No hurt feelings. It's nothing personal. After reading your opinions on the subject, it wouldn't matter what data I provided. It's still wouldn't substantiate the 10mm pistol to be an adequate defense round for bears. I could tell you I shot a 360 lb boar hog in the frontal chest with a 200 grain BB Hardcast bullet where it exited the boar next to his scrotom. No bullet recovery. Several deer with some bullet recovery. One bear (black) at 30 yards with a 155 Corbon DPX and it exited both shoulders. No recovery. All fast effective kills with all animals recovered within 15 yards of being shot. Several other kills as well with similar results. Would that matter to someone that believes revolvers NEVER fail but semi's do. What's the purpose ? I could send pics all day long of revolver failures regardless of user error or pistol failure. Still a failure that could end up in a fatal bear attack. Stove pipes from semi auto's isn't a pistol problem either. It's from poor shooting form or limp wrist syndrome. There's always excuses for failures. Do they really matter ? The fact that one failed is all that matters and they BOTH do. That's been proven hundreds of times. We could argue that semi auto's are used in competition much more than revolvers because of speed of use. Power isn't a factor but speed and accuracy are, that's Point #1 on use for defense. Point #2 Could argue size and packability if the semi auto. Point #3 again could argue the controllability/shootability. Point#4 would be penetration. Even having less bullet weight and diameter, the .40 caliber hardcast bullets penetrate deeper even than the bullets from the pistols with 30-40% more energy and velocity in many cases. Definitely as deep in other cases. These facts still wouldn't change your opinions on the 10mm being an adequate bear defense round. I've read 51 pages of 2-3 members running a bone up the backside of the 10mm users opinions. I'd say giving any further opinions let alone facts on this subject is a waste of time. What I can say that is fact and printed and spoken about in many publications is that there are endless cases where Alaskan and Western State Bear guides have dropped using Big Bore pistols as their defense choice and replaced it with 10mm Glocks. This isn't debatable, it's a plain fact. In the end as I have said, it's a choice. One based on confidence and ability. After talking to a couple buddies that guide in Alaska, my choice is clear, proven and sound. Sounds like yours is as well. Agree to disagree is where that puts us. I don't agree that big wheel guns are inferior but don't believe they are superior. It's up to the user to make that decision for what they prefer.
Wow, there's an energetic mouthful. Was there an attempt to say the 10mm with the best bullet will out-penetrate the big bore revolver cartridges with the worst bullet selection? It seems penetration, or the lack thereof, pushed you over the edge. I wasn't expecting to learn the 10mm could compete. Everyone knows that's not possible given equal bullet selections. Was just looking for some real-life 10mm penetration depths on game. After all, we are discussing defensive sidearms for big animals. But maybe my question was unfair because the 10mm can't compete, and irrelevant because bears are the largest man-eating predator on the North American continent.
If you wanna be credible, be truthful.
Point 1) I quote your statement:
"Would that matter to someone that believes revolvers NEVER fail but semi's do."
That's a real
whopper of a fabrication. What prompted that? Remind us all? In which post did I make that statement?
Point 2) I quote your statement:
"These facts still wouldn't change your opinions on the 10mm being an adequate bear defense round."
Here you go - again. In which post did I comment on the adequacy of the 10mm for bear defense. All my posts related to 10mm have been comparisons to larger bore, more powerful, revolver cartridges. Was it when I stated
"This is why I always add, wish you well with the 10mm. Because there's a lotta wishful thinking going on there."? Did you conclude,
ah-hah!, phorwath just said 10mms are inadequate, and decide it would make great reading? Rather than miss-translate my statements, why not just include my statements in "quotations" to your post? No doubt it'll lack flair and drama, won't echo off the sides of the mountains,
but at least it'll be truthful and accurate. I prefer revolvers and their more powerful cartridges, which is to say, I think the 10mm is inferior, in comparison. I never stated the 10mm was adequate or inadequate. I don't miss-translate and miss-represent your statements. Would be wonderful if you extended the same courtesy.
Point 3) I quote your statement:
"I'd say giving any further opinions let alone facts on this subject is a waste of time."
Only you can decide if your opinions and facts are a waste of your time. Your false characterizations of my post, and complete fabrications… they're a problem no matter what you decide.
Point 4) I quote your statement:
"I've read 51 pages of 2-3 members running a bone up the backside of the 10mm user's opinions.
Agree to disagree is where that puts us."
Must be something about "50" pages. As in 49 is still OK…
I'm glad you said you agree to disagree. You sure had me fooled with the "bone up the backside" statement. Didn't think you had the capability of agreeing to disagree. My opinions run a bone up your backside, correct? I'm soooo fortunate that your expressed opinions have no such affect. Never knew the goal was agreement, never expected it, never demanded it.
Crediting me with fabricated statements, I admit that's an irritant. Suggests little tolerance for disagreement and the need to prevail. No reason to fabricate false statements, and then promote them as "facts". Your choice. Your prerogative. As it's mine to correct your false categorizations of my prior posts. Consequence... your credibility suffers all the way around.