Medco’, if you think that the 10mm is sufficient, then I’d go with that. They’re not equivalent. The 10 may be enough. Your call.
The only advantage the 10mm has over the 44 is higher magazine capacity. I like the 10mm, but it's not a .44 Magnum and quite honestly the two are pretty far apart in terms of ballistic capability. I'll say this, and it's probably controversial, but the 10mm really is in the same category as .40 and .45, it's a service cartridge and if loaded properly, no animal would know the difference between .40, 10mm or .45 ACP.
IMO, this is a very good post. Also IMO, the question the OP should ask is "what kind of bullet should I load?" And my answer would be simple...a hot, flat nose hard cast round. May also consider an "extreme penetrator" solid copper bullet as well, but I would prefer the hard cast. Buffalo Bore is one name that comes to mind. Underwood Ammo is the other. ON the Glock, with a stock barrel, beware the 10MM HC in 220 grains, it is unstable by many accounts. An after market barrel will solve that problem. Otherwise, stick with the 200 grain HC.
Everyone always says to go with the 4" .44 mag for bears, and while ballistically better, it is much harder to shoot accurately in rapid fire succession for most people. In addition, it is much slower to reload for the vast majority of us. Glock 20 or 21 offer 16 and 14 rounds loaded respectively, with a much easier platform to shoot, a lighter package to carry, and a less expensive platform to buy and operate. And for under $200, you can put a very good, high lumen weapon light on it.
Read this for real world bear and aggressive animal data using a handgun: http://www.marksmanshipmatters.com/dangerous-predators-stopped-with-handguns/
I traded my 629 for a G20SF-----6 vs 16 with an easy reload of 15 more if needed------lighter weight and easier to carry. Wasn't too thrilled with S&W lock either----it never locked up on me but there was the possibility that it could lock up on me when I needed it most -----that just didn't sit well with me-----the only S&W revolver I own is a no-lock 642--- I don't see that changing unless they start offering more no-lock variants----the lock basically made me a Ruger revolver owner---with no plans on changing that.
Agree, when you can chuck a 200 gr hard cast at 1200ish fps or a 220 gr bullet at 1150ish fps, 40s&w and 45auto look unimpressive. Granted, those would be warm loads, but that doesn't change the reality of the performance difference.
In what context is this "reality of performance" seen to be the same? In the social self-defense context sure the extra penetration of 10mm Auto is not need against a human. 9mm, 40 S&W, and 45 ACP have all proven (with quality ammo) to have sufficient penetration to be very effective so if you extend that penetration with 10mm Auto you don't see a statically significant change in it effectiveness in this particular context. On the other hand in a hunting/critter-defense role the difference between 40S&W and 10mm Auto becomes more apparent since many of these critters require greater penetration than 9/40/45 can reliably deliver and the extra kinetic energy of 10mm Auto can achieve that penetration.
And then you get into the whole discussion about whether the Fackerlite analysis is a complete description of all the incapacitation mechanisms/effects/dynamics that might take place. There's no doubt that the same projectile moving 200 fps faster does different things to fluid mediums... the only question is whether those different impacts are material.
I don’t think there is ANY context where the performance can be seen as the same except when looking at use on humans in a SD situation. 10mm, 40, and 45 are probably all going to do pretty similar things when forcefully inserted in a human or human sized body, like you pointed out. However, there is an obvious increase in penetration and velocity, and it’s potential effectiveness against heavier bodied animals when loaded with the right bullet. The longer case of the 10mm allows for this of course. I whole heartedly agree with everything you said, and believe there is a very real difference in the potential performance of 10mm vs 40 and 45, particularly with heavy bullets. That is an interesting topic. I struggle to believe that fluid medium temporary displacement is truly contributory to a permanently incapacitating wound at pistol velocities. I guess my preference for 10mm in general comes from the increased effective range the velocity of the cartridge gets you, combined with the potential bone breaking/penetrating potential that the combination of velocity and higher possible bullet mass produced. It’s a great combo for a semiauto pistol.
Who said anything about permanence of incapacitation? Many, many, many fistfights have been won by as a result of one pugilist being punched in the solar plexus, even though getting the wind knocked out of you doesn't do any permanent damage. But, yeah, whole different discussion.
Fair point. A wound need not be permanent to be contributory to incapacitation, and stopping an attack is the goal, not necessarily killing or permanently maiming your target. My background tends to lean toward the hunting/outdoorsy philosophy that wounding an animal without dispatching it is unacceptable. It's a subjective stand point that isn't necessarily applicable to the end goal of survival. Yeah, different discussion. Sorry OP for the tangential discussion.
Bear threads have been beaten to death, so I won't go into depth here as a search in the history will bring up lots of material if the OP cares to do the research. Instead, I will say I have carried a Gen III Glock 20 in grizzly country (NW MT; The Yaak, Cabinets, Seeley Lake, ect) for about 15 years now, and never felt undergunned. Bears are big, powerful, and explosively fast. If you truly understand their speed and capabilities, there is no handgun that is going to feel adequate when you are inside 100 yards of a bear. You're going to want an RPG. But a 200 gr 10mm has enough power and penetration to do the job if placed right, and a 10mm autoloader is going to be much easier to hit with under duress than any .44 Magnum. The capacity something like the Glock offers is nice when dealing with two-legged threats. We have problems with tweakers dumping their meth cooks behind gated roads. But you're not going to take advantage of that capacity against a grizzly. That grizzly can outrun a horse inside 100 yards, so he's going to be on top of you before you can get more than a few rounds off. But you will be able to get more aimed rounds off through a 10mm than you will through a .44. Don't plan on being able to switch from pepper spray to a handgun. If you are using pepper spray, carry it in your weak hand, and draw your sidearm at first contact. Because if pepper spray doesn't work, bear is going to be on top of you before you can draw. Even with the sidearm in your dominant hand, if you're not shooting until pepper spray distance, you'll be lucky to get more than one round off before the bear is mauling you.
You are really debating capacity versus power and weight. The reality is that a fully loaded G20 or Redhawk/629 can get heavy on the belt. I think the 10mm revolver is NOT the way to go, as you lose capacity and power. You could look at single actions like the Ruger Blackhawk in 45 Colt costing around 500 give or take in most places, and a whole lot of ammo to practice with in your budget of 1000 dollars. Single action isn't for everyone though, and takes some practice for people used to DA or semiautos to get used to cocking after they draw. You could decide on something lighter weight like the Smith model 69 or 329 (might be pushing the budget) realizing that you will probably not need it, and it will be more comfortable on the hip for hiking/fishing or whatever you plan to do. Personally I'd get the Smith 69 and not look back. Put 44 specials in it for town and mags for woods. It's small, relatively light, conceals decently, and is versatile. These are just some other options to consider.
A loaded GP100 10mm Auto (Match Champion) weighs roughly the same as a loaded G20. Both are roughly 40 oz handguns loaded. You are giving up 9 rds for approximately the same weight. A proper holster makes any handgun "carry lighter" that a poor holster. A good chest rig makes even a heavy revolver carry very nicely. Personally I would feel comfortably carrying either into the bruin infested woods, especially as a backup gun to a 375 H&H, but my normal woods carry gun is just a lowly old S&W 10 heavy barrel, that is nearly as heavy as the G20 or GP100 10mm and much much less powerful, but I don't have bruin to deal with in middle TN.
Lions and tiger and bears, Oh my... Had to be said. Any of the big "man-eaters" are pretty terrifying at close range. Not to mention a few of the larger more temperamental herbivorous that like to rearrange your anatomy with the old stomp and/or gore massage, if you get too close. Still the odds are in our favor as they are more like to flee than attack in nearly all situtions. Situational awareness is your number one weapon, don't surprise them and don't get surprised and the hand blaster will likely never be needed.
G29 with a KKM 4.5" barrel for added velocity. This is what I carry in the woods loaded with my own 200gr hard cast loads. Most of the time I don't know it's there.
It's pure nonsense that the 10mm is anywhere near the same playing field as the .44Mag, regardless of barrel length. What the 10mm does with a 220gr bullet, the .44 does with a 355gr bullet, even from shorter barrels. HUGE difference, double the penetration. It keeps getting repeated that a G20 is lighter but folks are obviously looking at empty weights. Loaded, it weighs the same 40oz as a 629MG. A whopping 5oz lighter than a Ruger Alaskan. People choose the 10mm because it's easier to deal with its recoil and they tend to put way too much faith in capacity. Then they try to convince themselves and others that it's "just as good". It ain't. This will never be true, no matter how many times you repeat it.
In Grizzly country I'll continue to carry my 4" .44 mag loaded with Corbon 320 gr HC ammo and a large can of bear spray. I have used the bear spray twice, never had to fire the .44 and I'm here with no bear scratches writing this. In black bear country, I'll continue to carry a PX4 with 200 grain Buffalo Bore HC ammo and bear spray. The one thing not noted is the fact that trying to shoot a charging bear is next to impossible; not impossible, but damn near next to impossible. I was told by an Alaskan guide one time that the 4" is better since if the bear is on top of you, a 4" can be used to shoot into it's side easier than a 10". So what is a better round, .44 or 10mm? Which one will you be able to actually pull, shoot and hit a charging bear.
There is a point that needs to be made...there is a difference between hunting a large animal and defending oneself against the large animal. Hunting is an offensive tactic...and an ethical endeavor. A hunter wants to kill an animal quickly and with minimal rounds...preferably only one. A good hunter waits or stalks, knows their capacity and the capacity of their firearm, and chooses shots with care. Defending ones life and limb against an aggressive animal is a whole different manner. You want to treat a deadly aggressor, be it 2 or 4 legged, with a response to counter the attack and stop it. Period. And assume that, while a muzzle blast may deter an attack, the reality is that only hits count. And it does not matter how many hits it takes. So in the end, the individual who chooses to go armed in the woods, much like the individual in the town or city, needs to have a firearm that can effectively deliver the needed “dose” of resistance to the attack. I KNOW that in training (maybe not while off guard walking in brush), I can draw from concealment and deliver 6 rounds of 255 grain hard cast from my Glock 21 .45 ACP to an 8 inch plate at 10 yards in under 6 seconds. Not Taran Butler or Jerry Miculek level, and likely not near as well as many here can shoot, but If I had to use a .44, forget that performance. I shoot Glocks a lot...mostly...and I’m familiar with them. I shoot them at the range, and I shoot IDPA and steel matches with them (mostly 9MM but I shoot the .40 and .45 enough to stay good with them) at least twice a month. Paraphrasing on the credit card commercial...”what’s in your EDC holster”? You carry and shoot an XD or a 1911 a lot? Probably makes sense to carry that gun in a larger caliber, as opposed to the hand cannon you break out once or twice a year and shoot a box or two a year through. Shoot what you know. Ballistics only mean so much, as proven by Phil Shoemaker and his 7 round 9MM in the Alaskan woods...
You can't take Clint Smith's comments out of their proper context. Shooting a human with a 9mm, .40 or .45 is a whole lot different from shooting a toothy critter with a .44, .45, .475 or .500. Like rifles, they make holes "through" bears. The 10mm, not so much. IMHO, hunting versus defense dictates the platform. Not the cartridge. Not the bullet. Defense dictates a 4-5" barrel and iron sights. Hunting dictates a 7.5" barrel and a red dot or scope. The load is the same either way. In my case, in the context of the .44Mag, that means a 265-300gr monolithic solid at 1400-1450fps or a 355gr cast at 1350fps. Sure, you can choose a 10mm if you like and it may or may not do fine but do not delude yourself into thinking it's "just as good". It ain't. Be honest with yourself that you're choosing a less capable cartridge because it's easier to shoot or the platform is more familiar. Capacity will never be a deciding factor. Just as on the streets of your local city, you can't miss fast enough to win.
