+1
harrygunner
Too many people think anything you can't rattle off with .1 sec split times has too much recoil, but I ain't buying it. I know I have 15 rounds on tap in my Glock 20, but I consider it more a .357 Magnum revolver with 2.5x the standard capacity. The ballistics are very similar. Sure, it recoils more than my SIG P220, or my dad's Beretta. But it's recoil is not excessive. I've seen a 16 year old girl shoot it just fine.
My vote for overall versatility would be the 10mm. No other semi-auto pistol cartridge can compare to the overall versatility and utility of the 10mm.
That said, it isn't a powerhouse either. It's not appropriate for bear defense. While I might use it to hunt for black bear at close to moderate range, that would depend solely on my ability to pick my shots. This is a luxury you don't have when a bear is attacking you. I still feel it makes a better choice as a hiking/woods gun than the .45, but it isn't a .41 Mag or a .44 Mag.
The best advice I can give is to think of it as a .357 Mag in an auto pistol. If you think of it like that, it becomes a simpler decision. Would you want a .357 Mag in your camp sight, or a .45? The 10mm can be loaded for much deeper penetration, and has the velocity to pretty much guarantee expansion with most modern JHP.
Don't forget that the .45 ACP and 10 mm can usually be converted to .400 Corbon and 9x25 Dillon, respectively, with no more than a barrel change. I've never shot it, but on paper the .400 Corbon seems like the most underappreciated cartridge out there (for reloaders anyway).
Under appreciated? Even the little recognition the .400 Corbon gets is more than it deserves. I for one can't think of a single reason it should exist at all. If you want .40 S&W ballistics with .45 ACP grip size and capacity, and are willing to deal with the expense to obtain a decrease in performance, then so be it--I guess there are enough suckers out there. But it can't compare to the ballistics of a full power 10mm, esp with 180 gr and heavier bullets. It doesn't have the capacity of the 10mm or the .40...as near as I can tell it literally provides the worst of both worlds into a single abysmally worthless cartridge that just happens to cost a crap load to shoot while providing absolutely no useful advantages over anything else on the market. If I want sub-10mm performance from a .40 caliber cartridge, I'll take the size, capacity, and economy of the .40 S&W every time. If I want .40 caliber performance from a .45-sized frame, I'll rock the ballistic advantage of the 10mm and enjoy the extra round or two of capacity and the reduced cost. But if I am stuck with the capacity of a .45, then it better be a .45. Reducing my capacity and increasing my cost to get a smaller hole is, at best, counter-productive.