Best polymer .45 ACP?

WRT Grizzlies, I do know a gent who very sportingly shot (and killed - definitely) a Grizz that was rude enough to charge him. He was an experienced hunter and shooter using a 375 H&H CZ. You should have seen the scars that thing left on him when it ran him over. Very nearly killed him. I asked him why he didn't move and he said that he'd shot it twice with a 375 H&H, he knew it was dead, he just couldn't believe it was still running.
 
i had a similar choice to make in selecting a polymer 45, but obviously not for the use you need it for.

i chose the p345 and every time i shoot it i love it that much more!

Its light weight, fairly accurate can be stainless steel so theres not much chance for rust which would be a plus for you since it could get wet.

I just love the way the grip is on the ruger polymer guns fits my hand perfectly. It also had significantly less muzzle flip than a glock 21 that i shot. But in the glocks defense it was a gen 3.5 rental gun.
 
Last edited:
I have an M&P45 and have had it on my ATC since 2008.

Is it the best?

I don't know.

I do know that;

-it is a half pound lighter than my 4" 629, while holding five more rounds.

-it has been 100% reliable with ~1500 rounds of ball and ~500 rounds of +P (230 XTP @1025 fps)

-I am well familiar with the effectiveness of a 240 XTP from a 4" 629 at 1050 fps, and have full confidence in a 45 +P

-the M&P45 can put bullets on target more accurately and efficiently than a 629, and I am pretty familiar with shooting N-frames with heavy loads and relatively new to plastic semis

-it is easier to carry dimension-wise, and to load/unload when in/out of vehicles/aircraft

Having said all that, I am eyeing the Scandium frame 329XL, if not just to see what its like.

But what would I know?
 
I'm almost embarrassed to reply to this thread, but as a guy who has seen a few grizzlies in the wild (with and without backup), and as someone who has spent a little time flying float planes and tail draggers over grizzly country, I feel compelled to comment.

I always felt best with my old .375H&H or new .416Ruger stuffed in the back when travelling over grizzly homeland. Once I got weathered in on a sandbar with 200+ mama and baby grizz tracks on it. The salmon were running but I didn't fish or eat for the two days I waited for the weather to lift because I didn't want to smell like food. I was happy to curl up with my .375 when I half-slept through the bad weather. When I got home from that trip I bought the .416. Factory loads shoot 400 grains of solid or controlled-expansion projectile at Mach 2. No handgun comes close to that. I've never shot it in anger, and hope I never do.

But the guy is right - you don't always have room for 10lbs or 42" of gun, and survival gear is what you have on your person, not what's buried in the back of an airplane. So you need whatever you can strap to your body and then you hope for the best.

No .44 magnum, .454 Casull, or any other handgun cartridge is going to have the penetration of a .375H&H, or .30-06 or even a .270 or 30-30 carbine, for that matter. That's all there is to it.

All handgun cartridges are marginal for penetration on any bear. A charging bear will give you very little to shoot at. If he bluff-charges and stops 10' away, then still, what do you shoot at - eye? nose? open mouth? Me, I would be shooting at the dirt in front of his snout - after all, it's a *bluff* charge and I'm standing in his living room.

Having seen the video of that McBride (BC) photographer who survived a charge, I'm half-convinced that the "boom" of the revolver does more to stop a charge than any lead or copper projectile running down-range. On that basis, the .357SIG, with its super-sonic crack might be a better choice than a 10mm or .45ACP. And who knows, maybe a fast .357 will penetrate as well as a heavy .44? It's not an exact science, but whichever one gets to the spine will immobilize the bear. If you even have a shot at the spine.

I never had the chance to get a ATT for bush flying (I was based on the left coast and it would have scared off the tourists), but if I had, I like to think I would have put up with the discomfort of a .44 revolver (4.2" Redhawk maybe?) in a shoulder holster, rather than a Glock or similar strapped to my hip. I imagine neither is much fun to wear all day, but any (non-bluff) charge will be over after two or three (at most) aimed rounds, so magazine capacity is not an issue. Thinking about it, a 4.25" .454Casull would be better, but that's a custom rig in Canada, and pilots are notoriously poor.

There isn't a money-earning flying business on this continent with margins so tight that it cannot afford to pack an extra 32 oz if safety is at stake (an ELT weighs several pounds), so we're really talking comfort. Comfort is important if you're flying all day, but between Glock's 27ish oz. empty weight and a short Redhawk's 47oz empty weight (you gotta carry the ammo either way), I doubt I could tell the difference, even after a 14-hour duty day of loading fuel, fish, baggage, and even the occasional wood stove. If 20oz is too much to strap on, maybe you should be at a desk pushing paper (like I do now), rather than flying around small airplanes?

Now that I'm flying a desk instead of a Cessna, I still go to grizzly country on weekends, and I have the same problem: there isn't a proper bear-stopper gun made that's legal for a guy to take fly-fishing in grizzly country. Long guns and fly rods don't mix, and it's not about comfort, you just can't pack a long gun and get off a decent cast.

I've been told that antique revolvers are an option, if you're just packing for the purpose of doing the odd bit of target shooting while off in the woods. But antique revolvers are limited to (at best) the .45ACP, .44 Russian, .44Special and similar. Double-action antiques are rarer still.

No, none of these "little" .44s or .45s will "stop" an actual charging grizzly, but neither will any other handgun cartridge. But they will all go pop, and if, one day, a grizz is stripping the meat off my thigh or clawing at my stomach, I like the idea of reaching into my fishing vest, pulling out a 130-year-old DA revolver, and putting a .45ACP round into his mouth. At that point, the bear might have gotten the better of me, but at least he won't finish the meal...

So dude, buy a polymer-framed .45 if you must, but just be realistic - it'll go boom, and that's all well and good, and it might give you something to do while the bear's dinner is under way, but that's about it. That's enough for me, because it has to be. It would be nice if we had a better carry regime, but this is Canada; we don't. The alternative is not going into the woods, and I can't "bear" that choice...
 
Glock 20SF.
Only problem with 10mm is that to get ammo built the way they should be you have to do it yourself. If you are buying off the shelf then it's not much better than a .45auto.
There are only a couple manufacturers that build real 10mm and they are hard to find. I have a box of Hornady at home to try and I have a feeling they are going to be much hotter than the Remington green box I usually find at WSS.

For bear I would still want my 460V but it's a large heavy revolver and you want small and light so... I guess not a 460.
 
great post, waited 1 year for this!

wagnerb said:
I'm almost embarrassed to reply to this thread, but as a guy who has seen a few grizzlies in the wild (with and without backup), and as someone who has spent a little time flying float planes and tail draggers over grizzly country, I feel compelled to comment.

I always felt best with my old .375H&H or new .416Ruger stuffed in the back when travelling over grizzly homeland. Once I got weathered in on a sandbar with 200+ mama and baby grizz tracks on it. The salmon were running but I didn't fish or eat for the two days I waited for the weather to lift because I didn't want to smell like food. I was happy to curl up with my .375 when I half-slept through the bad weather. When I got home from that trip I bought the .416. Factory loads shoot 400 grains of solid or controlled-expansion projectile at Mach 2. No handgun comes close to that. I've never shot it in anger, and hope I never do.

But the guy is right - you don't always have room for 10lbs or 42" of gun, and survival gear is what you have on your person, not what's buried in the back of an airplane. So you need whatever you can strap to your body and then you hope for the best.

No .44 magnum, .454 Casull, or any other handgun cartridge is going to have the penetration of a .375H&H, or .30-06 or even a .270 or 30-30 carbine, for that matter. That's all there is to it.

All handgun cartridges are marginal for penetration on any bear. A charging bear will give you very little to shoot at. If he bluff-charges and stops 10' away, then still, what do you shoot at - eye? nose? open mouth? Me, I would be shooting at the dirt in front of his snout - after all, it's a *bluff* charge and I'm standing in his living room.

Having seen the video of that McBride (BC) photographer who survived a charge, I'm half-convinced that the "boom" of the revolver does more to stop a charge than any lead or copper projectile running down-range. On that basis, the .357SIG, with its super-sonic crack might be a better choice than a 10mm or .45ACP. And who knows, maybe a fast .357 will penetrate as well as a heavy .44? It's not an exact science, but whichever one gets to the spine will immobilize the bear. If you even have a shot at the spine.

I never had the chance to get a ATT for bush flying (I was based on the left coast and it would have scared off the tourists), but if I had, I like to think I would have put up with the discomfort of a .44 revolver (4.2" Redhawk maybe?) in a shoulder holster, rather than a Glock or similar strapped to my hip. I imagine neither is much fun to wear all day, but any (non-bluff) charge will be over after two or three (at most) aimed rounds, so magazine capacity is not an issue. Thinking about it, a 4.25" .454Casull would be better, but that's a custom rig in Canada, and pilots are notoriously poor.

There isn't a money-earning flying business on this continent with margins so tight that it cannot afford to pack an extra 32 oz if safety is at stake (an ELT weighs several pounds), so we're really talking comfort. Comfort is important if you're flying all day, but between Glock's 27ish oz. empty weight and a short Redhawk's 47oz empty weight (you gotta carry the ammo either way), I doubt I could tell the difference, even after a 14-hour duty day of loading fuel, fish, baggage, and even the occasional wood stove. If 20oz is too much to strap on, maybe you should be at a desk pushing paper (like I do now), rather than flying around small airplanes?

Now that I'm flying a desk instead of a Cessna, I still go to grizzly country on weekends, and I have the same problem: there isn't a proper bear-stopper gun made that's legal for a guy to take fly-fishing in grizzly country. Long guns and fly rods don't mix, and it's not about comfort, you just can't pack a long gun and get off a decent cast.

I've been told that antique revolvers are an option, if you're just packing for the purpose of doing the odd bit of target shooting while off in the woods. But antique revolvers are limited to (at best) the .45ACP, .44 Russian, .44Special and similar. Double-action antiques are rarer still.

No, none of these "little" .44s or .45s will "stop" an actual charging grizzly, but neither will any other handgun cartridge. But they will all go pop, and if, one day, a grizz is stripping the meat off my thigh or clawing at my stomach, I like the idea of reaching into my fishing vest, pulling out a 130-year-old DA revolver, and putting a .45ACP round into his mouth. At that point, the bear might have gotten the better of me, but at least he won't finish the meal...

So dude, buy a polymer-framed .45 if you must, but just be realistic - it'll go boom, and that's all well and good, and it might give you something to do while the bear's dinner is under way, but that's about it. That's enough for me, because it has to be. It would be nice if we had a better carry regime, but this is Canada; we don't. The alternative is not going into the woods, and I can't "bear" that choice...
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom