i have a 460 rowland as well, and carry it on occasion. also in a guides choice holster. some people think that more shots is better, i am not a fan of that thought process, for bear.
a bear will cover 15 yards in less than 2 seconds, how many shots can a guy get off and make hits with in 2 seconds? thats why i think a bigger bullet is better, quality over quantity hits. i agree that your 45 will solve any black bear question you are going to be asked.
You can only rely on punching a hole through the vitals. In the grand scheme of things, I think the .44s extra 300-400 ft.-lbs. really amounts to a hill of beans on larger game. Energy doesn't ever impress large game until you get into really big numbers, and even then, bullet mass would had a more dramatic effect.
In fact, until I got the .45 super, I carried a 9mm. I didn't say it wasn't more effective, I just said the difference was going to be marginal and you would never be able to chock up a kill to those additional foot pounds. A 9mm will still kill a bear, but I can fire the .45 Super almost as fast. It is about finding efficiency for me. 9mm is lethal but won't break big bone well due to the lack of mass. .45 Super will and I can fire it almost as fast. A .44, .454 etc. produce slightly more dramatic wounding maybe if a bone is hit, but I would bet, short of hitting a bone, one would have a very hard time distinguishing the difference between a .45 Auto/Super/Rowland wound track from a WFN hard cast, and a .454 Casull shooting the same type of bullet, despite the fact that the .454 will be carry well over twice the energy.agreed, only vital hits count. i disagree a bit about a larger gun not making a difference tho, if that was the case, you would be using a 9mm
ference was going to be marginal and you would never be able to chock up a kill to those additional foot pounds. A 9mm will still kill a bear, but I can fire the .45 Super almost as fast.