.45 Colt v. .410 slug

My next pistol (in a year or so...) will probably be a Taurus Judge (unless I opt for a 1911, but that's irrelevant as to this question). I'm wondering about its utility as a defensive weapon at close range. Specifically, at ranges close than 15-20 yards, would it be better to go with the .410 slug or the .45 Colt? I envision myself taking it out into the backcountry with me when hiking in case of wildlife encounters (bears and/or mountain lions) that could take place when coming around a turn in the trail.

Assuming either of these rounds is acceptable for such an encounter (and I'm assuming if they're not it's unlikely there exists a concealable pistol that is and I'd have to see about something as drastic as a Serbu Super Shorty...), which round would be better suited for the task?

.45 LC by a HUGE margin.

The Judge, while a sweet idea, is kind of a gimmick unless you are using it to also kill things like rabbits.

What kind of difference is there in terms of the energy dump? All I can seem to find on the .410 is info for shot. I have no experience with either of these rounds so I'm starting from square one.

I dont have any charts or anything, but I have looked into this a while back. IIRC a .410 slug is about 85 grains. A .45 LC bullet can get up to 250 grains. Combine this with the much higher pressure in the metallic cartridge compared to the plastic shotshell.

Is a .45LC something that would realistically deter wildlife the size of bears or mountain lions?

Yes. Consider it a .45 ACP magnum.

So now that the Judge is rendered a novelty, suggest me a decent (and decently priced) weapon chambered in .45 LC.

The Judge.

Just dont use the .410 for self defense.

Because it has a cylinder long enough to accept 2.75" .410 shells, the Judge is excessively long and heavy for it's barrel length compared to other .45 LC revolvers. I would advise against it. You could get a similarly-sized .45 LC revolver with a longer barrel and thus get better accuracy and performance in the same-sized package. I would recommend a Ruger Redhawk if you want a double-action .45 LC, there's a 4" barrel version in that caliber which is more compact than the 3"-barreled Judge.

Yea, if you dont want the ability to shoot .410, then just get a regular .45 LC. If I were geting one, Id get the Judge though, just for the fact that I could shoot .410 if I wanted.

I believe S&W has several 6-shot .45 LCs.

I was poking around and they do have a couple Model 29s that may fit the bill. I'm just nervous about the power of that round popping out of a 3-4 inch barrel.

If it were me, I'd look into a .44mag. Try and find .45LC anywhere locally and you will know why

Oh yeah, I forgot to mention I'd looked at .44's as well, which would be why I mentioned the Model 29's.

Yeah that's honestly a good point. .45 LC is a cool cartridge but .44 mag is more practical. There are a lot more double-action revolvers chambered in it and it's much easier to find ammo. If you want a pistol for bear defense, that's the best choice.

What do you mean you are nervous about the power of the round from a 3"-4" barrel? Worried that it won't have enough velocity from those barrel lengths, or worried that recoil will be too sharp? In either case you can find loads that will address your concern. There is a huge variety of .44 magnum loads on the market.

Yeah, it's basically a control issue that concerns me. If I went with a lighter load, that would affect its impact energy, though. And when it comes to bears...

I've shot plenty of .44 mags. Ive shot them with hot loads and regular loads. The hot loads are stupid hard to controll and the regular loads are pretty hard to control. Now if we ARE talking about bear defense, then I'll suggest atleast a .44 mag. But for people I'd look into a .357 for a revolver. Plenty of power to take down a person and alot easier to control.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by John Galt

Yeah, it's basically a control issue that concerns me. If I went with a lighter load, that would affect its impact energy, though. And when it comes to bears...

---

The same will be true of .45 LC, though. The powerful loads are going to recoil more sharply. .45 LC doesn't have some magical properties that allows it to deliver firepower equivalent to a given .44 mag load with lighter recoil, or greater than a given .44 mag load with the same recoil. A .45 LC load of power equal to a given .44 mag load is going to recoil just about as sharply. There's no way to "cheat"; if you want X level of muzzle energy with X bullet weight, you will have to accept X level of recoil to go with it, whether you choose .44 mag or .45 LC (assuming the same gun weight across the board).

EDIT: Also, honestly, a high-powered can of bear mace is a much more realistic and potentially useful bear defense than a big-bore revolver. Put bells on your pack, follow proper bear safety procedures, carry bear mace if you are still worried, and go have fun out in the woods.

I wasn't comparing a lighter load between the two rounds, just the drawbacks of a lighter load in general.

And the thing about bear mace, at least the last time I looked at it, is it's expensive and it expires. I know rounds can have a shelf life too, but at least I can use them for something else before they go bad. With bear mace I'm limited to making my food extra spicy, which I don't really like.

Don't get me wrong, I always follow bear safety rules, but there's no telling when the wind and acoustics and any other factors line up just wrong enough for me to come around a bend and surprise one.

If you are serious about bear defense, dont use the mace stuff. Like you said, the wind can mess you up if you are using mace. And I imagine that stuff aint nice in your face.

As far as shelf life for bullets, Ive shot some bullets made around WWI and they were still good.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Anonymous D

If you are serious about bear defense, dont use the mace stuff

---

Uhh, actually just the opposite is true. Bear mace will stop an angry bear much more effectively than a firearm. I know this is counterintuitive, because when it comes to self-defense against human attackers we all know that a gun is better than pepper spray, but it's true. Bear mace is more likely to stop a charging bear than even a quite powerful handgun such as a .44 magnum; in order to have a gun that is better at stopping bears than bear mace, you'd have to pack a 12-ga. with slugs at least. Obviously neither spray nor a gun is 100% guaranteed to work, and I suppose that if you really want to be super-prepared it is best to have both on had; but if you had to pick one, bear mace is definitely a better choice than a pistol.

Proper bear mace also has a forceful enough spray that wind shouldn't be an issue. Bear mace doesn't come out in a mist or stream like normal mace, it is much more powerful. The spray can actually create noticeable recoil. Range will be 30 feet or more if you buy the right stuff.

As for shelf life, there are brands of bear mace that are good for quite a long time. Plus bear in mind that the per-can cost is much lower than that of a gun. Even if you do occasionally have to replace an expired can, you will probably still save money, because a can of bear spray costs $30-50 while a .44 magnum revolver is going to run you about $400 at a minimum, probably a good bit more if you go with a Model 29, plus about $25 per box of ammo for the good stuff.

I always thought it was more like a mist or a weaker stream. Didnt know it was pressurized like that. If the wind wont be a problem, then go with that. We dont have bears around here, so I dont have to worry about them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Syme

Also, honestly, a high-powered can of bear mace is a much more realistic and potentially useful bear defense than a big-bore revolver.

---

I've heard this before, many times, but what evidence is there to this point? How would I defeat a skeptic who believes that sheer firepower equals survival?

i can't say i know much about guns, but i will support the bear mace because i've heard the same things from pretty much every bush expert i worked with out in northern bc. bears have really senstive senses (oh my) and they're much more likely to be enraged from a poorly aimed shot and continue an attack than they would from being blinded and burnt in the nose and ears, which will stop them pretty much immediately. grizzly bears are insanely aggressive and can push 800 or so lbs. and run at about 35mph, so unless you've got a perfect shot on them, they won't stop for a small injury. furious grizzlies are more dangerous than regular angry ones.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by crunker

I've heard this before, many times, but what evidence is there to this point? How would I defeat a skeptic who believes that sheer firepower equals survival?

---

At a certain point, you have to just be unconcerned about arguing with a person who thinks that carrying a gun is better than carrying bear spray; if that's what they really want to believe, they are going to believe it. It's not like there's some single source that is the "final word" and will automatically defeat any skeptic. Some skeptics are going to refuse to accept anything that doesn't square with the ideas and thus can't be "defeated". But like coq says, most experts on the subject will agree that bear mace is more effective, so your best bet would be to have them talk to such people. Or show them websites like this:

http://www.absc.usgs.gov/research/br...epperspray.htm

This is a page on bear spray from the brown bear research section of the United States Geological Survey's Alaska Science Center. It's written by a bear researcher with a Ph.D. in the ASC's Biological Science Office. Scroll down to the part saying "Even if bear pepper spray has effectively thwarted a number of bear attacks, aren’t you better off relying on a gun to do the job?" There, he states that bear spray has a better track record than guns at stopping bear attacks.

I'll throw in a horror story from a bush camp. A friend of mine came home with his crew from work only to find that there was a black bear that the camp dogs had chased up a tree. There was a gun in camp, but nobody, including the supervisors, were actually trained in using firearms - it was just part of the safety protocol in camp to have one in case of, well, bears. Eventually they work up the nerve to shoot the bear up in this tree, and the guy who volunteers to (because no one else will) does everything wrong. He holds the rifle in front of him, not resting the but on his shoulder and sights his shot. When he pulls the trigger, the gun bucks back into his arm and the scope into his eye, knocking him back on the ground. His lack of aim means he misses the head shot he was going for, and instead grazes a bullet along the bear's stomach. In pain, the bear falls out of the tree. When it hits the ground, it literally exploded at the middle from the graze wound, it's guts pouring all over while it groaned and writhed around in serious pain. Somebody else managed to use the gun right the second time and put the poor thing out of its misery.

Now while this story isn't exactly a parable comparing the relative effeiveness of bear spray to gun, I, personally, am more comfortable with a can of bear spray to carry around when I'm out in the bush (in case I see moose, cougars or wolves too) than I am with a gun. I'm not so sure my aim would be great if I was surprised and had to shoot to kill on a dime, especially since I am usually concentrating on other things like the actual dob I'm doing, but I'm pretty confident that I can spray an angry animal in the face and blind it long enough for me to get the hell out of there, which, in the end, is all that really counts for me. On a related note, bear meat is a little gamey for my taste - I can't say I recommend it.

What kind of moron doesn't even have an idea of how to hold a gun? Has he never seen movies with guns in them or something?

So he should have sprayed from the hip while running at best speed, eh?

Ive never met anyone who didint atleast know that the butt of a gun goes on the shoulder.

That isn't particularly surprising to me; of course almost everyone has seen guns used in movies, but I've noticed that this often doesn't mean they have even the slightest idea of how to hold one properly when it's actually in their hands. I have definitely seen people try to hold a rifle/shotgun with the butt not on their shoulder before. I'm sure that if they really stopped and thought about it, they would realize that it goes there, but the problem is that they often don't think it through, they just kind of awkwardly let themselves drift into a random stance when they pick up the gun, based on whatever feels right or who-knows-what.

That said, while I don't think the guy in question was necessarily a moron for not knowing how to hold a rifle, it WAS a terrible idea for him to try and use a weapon that he was clueless about, and it's terrible policy to mandate keeping a gun around if no-one is going to know how to use it. I feel sorry for the poor bear.

yeah that incident led to a 'no guns at all ever for any reason' policy for that planting company that now relies on keeping a clean camp, deterrents like bear mace and, if necessary, bear fences for a planting camp that really needs them. I mean, especially with a bear, an ounce of prevention is worth tonnes of cure. The bear that came into our camp raided a tent and found food, and one poor guy lost a DSLR camera and his laptop as the bear carried his bag into the woods and was out a couple thousand bucks worth of machinery because of someone else's laziness/stupidity. Unless you're hunting them, it's not that hard to have a bear-safe camp, and bear mace is more than enough to deal with any that come by.

Unless, I suppose, it's a polar bear. Fuck those things are enormous.