I'd like to see a comparison with similar barrel lengths. The 44 magnum, much like all magnum pistol rounds, lose significant velocity with barrel lengths under six inches. The G20 is a decent size handgun for carrying whereas the 8 inch 44 magnum is like carrying a carbine.

Plus, its 16 rounds vs 6 Rounds.

Yeah, but it's the Most Powerful Handgun in the World and it will blow your head clean off.

I have a S&W 6" 29-2 from the 1970s. I love it. It is really fun to shoot! I also bought a 329PD for woods-carry, a few years ago. We have lots of bears and cougars here in the WA Cascades. But, I recently bought my first Glock (G20 Gen4) for wilderness carry. I decided that I would rather have the 16 rounds instead of 6, and give up a little power in exchange.
My Underwood 200 grain hard-cast just arrived today.

I don't think they are really comparable rounds. The .44 is a real heavy hitter, with fairly "weak" loads laying down 700 to 800 lb ft of energy, and with higher power loads delivering a whopping 1200 lb ft and up. (Of course a .454 or .500 will blow its doors in, but both of those require bigger, heavier guns to keep the recoil under some semblance of control.)

A traditional Norma 10MM load delivers between 600 and 700 lb ft, and most of the hottest 10MM rounds don't go very far past 700 lb ft. (I think Buffalo Bore only goes up to about 725 lb ft.)

I'd say it's probably better being compared to .357 Magnum. (Which is no slouch)

In my mind the 10MM is great for Magnum power coupled with high capacity and quick reloads. But its just not on par with the .44.

So Billy, you're saying the 10mm isn't the nuclear option?

quote:

Originally posted by Billy346:
I don't think they are really comparable rounds. The .44 is a real heavy hitter, with fairly "weak" loads laying down 700 to 800 lb ft of energy, and with higher power loads delivering a whopping 1200 lb ft and up. (Of course a .454 or .500 will blow its doors in, but both of those require bigger, heavier guns to keep the recoil under some semblance of control.)

A traditional Norma 10MM load delivers between 600 and 700 lb ft, and most of the hottest 10MM rounds don't go very far past 700 lb ft. (I think Buffalo Bore only goes up to about 725 lb ft.)

I'd say it's probably better being compared to .357 Magnum. (Which is no slouch)

In my mind the 10MM is great for Magnum power coupled with high capacity and quick reloads. But its just not on par with the .44.

That is on par with my conclusion. And that is why I chose .44 mag revolvers initially. But would you prefer to have 6 rounds of .44 or 16 rounds of 10mm in a "situation"?

quote:

Originally posted by FishOn: But would you prefer to have 6 rounds of .44 or 16 rounds of 10mm in a "situation"?

For a woods gun? 6x .44

A bear will be on you before you can even get 6 shots off, so the extra rounds are unlikely to matter.

quote:

A bear will be on you before you can even get 6 shots off, so the extra rounds are unlikely to matter.

True that. But having sixteen while in a tight spot when stumbling upon a meth operation, and with an added mag or two...the preferable choice when the varmints come equipped with only two legs.

You are all wrong, the 10mm is used to kill Polar Bears, and we all know what it can and will do about a nuclear option...

Archerman, you're saying the 10mm is the Chuck Norris of handgun calibers?

quote:

Originally posted by soggy_spinout:

quote:

A bear will be on you before you can even get 6 shots off, so the extra rounds are unlikely to matter.

True that. But having sixteen while in a tight spot when stumbling upon a meth operation, and with an added mag or two...the preferable choice when the varmints come equipped with only two legs.

Agreed, and I think I can get more rounds off more quickly, with the G20, vs a revolver. Well, I made the switch, and hopefully I'll never have to find out the truth of the matter. If I were in true Grizzly country, I would also carry a semi-auto shotgun with slugs. But we don't have many Grizzlies in WA.

quote:

Originally posted by soggy_spinout:
True that. But having sixteen while in a tight spot when stumbling upon a meth operation, and with an added mag or two...the preferable choice when the varmints come equipped with only two legs.

This is where the .44 vs. 10MM argument is salient. The .44 gives you big power, but with low capacity and slow reloads. (Unless, of course, you are Jerry Mitchulek). The 10MM gives you potential high capacity and fast reloads albeit with slightly reduced power.

I think it comes down to what you are most confident with and what you practice most with. I shoot a good amount of full house .44 out of my M29 and have gotten pretty good with the DA trigger. I have a high degree of confidence that my first two shots would hit a bear sized animal, given I had enough time to draw and aim before the animal knocked me over. For my backpacking adventure, I would probably go with the .44 with a couple-three speed loaders. That being said, if the biggest threat ran on two legs and shot back, I would go 10MM every time.

When it comes to 10mm semi auto's
colt, glock, cz-usa/ Dan Wesson, EAA, kimber, Rock island, Sig Sauer, S&W.

aren't they all pretty much 6 of one half a dozen of the other ?

or does one of them stick way out because of one thing or another?

This message has been edited. Last edited by: bendable,

I have owned 10mm in Colt (first gun i ever bought in 1996 was a delta Elite ) , Kimber -owned for about a week, totally unreliable, Dan Wesson -had a 10mm commander which was great but traded it away, Smith 1076 , Smith 610 (really regret dumping this one) , and at one time or another more than one G29, G20.All gone.
Enter the G40 10mm longslide. Best 10mm i have ever had. Up to about 2500 rounds of 8 different kinds of ammo from one end of the power spectrum to the other (the sig ammo is very hot and very accurate-love it) and there have been zero malfunctions and alot of one ragged hole targets out to 20 yards and alot of 12 inch steel denting at 100 yards. The pistol is a great 10mm platform.
All day long i pick it over the .44 . I could put 5 or 6 rounds of pretty hot stuff out of that really long barrel into an animal threat much faster and where i wanted than 1 or 2 .44 mags. Nothing against revolvers, i have several but i have personally not seen anyone shoot full power .44 as accurate as i can shoot a little less powerful 10mm rounds out of the G40 except of course = Harry Callahan of the San Frncisco PD.

So why aren't we including the .41 magnum? Oh, wait, its a 10mm too. Want more power, get a longer barrel. Or the Model 357, the airlight 41 mag that barely weighs as much as a full 10mm magazine. Carry it all day, everyday. Not nearly as tiring. So if your 10mm is the nuclear option, is the 41 as radioactive?

quote:

Originally posted by bendable:
When it comes to 10mm semi auto's
colt, glock, cz-usa/ Dan Wesson, EAA, kimber, Rock island, Sig Sauer.

aren't they all pretty much 6 of one half a dozen of the other ?

or does one of them stick way out because of one thing or another?

I like the glock 20 because it holds 16 rounds, I don't think any of the others do that. Plus I don't feel bad or worry much at all if I slip while I'm fishing and my glock gets dunked. With a nice 1911 like a dan Wesson, I'd be more concerned with submerging it, scratching it and just getting it dinged up.

My glocks go hiking, fishing, backpacking etc with me so they aren't safe queens or range toys.