Most powerful Glock?

[MachIVshooter]

The .40 Super drove a 135 grain bullet to 1,800 feet per second

That's very impressive.

Yeah......and those 135's blow up coming out of a 10mm at 1,650. Trust me.

I can get .357 mag energy out of a 9x19mm using really light bullets (90 gr.). I was getting them to 1,680 FPS from a 4.5" tube for 560 ft/lbs. That doesn't mean they perform well..........

I can't find anywhere that shows 10mm numbers being close to that of the 40 super.
I found a tons of videos that show 10mm being weaker than the numbers floating out there on the web.
ex:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GjhupTsuolo Apparently Double Taps that are rated at 1400 fps averages only 1150 fps.

The 10mm is a 750-800 ft/lb cartridge using appropriate 180-200 gr. bullets in a 5" gun. My standard carry load is a 180 gr. Remington Golden Sabre that leaves the muzzle of my S&W 1006's 5" barrel at 1,406 FPS average for 792 ft/lbs.

If you're considering the .40 Super, you need to be looking at the same bullet weights; The 165 & lighter are too lightly constructed for 10mm or .40 Super velocities. I know that 135 gr./1,800 FPS looks impressive, but I, for one, would not carry it. The same company that boasts that load shows a 200 gr. @ 1,300 for 750 ft/lbs. That's a ballistic twin for hot 10mm loads.

IMO, the 10mm is a better option. It has far better ammo and component availability (and that's saying a lot, since 10mm isn't exactly a Wal-Mart item), and the G20 mags holds more ammunition than a G21 mag with .40 super in it.

By all means, do what you want. But it seems to me that you'll end up with something that's expensive and difficult to feed and beating itself up pretty badly if you use those light/fast loads.

And BTW, the .40 Super, .460 Rowland, etc. really don't compare to a .44 mag. 1,000 ft/lbs is a very modest .44 mag load. BB has stuff besting 1,500 ft/lbs from a 6" revolver.

 

[jackpinesavages]

A.) Skip LWD for Glock parts.

B.) 400 Cor Bon barrels are around.

C.) The .50 conversion is available.

 

[Eric's Big Head]

I've been wanting a .44 mag for the "just in case" outdoor scenario. Well more like "I just want another pistol" thing.

If I get a .44 mag, I think it'll be a Ruger Redhawk.

Since the 40 super has more gun powder compared to a 10mm with the same weight bullet, please stop saying "just go with a 10mm". That's just a small step up compared to a 44mag.

If a 10mm is the hardest hitting round that can be fired out of a Glock, then I'm going for a 44 mag

But then I came accross http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.40_Super

Could this be true? This seems like a real wicked round. I already saw that LWD has these http://www.lonewolfdist.com/Detail.a...274250&CAT=241

Would that be the strongest Glock? Or are/is there another round that can be chambered in Glocks that hit harder than the 40 super?

The weakest 10mm does not compare to the weakest 44mag, and the strongest 10mm does not compare to the strongest 44mag.

I was just curious what can hit harder that a 40 super round fired out of a Glock pistol.

 

[BlackAgnes]

Has anyone considered matching the gun to its intended purpose?

I have seen a video of a charging grizzly--very fast and scary. Mountain lions--even more so.

Feral dogs travel in packs.

Point being, I bet if I shot at any of these critters under that kind of pressure, I'd miss more than I'd hit.

It might be comforting to leave my .44 Magnum at home and rely on 16 rounds of 10mm from my Glock 20, using full-power ammo.

As cool under fire as we think we'll be, I imagine that under those circumstances, with everything happening in the blink of an eye, "point, spray, and pray" might be the most effective, and only, technique.

Agree/disagree?

Tim