Where are those claims?
Maybe some people aren't on an Alaskan island populated almost solely by bears and elk.
Maybe bears are one of the threats that they're taking into consideration and so they have to consider and account for it, but they also have to worry about two legged threats as well.
Several right here in this thread, try reading it. Read the OP again while you're at it.
"Expert" with a link to revolver forum in signature criticizes those that prefer a semi...
Firstly, I'm not criticizing any one in any way. I am critiquing the reasoning behind some of the choices made but that's a far cry from criticizing the individual making the choice. I understand some people don't recognize the difference.
Secondly, I'm not even criticizing the choice of a semi-auto. I've even been known to shoot one or two (actually 22 of them but who's counting?), carry them daily and consider myself quite proficient with them. I guess you missed the part of this thread where I posted a picture of my Springfield XD converted to .460Rowland. I just do not believe a semi-auto chambered in a semi-auto cartridge is the best tool for the job IF something bigger than humans or deer are likely to need to be shot. I guess I probably lean on 30yrs of handgun hunting to come to that conclusion. Nor do I think that capacity makes up for a marginal chambering. Diehard semi-auto fans go through some serious mental acrobatics to justify using them for every conceivable purpose, while pretending the shortcomings do not exist.
A G20 or G29 is my choice. DoubleTap 200 gr hardcast will get 1300 and 1250 fps respectively from them and penetration is measured in feet. Realistically that is better than you can do with 357 mag and equal to 41 mag from 4" or shorter barrels. It is a LOT closer to 44 mag when 44's are fired from 4" barrels than most shooters understand. Of course with the same bullet the 40 is only about 200 fps slower and would work too. Even the 9mm when loaded with heavy hardcast bullets has proven capable.
They are lighter, more compact and more likely to actually be carried when needed. They are more reliable in dirty outdoor conditions and hold a lot more ammo. I might not be able to fire all 16 rounds from my 10mm, but I might well need more than 6.
And there doesn't appear to be any real advantage to a magnum revolver for protection. For hunting, where longer shots are called for then the power and accuracy of a revolver comes into play, but not for animal defense.
Once again, a 4" Mountain Gun weighs the same as a loaded G20. Do your homework. Once again, at 25oz the 329 is lighter than a loaded Glock will ever be. Not fun to shoot but the weight argument is nonsensical.
10mm fans thrive on cherry-picked information and seem to think that the rules don't apply to their pet cartridge. Penetration from a 200gr 10mm is not going to be measured in feet in live tissue. That is barely comparable to standard weight bullets in revolver cartridges. Here we're talking sectional density and velocity comparable to a .44Spl Keith load. Far from the same ballpark as the +300gr loads in the .44Mag or .45Colt. So let us please dispense with the crap that the 10mm is only slightly less effective. A 330gr .44 will penetrate nearly double. Range has nothing to do with it. And like I've said several times in this thread, what the 10mm does with a 230gr bullet, the .44 does with a 355gr. YES even from a 4" barrel.
Choose the 10mm if you want and delude yourself all you want but don't try to delude others into thinking it's "just as good", because it clearly isn't.
