.44 Mag vs 10mm


PDA






hurrakane212
January 26, 2006, 01:44 PM
To the members more ballistics savvy than I, how do the ballistics compare between a .44 mag and a 10mm? ~Nathan

If you enjoyed reading about ".44 Mag vs 10mm" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
mete
January 26, 2006, 02:06 PM
44 mag has bigger diameter bullets, heavier bullets, faster bullets - therefore it's more effective than the 10mm !!

Dave P
January 26, 2006, 02:13 PM
Yeah, but you can carry more 10mm! :)

azredhawk44
January 26, 2006, 02:20 PM
.44magnums are probably twice as effective on game or dangerous animals as 10mm.

That's not saying 10mm isn't effective at all, however.

It's just that a 300gr bullet moving at 1200fps is much more effective than a 165gr bullet doing the same thing.

For a pack of wolves or coyotes attacking my dog, I want a Glock20 with 15+1 rounds.

For a bear that is charging me, I want my redhawk .44mag.

Honestly, I think that .357mag is a more potent critter killer than 10mm. The 10mm just doesn't have the sectional density that magnum revolvers have with a 1.600" cartridge length. More velocity for equal density, or greater density for equal velocity. No contest at all for effectiveness on one target.

P. Plainsman
January 26, 2006, 03:13 PM
There is no comparison. There's some very nasty stuff at the top level of factory .44 Magnum ammunition.

The famed Garrett "Hammerheads" offer a 310 grain bullet at 1325 fps -- and that's the less powerful of Garrett's two .44 loads. Their ".44 Magnum +P" Hammerhead (for Ruger Redhawk and Super Redhawk only) pushes a 330 grain bullet at 1400 fps!

If there's a 10mm round anywhere near the same ballistic zip code as that, I'm unaware of it. Even Buffalo Bore's "Heavy 10mm" tops out at 200 @ 1200. That's middling factory .41 Magnum.

MCgunner
January 26, 2006, 04:15 PM
"..but being as this is a .44 magnum, the most powerful handgun ever made, and could blow your head clean off...."

Still one of my favorite movies. :D The 10mm is a ballistic equivalent of the .357 magnum, NOT the .44. 10mm push around 500-700 ft lbs, about what the .357 magnum makes out of a 6" tube. NORMAL .44 mag loads push around 1000 ft lbs in a 6" revolver. Those WILD Ruger only mentioned 330 grain loads at 1400 fps calculate to over 1400 ft lbs....:what:

S&W620
January 26, 2006, 08:21 PM
How do they compare?? THEY DON'T!!! While the 10mm is a fine semi round it just can not compare with the .44 mag. That being said, it depends what your intentions are with the gun. For animals in the woods, 10mm. For animals in the city, 44mag.

Deer Hunter
January 26, 2006, 08:41 PM
I'd prefer a 10mm, simply because I'm not very recoil-savvy in handguns. I'm a rifle and shotgun guy, handguns are for protection and getting to your rifle. 10mm will give you more chances to hit something. Then again, I'm sure most people don't need over 5 shots to hit something on this forum. I'm not fond of large hand-cannon recoil, but that's just me. Ballistics-wise, the .44 mag stomps all over the 10mm. Yet I don't think I want that much gun in a revolver.

Personal preference, I'd go with a 10mm out of a tanfolgio. Just because they look nicer than a glock.

Lone_Gunman
January 26, 2006, 08:48 PM
For animals in the woods, 10mm. For animals in the city, 44mag.

Don't you have that backwards?

MCgunner
January 26, 2006, 09:02 PM
Ballistics-wise, the .44 mag stomps all over the 10mm. Yet I don't think I want that much gun in a revolver.


Hey, that's why they make the .357 and .41 mags. Well, that's not the ONLY reason. Light and compact for a .44 mag is the 40 ounce mountain gun. I rather like less weight on my belt when I'm on foot for a long time. I don't own a .44, but I do own a Ruger Blackhawk in .45, so I don't miss the .44 in my collection. I'd like to add that .41 mag tracker titanium sometime.

Personally, I like revolvers and don't subscribe to the spray and pray ethos.

agtman
January 26, 2006, 10:12 PM
Comparing magnum revolver rounds to autoloading cartridges is "apples & oranges" - at best. :rolleyes:

Yeah, in the 300gn hunting loads the .44Mag has it all over the 10mm AUTO. But that's not what people who CCW those short-barrelled .44 Mags (4" or less) typically choose for a defensive HP load. (And I know a few guys who do). It's going to be something like CorBon's 165gn .44Mag JHP @ 1300fps/619fpe.

Sure, the .44's a larger caliber of lead slug than what a 10mm is propelling. But in terms of the energy produced, it's less than any of several 10mm loads, and those loads are throwing a heavier bullet too. (Again, we're talking about defensive loads topped with JHPs suitable for use against humans, not the hunting stuff).

Compare Corbon's .44Mag load to:

* Buffalo Bore's 180gn 10mm Speer "Unicore" JHP @ 1350fps/728fpe;

* DoubleTap's 200gn 10mm XTP-HP @ 1250fps/694fpe;

* DT's 180gn 10mm Golden Saber HP @ 1330fps/707fpe;

* PowerStrikeAmmo's 180gn 10mm Gold Dot HP @ 1325fps/702fpe.

:evil: And before all you "Dirty Harry" he-man fans start pounding on the keyboards, just remember ...

... in the second DH movie, Magnum Force, Inspector Callahan admits to some young cops that he really only uses "light .44 Special" loads (wadcutters, IIRC) in his venerable Model 29. :what: So there. :neener:

Man, that's something you'd never see Sonny Crocket do - admit to using "light .40 Short & Weak" loads in his Bren Ten handcannon. :neener: :D

:cool:

P. Plainsman
January 26, 2006, 11:24 PM
Yes, if one compares top 10mm loads to .44 Magnum loads that have been downloaded to the point that they resemble 10mm loads, then the two rounds are comparable.

By parallel reasoning, one could conclude that, since Cor-Bon sells an excellent .44 Special defense round that projects a 165 gr bullet in excess of 1200 fps from a 4" sixgun, the 10mm is comparable to a .44 Special.

Those Buffalo Bore, Double Tap, etc., 10mm energy numbers are pretty impressive. However, since you brought up Buff Bore, I must observe that even their "Lower Recoil" .44 Magnum offering produces 1032 ft/lbs of energy, by no means unusual territory for the cartridge, which is a cool 300 ft/lbs more than the very heaviest of the "Heavy 10mm" rounds you have listed.

Anyway, the original poster's question was not about dedicated CCW ammo, it was about the rounds' "ballistics" in general. That's the beauty of the .44 Magnum chambered revolver, that makes it even more versatile than the .357. With a .44 Mag sixgun, you can purchase or handload personal-defense Magnum or Special ammo that resembles good loads in the 10mm -- with the bonus of a .429" diameter bullet, typically heavier bullet weights, and a great variety of bullet designs from which to select without any need to fret about what will chamber or feed.

You can also choose to run your revolver with feathery plinking loads like the various .44 Special cowboy rounds that run around 210 @ 700.

And if you want to do some serious hunting, or to pack outdoors insurance, you can also get some 310 grain Garretts that will leave your sixgun at 1300 fps, which is in a whole different ballistic realm from the 10mm.

wanderinwalker
January 26, 2006, 11:43 PM
Yes, if one compares top 10mm loads to atypical .44 Magnum loads that have been downloaded to the point that they resemble 10mm loads, then the two rounds are comparable.

By parallel reasoning, one could conclude that, since Cor-Bon sells an excellent .44 Special defense round that projects a 165 gr bullet in excess of 1200 fps from a 4" sixgun, the 10mm is about comparable to a .44 Special.

But the original question wasn't about dedicated CCW ammo, it was about the rounds' "ballistics" as such.

That's the beauty of the .44 Magnum chambered revolver, that makes it even more versatile than the .357. With a .44 Mag sixgun, you can purchase or handload personal-defense Magnum or Special ammo that resembles good loads in the 10mm -- with the bonus of a .429" diameter bullet, typically heavier bullet weights, and the option of more aggressive hollowpoint designs than those commonly found in autoloader ammo.

You can also choose to run your revolver with feathery plinking loads like the various .44 Special cowboy bullets that run around 200 @ 700.

And if you want to do some serious hunting, or to pack some outdoors insurance, you can also get some 310 grain Garretts that will leave your sixgun at north of 1300 fps, while the 10mm, unable to come anywhere close to that realm, is at home watching Miami Vice reruns. :cool:

Sounds like my opinions. Bottom-feeders can get themselves all worked up, "which is more powerful, 10mm vs. .45 ACP," but at the end of the day, there aren't many autoloaders that can match a magnum revolver for sheer power and mass.

(BTW, my revolver is a 6" S&W 629-1, my bottom-feeder is a common high-cap 9-minimeter. ;) )

MCgunner
January 26, 2006, 11:52 PM
What's ridiculous is not comparing a revolver round to an auto round, but comparing what was born as an outdoor/hunting round, the caliber that put the handgun in handgun hunting, with a caliber that was born as a self defense round.

The 10 is a great defense round, against humans. The .44 is the gun to have if you come upon a hungry grizzly. Well, it's the handgun to have between the two anyway. I'd rather have a .300 mag, of course, but who carries a heavy magnum rifle on a backpack trip?

I carry revolvers exclusively in the outdoors (except for my contender I hunt with). I carry revolvers and autos alternately for CCW, depending on my mood or needs of concealment (pocket or IWB) that day. I don't have any full size service autos or revolvers for CCW guns. I own some, but rarely ever carry them. They're too much pain for all day carry. The 10mm will not fit in a 14 ounce, ten shot CCW gun that's smaller than a PPK. That's why I like 9mm and .38 special for CCW carry. If I had a 10, it'd be a safe queen. If I had a .44, I'd actually USE it. I use the .45 colt in lieu of a .44 and don't feel too down on power, though. With it's 300 grainers, it'll do about anything an average hot .44 factory load will do. It ain't as hot as those Ruger only loads...:eek: ...but hot enough for black bear country, big hogs, whatever I'd use a .44 for in Texas/New Mexico.

P. Plainsman
January 27, 2006, 12:19 AM
Heh -- wanderinwalker, you caught me as I was still tinkering with (and perhaps de-snarkifying) my post.

That's what I get for fiddling, fiddling, with posts on a busy Internet forum after I make 'em. :)

BTW, my favorite revolver is a 629 too. I'll be honest, I'm in no hurry to try those Garrett 310s, but then I don't venture into big omnivore country, either. And my autoloader is also a high-cap nine.

Sunray
January 27, 2006, 04:22 AM
"...don't think I want that much gun in a revolver..." You can download a .44 mag to .44 Special velcocities with no fuss. Same as you can a .357 magnum to .38 Special. It's really not the calibre. It's the firearm.
It's a daft comparison in any case. Especially if one thinks a .44 mag will deter a PO'd big bear.

MCgunner
January 27, 2006, 11:40 AM
Especially if one thinks a .44 mag will deter a PO'd big bear.

Not ideal for the task, but big bear have been killed by even the .357, certainly better than a stick. And, I don't know many folks willing to carry a long gun on a long hike in the woods or a back pack trip on the very slight chance of a run in with a POed bear.

Where I play, mostly New Mexico and western Texas, that I'd have to worry about it there's nothing bigger than black bear and mountain lion. I normally don't carry anything bigger than my .357 with some hot loads. I'm quite confident I could do the job with it and it's a lighter gun/ammo combination to tote on a hike. More likely I'd meet up with a human preditor than a four legged one anyway.

Only time I'd feel compelled to carry a long gun regardless of the pain would be on Kodiak Island. I think if I spent any time there, I'd get one of those Marlin "guide guns" in .45-70 and in stainless and sling it over my shoulder and be happy while I fished. I'll never get to go there, so I don't worry much about that!

For those city folk that think they're going to bump into a man eating black bear behind every tree on their trips to the wilds, I reckon a .44 mag is a better bear stopper than the .357 and a mountain gun is only 6 or 8 ounces heavier than my medium frame four inch .357.

If you enjoyed reading about ".44 Mag vs 10mm" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!