More a preference as to whether you like revolvers or autos. Me, for outdoor use, I'll pick the accuracy of the revolver every time. There is no need for more "firepower" than a revolver has, not in the woods on game. If your hikes take you into drug growing country, you might have a point on the firepower thing, but still, I like revolvers for woods carry. Now, if I had an auto that was as accurate as my Ruger P90 and in 10mm, I would be in a bind to make the choice, I guess, but one thing I like about revolvers is the ability to shoot very light ammunition on small game and heavy loads for big stuff and defense with a simple sight elevation change. An auto isn't as versatile on the trail IMHO.
BTW, with heavy bullets, the velocity drop from 4" to 6" is minimal. I get about 100 ft lbs drop on my 158 grain load, not enough to worry all that much about, still over 600 ft lbs. On my 180 grain load, I'm getting pretty much what Buffalo Bore's 180 advertizes. I get 1400 fps/785 ft lbs out of my 6.5" Blackhawk and 1306 fps/662 ft lbs out of a TWO AND A QUARTER inch barrel of an SP101. The SP101 still has enough umph with a 2" barrel for the trail. I haven't chronoed that load in my 4" gun, plan to , figure about 700 ft lbs just taking the split. The 4" gun is a LOT handier on the trail and just as accurate as my 6.5" gun. It has enough sight radius to allow this. Given the choice of a 34 ounce gun or a 42 ounce gun, I pick the 4" gun for trails and hiking.
There is much more velocity drop in a 125 grain hot load due to barrel length, but nobody in his right mind would carry a 125 grain load for the woods. The heavier bullets in the caliber are much more efficient, I postulate, due to the greater amount of time they are in the gun, slower acceleration rate. They are able to use more of that slow burning powder's pressure peak.
....with the "most powerful handgun ever made (30 years ago). I won't mess with the 10. A mountain gun in .44 is pretty handy.
