Bear:is the9mm enough

Here we go. Bear killed by a 9mm in 2016. It's a good story and pics.

https://www.americanhunter.org/arti...ishermen-from-raging-grizzly-with-9mm-pistol/

It's more the story of the right bullet.

Here a bear was killed with a 454 Casull.

https://www.fieldandstream.com/phot...ttacks/2009/08/charging-grizzly-killed-alaska

Here are 37 different incidents of defense against bears over the years. they are told by caliber used from 9mm, .357, 40, 10mm, 41 Mag, 44 Mag and 45 acp. 97% success rate.

https://www.ammoland.com/2018/02/de...s-rate-37-incidents-by-caliber/#axzz5PWss3NX5

Make your choices.

Decades back Jeff Cooper was criticized for saying that if you shot a .357 revolver at speed better than a 44 or 45 Colt, then carry the .357 for defense against bear. The point being that accurate hits to vital areas were better than more powerful misses. So go from there.

tipoc
 
Last edited:
In my area, full of small black bears far more likely to run than maul? 9mm might be OK if that's what ya have, I prefer .357 or .45 +P w/255 hardcasts.

Back when I lived in AK and came within spitting distance of a couple 900+ lb Coastal Browns? My 310 gr hardcast "Hammerheads" and my rifle didnt seem like enough, luckily I never had to find out.

But meek, small, lower 48 blacks? Loud noises and spray is probably far more useful, then again if you get between a ma and her Cubs you might be wishing for more than 9mm.
 
Let's set aside the .460, the .500 and the like that are the rough size and weight of a small rifle or shotgun anyways.

No pistol is "enough" for bear. I happen to carry a 10MM with "Xtreme Penetrator" ammunition when in bear country but I am kind of kidding myself.

People have killed bear with a 9MM. People have killed bear unarmed. Would I rather try it with a 9MM? Many many times over.

A handgun against an aggressive bear is just a shot of hope. Get too far into considering it and you will abandon the idea at all and give up that last shot of hope.

Is a 9MM enough to try to hunt down and confront that aggressive bear? Nope. But what handgun with the caveats above is? Its better than nothing and at least gives you a chance which is all anything else does anyways.
 
Is a 9MM enough to try to hunt down and confront that aggressive bear? Nope. But what handgun with the caveats above is? Its better than nothing and at least gives you a chance which is all anything else does anyways.
Click to expand...

I'm positive that you didn't mean to imply that 9mm is "enough to hunt down an aggressive bear". Likely mis-spoke.

To hunt a bear, aggressive or not, is another matter than defense against an aggressive bear. With the former you have time to plan and choose the right long gun or an appropriate handgun and bullet for hunting large game. One shot one kill.

"Hunting down" an aggressive bear implies that the bear has left the area, is no longer an immediate danger but for some reason needs to be followed and killed. I wouldn't do that with a 9mm. That needs to be thought out some.

Defense against a bear attack is another matter than hunting a bear.
 
I may have misspoke.

Do I WANT to use a 9MM against a bear? Nope

Do I WANT to use any handgun against a bear? With the exception of things like the .460, .500, and the ilk NOPE.

Is the 9MM better than no gun? Yep.

If a 9MM is what you have changing to _________ is not going to make enough difference to matter.
 
If that 9mm or other calibers is a semi auto...it poses more risk of a failure to fire, if the muzzle is pressed against the bears hide or mouth; which could possibly cause the slide to back off a little bit.
 
If that 9mm or other calibers is a semi auto...it poses more risk of a failure to fire, if the muzzle is pressed against the bears hide or mouth; which could possibly cause the slide to back off a little bit.
Click to expand...
Then go for the testicles.
Every animal I have ever seen shot in the testicles has died. ...Including one antelope that was ONLY shot in the testicles. (He lost his will to live and just keeled over. Not a joke. It was the only wound on his body, and bullet ONLY damaged the testicles and scrotum.)
 
Every animal I have ever seen shot in the testicles has died.
Click to expand...

Ok, but I'm thinking that if the bear wasn't really mad, before...:eek:

I'm thinking hitting them there would be a tough shot, as normally when bears attack, the end with the teeth is closer to you....:rolleyes:
 
A friend of mine shot at a departing male hog that had been destroying his property. He was using birdshot at a fairly decent range and the shot hit the hog in the aforementioned anatomical region. He indicated that it made a tremendous noise and then pretty much just gave up and laid down even though it was not mortally injured.

I thought it was an anomaly, but perhaps not.
 
A friend of mine saw something very similar with a deer. A poor shot dis-membered (de-membered??) the buck, and it let out a "piteous" noise, and just stood there (probably begging to be finished off) then fell dead,.

SO, it might be a worthwhile tactic to consider, if the opportunity presents itself. No need to discuss what ammo is best though, I'm sure ball ammo will do it...:rolleyes:
 
We have a few bears around, had a young one in the yard a time or two, but we have not caused each other any particular concern. Were I carrying a 9mm, and my concern was adequate penetration, I'd make it easy on myself and just load it with either Winchester or IMI 124 grain NATO ball. Nothing exotic, but I've used thousands of rounds of NATO ball and it has functioned reliably in every pistol, revolver or carbine I've used it in. I suspect penetration would be about as good as might be hoped for in a 9mm round......ymmv

FWIW, the IMI NATO is the warmer load of the two.

Just noticed that you were more interested in the bullet than the cartridge. Yes, hard bullets likely better for penetration than soft bullets regardless of cartridge.......
 
Last edited:
Is 9mm enough for bears? Yes, unless it isn't.

Is 454 Casull enough for bears? Yes, unless it isn't.

Is .45-70 enough for bears? yes, unless it isn't.

Over the years, there have been people who have defended themselves with .22 lr, 9mm pistol etc. and you have had people that failed to defend themselves with the rifles they were using for hunting bear or moose despite having shot the bear.

You have to do your part. With that said, I would never suggest going with the minimal option for bear defense.
 
Is 9mm enough? I dunno. But it was designed to knock down 180lb men, not big honking bears. So I suspect it will be marginal, but still better than harsh language.

Were I stuck with 9mm, the ammo I would choose is one of the 147gr flat point or truncated cone designs.

Buffalo Bore +P 147gr. Hard Cast FN as was linked before would be at the top of my list:
https://www.buffalobore.com/index.php?l=product_detail&p=388

But the standard pressure 147gr FMJ-FN might also be a reasonable choice:
https://www.buffalobore.com/index.php?l=product_detail&p=342
This would be choice #1 for my wife's 1911 OACP 9mm.

Underwood has a contender with their 147gr +P+ FMJ-FN
https://www.underwoodammo.com/colle...grain-full-metal-jacket?variant=7865898696761

Of the three linked options, the first has the largest, sharpest meplat.

================

Frankly, were I entertaining thoughts of "minimalist bear defense handguns" I would be more likely to tote a .38 Special snubby loaded with hard cast wadcutters. Again, BB and Underwood can help. Both my alloy snubbies have a Crimson Trace laser grip that will aid in low light/point shooing up close.
 
Last edited:
44 AMP said:
I took a look at the bullet the OP linked to. Interesting, we're shooting Phillips Screwdriver tips now. :rolleyes:

OK, its solid copper alloy...yawns...

And its specs are EXACTLY the same as the WWI and WWII German FMJ, a 115gr @ 1150fps. I don't see how any kind of tip, or alloy composition will change the performance to a significant degree.

I do find it amusing how people are so concerned about 9mm shooting through people and walls and hitting other people somewhere downrange, but at the same time think the same ammo won't shoot half way through a bear.
Click to expand...
I kind of was wondering the same. Supposedly 9mm FMJ can pass through Barriers too easily and over penetration is always said to be a major flaw of it.
But against a bear or any large animal... Wouldn’t you want something that “over penetrates”??

https://youtu.be/DYLbmSp5itA

TNoutdoors tested it. Skip to 2:20 when the testing starts.

I don’t know why he got frustrated in the test, as it was doing what it was labeled to do. I guess he was hoping it wouldn’t penetrate that far? Not sure. It went through 32 inches multiple times. I wonder if he had like 4-5 gel blocks how far the 9mm round would penetrate, as TNoutdoors couldn’t get the round to not keep doing complete pass-throughs. Which that’s what the round was designed for, so not sure why he got frustrated. But would have been interesting to see how far it could go max in the gel blocks, if he had a lot more gel blocks to just line up.

So it would seem the 9mm round in question would penetrate better than a .40 would..The only advantage to a .40 is slightly larger round. But if pentration is most important on bears then wouldn’t the 9mm round the OP listed beat .40? In the video comments a lot of people are mentioning it for use in the woods and it seems like most agree it would work considering how much the 9mm round penetrates.
 
Last edited:
The gentleman in the video complains about the amount of penetration but that’s exactly what the Lehigh bullets are supposed to do.
Tnoutdoors obviously wanted a bullet that penetrates less for shooting in public places.
For my usage, this sort of terminal performance is perfect. I use the Xtreme Penetrator and the Xtreme Defense Lehigh bullets in my .357 Sig loads that I use for woods carry because I’m more concerned with large animals like black bear or mountain lions, both of which we have in abundance here.
I used to carry a .45 ACP or a .44 mag but these days I carry .357 Sig. For my usage, the Sig round makes better sense to me.
Should I ever have to shoot a bear, I would want as much penetration as I can get. If I can punch all the way through, better yet.
Tnoutdoors also mentions the cavitation as being similar to that of a JHP. If you consider the cavitation along with the degree of penetration, that looks like ideal bullet performance to me. This, in my opinion, is a very impressive bullet.
When I’m in the forest, I feel more confident having my P229 loaded with these Lehigh bullets than I did with a magazine full of Gold Dots.
That’s just my opinion.
 
Is 9mm enough? I dunno. But it was designed to knock down 180lb men, not big honking bears.
Click to expand...

The 9mm Luger was designed in 1902, in order to appeal to the German military who felt the 7.62 bullet (.30 Luger) wasn't big enough to be combat effective. 180lb men were not nearly as common back in those days as they are today. The German Army adopted it in 1908, and the load was a 124FMJ @1050fps (4" barrel). Shortly before WW I, the load was changed to a 115gr FMJ @ 1150fps.

There are better performing 9mm loadings today. 9mm Luger will kill bear, (and everything else) so it can work as a defensive weapon. However, its not my first, second, or even third choice for defense against bears.
 
The rap against ball ammo as a useful type bullet for hunting or self defense against animals is three fold:

1. It doesn't track straight. Unlike gel, which is consistent throughout it's length, mammals are not. The density of our tissue varies quite a bit. The shape of ball ammo lends it to taking the path of least resistance. This is why in large part a flat meplat was placed on the nose of bullets intended for hunting or self defense. The meplat resisted the tendency to veer off the intended course once in tissue.

2. Shock and internal damage. It's easier for a pointed nose bullet to pierce and penetrate than a round with a flat meplat. Passage through flesh with ball ammo takes less effort than with a jhp or a round with a wide meplat. Thus both the initial shock of the bullet striking and the damage as the bullet moves into and through the flesh is greater than with ball. You can visibly see this in slo-mo video of game being shot and in gel tests. This is why the lead round nose ammo cops in the U.S. used to carry developed such a bad rep. It's also why RNFP and LFP bullets were developed and why the LSWC was developed a several generations back.

3. Bone. It tends to deflect off bone easier. Breaking bone is a greater advantage than either punching a hole in it or being deflected off it.

Ball ammo of any caliber penetrates well. More so in 9mm and 38 caliber than in larger calibers. It's always easier to poke holes with a sewing needle than a knitting needle. Smaller diameter bullets meet less resistance in passage through various materials provided adequate energy for the task.

So the effectiveness of handgun rounds meant for defense against wild animals requires a bullet type that penetrates well and has a flat meplat at it's tip. As always the more powerful round will be better provided the skills of the shooter are up to handling more power. Use what you can shoot accurately at speed.

tipoc
 
Tipoc did a nice job explaining why FMJ is a poor choice. I'd argue that flat-point FMJ isn't a whole lot better because it's rarely sharp and still relatively soft. The "sharp meplat" discussed there and by jfruser above is an improvement and the increased rigidity of solid copper or hard-cast lead could help as well.

This brings me back to the Lehigh Penetrator design. What's better than a sharp circular meplat around the tip? How about the greater area of sharp edges along the plus-sign, the complex area of the striking surface, or the flutes which actually do work towards tissue disruption along the wound channel? I know the difference those features make is arguably less than, say, the increased mass or velocity from upgrading caliber. Still, if features like "a sharp meplat" are significant determinants within the realm of 9mm, I'll stand by my recommendation.

That said, nice to see .40 come up in josh17's post. This is obviously a gross oversimplification but I tend to view .40 as allowing 9mm-ish velocity with a bigger bullet, and .357 Sig as allowing a 9mm-ish bullet with more velocity. Sectional density plays a role in penetration and .40 does suffer a little in that area. Is it enough to matter? As tipoc correctly stated, "the density of our tissue varies quite a bit". While sectional density might be a loss, the .40 might be better at smashing bone or inflicting other kinds of damage. I've never shot an animal, or a meat target, with .40 S&W.

At the end of the day, I still think the Lehigh Penetrator in .357 Sig will be my new woods round. The .40 S&W will still be my winter carry round around town. The rest of the time, it will still be 9mm or .327 Federal.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top