Autoloader or Revolver in 10MM or 44 Mag?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Capacity will never be a deciding factor. .

Lots of good sense in this post up until this statement. A statement that capacity will rarely be the deciding factor - reasonable. Never? Ever? Under any circumstances? I think there's almost no way that can be true.
 
Is the 10mm comparable to the .44, no. Can the 10mm do the same job? In most cases yes.

I would say the advantage of the 10 would be being easier to shoot first and foremost. I would agree that in most cases, not necessarily ALL, that capacity is probably not going to come into play in a wild animal attack.

I would say the OP should shoot both calibers in very warm loads and see what he or she thinks about actually being able to shoot.

The most important thing is that the OP has a proper long gun as a primary for this situation, which they do. What we're really talking about is a back up gun.

Now, for all those talking about how fast things happen and how capacity isn't relevant, if the primary .375 doesn't work for whatever reason what makes you think the OP would even be able to access a backup? According to you the animals already on him at that point.


Anyway I would go the the 10mm just from personal experience of shooting both. As to revolver or semi I shoot semis better than revolvers. You should go with whichever you shoot better.
 
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.
whatever your choice, have another person along that is carrying an adequate weapon so one of you can shoot the bear. make sure you stay apart so the bear can't attack both of you.

luck,

murf
 
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.
I see statements like this posted all the time. "Feeling" under-gunned and being under-gunned are two very different things. Bears don't care about feelings, nor do I.


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.
I don't agree with this. A properly loaded revolver will shoot clean through even the largest bear.


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.
Don't agree here either. Fundamentals are the same no matter what the platform.


But you will be able to get more aimed rounds off through a 10mm than you will through a .44.



Can the 10mm do the same job? In most cases yes.
It's comical to me that in the handgun hunting world, in the context of folks who actually do it, the 10mm is considered good for deer sized game. But when the conversation turns to bear defense, outside the context of hunting, somehow the 10mm is "good enough" for something that may weigh over half a ton with thick fur, heavy bones, huge claws and long teeth.


Now, for all those talking about how fast things happen and how capacity isn't relevant, if the primary .375 doesn't work for whatever reason what makes you think the OP would even be able to access a backup? According to you the animals already on him at that point.
The handgun is not carried in case the rifle fails or runs dry. It's carried because it can be on your person at all times. Particularly when you're doing things that preclude having a rifle in your hands or slung over your shoulder.


As to revolver or semi I shoot semis better than revolvers. You should go with whichever you shoot better.
That's a popular notion. I would suggest choosing the right tool for the job and doing whatever is necessary to become proficient with it.
 
I'd like to thank everyone for their thoughts and perspective on my OP. I have however, adopted the concept I held when I was a young, newly out of training Cadet of "what's your life worth" when I went to Cheshire and Perez to buy my first duty weapon. With that said I " bit the bullet" (pun intended) and ordered the Ruger Alaskan .454 Casull 2.5 inch and three boxes of ammo to get broken in on. Once again thanks for your input.
 
I see statements like this posted all the time. "Feeling" under-gunned and being under-gunned are two very different things. Bears don't care about feelings, nor do I.

Having a gun and being confident in your abilities with it are the two biggest determining factors in deciding if one is under gunned. So I would imagine your feelings about my carry choice matter as much to me as my feelings do to you.

I don't agree with this. A properly loaded revolver will shoot clean through even the largest bear.

Doesn't matter if you can shoot through the bear. The bear can take it and still maul the crap out of you. CNS hits are all that matters because they are all that can be relied on to be instantly effective. We aren't hunting bear. If we were, I would agree that a larger handgun would be preferable.

Don't agree here either. Fundamentals are the same no matter what the platform.

Doesn't matter if you agree. Physics is physics and physics also doesn't care about your feelings. Our planet is governed by certain physical laws which are pretty clear on this issue. Less recoil in a handgun that sits lower in the hand and is better designed for speed of recovery is going to be easier to shoot well under duress than a gun with more recoil less properly designed for speed of recovery.

The 10mm Auto has been used successfully on much more than deer. It has been used to hunt elk and moose, black bear, and large hogs, has taken wildebeest and even been used to dispatch Cape Buffalo. It turns out a 200 to 220 gr 10mm has all the penetration necessary to break a shoulder or penetrate the skull of some of the largest animals on the planet. Its widespread use as bear defense is due to its success in this area. The 10mm has already proven that it is adequate for bear defense, so again, your semantics and posturing are irrelevant.
 
whatever your choice, have another person along that is carrying an adequate weapon so one of you can shoot the bear. make sure you stay apart so the bear can't attack both of you.

luck,

murf
My oldest boy will be hefting his Sako Safari .416 Rigby as back up for his old-man.
 
It's comical to me that in the handgun hunting world, in the context of folks who actually do it, the 10mm is considered good for deer sized game. But when the conversation turns to bear defense, outside the context of hunting, somehow the 10mm is "good enough" for something that may weigh over half a ton with thick fur, heavy bones, huge claws and long teeth.

There's kind of a funny parallel to this. Very few people would consider a 9x19 pistol to be a suitable choice for hunting white-tailed deer, yet when the discussion is self-defense, they will insist that there is no difference in terminal performance/effectiveness between something like a 9mm "with modern projectiles" and a 10mm.
 
Having a gun and being confident in your abilities with it are the two biggest determining factors in deciding if one is under gunned. So I would imagine your feelings about my carry choice matter as much to me as my feelings do to you.
It's too bad that wishful thinking doesn't factor into terminal ballistics.


Doesn't matter if you can shoot through the bear. The bear can take it and still maul the crap out of you. CNS hits are all that matters because they are all that can be relied on to be instantly effective. We aren't hunting bear. If we were, I would agree that a larger handgun would be preferable.
But it does. More tissue damage = a faster stop. Breaking a shoulder on its way through the vitals is what gives you time to take an anchoring shot.


Doesn't matter if you agree. Physics is physics and physics also doesn't care about your feelings. Our planet is governed by certain physical laws which are pretty clear on this issue. Less recoil in a handgun that sits lower in the hand and is better designed for speed of recovery is going to be easier to shoot well under duress than a gun with more recoil less properly designed for speed of recovery.
Has nothing to do with feelings. You're talking about everything that happens after that first trigger press. I'm talking about everything that happens before. Making the first hit count is what matters most. Not how fast you can do a mag dump in the bear's general direction.


The 10mm Auto has been used successfully on much more than deer. It has been used to hunt elk and moose, black bear, and large hogs, has taken wildebeest and even been used to dispatch Cape Buffalo. It turns out a 200 to 220 gr 10mm has all the penetration necessary to break a shoulder or penetrate the skull of some of the largest animals on the planet. Its widespread use as bear defense is due to its success in this area. The 10mm has already proven that it is adequate for bear defense, so again, your semantics and posturing are irrelevant.
The 10mm is a deer cartridge. This is well proven and thoroughly accepted by everyone but Glockophiles and 10mm Kool Aid drinkers. A 220gr 10mm is equivalent to a heavy .44Spl load with standard weight bullets, with a smaller bullet and a smaller than necessary meplat to boot. Would anyone recommend the .44Spl for brown bear? Probably not. Yes, we do live on a plant governed by physics but perception is a funny thing. Based on everything we KNOW from actually hunting with handguns, the 10mm is a deer cartridge, roughly equivalent to the .357. What stunt hunters have done with it is irrelevant. Its widespread use for bear defense is mostly generational and due to a lot of wishful thinking and delusional logic.

It's okay because I'm about to do more extensive penetration testing, which will put things in perspective. This fall when we go back to Texas, we'll test the best 10mm loads on some 1500-2000lb critters. For the record, I bought my first 10mm 15yrs ago and three more in the last six months. I would never use or recommend one for anything larger than deer.

IMG_066613.jpg
 
I picked up a new Ruger 1911 in 10mm for $800. But if only allowed to pick one, it would be the 44 magnum. You can always shoot specials out of it if you don't need full power
 
I'd like to thank everyone for their thoughts and perspective on my OP. I have however, adopted the concept I held when I was a young, newly out of training Cadet of "what's your life worth" when I went to Cheshire and Perez to buy my first duty weapon. With that said I " bit the bullet" (pun intended) and ordered the Ruger Alaskan .454 Casull 2.5 inch and three boxes of ammo to get broken in on. Once again thanks for your input.
great choice for your application. suggest you keep a firm grip and don't fight recoil. with that grip, the gun should go over your head, not into it!

luck,

murf
 
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.

CraigC,

Up front, I totally recognize your extensive experience in the field hunting large, dangerous game with handguns. I’ve nowhere near your level of experience. So understand I’m not shooting off at you without totally disclosing you absolutely have me in real world hunting knowledge.

I don’t think I’m taking Mr. Smith out of context. I believe the root message and context in Clint Smith’s video was that you cannot rely on or become conditioned that you can or will get away with one round to stop a threat. To test that theory, I’d ask him point blank...”Clint...Sir...if I shot a charging bear and it continued to come at me, what should I do?” I’m thinking his answer would pretty much be identical.

Certainly, his message was in a gunfighter class, but the concept applies to any flesh and blood critter trying to kill me...keep shooting until the threat stops.

I agree to a point regarding the post on platform being driven by context, but respectfully, I think you are way too restricted I you don’t think a flat nosed hard cast, properly loaded bullet won’t penetrate deep enough to stop a bear, regardless if shot from any service round, from 9MM and up. And as long as you are keeping the answer restricted to a single .44 mag versus a single 10MM, you are missing my point. 10 rounds X 180 grains of hard cast lead from a .40S&W is a helluva lot of holes, and when most are decent hits, the shooter will have much better odds of a CNS hit and immediate stop than the single round of .44/.454

One round only, your calibers win. But a 5 second window to execute multiple shots, I’ll take my Glock (properly loaded) every time.

And my argument is documented here in this article below (I could also send you to the Marksmanship Matters website, where Larry Mudgett makes the same case on his BLOG).

The jist of this article below is that the author can cite many examples of folks using service caliber handguns to stop dangerous creatures, and also cites examples where handguns failed. Ultimately, most cases where the handgun “failed”, the failure is clearly attributable to the shooter (misses, poor hits, couldn’t manipulate the gun, etc.). Failures could rarely be attributable to the poor choice of caliber.

Do you know of any other such studies or articles? I’d be happy to check them out...

https://www.ammoland.com/2018/02/de...tols-97-success-rate-37-incidents-by-caliber/

And as far as your point regarding capacity and “can’t miss fast enough to win”...we totally agree on this point. Only hits count! Which is why I am convinced a 3-4 inch DA .44 is a very hard gun to accurately operate for most folks, especially under stress, and ultimately a less than optimal gun for most folks. And a SA revolver? Wow, even slower on follow up shots and forget about reloading...

IIRC, The OP said he’d decided on and bought a snub nose Ruger Redhawk .454 and several boxes of rounds to get used to the gun. I really hope it works for him. Certainly it is a quality handgun...I used to have a RedHawk back when I lived in AK myself, but mine was a 7.5” barrel. Never got very good with that gun. That short barrel will be stout, challenging gun to run fast and accurate.

Anywho, I apologize for the long post. I’m not trying to be a jerk, just hoping to make a counter point that I believe has value based on documented self defense cases.

I’m out.
 
I recently shot a 460 rowland glock with a modded trigger and was very impressed, I shot it as well as my revolvers. I can see a glock 10mm with a good barrel being a good hunting handgun.
 

I’ve had several close encounters with pissed off hogs and never had a problem getting multiple shots off with a SA. The idea that a SA is somehow inferior for bear encounters has always puzzled me.
 
Rock island makes a 400.00 less on sale 1911 10mm that a lot of guys have good luck with. I like mine so far... beating on 1000.00 plus field guns is not my thing. I will beat my glocks or even the rock island like I need to and not feel bad... not so with my classic revolvers :) or premium 1911's
 
Rock island makes a 400.00 less on sale 1911 10mm that a lot of guys have good luck with. I like mine so far... beating on 1000.00 plus field guns is not my thing. I will beat my glocks or even the rock island like I need to and not feel bad... not so with my classic revolvers :) or premium 1911's

Each to his own but if I spend a lot of money on a gun I am going to use it, a lot. I would like to think I do not abuse any of my guns, cheap or expensive but I have no safe queens. If a gun I own gets some dings, scratches, and wear in the course of using it for what I want/intended to use it for those are just memories. Nothing's better than a gun or tool that is ugly from honest wear, it stands tribute to the success and trials its users have overcome.
 
Each to his own but if I spend a lot of money on a gun I am going to use it, a lot. I would like to think I do not abuse any of my guns, cheap or expensive but I have no safe queens. If a gun I own gets some dings, scratches, and wear in the course of using it for what I want/intended to use it for those are just memories. Nothing's better than a gun or tool that is ugly from honest wear, it stands tribute to the success and trials its users have overcome.
Agree. Also, a properly fit field holster goes a long way toward keeping any gun in good shape.
 
I am not talking normal use... but like throw under the seat of the truck walk through the swamps type gun use :) Or loose to a defensive confiscation :(
 
If a gun I own gets some dings, scratches, and wear in the course of using it for what I want/intended to use it for those are just memories. Nothing's better than a gun or tool that is ugly from honest wear, it stands tribute to the success and trials its users have overcome.
Amen!
 
There’s a pretty big difference between 40 and 10mm once you get to the heavier bullets.
I agree that the difference grows as the bullets get heavier, but overall, I still think the general capability of the two cartridges is essentially the same. I've loaded a lot for both, but if I can take a G23 and load a 200gr hardcast to 1150 fps from it's 4" barrel, which I've done, that's going to dig in pretty deep. Let's say I load the same 200gr hardcast to 1250 fps in a G20 with it's 4.6" barrel, even 1300 fps with an aftermarket barrel. How much better is 100-150 fps going to kill? If I felt the .40 load above wasn't enough, I could use 10mm, or I could use a longer than 4" .40 S&W, since a G35 will run a 200gr to 1250+. I like the 10mm a lot, but I sincerely question what the 10mm can effectively kill that the .40 can't, both loaded to full potential that is. Here's a pic of MBW's 200gr hardcast loaded in .40 (beside a 200gr HST .40)

hhwqZuk.jpg
 
Is that all published data loads? Are you hot-rodding the 40 and keeping the 10mm book?
 
I agree that the difference grows as the bullets get heavier, but overall, I still think the general capability of the two cartridges is essentially the same. I've loaded a lot for both, but if I can take a G23 and load a 200gr hardcast to 1150 fps from it's 4" barrel, which I've done, that's going to dig in pretty deep. Let's say I load the same 200gr hardcast to 1250 fps in a G20 with it's 4.6" barrel, even 1300 fps with an aftermarket barrel. How much better is 100-150 fps going to kill? If I felt the .40 load above wasn't enough, I could use 10mm, or I could use a longer than 4" .40 S&W, since a G35 will run a 200gr to 1250+. I like the 10mm a lot, but I sincerely question what the 10mm can effectively kill that the .40 can't, both loaded to full potential that is. Here's a pic of MBW's 200gr hardcast loaded in .40 (beside a 200gr HST .40)
A 200gr .40S&W bullet is heavy for the cartridge but it is not "heavy" for the caliber. Not until you get to 220's do you even equal "standard" weight revolver bullets. Case capacity makes a difference. It's what separates the .40S&W from the 10mm, the 10mm from the .41Mag and the .41Mag from the .44Mag. Case capacity makes 220-230gr bullets possible in the 10mm but not the .40S&W, 265-280gr bullets in the .41Mag and 355gr bullets in the .44Mag. Each step up in caliber and bullet weight represents an incremental increase in the propensity to break bones and penetrate. Sorry but you can't keep stepping down and saying that they're "just as good" when they clearly are not. The best bullets out of the .44 will at least penetrate DOUBLE that of the best in the 10mm. DOUBLE is a big difference. In the field, there are no points scored for wishful thinking.


CraigC,

Up front, I totally recognize your extensive experience in the field hunting large, dangerous game with handguns. I’ve nowhere near your level of experience. So understand I’m not shooting off at you without totally disclosing you absolutely have me in real world hunting knowledge.

I don’t think I’m taking Mr. Smith out of context. I believe the root message and context in Clint Smith’s video was that you cannot rely on or become conditioned that you can or will get away with one round to stop a threat. To test that theory, I’d ask him point blank...”Clint...Sir...if I shot a charging bear and it continued to come at me, what should I do?” I’m thinking his answer would pretty much be identical.

Certainly, his message was in a gunfighter class, but the concept applies to any flesh and blood critter trying to kill me...keep shooting until the threat stops.

I agree to a point regarding the post on platform being driven by context, but respectfully, I think you are way too restricted I you don’t think a flat nosed hard cast, properly loaded bullet won’t penetrate deep enough to stop a bear, regardless if shot from any service round, from 9MM and up. And as long as you are keeping the answer restricted to a single .44 mag versus a single 10MM, you are missing my point. 10 rounds X 180 grains of hard cast lead from a .40S&W is a helluva lot of holes, and when most are decent hits, the shooter will have much better odds of a CNS hit and immediate stop than the single round of .44/.454

One round only, your calibers win. But a 5 second window to execute multiple shots, I’ll take my Glock (properly loaded) every time.

And my argument is documented here in this article below (I could also send you to the Marksmanship Matters website, where Larry Mudgett makes the same case on his BLOG).

The jist of this article below is that the author can cite many examples of folks using service caliber handguns to stop dangerous creatures, and also cites examples where handguns failed. Ultimately, most cases where the handgun “failed”, the failure is clearly attributable to the shooter (misses, poor hits, couldn’t manipulate the gun, etc.). Failures could rarely be attributable to the poor choice of caliber.

Do you know of any other such studies or articles? I’d be happy to check them out...

https://www.ammoland.com/2018/02/de...tols-97-success-rate-37-incidents-by-caliber/

And as far as your point regarding capacity and “can’t miss fast enough to win”...we totally agree on this point. Only hits count! Which is why I am convinced a 3-4 inch DA .44 is a very hard gun to accurately operate for most folks, especially under stress, and ultimately a less than optimal gun for most folks. And a SA revolver? Wow, even slower on follow up shots and forget about reloading...

IIRC, The OP said he’d decided on and bought a snub nose Ruger Redhawk .454 and several boxes of rounds to get used to the gun. I really hope it works for him. Certainly it is a quality handgun...I used to have a RedHawk back when I lived in AK myself, but mine was a 7.5” barrel. Never got very good with that gun. That short barrel will be stout, challenging gun to run fast and accurate.

Anywho, I apologize for the long post. I’m not trying to be a jerk, just hoping to make a counter point that I believe has value based on documented self defense cases.

I’m out.
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?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top