10mm..: the new outdoorsman's choice.?

Status
Not open for further replies.
If I were to go to Alaska and hunt I would carry my G40, there are lots up there that carry 10mm. It’s all personal choice. But my choice is going to leave me with 15+1 and a 15 round reload of pretty substantial loads.
 
BigBore44 said:
Now, for anyone besides Craig reading this, I do not have a G20 or G40. I carry a 1911 in 10mm and a Ruger Redhawk, both with handloads.
Click to expand...

My big bore handgun is also a Redhawk I've had since Father's Day in 1982. And though I occasionally find myself fishing in areas like the Bob Marshall Wilderness, mostly the biggest predators around where I frequent are boar woodchucks. Nevertheless, I'm in the market for a 10mm handgun and I'm spending special attention to a SIG Model 220 chambered in 10mm. I have no defense or excuses for my irrational behavior...o_O
 
I think the 10mm is gaining ground as a woods gun. I like revolvers, but the 10mm has an edge with capacity.
If your primary carry is a semiautomatic say Glock 19 than the Glock 29 is a good choice.

I think the 44mag rightfully holds the king of the woods crown. It can be shot accurately by most people, but the 10mm or 357 might be a better choice with less recoil for some shooters.
 
Regarding the capacity argument, I think it could be relevant if you are entering an area with known wolf pack problems, or illegal drug grow plots, where multiple targets may be trying to encircle you. I could see the potential for more misses happening on laterally moving targets, and a 10mm is plenty for either. I would say it's plenty with the right ammo for any North American black bear as well.

However if you are dealing with larger bears of any variety or moose, it seems you are more likely to have a single target freight train coming at you. In that scenario I believe a faster moving, larger diameter bullet is going to do better assuming you hit your target in the right spot and choose a bullet meant to penetrate deeply. I sincerely think folks arguing that a 10mm will allow you to get more rounds on target faster have very little appreciation or understanding of how fast both of those animals are.

In either case you will be lucky to get 1-3 well aimed shots off no matter what gun you are carrying. And with practice you can shoot a 44 magnum or larger gun quite quickly. It takes a lot of practice obviously, but it can be done. I've unloaded 5 rounds of 460 magnum on a target at 25 yards quickly though I ended up with a headache after, and if I didn't have hearing protection in I'd be deaf as a post after. Imaging the critter coming at you at 30 mph and the 1-3 shot thing becomes realistic.

But this isn't a bear thread, and I'm not looking to make it one.

My point is it's a matter of where you choose to enter the outdoors regularly, what you are actually doing with the firearm in question, and your own comfort level with whatever cartridge you choose. We all have different tolerance for recoil and blast and we all have different skill levels. But we need to be realistic about our skill levels. There's a big difference between shooting an animal broadside you intend to eat, versus having an angry animal coming at you. Two different things, and while I'm a competent shooter, I'm not John Wick.
 
Last edited:
460Shooter said:
Regarding the capacity argument, I think it could be relevant if you are entering an area with known wolf pack problems, or illegal drug grow plots, where multiple targets may be trying to encircle you. I could see the potential for more misses happening on laterally moving targets, and a 10mm is plenty for either. I would say it's plenty with the right ammo for any North American black bear as well.
Click to expand...

Two separate, but very good, points.

Multiple 2 legged threats (probably armed) certainly gives weight to the argument for increased capacity. There's no doubt in my mind about that.

Wolf packs are an interest thought. Though wolves do occasionally attack people, if I remember correctly it's usually lone animals rather than packs. But still the possibility exists. And whilst I wouldn't try and argue against increased capacity in such a scenario, if someone feels they may end up in such a predicament, learn wolf pack behavior will help make the most of however many rounds are in your particular gun.

There's certainly a balance to be considered. Is the capacity enough for X? Is the damage per shot enough for Y? Where does that take us on the scale of recoil recovery?

Having never shot any powerful 10mm ammo (just a couple rounds of range fodder) I have no idea what recoil recovery is like compared to my .44s. Perhaps someone can offer some insight there?
 
Obturation said:
...As far as 44 mag goes, my opinion will be pretty unpopular . it's obsolete. 454 casull revolvers are the exact same size, have larger case capacity, push heavier bullets faster and out perform 44 mag in every single way...
Click to expand...

crestoncowboy said:
... If I had to choose one cartridge 10 or 44 I could flip a coin and be content.

I also have the bigger magnums but highly doubt I ever use them for any real work again. Just too big and unless scoped they offer no advantage, for me at least. Great fun though...
Click to expand...
If we are talking about outdoors gun, considering power, portability and cost, the one I will chose is 480 Bisley;

6.5 " barrel 0870.jpg , or 4 5/8" barrel 0872.jpg

Since we are talking about serious firearm, the first thing I will do is to take it to a good smith, to go over it, install tritium sights and make sure that all screws are secured with Loctite or something similar. And, of course, install #5 (Keith style) base pin. If I have few bucks extra, I will ask for flutes on cylinder.
 
Last edited:
WrongHanded said:
Having never shot any powerful 10mm ammo (just a couple rounds of range fodder) I have no idea what recoil recovery is like compared to my .44s. Perhaps someone can offer some insight there?
Click to expand...
The gun the 10mm ammo is being shot from of course makes a big difference. From My Sig P220 I feel full power stuff is pretty tame but thumps the target well. But a Redhawk or Super Red tames a 44 pretty nicely also.

Healthy wolves hunt in packs, and there is not a huge number of attacks on humans on record, but that doesn't mean it couldn't happen. Lone, sick, and desperate animals will certainly try and kill and eat anything they think they can manage.

I was thinking more of a situation where a rancher happens upon wolves harassing his cattle and intercedes. Typically ranchers are on an ATV, and I think wolves would run. But of course when choosing a gun we tend to prepare for possibilities, not probabilities.
 
I consider the 10mm to be ballistically more similar to the .357 Magnum than the .41 Magnum, and certainly less potent than .44 Magnum. When I carried a .40 Glock G22 duty pistol, 2002 to 2004, I bought a 10mm G29, with which to experiment for personal-time carry. I liked it, except that it was just a bit large for my hands. It was not yet clear that I would be allowed to “qual” with a Glock that had a grip reduction job, but I read about an upcoming release of the “Short Frame” Glocks, so I sold or traded the G29, with plans to try one of the smaller-gripped Short Frame version. Well, this was interrupted when I transitioned to the SIG system, but I recently returned to using 9mm Glocks, so, that put the acquisition of a G29 Short Frame or Gen4 back onto my radar screen.

I have long hands, so love the feel of an N-Frame grip, but do not have long fingers, so, cannot adequately reach the trigger of an N-Frame, if the trigger is in the most-forward, DA position. In the Eighties, I just had to not only own a Model 629, but just had to carry it while on police duty. Shooting that 629, with an improper hold, was NOT good for the long-term health of my right hand! I sold the 629, many years ago.

I can properly hold a Ruger Super Redhawk, with an original-pattern GP100 factory grip installed, so, my potential to again shoot .44 Magnum returned, but when I bought an SRH Alaskan, it was .454/45 Colt. So, .45 Colt, not .44 Mag, won that contest.
 
The 10mm should be compared to a 357Mag, or a light loaded 41Mag. As far as capacity, most encounters, either with four or two legged problems, are over in seconds and you will run out of time and distance before ammo, unless you run into a group of either.
 
Nuclear said:
The 10mm should be compared to a 357Mag, or a light loaded 41Mag. As far as capacity, most encounters, either with four or two legged problems, are over in seconds and you will run out of time and distance before ammo, unless you run into a group of either.
Click to expand...

I did a "reload on the clock" last year when what I initial thought was two rattlesnakes in the woodpile rapidly turned into 7 and I was blasting away with a 6-shooter. Everyone says capacity never matters, until it does. I was glad I had spent years enjoying revolvers in USPSA and IDPA competition where fast reloads matter a lot to your score, cause it also mattered that day at the woodpile and the reload happened without me consciously thinking about it. Not having to expend mental focus on the reload lets me focus on where the last two were going and where my dad was standing so I could continue to take safe shots. I still carry a revolver but I have never tried to pretend capacity does not matter and I practice reloads.
 
Last edited:
To paraphrase the Colonel, "Only accurate handguns are interesting!" For me the accuracy of the revolver over all but the most finely tuned and customized semi-autos is the deciding factor. The 10 mm is powerful enough for most outdoors situations, but even the 41 mag is more powerful and very likely considerably more accurate, especially at distance. The advantage of the 44 mag over the 41 is in the availability of heavier bullets. 250 grain to 250 grain there is very little difference, but even for handloaders the 250s are about the limit of availability for the 41 caliber, while bullets over 300 grains are widely available for the 44. "Ruger Only" 45 Colts are in this same class, but require handloading for versatility. The 454s, 480s and larger are really dedicated hunting revolvers, but with handloading can be used for everything, albeit in a larger and heavier platform.

For all-around utility, I think the 44 magnum in a double action revolver is still king.
 
black mamba said:
To paraphrase the Colonel, "Only accurate handguns are interesting!" For me the accuracy of the revolver over all but the most finely tuned and customized semi-autos is the deciding factor. The 10 mm is powerful enough for most outdoors situations, but even the 41 mag is more powerful and very likely considerably more accurate, especially at distance. The advantage of the 44 mag over the 41 is in the availability of heavier bullets. 250 grain to 250 grain there is very little difference, but even for handloaders the 250s are about the limit of availability for the 41 caliber, while bullets over 300 grains are widely available for the 44. "Ruger Only" 45 Colts are in this same class, but require handloading for versatility. The 454s, 480s and larger are really dedicated hunting revolvers, but with handloading can be used for everything, albeit in a larger and heavier platform.

For all-around utility, I think the 44 magnum in a double action revolver is still king.
Click to expand...

I have never perceived revolvers as having that much more potential accuracy than a semi-auto of comparable cost/build quality. And in most cases the accuracy of most quality handguns is better than a larger number of the users can achieve in a practical setting.

I have shot a lot of revolvers and semi-autos using the same ammo (40S&W and 45 ACP) in practical pistol competition and in the run and gun setting the accuracy difference between the two were lost in the many other factors effecting one's ability to get hits on target. The actual MOA accuracy (assuming it was decent to begin with) was a non-issue. In my own shooting at the shooting bench it was a toss up on whether my revolvers or semi-autos produce better groups. My XD-40 (not an expensive handgun) frequently produced better groups than the same ammo in my 610 revolver. So much so, I started loading specific ammo for the 610 that would not feed in the XD-40 to bring it up to similar accuracy. My 2011 has always shot better than my 610 or XD-40s with nearly any ammo. My 625 on the other hand usually out shot my XD-45.

I think if you really spit and polish a revolver it might have more accuracy potential but your going to have to be at the bench to see it. In the wood doing battle with the demonic bruins the minor accuracy differences between a quality revolver and quality semi-auto are lost in the pucker factor.
 
Last edited:
Out of the box DECENT production semiautomatic guns IMHO are just as (and often more so) accurate as out of the box production revolvers. No timing of cylinders to get in the way. No cylinder gap either. My delta/sig220/and 6 inch Glocks are just as accurate as my smith or Ruger revolvers in 44 out to 100 yards. The semi autos that are available in 10mm tend to be full size and decent built guns (not sccy or Lorcin or keltec....) , whereas some 44 and 357 magnums can be cheap junk. Many newer 10mm guns come with hunting sights rather than big fat combat sights too Plus many can accept an optic.

Almost all of my most accurate rimfires are semi-auto. I have several valuable rimfire revolvers that shoot patterns rather than groups. I have a few that shoot ok but ive seen more inaccurate 22 revolvers than accurate. Especially if you omit the K frames. Most any buckmark/victory/mk/neos/woodsman/41 will shoot great. Many people, myself included, have found revolvers to be very hit and miss

A nice revolver can certainly be plenty accurate. My PC 44 and X-frames, as well as freedom arms are great. Not sure if most would call performance center nor freedom arms "out of the box production" though. Ruger can be great can be awful....I have examples of both. Same for smith.
 
Last edited:
Several years back we visited the Western Heritage Museum in Oklahoma, lots of original guns there my surprise was when they were cleaning an exhibit of TV guns and I got to hold the Richard Boone "Have Gun Will Travel Colt" and holster, what surprised me was the amount of wear on it. I had to put on white cotton gloves they had for me.
 
SwampWolf said:
I think that the reason some revolvers are easier to shoot more accurately (not inherently more accurate) is due to their superb and superior single-action trigger pulls.
Click to expand...

No doubt. But the sig and 1911 both have just as good. Or ar least can have. And in the context of the "outdoorsman" you generally think of quick shots in defense so double action mode on the revolver. I know people hate on Glock triggers but I have some Smith double actions that are far worse and ive yet to see a Ruger that I thought had a better Da pull than a Glock trigger. Most of my ruger are single action guns but all my Redhawks have pretty darn bad DA pulls and the SA pulls are mediocre at best. My 6 inch Glock has a - connector and lighter springs. It's plenty serviceable. Not a single action by any means. My best DA trigger is probably my 460 xvr. Its considerably better than my 500 in the same gun. And better than the pc 44. I still wouldn't say it's great for long shots. Anything over 50 yards and im using SA mode personally.

I think another reason people think revolvers are more accurate is the sights. Generally they are better for target than the big square Glock sights or drive the dot Sig sights.

I used to think barrel length was super important but several of my 4 and 5 inch guns are excellent shooters. I believe a well made 4 inch gun is better than a thrown together mass produced 8 inch one. My favorite 44 mag for the last several years is the 329 and its not exactly my most accurate.

Like I said. Ive had 10s since I turned old enough to buy one. Had 44s around the same time. I could flip a coin and not worry either way it landed. Anything farther than the 10 can handle I just take a 460 most likely. Or a rifle.
 
I switched from a .44 I carried for many years to a 10mm. The .44 can take down more critters but black bear is all I really I have to worry about as far as size. The extra rounds and quick reload is why I choose the 10mm.
 
I have posted this before, so I hope I don't sound like a broken record, but I took my Glock 20 to Alaska when we were moose hunting about 15 years ago. I was surprised to find a good supply of 10mm out in the small town of Aniak where we started our trip from.

Once in the bush I found the Glock handy, weather resistant, and all the other things that people like Glocks for. I was fine with the 10mm and felt is was decently powerful and probably adequate.

However in our case, most of the bears and wolves came to our camp at night, when we were in our tent. I would have much prefered a double action revolver that I could have shot through my sleeping bag if needed without the fear of jamming. We did not have bear fences back then, so they would walk right up to the tent.

Ultimately I bought a Ruger Toklat for when I get back up Alaska in a couple of years. I like the size, power, and way a double action can continue to function in tight spaces.

And I really wish Ruger would make something like the Bowen GP44. As much as I love the Redhawk I do perfer the action of the GP/SR to my Redhawk. A nice medium sized .44 or .45 Colt from Ruger would be wonderful!

I still have my 10mm and like it for camping in the mountains. I also think it is just about perfect for the way we hunt pigs in North Texas. We are usually on mules all day and away from the trucks. My Glock lets me carry enough ammo for the day in a light and relatively powerful package that handles the crazy Texas brush and weather.

Like others have said, i think of it more as a semi-auto .357 Mag than a .41 Mag.

So yes I use the 10mm out-of-doors, but I also continue to use many other calibers and guns as the situation dictates.
 
I definitely think 44 still owns the woods as far as 4-legged assailants go. 10mm is next best option when you're equally concerned about 4-legged and 2-legged ones. The semi-auto will favor defense against armed humans. 44 will favor defense against a bear by a fair bit, I think, since you can get some really heavy rounds for it.
 
This thread needs some more photos. I like the 10mm cartridge and have these two handguns. I have used the Ruger as a sidearm during an elk hunt, but I normally choose a .44 Mag or .45 Colt. However, I would feel just fine if this was all I had.

51195405582_a0e2ff340a_o.jpg
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

J
  • Locked
which one to buy 357 10mm 41mag or 44mag
2
Replies
36
Views
2K
Skylerbone
Skylerbone
Armored farmer
Outdoorsman holster.
2 3 4
Replies
75
Views
4K
JeffG
JeffG
B
  • Locked
10mm Auto
2
Replies
35
Views
3K
raz-0
R
G
  • Locked
Many calibers, only one gun for each, which one?
Replies
17
Views
2K
BlkHawk73
B
P
  • Locked
Quantifiable Criteria for a "Woods" gun?
2 3 4 5
Replies
122
Views
13K
Vern Humphrey
V
Back
Top