44mag or 10mm for Wilderness Defense?

[WisBorn]

What is your choice of wilderness defense?
10mm or 44mag.

This is not for hunting! A carry gun for hiking and or just messing around in the woods.

 

[CraigC]

Between the two .44Mag, hands down. Overall, I'd rather have ANY big bore revolver .41 and up than the .357 or any 10mm. The 10mm is at best suitable for deer-sized game. Certainly not bears, no matter what the mob thinks. By and large "the mob" has never shot anything that bleeds, let alone something that bites back. For bears, I want a big, heavy bullet that retains its shape. The 10mm need not apply.

 

[mcb]

Whichever you shoot most effectively and whichever gun you perceive as most reliable. Both cartridges have pros and cons for woods protection but both will do a good job assuming the gun is reliable and the meat-ware does their part.

I personally carry a 38 special revolver for most of my time in the woods but most of my woods time is spent in middle Tennessee so 38 Special is sufficient.

 

[JTQ]

A guy on another forum that spends about 1/2 of his year in Alaska flying his little private planes into remote areas went through this exercise a few years back and ended up with an HK USP 45 and uses .45 Super in the gun.

He tried big revolvers, and didn't like the weight, and limited capacity.

He tried Glock's in 10mm and .45 Auto, since he was shooting competition Glock's and wanted them to work, but found the big bullets he wanted to use in 10mm and .45 Auto didn't feed particularly well in the Glock's.

The HK USP 45 gave him the capacity, durability, and reliability that was lacking in his other options.

However, in the ensuing years, those odd, all copper bulllets like the Lehigh Defense offerings https://wilsoncombat.com/40-s-w-115gr-lehigh-defense-xd-20-box.html

seem to have opened up other options in guns and calibers in his mind. They feed well, and he's found they do a good job of reliably penetrating large bear skulls, his personal requirement for this tool.

This handgun is a backup tool for him. When concerned about bears, his tool of choice is a shotgun with slugs.

 

[Fyrstyk]

I would take the .44 in a revolver. It can be loaded down to special velocities, or maxed out for bear defense. I just feel a revolver is more reliable in all weather conditions than a semi-auto pistol.

 

[CraigC]

A guy on another forum that spends about 1/2 of his year in Alaska flying his little private planes into remote areas went through this exercise a few years back and ended up with an HK USP 45 and uses .45 Super in the gun.

He tried big revolvers, and didn't like the weight, and limited capacity.

He tried Glock's in 10mm and .45 Auto, since he was shooting competition Glock's and wanted them to work, but found the big bullets he wanted to use in 10mm and .45 Auto didn't feed particularly well in the Glock's.

The HK USP 45 gave him the capacity, durability, and reliability that was lacking in his other options.

However, in the ensuing years, those odd, all copper bulllets like the Lehigh Defense offerings https://wilsoncombat.com/40-s-w-115gr-lehigh-defense-xd-20-box.html

seem to have opened up other options in guns and calibers in his mind. They feed well, and he's found they do a good job of reliably penetrating large bear skulls, his personal requirement for this tool.

This handgun is a backup tool for him. When concerned about bears, his tool of choice is a shotgun with slugs.

A lot of people carry inappropriate guns for bears, having never poked a hole in anything that bleeds with a handgun. This is almost universally true of 10mm fans. What they 'think' and what is are often two different things. The .45Super is definitely an improvement over the ACP but it's still limited on bullet weight and bullet weight has the greatest effect on terminal performance on big critters. I don't know why people think magazine capacity is going to save them. You'll be lucky to get two or three shots off, make them count.

 

[silicosys4]

A guy on another forum that spends about 1/2 of his year in Alaska flying his little private planes into remote areas went through this exercise a few years back and ended up with an HK USP 45 and uses .45 Super in the gun.

He tried big revolvers, and didn't like the weight, and limited capacity.

He tried Glock's in 10mm and .45 Auto, since he was shooting competition Glock's and wanted them to work, but found the big bullets he wanted to use in 10mm and .45 Auto didn't feed particularly well in the Glock's.

The HK USP 45 gave him the capacity, durability, and reliability that was lacking in his other options.

However, in the ensuing years, those odd, all copper bulllets like the Lehigh Defense offerings https://wilsoncombat.com/40-s-w-115gr-lehigh-defense-xd-20-box.html

seem to have opened up other options in guns and calibers in his mind. They feed well, and he's found they do a good job of reliably penetrating large bear skulls, his personal requirement for this tool.

This handgun is a backup tool for him. When concerned about bears, his tool of choice is a shotgun with slugs.

I guess that works if the bear that charges him pauses for a moment to present a perfect skull shot. I think your last sentence says it all about a man who has real experience. A 10mm is more convenient than a .44 revolver. But that doesn't mean its as effective.

 

[21H40]

I voted 10mm primarily because Grizzlies aren't a concern where I roam. I mean, there have been at least two black bear sighting in Iowa over the last 20 years, so I should probably be more prepared for a bear mauling than I am .

More realistic threats in my walk-about zone (excluding humans) are bobcats, coyotes, and cows. Cows being the most aggressive and most likely to kill a person.

 

[Old_Grouch]

I'm sure most are aware I'm a dyed-in-the-wool revolver fan but, given those two options, I'd choose the 10mm if there was a chance of a bear or moose encounter. My only reasoning for choosing the 10 over the .44 is capacity. About the only time I favor "spray and pray" over marksmanship is when shot placement is absolutely critical as when trying to stop a freight train with a slingshot.
Outside of bear/moose country I'm fine with a .357, .41, .44. .45 Colt, etc., etc, etc.

 

[PistoleroWadcutterGANG]

Here in Arkansas, our boo-boo's are small, women are angry and the crazy meth / medical mary-J's addict's in da-woods are skinny. I go for 10mm capacity.

 

[Tallball]

This should probably be merged with the burro defense thread?

 

[Rodfac]

Between the two .44Mag, hands down. Overall, I'd rather have ANY big bore revolver .41 and up than the .357 or any 10mm. The 10mm is at best suitable for deer-sized game. Certainly not bears, no matter what the mob thinks. By and large "the mob" has never shot anything that bleeds, let alone something that bites back. For bears, I want a big, heavy bullet that retains its shape. The 10mm need not apply.

Couldn't say it better....well done Craig. Best regards, Rod

 

[CraigC]

I'm sure most are aware I'm a dyed-in-the-wool revolver fan but, given those two options, I'd choose the 10mm if there was a chance of a bear or moose encounter. My only reasoning for choosing the 10 over the .44 is capacity. About the only time I favor "spray and pray" over marksmanship is when shot placement is absolutely critical as when trying to stop a freight train with a slingshot.
Outside of bear/moose country I'm fine with a .357, .41, .44. .45 Colt, etc., etc, etc.

How many shots you really think you're gonna get? The absolute best of 10mm loads is roughly equivalent to heavy .44Spl, which is a standard weight bullet for the caliber. Nothing anyone would consider "heavy", or heavy enough to deep penetration on something toothy. I think it's pure folly for people to put so much faith in magazine capacity. They don't hunt elephants with AK's, they use double rifles.

 

[buck460XVR]

For Wisconsin...either would work for me. Even a .357 or .45 ACP. Biggest threat is from 2 legged predators, with Black Bears being a far distant second. Lived here all my life and have spent a great portion of it in the woods and in bear country. Never had an issue with Blackies.

 

[theotherwaldo]

I've never had much trouble with black bears, only seen one brown bear, never been in moose country and the only elk that I've run into ran away.
No, I'm more concerned with humans, feral dogs, wild or injured cattle, cougars and such, all of which I have faced before.
My preferred sidearm to date has been a single-action revolver in .44 caliber, preferably a magnum.
That's what I have carried and practiced with for half a century.

 

[bearcreek]

What is your choice of wilderness defense?
10mm or 44mag.

This is not for hunting! A carry gun for hiking and or just messing around in the woods.

Are we talking about wilderness in Wisconsin?

 

[American_Fusilier]

I voted for 10mm. I'm in Wisconsin as well. I'd rather have the capacity for other threats besides black bears.

If I were in Alaska, or an area with brown bears, I'd probably pick a 44mag.

Though I don't have either, so I carry a .357 mag when I go into Indian territory...

 

[CraigC]

For Wisconsin...either would work for me. Even a .357 or .45 ACP. Biggest threat is from 2 legged predators, with Black Bears being a far distant second. Lived here all my life and have spent a great portion of it in the woods and in bear country. Never had an issue with Blackies.

Agreed. I remember an argument with some folks where I touted the .44Spl as the perfect backwoods companion for a guy in PA. One of those macho knuckle-dragger types chastised me that black bears got up to 800lbs in PA and that one needed at least a .454, if not a .460 or .500. You'd think I had suggested a slingshot for brown bear defense in AK. I looked it up and exactly ONE person had been killed in PA by a black bear in all of US recorded history and as I recall, it was a pet that decided to become a predator. Of course if you Google it now all you'll see is the woman that got between a bear and her dog back in March.

 

[buck460XVR]

In Wisconsin, the majority of Black Bear attacks are initiated because folks have inadvertently attracted them with some form of food source. So issues arise more often close to human habitation or while sitting over bear bait.

Dealing with Black bears

 

[bearcreek]

It's fun to talk about bear defense but realistically it's just not an issue. You're far more likely to get hit by lightning, die from malaria or have a branch fall from a tree and kill than you are to get mauled by a bear, especially if you're not in grizzly country. I live and recreate in grizzly country. Most folks carry the same gun they carry everywhere else, usually a 9mm or .38.

 

[WisBorn]

Are we talking about wilderness in Wisconsin?

Wherever you like to venture!

In 2024 I will be in Wisconsin, Illinois, Michigan, Virginia, Tennessee, North Carolina, South Carolina, North Dakota, South Dakota, Wyoming, Montana, Idaho, Florida, and, Minnesota.
I probably missed something.

The question is what your choice is of the 2 cartridges.

 

[Hartkopf]

10mm in Texas.

 

[CraigC]

I would like to point out, people love to talk about how much lighter Glocks are compared to revolvers but they're looking at unloaded weights. A loaded Glock 20 is the same 40oz as an all steel 5" 1911 or 629MG. The 6" G40 is 45oz.

The truth is people like them because they're easier to shoot than a .44Mag or bigger revolver. Either they're not revolver shooters or have no interest in big bores but they do their best to convince themselves they're not making a compromise on terminal effect and that is just not true. It's a huge compromise where metal meets meat. IMHO, putting faith in magazine capacity is a recipe for disaster, no matter what the context. That tells me you're actually planning to miss and even if subconsciously you know your bullets won't have the desired effect.

 

[BreechFace]

In Idaho here, I'll take 10mm all day long. A glock 20 or 40 with 15+1 and a familiar platform.

We do have some grizzlies around but not in large populations, I'd be more concerned with mountain lions and a black bear sow with cubs. And for both of those feel the 10mm is better suited.

If I were archery hunting Kodiak's in Alaska, then I would feel underdressed with a 454 Casull for a backup sidearm.

 

[Buzznrose]

I would like to point out, people love to talk about how much lighter Glocks are compared to revolvers but they're looking at unloaded weights. A loaded Glock 20 is the same 40oz as an all steel 5" 1911 or 629MG. The 6" G40 is 45oz.

The truth is people like them because they're easier to shoot than a .44Mag or bigger revolver. Either they're not revolver shooters or have no interest in big bores but they do their best to convince themselves they're not making a compromise on terminal effect and that is just not true. It's a huge compromise where metal meets meat. IMHO, putting faith in magazine capacity is a recipe for disaster, no matter what the context. That tells me you're actually planning to miss and even if subconsciously you know your bullets won't have the desired effect.

I agree with much of this logic but some stuff seems to lose me.

40 (50?) years ago, revolvers were the common handgun. Folks who carry a revolver now are the clear exception. I have several, and outside my pocket .38, don’t carry any…ever.

Why in the world would I venture into the boonies where cell phone service may be bad, critters aggressive, and bad actors embolden by distant proximity to the law (biggest threat IMO) with a gun that I’m unfamiliar with, has low capacity, and is slow to reload?