Jump to content

Glock 20 10mm hard cast bullets or FMJ?


jeff43

Recommended Posts

The unwritten shorthand is that the hard cast bullet is assumed to have a flat, wide meplat with sharp edges for similar penetration to FMJ but better wound channel creation. 

The problem is - and is seldom addressed - is that the best bullet design with a purely flat meplat would probably not feed reliably out of a semiautomatic.

A deep penetrating, expanding JHP is not a bad choice for bear, in my opinion. Most LE "barrier blind" rounds (another misnomer) would do well. Think Hornady Critical Duty. 

Sacrilege, they say. Well, "they" probably haven't actually read the scholarly study of human/bear encounters that concluded every single person who actually employed their firearm against the attacking bear, survived - and almost all without injury. *Most* of those engagements were with 9mm and 40S&W law enforcement ammo. The one guy who shot his bear and survived with the most serious wounds did so with his toes shot off - he put his legs up in defense, and proceeded to shoot the bear through his own feet in the heat of the moment. Another pair of guys got thrice pounced by a very determined grizzly, and successfully drove him off (3 times) with an itty bitty micro 9mm carry handgun.

A fascinating study, well worth the read. I'll come back and link it if I get around to it. The moral of the story is, it matters more how you carry and whether you draw, than precisely what you draw.

Having said all that, I run high pressure/high velocity 10mm JHP out of a 4.6" M&P 2.0 10mm when I'm in the woods. And sometimes even when I'm not!

 

Edited by DocHawk
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment

I have no experience with a Glock 20, but the factory does not recommend lead bullets for the Glocks I own. This is due, as I understand it, to Glock's use of polygonal rifling in their barrels.  I've shot lead bullets through my Glock 45 and 9mm with no ill-effect, though.

Link to comment

Here are the findings of Dean Weingarten's study, Handgun or Pistol Against Bear Attacks (2021)

104 cases, 97% Effective

Key Takeaways
  • Pistol shots stopped 97% of the bear attacks.
  • 12.5% of shooters were injured after firing on the bear.
  • Weaker ammo needed more shots to stop the attack than stronger ammo.
  • Hollow points needed more shots; multiple reports cited them glancing off of bear skulls.
  • The 4 failures: .22lr vs. polar bear, .38 special vs. black bear, .357 Magnum vs. grizzly bear, .45 ACP vs. black bear.
  • 5 incidents were initiated by dog(s).
  • Dogs assisted in 2 incidents, buying time for the owner to fire.
  • Several successful uses of firearms followed the failure of pepper spray.
  • Warning shots were successful about half the time they were tried.
  • Aiming for the heart or lungs was highly effective

By the way, this is in direct conflict with the "use bear spray" results you'll get if you google "firearm or bear spray vs bear." Notice who posts and parrots those results: typically progressive, liberal, and conservationist sources. The most-often cited studies on these pages are BYU's 2012 study, which found firearms generally ineffective and bear spray 97% effective. However, dissecting their methodology reveals a grossly biased study, where incidents in which a person carrying a gun but not drawing it were counted as gun failures, but only incidents with ideal conditions in which the bear spray was deployed prior to close contact with the bear were counted. When the samples are evaluated using similar deployment criterion, the statistics are reversed.

Bias in science, sucks.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
4 hours ago, DocHawk said:

Here are the findings of Dean Weingarten's study, Handgun or Pistol Against Bear Attacks (2021)

104 cases, 97% Effective

Key Takeaways
  • Pistol shots stopped 97% of the bear attacks.
  • 12.5% of shooters were injured after firing on the bear.
  • Weaker ammo needed more shots to stop the attack than stronger ammo.
  • Hollow points needed more shots; multiple reports cited them glancing off of bear skulls.
  • The 4 failures: .22lr vs. polar bear, .38 special vs. black bear, .357 Magnum vs. grizzly bear, .45 ACP vs. black bear.
  • 5 incidents were initiated by dog(s).
  • Dogs assisted in 2 incidents, buying time for the owner to fire.
  • Several successful uses of firearms followed the failure of pepper spray.
  • Warning shots were successful about half the time they were tried.
  • Aiming for the heart or lungs was highly effective

By the way, this is in direct conflict with the "use bear spray" results you'll get if you google "firearm or bear spray vs bear." Notice who posts and parrots those results: typically progressive, liberal, and conservationist sources. The most-often cited studies on these pages are BYU's 2012 study, which found firearms generally ineffective and bear spray 97% effective. However, dissecting their methodology reveals a grossly biased study, where incidents in which a person carrying a gun but not drawing it were counted as gun failures, but only incidents with ideal conditions in which the bear spray was deployed prior to close contact with the bear were counted. When the samples are evaluated using similar deployment criterion, the statistics are reversed.

Bias in science, sucks.

Excellent data here.  Thanks, Doc.

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

THE FINE PRINT

Tennessee Gun Owners (TNGunOwners.com) is the premier Community and Discussion Forum for gun owners, firearm enthusiasts, sportsmen and Second Amendment proponents in the state of Tennessee and surrounding region.

TNGunOwners.com (TGO) is a presentation of Enthusiast Productions. The TGO state flag logo and the TGO tri-hole "icon" logo are trademarks of Tennessee Gun Owners. The TGO logos and all content presented on this site may not be reproduced in any form without express written permission. The opinions expressed on TGO are those of their authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the site's owners or staff.

Before engaging in any transaction of goods or services on TGO, all parties involved must know and follow the local, state and Federal laws regarding those transactions. TGO makes no claims, guarantees or assurances regarding any such transactions.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to the following.
Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Guidelines
 
We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.