Autoloader or Revolver in 10MM or 44 Mag?

Not open for further replies.
Clint's comments are in the context that rifles are much better than the 9mm/.40/.45 pistols he's referring to. He said pistols poke holes IN targets, rifles blow holes THROUGH targets. That is not the case here. A big bore revolver shooting a heavy bullet at 1200fps or more is a long way from a 9mm and an 800-1200lb bear is a long way from the biggest human. The point here is that big sixguns do not take a back seat to rifles. They also blow holes THROUGH targets. How many critters have you taken with a handgun to be equating 180gr .40's to anything possible in the .44Mag? I'd bet not too many.

Having 100rds in your magazines does not make up for a lack of terminal performance present in each round. You can't depend on the opportunity to shoot a critter a bunch of times to make up for the lack of effect of each round. You're not gonna have the time. If this logic made any sense whatsoever, we'd all just carry 10/22's with 100rd drums.

Yes, I agree that making hits with your typical concealed carry 9mm that you shoot all the time is going to be easier than a .44Mag revolver that you do not. This is a matter of training, not an indictment against the platform or the cartridge. How much training is your life worth?

We are going to agree to disagree on the meaning of Smith’s comments. I get the whole shotgun/rifle point, but I see his point of handguns is they suck for defense (performance, accuracy, ease of use), so shoot until you don’t need to shoot any more, and it applies to people or critters.

I never said (or meant to say or infer) any .40 or 10MM had performance equal or even close to a .44mag. I also never meant to indict ant big bore caliber. But the reality is people don’t generally train and shoot them enough to be proficient with them for defensive purposes that could/would require multiple shots.

And your point of using a .22 or any round that cannot penetrate enough to to do the required damage is ridiculous and totally out of context. There have certainly been large, dangerous animals killed with .22’s, but that is extremely rare and totally outliers of any reliable data.

The point I’m making, that you seem unable to accept, is that the use of service caliber pistols to successfully defend oneself against large aggressive North American animals is well documented and successful to a very clear (high) percentage, and not an anomaly or “one of” occurrence. The article I referenced, or the info on the Marksmanship Matters website is based on data gathered from many of documented events of people defending themselves. You can tell me all day long how much better a large bore magnum revolvers terminal ballistics are, and I will agree. But that does not change the facts that for the large majority of the time, a service caliber pistol, properly employed, successfully defended the holder against aggressive attacks.

Again, the links to support my post are below along with other related posts from a guy who knows a thing a two about training...

And as far as training with a heavy revolver goes...I agree training on processes and procedures enhances effectiveness, but few people in reality choose to train on defensive firearms tactics like drawing and firing from concealment or holster, and very few of that number choose a heavy caliber handgun for training. But certainly, those who do and train properly, will be much more proficient.

This was one more post than I wanted to make in this thread.
I live in WA state. We have black bears, and they are typically small. We have a lot of cougars and some wolfs out east. I have never seen a bear in the woods. I have seen lots of bear poo though. I bought the M629 4" to carry when I know bears are around. (if I am in areas where I do not ever see bear poo, I used to pack a .357, .40 or .45) I just purchased a G20 with the intent of it being my new woods gun. These days I also carry bear spray if I am going where there are bears. I load my G20 with Sig Elite Performance 180gr JHPs. Here is some data on weight:
With a full magazine (180gr JHP)and a weapon light the G20 weighs 1245g (2.74# or 43.92oz)
With a full cylinder (240gr JHP) the M629 weighs 1350g is 2.98# or 47.62oz.
8% difference, over twice the ammo, and a light.
Not open for further replies.