in penetration in most youtube videos ive watched. How significant it was over the 45, wasnt a whole lot from what I saw but like Paul always said " you be the judge".

 

[Koda]

I shoot my double stack on a regular basis and feel very comfortable with it, but you are right. Every instance where I have needed to draw and fire has been over in less than 5 seconds. It is the reason I train in speed shooting. Years ago I did pretty well shooting unmodified pistol in action oriented competition. Again, along with other factors, accuracy and time was critical.
In addition, I wonder if the .05 difference in caliber makes a difference. It may be worth a call to one of the manufacturers of ammunition for things like grizzly defense.

IMO
I dont think the .05 diameter makes a difference, its the velocity the 10mm has over the 45 that gives it a slight edge, if all other things are equal. A 45 hardcast or other penetration bullet is no slouch... it is going to be devastating but you'd have to run a test yourself with the exact rounds you want for each gun to which penetrates more, or does more damage.
Typically when results are close, the gun you shoot the best is the more practical choice.
Though as a 1911 fan i know one can get real fast and good with a nice Dan Wesson 10mm in which case the 10mm might give the advantage with its slight improvement in penetration even if it has less rounds. Shot placement is above all and if you got that down under stress go with the slight penetration advantage.

 

[titsonritz]

Same thing can be said for ballistic gel, water jugs, ballistic dummies, cement blocks, plywood, sheet rock and everything else people have used to compare penetration.
At the end of the day the 10mm showed a marginal improvement in penetration in most youtube videos ive watched. How significant it was over the 45, wasnt a whole lot from what I saw but like Paul always said " you be the judge".

That's all bush!t, even most doobtube gel tests, there is a reason the FBI adopted Facklers developed 10% Type 250A ordnance gelatin as a realistic soft tissue simulant.

The endless plethora of YouTube ballistic test videos are not the place to learn about reality in ballistics.

Oh look…how timely. Thanks @Cerberus Group

View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=GRmJXGzU-Ok

 

[Koda]

That's all bush!t, even most doobtube gel tests, there is a reason the FBI adopted Facklers developed 10% Type 250A ordnance gelatin as a realistic soft tissue simulant.

The endless plethora of YouTube ballistic test videos are not the place to learn about reality in ballistics.

Oh look…how timely. Thanks @Cerberus Group

View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=GRmJXGzU-Ok

I cant watch videos at the moment...
How much more penetration did the 10mm get over 45 in the 10% gel?

 

[titsonritz]

I cant watch videos at the moment...
How much more penetration did the 10mm get over 45 in the 10% gel?

The video is not about 10mm vs 45, it's about BS claims in YouTube ballistic videos, marketing hype, etc.

 

[Koda]

The video is not about 10mm vs 45, it's about BS claims in YouTube ballistic videos, marketing hype, etc.

So if a bullet passes thru 5 water jugs and a different bullet passes thru 10 water jugs the test doesnt prove anything?

 

[titsonritz]

So if a bullet passes thru 5 water jugs and a different bullet passes thru 10 water jugs the test doesnt prove anything?

Only that one goes through five more jugs of water than the other, which pretty much has zero to with how bullets react in live tissue. The real problem lies in the sensational claims and/or straight up wrong conclusions based on their BS tests and alleged results.

 

[Koda]

Only that one goes through five more jugs of water than the other, which pretty much has zero to with how bullets react in live tissue. The real problem lies in the sensational claims and/or straight up wrong conclusions based on their BS tests and alleged results.

Assuming its consistent and repeatable it still doesnt mean anything?

The problem is we dont have live bears to run tests on, so what metric was used to suggest 10mm is "substantially " more penetration for bear defense?

 

[cybersnow46]

Just got off the phone with one of the small companies here in Idaho that make solid core/penetration ammo. The owner alleges he carries a .45acp over a 10mm. He used to carry a Glock 10mm and also pointed out that the Dan Wesson has a match barrel and that I should not be shooting his more powerful penetration ammo out of it as the tolerances are too tight. He laughed that there was any confusion over which was better and said that in his opinion they will both do a more than adequate job. However he also finds it easier to accurately place more rounds in a short period.

 

[Duneblaster]

o

 

[lucusloc]

At the end of the day all ballistic testing is comparative, even proper 10% ordinance gel. Nothing is identical to a body and so everything needs calibration and fudge factor. Getting as close as you can with your testing media just means there is less guesswork, but it will still be there no matter what. When the chips are down there will be way more factors than any testing can ever cover; bone, tissue density variations, angle of impact etc. etc. etc.

Anyone saying one testing media is better than another is missing the entire point of comparative testing. Shooting a bullet into gel/water/wood/whatever is not going to tell you a whole lot. Shooting thousands of different types of bullets into that same media, and comparing those results with real world wound data for a selection of those bullets, will give you data to work with, and that will be true no matter how close the testing analog is to flesh. Again, getting a closer analog just makes your data processing easier.

What matters here is not how good your testing media is, but how many tests have been run, and how many of those test have comparative real world examples to calibrate against. We have huge data sets for tons of different testing media, and a large amount of that is thanks to YT testers. Sure, a lot of them make unfounded conclusions based on their one test, but (again!) that is why you have to look at the testing in aggregate. A single test standing alone tells you nothing, many tests taken together tell you a lot.

As to FMJ .45APC vs 10mm, real world results and testing indicate that .45 is fine for defense against smaller bear. There are tons of examples of black bear being taken with .45 and we have so much gel testing of various flavors the data sets really speak for themselves. There is little doubt it can do the job if you do yours.

10mm is of course better, because it does have decently more penetration. That extra penetration gives you a wider margin in case you hit bone, have a high angle shot or just have to compensate for other real-world complications. But for the lower 48 that extra penetration is not strictly necessary for a solid stop if the shot is placed well. .45 will penetrate deep enough, even through most bone, to kill the animal in short order. It's not my first choice for hunting, but as a defensive cartridge it is among the top picks.

For northern territory where you get large bears? Well up there even 10mm is getting pretty marginal and you should probably move up to something in a big magnum revolver if you want the most reliable stops. But that is based purely on the size of the animals and the depth the various cartridges can penetrate to. True pistol cartridges just do not have enough energy to reliably go deep enough for solid stops on large animals. They can be pressed into service as such, and both 10mm and .45ACP have killed grizzlies, but at that point shot placement is king and tour margins for error are slim indeed.

 

[Koda]

but how many tests have been run, and how many of those test have comparative real world examples to calibrate against.

At least Paul used real meat, bones and even hide in his famous meat target.

 

[The Heretic]

I personally prefer my 226 in .40 over my 227 in .45 ACP. I find I shoot the 226 in .40 faster and more accurately. I can get Underwood 200gr HCFN @ 1000fps which is good ammo for bear defense, especially since I can put it on target better and faster. But I wouldn't feel bad about carrying .45 Super in my 227 - I just would not practice as much with it due to the alloy frame - I would prefer a Glock 21 for that setup.

 

[lucusloc]

At least Paul used real meat, bones and even hide in his famous meat target.

Yeah, but even that is not a perfect analogy for living tissue either. For one it is way dryer. It does serve as a very close data point though, and it offers more variation than gel does so in theory with enough testing you can see any inconsistent terminal behavior a bit more easily.

I am gong to harp on it yet again, because it is something that the entire gun community needs to internalize; no matter how good your testing media is no single test is going to tell you much of anything useful. All ballistics testing is only useful when taken in aggregate, and when correlated with real world data. 12-14 inches of penetration in gel is not the standard because of any one test, or because gel is that good of a testing analog, but because in aggregate bullets that went that deep in gel testing also proved to be good performers on the autopsy table. So if we have a new bullet that also hits that target depth (with all the other relevant factors like good wound channel etc.) we can have a high degree of confidence that it would probably look the same on the autopsy table too. And the results on the autopsy table are the only ones that actually matter.

But you could make those same comparisons in wood if you wanted to, you would just have to do enough testing to correlate the results you see in the wood pile to what you see on the autopsy table. That might take a bit more work than something like gel, but it can be done. The more testing you have in different situations the more confident you can be in predicting the results of a wholly unique situation that has not been directly tested before (such as the unique circumstances of you shooting a charging bear, with all the variables of fur, bone flesh, angles and confounding factors thereof).

Or do we need to revisit the unique circumstances of .308 Win rounds deflecting off the front glasis of a grizzly, because I bet that is not something those guys were expecting (even if it is a known phenomena for large enough impact angles)? If you watch enough different types of tests in different materials and situations you will have a more complete picture of the performance and limitations of what you choose to use. The key to remember here is to not get hung up on any one testing media, but to examine as many different situations as feasibly possible, and compare them to other known situations and what we know for sure worked (and didn't work).

 

[osprey]

Out of those two I would pick …………………………………….




A rifle. All pistol cartridges suck in comparison. If forced to choose it would be the 10mm as I don't own a .45 . Are there grizz down in McCall ?