I'm looking for an "outdoor" gun in 10MM. The 1K+ auto's are not in the budget. That leaves the Smith & Wesson 610 4" or the Glock G20 or G29. The upside of the 610 is the use of the .40 S&W cartridge, it's a revolver. Upsode of the Glock is number of rounds. Thoughts on these weapons? Or should I bag the 10MM and look for a reasonable .44 Mag? I am heading to Alaska and want something on my belt in addition to my 375 H&H. Appreciate your time.
Autoloader or Revolver in 10MM or 44 Mag?
- Thread starter medic68
- Start date
- Status
mcb
Member
I will ramble on this one...
10mm is ballistically inferior to 44 Mag. 10mm Auto tops out at about 750 ft-lbs with heavy for caliber bullets (180-220gr). 44 Mag can exceed 1100 ft-lbs of energy even in the "delicated" M29/629 and quite a bit higher than that in Rugers (an similar heavy built revolvers) and 44 mag will push bullets in excess of 300gr if desired.
10mm Auto's biggest advantage is moderately good power levels (for a semi-auto handgun) making it very shootable along with the high capacity offered by modern polymer framed guns. Don't forget the new Sprinfield Armory XD in 10mm Auto. That would be under your budget and IMHO has better ergonomics than the Glock 20/29. I think the polymer framed double stack handguns really do pair well with 10mm Auto for a woods-gun
If you are set on a 10mm Auto revolver then look at the Ruger GP100 in 10mm, and also under you budget. I am a S&W fanboy but if I was set on a new 10mm Auto revolver (an who wouldn't since moonclips rule
) then I would be looking for a GP100 in 10mm over a S&W 610. The S&W 610 is a fantastic revolver (I have one) but you can have exactly the same revolver in 44 Mag (I have that too). The GP100 in 10mm at least sheds some of the extra size and weight not needed for 10mm Auto revolver.
S&W M29 and 610 setup nearly identically.
One thing you can do if your into thinking outside the box is buy a GP100 in 10mm Auto, Super Redhawk in 10mm Auto or S&W 610 and have it reamed for 10mm Magnum. This will bring 41 Rem Mag power levels to play while still allowing you to shoot 10mm Auto and 40S&W when you don't need the power/expense. Certainly not a conventional option as 10mm Magnum is only loaded buy one or two boutique loaders. Though if your a reloaded its easy enough to reload 10mm Magnum with standard 10mm/40S&W dies.
10mm is ballistically inferior to 44 Mag. 10mm Auto tops out at about 750 ft-lbs with heavy for caliber bullets (180-220gr). 44 Mag can exceed 1100 ft-lbs of energy even in the "delicated" M29/629 and quite a bit higher than that in Rugers (an similar heavy built revolvers) and 44 mag will push bullets in excess of 300gr if desired.
10mm Auto's biggest advantage is moderately good power levels (for a semi-auto handgun) making it very shootable along with the high capacity offered by modern polymer framed guns. Don't forget the new Sprinfield Armory XD in 10mm Auto. That would be under your budget and IMHO has better ergonomics than the Glock 20/29. I think the polymer framed double stack handguns really do pair well with 10mm Auto for a woods-gun
If you are set on a 10mm Auto revolver then look at the Ruger GP100 in 10mm, and also under you budget. I am a S&W fanboy but if I was set on a new 10mm Auto revolver (an who wouldn't since moonclips rule
) then I would be looking for a GP100 in 10mm over a S&W 610. The S&W 610 is a fantastic revolver (I have one) but you can have exactly the same revolver in 44 Mag (I have that too). The GP100 in 10mm at least sheds some of the extra size and weight not needed for 10mm Auto revolver.
S&W M29 and 610 setup nearly identically.
One thing you can do if your into thinking outside the box is buy a GP100 in 10mm Auto, Super Redhawk in 10mm Auto or S&W 610 and have it reamed for 10mm Magnum. This will bring 41 Rem Mag power levels to play while still allowing you to shoot 10mm Auto and 40S&W when you don't need the power/expense. Certainly not a conventional option as 10mm Magnum is only loaded buy one or two boutique loaders. Though if your a reloaded its easy enough to reload 10mm Magnum with standard 10mm/40S&W dies.
Not when you're using 3-4" 44 magnum barrels which still means a gun longer and heavier than a G20 with a 4.5" barrel. If you start shooting 44's from 6" or longer barrels then I would agree that 44 mag takes it to another level, but not when you compare them to shorter barreled revolvers. And energy numbers are near useless anyway. A 200 gr hardcast bullet will get 1250-1300 fps from either a G20 or G29. I don't know or care what kind of energy it has, but that load will match penetration from 44 magnums in animals and has proven it will take animals such as the biggest brown bear and cape buffalo.
If you're looking for a dedicated handgun for hunting one of the long barreled magnum revolvers would be my pick. The extra barrel length means longer sighting planes and better triggers add up to more accurate shooting. The longer barrels do add some velocity which is helpful when you're taking shots beyond 50 yards which would be a real possibility for hunting.
But for large predator protection the revolver is no longer the clear winner. I have 44 mags, but when I've camped in grizzly country opted for my G29. Having 15 rounds of heavy hardcast bullets in a much smaller, lighter package wins for me. The ability to attach a weapons mounted light is comforting at night. My revolvers are more accurate at distance, but in a self defense situation is not really an advantage.
I'd not argue with anyone who felt more confident in a magnum revolver. I believe either will do the job. But a 10mm revolver is neither fish, nor fowl for me. They make heavy 200 gr hardcast loads in 357 mag that will essentially duplicate anything the heavy 10mm loads will do. If I were carrying a revolver it'd be a 357 or larger magnum revolver. I'd insist on one with a frame capable of handling the hottest magnum loads, which would exclude some of the smaller 5 shot 357 snubbies.
I can't say about the other 10mm pistols, but my Glocks shoot cheaper 40 S&W loads just fine with no modifications to anything. I rarely do it because I can get 10mm target loads for just about the same price as 40's. Cheaper than 45's. But it is nice to know I could if I needed to.
Size comparison, G29 vs 4" S&W 629.
Bed time in bear country.
mcb
Member
Even from a 4-inch barrel 44 Mag with moderate bullet weights 225-270gr you still can exceed 900 ft-lbs. I love 10mm Auto but from comparable barrel lengths the 44 Magnum is simply more cartridge that 10mm will be. That said 44 Mag will never have the capacity a good 10mm double stack can have.
The 10mm Revolver is definitely a strange beast. It is primarily a gamer's gun who's niche was pretty small even when it first came out but now has almost completely evaporated. That said the GP100 in 10mm would be a very nice woods revolver if revolvers are your thing. Ballistics comparable to 357 Magnum without the painful muzzle blast that similar energy levels in 357 Magnum is notorious for. 10mm Auto also uses a much thicker and more robust moonclip that is far less finicky about what brass you pair it with than 357 Mag moonclips, assuming your 357 is even cut for moonclips. And there is always the option, with a little gun smithing, to go to 10mm Magnum for some true magnum performance if desired.
The 10mm Revolver is definitely a strange beast. It is primarily a gamer's gun who's niche was pretty small even when it first came out but now has almost completely evaporated. That said the GP100 in 10mm would be a very nice woods revolver if revolvers are your thing. Ballistics comparable to 357 Magnum without the painful muzzle blast that similar energy levels in 357 Magnum is notorious for. 10mm Auto also uses a much thicker and more robust moonclip that is far less finicky about what brass you pair it with than 357 Mag moonclips, assuming your 357 is even cut for moonclips. And there is always the option, with a little gun smithing, to go to 10mm Magnum for some true magnum performance if desired.
Charlie Martinez
Member
Not very long ago I watched a video on the subject. The three guys in the video are Alaska guides with experience dealing with big bears. They all agreed on the Glock 10 mm being the best handgun. The consensus was that the best bear defense was a 12 Gauge pump or auto loaded with 00 buckshot or slugs. Finally they all agreed that bear attacks were too fast for SA revolvers even if they shot cartridges that were much more powerful than the 10 mm. Based on what these guys all agreed on the Glock in 10 mm is the clear winner.
bannockburn
Member
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2007
- Messages
- 26,285
For Alaska if I were going to take a 44 Magnum revolver it would probably be a S&W Model 69 or a Model 629 with a 4" barrel or a Ruger Redhawk with a 4.2" barrel. My choice in a 10mm. would most likely be a semi-auto like a Glock G20 or G29.
The more I think about it with the size and weight savings, along with the extra rounds that I would have with a 10mm. semi-auto, I would go with a Glock G29.
The more I think about it with the size and weight savings, along with the extra rounds that I would have with a 10mm. semi-auto, I would go with a Glock G29.
Interesting question and interesting answers. IMHO, if a revolver is wanted it should be in either .41 mag or .44 mag. If it has to be a 10mm the Glock with more rounds sounds good. I have a friend with a 10 mm in a 1911 and he swears BY it.
If1HitU
Member
I don't know anything about Alaska, G 40 10mm or Ruger Redhawk .44Mag..
Last edited:
I could have gotten the Glock. I got my Tangy 10mm instead and put a fiber optic front sight on it. I liked the heavier steel construction, longer barrel and possibly increased accuracy:. 15 rd mags.
Mine's a Witness Elite Match.
There's one on IG For $782:
https://www.impactguns.com/semi-aut...ch-10mm-two-tone-15rd-mag-741566111495-600650
There's a standard Witness on IG for $550:
https://www.impactguns.com/semi-aut...el-wonder-finish-15rd-mag-741566107016-999220
Mine's a Witness Elite Match.
There's one on IG For $782:
https://www.impactguns.com/semi-aut...ch-10mm-two-tone-15rd-mag-741566111495-600650
There's a standard Witness on IG for $550:
https://www.impactguns.com/semi-aut...el-wonder-finish-15rd-mag-741566107016-999220
Last edited:
Ohen Cepel
Member
I would go with a Glock 20 or their long slide M40, many more rounds on tap if needed. Not as strong per round as a .44 but you have more if needed.
Look about what you may shoot the best. Hits are key, if you're a revolver guy then go .44.
Look about what you may shoot the best. Hits are key, if you're a revolver guy then go .44.
I read the title, where you are asking about a revolver or auto in .44 or 10mm. I figured I had both of those bases covered, since I have a 10mm revolver and a couple .44 autos.
I really like them both but having read what you’re looking for, I don’t think I’d recommend either for what you want.
I got the Blackhawk 10mm because I wanted one, and no other reason. But for protection from critters with teeth, a .44 revolver holds as many rounds as my 10mm, and can be had in the same size/weight.
The Desert Eagle is also a lot of fun, and much softer to shoot than a revolver. But it’s a brick. And a large brick at that. Additionally, you really need two hands to deploy it and if you need to use it, one hand may be occupied. Carrying chamber empty obviously requires a pair of hands to work the slide. And carrying cocked & locked, or hammer down requires double-jointed ape thumbs to disengage the safety or cock the hammer.
I have carried a 10mm auto in bear country, in a Colt Delta Elite. A Glock 20 or 40 would also work well, as a great balance between weight, capacity, and shootability. I owned a G29 and really didn’t care for it. It loses quite a bit from the shorter barrel, and I could just never warm up to it. The Tanfoglio is another’s excellent option.
Personally, for belt packing in bear country, I’d lean toward a large double action revolver in .44 Mag in a 4” to 5” barrel length. Either a S&W or Ruger would be my preference.
I really like them both but having read what you’re looking for, I don’t think I’d recommend either for what you want.
I got the Blackhawk 10mm because I wanted one, and no other reason. But for protection from critters with teeth, a .44 revolver holds as many rounds as my 10mm, and can be had in the same size/weight.
The Desert Eagle is also a lot of fun, and much softer to shoot than a revolver. But it’s a brick. And a large brick at that. Additionally, you really need two hands to deploy it and if you need to use it, one hand may be occupied. Carrying chamber empty obviously requires a pair of hands to work the slide. And carrying cocked & locked, or hammer down requires double-jointed ape thumbs to disengage the safety or cock the hammer.
I have carried a 10mm auto in bear country, in a Colt Delta Elite. A Glock 20 or 40 would also work well, as a great balance between weight, capacity, and shootability. I owned a G29 and really didn’t care for it. It loses quite a bit from the shorter barrel, and I could just never warm up to it. The Tanfoglio is another’s excellent option.
Personally, for belt packing in bear country, I’d lean toward a large double action revolver in .44 Mag in a 4” to 5” barrel length. Either a S&W or Ruger would be my preference.
Kind of a funny thread title. The 10mm and .44 magnum are not in the same "weight class" in terms of power/ballistics. Not even close. Yes, the 10mm has quite a bit more ballistic capability than the typical service calibers... but it is not in the same category as a .44 magnum, nor even the .41 (which many people wrongly claim it can match).
To me, that's why I like the 10mm. I find .44 magnum levels of recoil unpleasant for shooting more than a couple of cylinders. There are people (MaxP here comes to mind) who can take that kind of recoil in huge quantities. Not me. Of course, there are also people who find the 10mm "too much" (including a large number of FBI agents, as history shows), but it is, to me, below the threshold of true discomfort.
In any event, let go of any notion that these are "substitute" or "equivalent" calibers. They aren't. If the intention is to have a gun for a particular function, I suggest first asking whether the ballistics of the 10mm can meet those needs. For me, a resident of the southeastern US, everything beyond some very distant target shooting can be "handled" with the 10mm. If the 10mm can do what you need the gun to do, then the advantages of reduced recoil, lower cost ammo, and the potential for greater magazine capacity if you go the semi-auto route, would suggest going with 10mm. If there's something the 10mm cannot ballistically do that you need the gun to do, well... then you have to move up the power curve. The 1st gen 4-something magnums (.41 and .44)* are the next step up.
*Yes, I know the .44 mag predated the .41. I'm just trying to exclude things like the .454 and .460.
To me, that's why I like the 10mm. I find .44 magnum levels of recoil unpleasant for shooting more than a couple of cylinders. There are people (MaxP here comes to mind) who can take that kind of recoil in huge quantities. Not me. Of course, there are also people who find the 10mm "too much" (including a large number of FBI agents, as history shows), but it is, to me, below the threshold of true discomfort.
In any event, let go of any notion that these are "substitute" or "equivalent" calibers. They aren't. If the intention is to have a gun for a particular function, I suggest first asking whether the ballistics of the 10mm can meet those needs. For me, a resident of the southeastern US, everything beyond some very distant target shooting can be "handled" with the 10mm. If the 10mm can do what you need the gun to do, then the advantages of reduced recoil, lower cost ammo, and the potential for greater magazine capacity if you go the semi-auto route, would suggest going with 10mm. If there's something the 10mm cannot ballistically do that you need the gun to do, well... then you have to move up the power curve. The 1st gen 4-something magnums (.41 and .44)* are the next step up.
*Yes, I know the .44 mag predated the .41. I'm just trying to exclude things like the .454 and .460.
Jessesky
Member
- Joined
- Aug 25, 2016
- Messages
- 981
All this talk about footpounds is moot. The real deciding factor is frontal area and how heavy of a slug the cartridge allows you to push. While bullet design is important as well, I’ll leave that out of this because you can have most designs in either cartridge.
As you go up in weight, you lose powder capacity. There is a major difference between max weights of a 310 grain 44 at 1200fps and a 220 gr 10mm at 1200fps. I don’t mind a long handgun either, the long sight radius helps me get on target faster. The argument between the G20 and a 6 shot .44 shouldn’t be the power factor. It should be whether you prefer to have more power on tap in less rounds or more rounds on tap of lesser power.
As you go up in weight, you lose powder capacity. There is a major difference between max weights of a 310 grain 44 at 1200fps and a 220 gr 10mm at 1200fps. I don’t mind a long handgun either, the long sight radius helps me get on target faster. The argument between the G20 and a 6 shot .44 shouldn’t be the power factor. It should be whether you prefer to have more power on tap in less rounds or more rounds on tap of lesser power.
adcoch1
Member
Depending on your intendrd use of this belt gun either one could work. The revolver will weigh more, yet it will hit harder. For actually hunting with it this is a bonus. Also, if something is chewing on you, you may only have one arm to operate your sidearm, and a revolver is less likely to end up immobilized (think out of battery or ammo failures) if it is a double action.
The auto is going to be lighter, and therefore much more likely to be on you in camp, and carrying around a 375 h&h all day may make the weight savings alone worth it.
Bottom line neither is a bad choice. I am heavily invested in 44 mag, and I regularly ask myself if I should pick up a 10mm auto...
The auto is going to be lighter, and therefore much more likely to be on you in camp, and carrying around a 375 h&h all day may make the weight savings alone worth it.
Bottom line neither is a bad choice. I am heavily invested in 44 mag, and I regularly ask myself if I should pick up a 10mm auto...
mcb
Member
ft-lbs, slugs-ft/sec, sectional density, TKO or just about any other metric you want to use to compare 10mm Auto to 44 Mag and the 10mm Auto always comes up short, significant short in most cases.
I am not saying you need that "power" to deal with anything only that 44 Mag has more of it (whatever label you want to use) than 10mm Auto. I believe there is plenty of proof out there that 10mm Auto is a fairly capable round even as a woods gun.
I also think that for most shooters for a given amount of training/practice time they are likely to be more proficient with then semi-auto than the revolver. I am not talking about standing at the range slow firing single action at paper bullseye but the ability to draw and fire quickly and accurately while possibly in very awkward shooting positions. This simply takes a bit more practice with a revolver than a semi-auto for the average handgun shooter.
I am not saying you need that "power" to deal with anything only that 44 Mag has more of it (whatever label you want to use) than 10mm Auto. I believe there is plenty of proof out there that 10mm Auto is a fairly capable round even as a woods gun.
I also think that for most shooters for a given amount of training/practice time they are likely to be more proficient with then semi-auto than the revolver. I am not talking about standing at the range slow firing single action at paper bullseye but the ability to draw and fire quickly and accurately while possibly in very awkward shooting positions. This simply takes a bit more practice with a revolver than a semi-auto for the average handgun shooter.
take the g20 and make sure you load it up with this, or equivalent: https://www.buffalobore.com/index.php?l=product_detail&p=394
I think three feet of penetration should be enough.
luck,
murf
I think three feet of penetration should be enough.
luck,
murf
Zaydok Allen
Member
- Joined
- Feb 12, 2011
- Messages
- 13,274
If you are going to Alaska I would choose the 44 mag with heavy hard cast ammo.
If you’re concern is bear you are unlikely to get more than one or two shots off anyway before the bear is on you and capacity won’t matter.
Shoving the muzzle of a gun into an attacking critter is better performed with a revolver as there is no slide to push out of battery. The extra mass of the 44 bullet will only be a benefit.
Moose can be damned cranky too.
If wolves are more a concern, I’d want capacity.
If you’re concern is bear you are unlikely to get more than one or two shots off anyway before the bear is on you and capacity won’t matter.
Shoving the muzzle of a gun into an attacking critter is better performed with a revolver as there is no slide to push out of battery. The extra mass of the 44 bullet will only be a benefit.
Moose can be damned cranky too.
If wolves are more a concern, I’d want capacity.
WrongHanded
Member
- Joined
- Jul 6, 2017
- Messages
- 4,771
My two cents is this:
Don't go with a .44 mag revolver unless you know you can shoot it well; or you have the time to invest in learning to shoot it well. In the case that you can handle the gun and cartridge combination with some proficiency, it would be the better option for large 4-legged threats.
Don't go with a .44 mag revolver unless you know you can shoot it well; or you have the time to invest in learning to shoot it well. In the case that you can handle the gun and cartridge combination with some proficiency, it would be the better option for large 4-legged threats.
If I have legit bear concerns, especially brown bear concerns, I'm going to have a rifle on me. I didn't even bother with a handgun the two times I hunted in Alaska but my rifle was with me all the time. If OP is wanting a sidearm for Alaska I'd definitely go 44 between the two. Down in the lower 48 I think either handgun would be a nice dedicated woods carry gun and it just boils down to personal preference. I'd probably opt for the 10mm because it's lighter and higher capacity.
FL-NC
Member
I would opt for the Glock 20. I don't care for wheelguns, and I prefer Glocks in handguns. I have Glocks in 40 and 45 for hunting sidearms, which are adequate for anything anywhere I'm going in the lower 48.
Jessesky
Member
- Joined
- Aug 25, 2016
- Messages
- 981
If only it were that easy to choose what animal you are around. Odds are if you are in bear country, you are in wolf country. If anything mountain lion are the most unnerving to me.
Both the 10 MM and the 44 Mag meet the mission, bear protection. The 10 MM with hard cast's has been shown by Alaskan guides to get the job done BUT the 44 Mag is also a proven caliber for the task. All of my Academy training was with revolvers and I am very comfortable with them, that said the "Glocks" carry a lot more firepower and I have trained with the G19 and G31. Now realistically is all of that firepower needed? If it ain't one (or two) and done I'm thinking your in the kimchee. The Smith & Wesson 610 comes in at 50 oz unloaded, the 629 Delux is 39.6 oz (and a grand!), The Glock G20 is 30.5 oz. Best sight radius goes to the Glock, then 610 and the 629. I'm leaning towards the G20 but....
Zaydok Allen
Member
- Joined
- Feb 12, 2011
- Messages
- 13,274
That's true, but one has to consider the locality. There have been numerous issues with wolves in Montana and Wyoming. In that location brown bears are more commonly called grizzlies, because they represent a subspecies of brown bear that are known to be smaller than Alaskan bears, and certainly coastal browns, and happen to have a grizzled appearance. They are all brown bears though. Given the smaller stature of the grizzlies and high wolf population, I would happily carry a 10mm as there is just a better chance of it covering both bases. I've been accidentally entirely too close to a grizzly before, and am confident in that assertion. Moose, I question that one, but you specifically mentioned the cohabitation of bear and wolves, so we can put that aside.
One also has to consider the behavior of wolves versus bear. Wolves are persistent and dogged hunters, but are easier to scare off with loud bangs, and once one or two of their pack goes down, survival mode kicks in. If you don't see them coming, well it may be moot. Brown bear on the other hand have a little different response and behavior. If you startle them, they will run, or attack. If they attack, they can get pretty revved up, and adrenaline takes over. I've seen videos of charging bear that have already been shot and keep coming. Given the larger dimensions of inland and coastal Alaskan brown bear, a smaller slug has less chance of hitting vitals or breaking bone on an animal that may outweigh it's lower 48 brethren by 400 lbs., depending where you are. My point is that Alaskan bears are a lot different brown bear than inland grizzly. Kodiaks are an entirely different scenario, and far scarier. The record was over 1500 lbs.
If I'm potentially going to be faced by an animal that could range from 600-1000+ pounds, depending on the location in Alaska, that can sprint at over 30 mph, and I'm only likely to get off one or two aimed shots, then personally, I want a cartridge with more bullet mass than a 10mm can offer. Talk to big game hunters and see what they say about large bodied dangerous game. The OP also mentioned he would be carrying a 375 H&H. That is wise, and a far better option for bear and moose than any handgun, and as far as I'm concerned, gives him adequate capacity without a 15 round Glock 20.
It's just my opinion, and no one is obliged to agree. And of course all of this opinion is rendered irrelevant if a person shoots a 10mm better than a 44.
Regarding cats, I go for one or two short hikes after work each week. It looks like this where I live.
The other day I walked out, and hit my turn around spot and passed back over the same ground about 10 minutes later. This is what I found.
View media item 2423View media item 2424
I literally missed this lion crossing my path by ten minutes. Those are my tracks on the far right. They are in a lot of places, but there are so few lion attacks on people, and they are no harder to kill than a human, that I am content carrying a 9mm, 357, or 10mm where I live.
About 4 weeks ago one of my employees found an intact lion that was about 4-5 years old and frozen in the snow. It weighed in at 120 lbs. He got the skull back.
Cats are all over the place, and sneaky. I've seen two, and one was moving so fast all I could think was "Wow, a gun would've made no difference if it was attacking me." At the same time, a Colorado man choked one out that attacked him just a few weeks ago. Young males do dumb things. So the bottom line is keep your eyes and ears open, look over your shoulder now and then, and you'll probably be just fine.
Last edited:
They have all three here in Utah
JONWILL
Member
- Joined
- Apr 21, 2017
- Messages
- 938
I have only run across one bear in my hikes in the Rockies. It was on a trail near the Tetons. It was huge. Honestly there isn't a handgun made that would have made me feel protected. A 12 gauge shotgun or 45-70 long gun would have been better
I would personally go with a high capacity 10mm over the 44 Magnum. I would prefer more shots. From what I have read the 10mm is enough cartridge to get the job done
Last edited:
- Status
