Chris, just asking a question here, is the 45 Super more powerful than say a 41 or 44 Mag revolver with a similar length barrel? I realize that you will have 8 shots instead of 6 but in the sort of situations you envisioned I doubt you'd be able to get off more than 3 anyway, regardless of the platform.
Thank you for asking this so politely. Most forums would see some guy coming in who had never seen a bear let alone hunted one, recommending that I "
File 'dat frunt sight off yer .45 Sooper cuz 'dat bear gonna shove it where 'da Sun don't shine." Then proceed to tell me that anything short of a
".500 S&W Maggum" will simply bounce off a new born bear cub's placenta.
No the .45 Super isn't quite as powerful as a big bore revolver and I prefer it that way.... let me explain why:
I have put a HUGE amount of consideration into this and it is, for ME, the best, and most efficient choice. I understand that there is a mentality that a bear can only be stopped by a howitzer. I find this position has some merit in that, yes I would rather hit him with everything available on earth, than end up with him on top of me. That said, I hunt mainly black bear, which are neither heavy boned, thick skinned or all that tenacious. Coastal browns are a different story I hear. However, a 200 lb black bear will make a mess out of you if you get inside his personal bubble and he's wounded.
I have owned and shot almost every "normal" magnum handgun from .357 through .454 Casull. I would challenge anyone who thinks that they can carry a pistol projecting between 3 and 5 times the energy of 45 acp, from a gun with no recoil attenuation (reciprocating slide) to put more rounds on target and more accurately, than if they were firing a striker-fired semi auto. Sure, the auto-loader will undoubtedly produce less energy but it is easier to shoot and much faster unless you're Jerry Miculek. Not only that, but in my experience, the extra recoil and blast of a magnum never scales to a proportionately more profound impact on the animal.
The 45 Super will hit with a heavier, larger bullet than a .357 and it is easier to shoot accurately under stress and hits just as hard or harder with less perceived recoil (talking strictly energy here). The .44 outclasses it in bullet weight, but unless using boutique loads, the energy of a .44 mag out of a carryable package like a 4" gun isn't all that much higher. (Most of my REALLY hot handloaded .44 rounds with a max charge of H110 or 300MP came in between 600 and 800ft.lb out of a carryable firearm not the 1,300-1600fpe most would claim). Most revolvers are a 1 to
mayyyybe 2 shot maximum on an incoming animal. If one of those misses and the other potential shot is marginal, you may as well have not shot him at all. I will take a faster handling, lighter recoiling, easier to shoot gun in what some would consider a "marginal" caliber over a cannon I can't shoot as well or as fast. More potential hits and more probability that the bullet will hit more or less where I wanted them to. Striker-fired semi-autos just aren't as sexy in the bear woods though...
This is a pretty good video of what I mean by the practicality of a bear gun:
Not scientific, but at least he did a good representation of the difficulty of using a revolver in that scenario.
Let's face it, a hard cast 147 grain 9mm+p will punch through the skull or body of almost any black bear living or dead. And I mean ALL THE WAY THROUGH. A .45 super will do it even better in all scenarios. If I could shoot a revolver with it's 3-foot-take-up, 10 lb trigger pull, better than I could shoot that XD45, I would. I love revolvers, but they are not the most pointable, easiest guns to shoot under stress, especially with any sort of speed unless you train extensively with them. Which few ever do, despite their bravado on online forums. I don't know a single person who shoots a big bore revolver, double action, better than a simple, boring, semi-auto. Not to mention the ferocious recoil and concussive blast for what amounts to, in practicality, an almost insignificant added impact to the animal.
I will stick to my .45 super and hopefully never need it. It is a compromise on weight, packability, capacity, shootability and recoil. I just don't think,
PRACTICALLY, that it is that much worse than a .41, 44, .454 etc. It works when I need it to go bang, hits where I point it and follow-ups are lightning fast. IMO that means a lot more to me than 150 foot-lbs or 50 grains of bullet weight.
Any of the calibers above penetrate adequately and that is really the only qualifier for a handgun to me. Handguns don't create shock, they don't break bones well, and they don't create stretch cavities. The best you can assume is that they will penetrate where they need to go and break anything in their way. .45 super does that with gusto. Guys will argue over the added
"X% more surface area on a big bore vs. .357". Let's face it, the difference between the .357 and the .500 is only slightly more than 1/8". That's nothing when comparing it to the size of a bear.
This is all by no means an affront to you
@Shootist43. I respect your position and your vastness of experience beyond mine. I feel the
"suitable sidearms for black bear defense" discussion becomes a totally and unnecessarily complicated debate very quickly. It needs to penetrate through a bear. That is the only qualifier to me.
However, if I can get a bear in close (like bow range) this year, I will maybe take a crack at him with the 45 Super and see how it goes. I'll post pics if I get him!
