45 Super v 10mm PCC for hunting... deer?. ELK!!?

[Pistoler0]

I am always reading and posting about the 45 Super caliber because I really like the round and I find it very versatile.

Anyway, it is a common understanding that 1,000 ft-lbs of KE are a minimum for hunting elk.

I own a 45 ACP Pistol Caliber Carbine (Hi-Point 4595 don't laugh) with a 17.5" barrel. It is rated for +P ammo and it shoots Super fine. So when I was looking in Ballistics by the Inch
ballisticsbytheinch.com

I was very pleasantly surprised to find out that the carbine shooting factory 45 Super ammo does reach the required 1,000 ft-lbs for elk!!
http://ballisticsbytheinch.com/45super.html



However, 10mm does NOT reach the same KE:
http://www.ballisticsbytheinch.com/10mm.html



In my mind, given the fact that regular 45 ACP is much cheaper to shoot and easier to find than 10mm, this gives an edge in versatility and practicality to the 45 ACP/Super v the 10mm for a PCC. One can always shoot normal 45 ACP ammo from it, and use harder to find Super for hunting with it.

[Shadow9mm]

depends on the state you live in. for example, here in Indiana, for handgun, you are required to have a 4" barrel, Minimum of .243 diameter bullet, and the casing must be 1.16 long unloaded. Thus with a case length of 0.898 the 45 super is illegal to hunt with in Indiana, while the 10mm at 1.260 is legal. For deer, yes to both, for elk, no for both.My understanding is for elk you generally need or want 1800 flt lb for a clean kill. Both 10mm and 45 super are short by 800 to 1000 ft lb of that number.

[Pistoler0]

Originally Posted by Shadow9mm

Both 10mm and 45 super are short by 800 to 1000 ft lb of that number.

For pistols they fall really short. But check out the graph in the OP for KE out of a carbine: 45 Super reaches 1100+ ft-lbs!!

I thought the number usually put forth is 1000 ft-lbs for elk.

No doubt a rifle in 308 or higher category would be best.

Originally Posted by Shadow9mm

the casing must be 1.16 long unloaded [..] in Indiana.

Yep, it varies by state. I don't think I have casing length restrictions in CO, only caliber, ft-lbs, and it must be an expanding bullet.

[Forte S+W]

Yeahhh... I dunno if I would rely on a Hi-Point Carbine to function smoothly with .45 Super when it wasn't even designed to shoot it in the first place.

Just get a Rossi R92 chambered in .44 Magnum or .454 Casull if you want an inexpensive pistol caliber carbine that can take Elk.

[Pistoler0]

Originally Posted by Forte S+W

I dunno if I would rely on a Hi-Point Carbine to function smoothly with .45 Super when it wasn't even designed to shoot it in the first place.

The Hi-point carbine in 45 ACP and in 10mm are basically the same firearm, with the same recoil spring. Here is the recoil spring sold by M Carbo, for BOTH the 10mm | 45 ACP:
https://www.mcarbo.com/hi-point-carb...il-spring.aspx


So I don't see why it would not be able to fire 45 Super.

In an older, closed thread:
https://thefiringline.com/forums/sho...d.php?t=165471
it says the Hi-Point was tested (by Hi-Point) to 35,000 psi, and the Super usually tops at 30,000:

"I just got off the phone with a mike.... somebody [from Hi-Point], and they said the gun was tested up to 35000 psi but said that they had never tested 45 supers with the jhp 45."

There are reports of other people shooting 45 Super out of the Hi-Point 4595 without problems dating back to 2015:
https://www.hipointfirearmsforums.co...2#post-2239599

My Hi-point carbine has been reliable with 45 Super, but I have only fired about 5 boxes in a row (Super is pricey). I don't shoot a steady diet of it. For hunting, I wouldn't need more than 2 rds.

Hmmm... maybe I should put together a video.

[Shadow9mm]

Originally Posted by Pistoler0

For pistols they fall really short. But check out the graph in the OP for KE out of a carbine: 45 Super reaches 1100+ ft-lbs!!

I thought the number usually put forth is 1000 ft-lbs for elk.

No doubt a rifle in 308 or higher category would be best.


Yep, it varies by state. I don't think I have casing length restrictions in CO, only caliber, ft-lbs, and it must be an expanding bullet.

per google, it is generally between 1500 to 2000 depending on which source and or state manual you reference. Deer and black bear are generally in the 1000ft lb range.

Also if you are talking a carbine and pushing velocities, you really have to put a lot more time into bullet choice. Handgun bullets going really fast can over expand and rip themselves apart. Make sure you pick a sturdy bullet if you go hunting with this.

[darkgael]

Just an anecdote. Related only by the idea of hunting elk with a pistol caliber rifle.
Some time ago the “Double Gun and Single Shot Journal” published an article by Ross Seyfried describing a hunt (perhaps I should say “a stunt”) where he stalked, shot, and killed an elk using a single shot rifle chambered for the .455 Webley. Go figure.
Pete

[Sanch]

Hi Pistoler0,

Irrespective of individual states' fish and game laws, there is no minimum required muzzle energy to kill elk. If there were, archery hunters would be out of elk tag draws. What projectiles destroy is much more crucial in the big game hunting continuum than muzzle energy. The old hunter's saying of, "A.243 Win to the boiler room is a whole lot better than an '06 to the guts," is still controlling.

I'lll guarantee you that within reasonable range, a .45 ACP bullet to the oxygenated blood pumping apparatus of any elk will kill it.

The .45 Super is impressive. However, is the extra velocity necessary? Will it do what Buffalo Bore's .45 ACP 255 grain +P will not? For that matter, will the 10MM do what the .40 S&W won't?

When I'm in bear country, I carry a full-size 1911-A1 loaded with 230 grain Fed HST LE +P ammo.

[Sanch]

BTW, minimum muzzle energy for big game was gun/hunting magazine propaganda.

[Shadow9mm]

Originally Posted by Sanch

BTW, minimum muzzle energy for big game was gun/hunting magazine propaganda.

Some states list minimum recommended energy in their hunting regulations, so its not just magazine propaganda. I have also seen vids on youtube from guides that say it is needed as well.

[Sanch]

Good Morning Shadow9MM,

How much energy does an arrow have at release?

A .308 Win will kill the largest bull elk that's ever existed just as dead as any mega magnum as long as a bullet for either terminates topside oxygenated blood flow. Nothing living defies laws of biology. Nothing living remains in that state without topside oxygenated blood flow.

But a 230 grain .45 ACP bullet in an elk's boiler room, and it will die. I wouldn't recommend hunting elk with a .45 ACP, but it's what abullet destroys more than cartridge.

BTW, I killed a massive (900+ pound) seven point Rocky Mountain bull elk with a 7MM Rem Mag. One shot that took out its heart and lungs was all that was necessary. I could have killed him just as dead with a .30-30 Win assuming identical bullet placement.

[Shadow9mm]

Good Afternoon afternoon Sanch.

Your argument for an arrows energy is irrelevant. Arrows use cutting and the mechanical advantage of the incline blade to pierce and cut with not insignificant pass to push the blade through. Whereas bullets use a direct transfer of energy to deform the bullet to a larger diameter and then penetrate causing focused blunt force trauma.

As far as your 308, 45acp argument, under the right circumstances a 22lr will get the job done too.

Its not a question of can it be done, but should it be done.

The point is to make sure you get enough energy on target to provide adequate penetration to get to vitals and put the animal down as quickly as possible, without causing excessive damage wasting meat.

Another way to look at it, is, inadequate FT LB on target could mean inadequate velocity for your bullet to expand. Or that the combination of bullet weight and speed, after expansion, does not provide adequate penetration to hit vitals.

[44 AMP]

Anyway, it is a common understanding that 1,000 ft-lbs of KE are a minimum for hunting elk.

1000 ft/lbs of energy is a recommendation from some people. It is a requirement in some states game laws. It is NOT the minimum amount of energy needed to kill an elk.

Using Kinetic Energy is a poor method of describing why some things work, but it the only standard that can be applied across a broad range of things.

KE alone simply doesn't account for enough of the factors involved with why bullets work the way they do.

With the right loads, you can have a .22-250 and a .45-70 with identical kinetic energy.

Which one would you pick to drop an angry 800lb quadruped??

Forget needing a given KE number to expand a bullet. Bullets don't need to expand in order to work. Expanding bullets often seem to work better, but that's a different matter. Note that "solids" (non-expanding bullets) are the preferred choice shooting dangerous game in Africa and other places around the world.

Also, bullets do not "expand then penetrate" when both happen, they happen at the same time, the bullet expands AS it penetrates.

The energy requirements pertaining to a given round are only requirements when the game laws mandate such.

Game laws/regulations/rules are just that, they are the rules for the GAME, which is Sport Hunting.

One state I knew had a 500ft/lb handgun requirement for deer and black bear, and 1,000ft/lbs for elk.

They dropped it several years ago.

[Shadow9mm]

Originally Posted by 44 AMP

Note that "solids" (non-expanding bullets) are the preferred choice shooting dangerous game in Africa and other places around the world.

Also, bullets do not "expand then penetrate" when both happen, they happen at the same time, the bullet expands AS it penetrates.

to these 2 points. Yes, but dangerous game in Africa generally has a minimum of a 375H&H mag. Many of the cartridges are much much larger and have wicked ammounts of KE with bid round nose bullets.

Yes correct, however expansion generally initiates upon contact and the bullets open rapidly, thus most of their travel after entering the animal is in the expanded format which is was I was trying to convey, albeit poorly.

[44 AMP]

Most modern big game bullets employ some method of controlled expansion, so that the bullet does NOT expand to its largest possible diameter immediately, but only after penetrating a distance in flesh. Varmint bullets, intended for use on small animals that offer minimal resistance are designed to expand immediately so that effect takes place in the animal, and not past it.

Large caliber solids, as used in dangerous game hunting deliberately eschew expansion to maximize penetration. And it penetration that matters most, after bullet placement.

The expanding bullet that mushrooms hugely but stops a half inch short of where it needs to go is a FAILURE. Rifle or handgun.

Relative to the OP, I don't have a 10mm, not getting one, I have guns that bracket that round on both sides and outperform it handily.

Likewise I have no use for a .45 Super, as I have .45 Win mags, which when it comes to velocity and energy, leave the .45 Super well behind.

IF you are a responsible enough hunter, choosing ONLY the right shots for your round (and with the correct choice of bullet for both the game and your bullet placement) you can humanely take game, including deer and elk with rounds well below what many people recommend as "minimums".

After all, all their recommendations are is their opinion, as is mine.

[Sanch]

Hi Shadow9MM,

Your argument for an arrows energy is irrelevant. Arrows use cutting and the mechanical advantage of the incline blade to pierce and cut with not insignificant pass to push the blade through. Whereas bullets use a direct transfer of energy to deform the bullet to a larger diameter and then penetrate causing focused blunt force trauma.

I've heard that argument a million times from hunters who've forgotten basic laws of biology or choose believe that they're applied selectively. They both kill in an equal manner: terminating topside oxygenated blood flow. It matters not what destroys a big game animal's topside oxygenated blood flow. Arrow, spear, or bullet will all kill the largest Rocky Mountain bull elk if its topside oxygenated blood flow is terminated.

How or what destroys an elk's oxygenated topside blood flow is immaterial. That it's destroyed is.

It's very a basic law of biology that many hunters have seemed to neglect or have forgotten. A .308 Win in the boiler room of an elk will kill it just as dead as any mega magnum. An arrow or spear in the same place will produce the identical outcome.

[Sanch]

BTW, Shadow, there is no doubt that within reasonable distance, a 230 grain Fed HST LE +P round will penetrate an elk's boiler room sufficiently to destroy its oxygenated blood flow equipment.

I'd never recommend hunting elk with a .45 ACP, which isn't the argument. The argument is whether it can be done. There is no doubt in my mind that it can be done quite easily within appropriate range.

.45 ACP ball ammo would probably produce a fatal through-and-through wound on elk. Buffalo bore's 255 grain hard cast +P would be a much better option. But I wouldn't attempt it unless I had absolutely no other option; e.g., lost in a wilderness and needing sustenance. I'd assuredly shoot a fawn if given the option. I would never hunt big game with a .45 ACP. I have a .270 Win for that application.

[Ruger45LC]

Minimum ft-lb requirements or "guidance" is just ignorant, I guess it's done in order to keep those lacking in common sense from potentially using something under powered, but it's hugely vague when you're throwing big heavy pieces of lead, it just doesn't apply.

[Mannlicher]

I just can't see lightweight, high speed JHP bullets getting the job done, as a hunting round on large animals. You have to have deep penetration, and you won't get it with light, fast bullets

[Sanch]

Hi Mannlicher,

I like your handle. Mannlicher-Schonauer produced superb hunting rifles.

Cartridges and bullets should match game hunted. 160 grain Partitions fired from a 7MM Rem Mag at ~3100 FPS will create a through-and-through fatal wound on the largest elk in North America.

For Rocky Mountain mule deer, 130 grain Sierra GK leaving a .270 Win's barrel at ~3000 FPS will drop the largest bucks in their tracks.

I do agree that a properly loaded .45/70 Gov't round firing a bonded bullet at ~2000 will devastated all North American big game. The rub it firing such a cartridge out of an 1895 creates miserably painful recoil.

I will use my comparatively lightweight .270 Win when hunting all North American big game, including bull elk. A 150 grain Partition fired from a .270 Win will kill the largest bull elk. It's what a bullet destroys that adds up to affixing a tag to antlers.

[44 AMP]

Hi Sanch,

You're posting about rifles in the Semi Auto HANDGUN forum...

Mannlicher,

I just can't see lightweight, high speed JHP bullets getting the job done, as a hunting round on large animals.

I'd say that depends on the bullet and the animal, and the shooter's skill.
(meaning shot placement)

Light weight high speed jhp pistol bullets (particularly in .35 cal) are generally built to be optimized for use against humans. Whitetail deer are often not quite as big as some of the folks hunting them. Mule Deer run larger, but then, so do some humans today...

180gr JHP in .44 Mag is the "lightweight high speed" bullet in that caliber. Pretty sure it will do the job on deer. Or elk, with correct shot placement.

Elk (and moose) are much larger, and so, self defense pistol ammo is a rather poor choice, but with precise shot placement, can do the job humanely. That part is up to the shooter. Not shooting through the heavy bones (shoulder, etc) is a good idea with any JHP pistol bullet, though more important with smaller lighter ones.

Generally speaking, today American bullet makers concentrate on JHP bullets for personal defense and JSP for hunting use. There is, of course, a degree of overlap...

Adequate penetration with proper shot placement always works. Less than that...not so much...

[Koda94]

Originally Posted by Pistoler0

I was very pleasantly surprised to find out that the carbine shooting factory 45 Super ammo does reach the required 1,000 ft-lbs for elk!!

at the muzzle....

There's a lot wrong with the idea of doing this, so many more things involved here than just minimum energy but I digress... how close do you think you can get to an elk and whats the energy of the 45 Super at that distance?

[JohnKSa]

They both kill in an equal manner: terminating topside oxygenated blood flow. It matters not what destroys a big game animal's topside oxygenated blood flow. Arrow, spear, or bullet will all kill the largest Rocky Mountain bull elk if its topside oxygenated blood flow is terminated.

How or what destroys an elk's oxygenated topside blood flow is immaterial. That it's destroyed is.

True, but that's not the issue. You brought up the idea of comparing bullet energy to arrow energy. It makes no sense to do that because bullets and arrows, while both lethal, achieve their effectiveness through different methods. Arrows are primarily cutting instruments driven by momentum while bullets are primarily focused blunt trauma driven by energy. They both provide good results, but trying to compare them based on energy or momentum doesn't provide any sort of useful insight.

It's like trying to use horsepower to compare the effectiveness of a chainsaw to a bulldozer for taking trees down. Both will get the job done, but they operate in very different ways even though it's possible to measure the horsepower of both tools.

[Sanch]

Hi JohnKSa,

No. I was explaining the process of death, and how all big game animals die. A .45 ACP bullet that terminates topside oxygenated blood flow will kill elk. Elk are not immune to laws of biology.

Death defined as absence of brain activity.

Harvesting trees is not analogous to killing big game.

[JohnKSa]

A .45 ACP bullet that terminates topside oxygenated blood flow will kill elk. Elk are not immune to laws of biology.

Death defined as absence of brain activity.

Yes. Yes. And Yes. Not relevant to what I was talking about. I was talking specifically about your initial attempt to compare arrow energy to bullet energy and then your comment that bullets and arrows kill in equal manner.

Harvesting trees is not analogous to killing big game.

Correct. I didn't say it was, however, I said comparing the killing power of bullets to arrows using energy or momentum was analogous to comparing the tree-felling characteristics of chainsaws and bulldozers to each other based on horsepower.

In other words, in the same way that bullets and arrows are both used to kill game, but don't kill in the same manner and therefore can't be easily compared using simple parameters, chainsaws and bulldozers are both used to take down trees but don't do it in the same manner and therefore can't easily be compared using simple parameters.

Originally Posted by Sanch

No. I was explaining the process of death, and how all big game animals die.

I read that. I was talking about this:

Originally Posted by Sanch

How much energy does an arrow have at release?

To which someone responded:

Your argument for an arrows energy is irrelevant. Arrows use cutting and the mechanical advantage of the incline blade to pierce and cut with not insignificant pass to push the blade through. Whereas bullets use a direct transfer of energy to deform the bullet to a larger diameter and then penetrate causing focused blunt force trauma.

To which you responded:

Originally Posted by Sanch

I've heard that argument a million times from hunters who've forgotten basic laws of biology or choose believe that they're applied selectively. They both kill in an equal manner:

They kill in different manners. That's why it's not useful to compare bullets to arrows using energy or momentum.