Depending on which website you go to there seems to be conflicting opinion regarding ballistics.

Thinking in terms of trail protection, is it fair to say they are pretty damned close, if you want a semi-auto go with a 10mm, if you want a revolver take the .357, but basically other than that you are getting identical performance?

How about a 45 running +P's, will this compare with the other two, or be one step back on performance?

Opinions?

Thank you.

The three certainly won't be "identical", but depending on the launching pad, they could be equally effective for different reasons. The three cartridges are close enough that barrel lengths and bullet selection are the major players, not the paper ballistics.

As trail protection, would you think a guy with a good quality .45 shooting plus +p's would be wasting his money buying a 10MM?

thanks

Are you talking to me? Something about wasting money buying firearms?

If you already have a .45, I would stick with that, unless you just want a new toy. I would take a Glock 10mm or 45 first, followed lastly by a .357.

Another thought is which platform can you shoot the best during rapid fire. I carry a Glock model 20 often while in the mountains and have a few +5 base plates for my mags that give me 20 round magazines plus one up the spout. That gives me 3.5 times the capacity of a traditional sixshooter .357 in an easy to shoot package.

Normally though, I carry the traditional cap 10mm magazine (15 rounder)followed by a spare 20 rounder. I figure this should be more than enough to solve most problems that may present themselves.

I should have added limited funds to the conversation.

Okay then, you scared me a little.

If your .45 ACP is of the 5-inch variety, the 10mm isn't going to provide a distinct advantage. I wouldn't bother with the +P stuff either. If bears are a worry then go with a 230-grain truncated FMJ.

Money is always a factor, so if I needed to upgrade in shazam from a .45 ACP I'd leap frog over the 10mm. Don't get me wrong, I'd rather shoot a ticked off bear with a 10mm than a .45 ACP, but we could play that game all the way up to an RPG.

I have one of each, does that count?

Of the lot, IMHO, the 10 gives the best overall performance: faster, flatter shooting, more energy, more firepower.

That said, any of the three will solve most any problem you're likely to encounter, if you do your part.

I have a friend who lives in eastern Kentucky, where the black bear a currently plentiful. He has a farm, and is an avid bowhunter. He also carries his .357 while he is sitting in his blind.

Last year, a black bear with two cubs walked by his blind close enough for him to reach out and touch with the end of his recurve.

That was the last day he carried his .357. His 10mm has gone on his excursions ever since.

10 rounds of 10mmm sounded significantly better to him than 6 rounds of .357 magnum.

Barkoff,

You specified "trail protection", but the pure utility of the .357 Mag should be factored in also. If I could only have one of the three chamberings, it would be a slam dunk for the .357 Mag.

You can run anything - .38 Special cheapies, snake shot, frangibles, 125-grain screamers, and 180-grain thumpers, all with zero worry of ammo sensitivity. The cost of shooting will be half that of the 10mm or .45 ACP. In one handgun you can switch from an inexpensive plinker to a serious hunting or SD cartridge all in the time it takes to empty and reload the cylinder.

Now that is a trail gun.

I've been in two stand up fights with black bears while armed with a handgun, one (the most exciting one) was with a .357 and the other was with a .44 mag.

Having actually been in a fight with a bear, I'll take the 10mm every durned time over the .357 and .45 ACP.

Now don't get me wrong, from time to time, when walking through bear country, I'm armed with a .357 or a .45 ACP; but that has more to do with carry convenience than ballistic performance.

I should also note that when I'm headed to where I KNOW the bears are, I'm usually packing a Winchester 94 in .30-30 or a Remington 81 in .300 Savage.

I doubt you would see any difference between the three. Going from Kevin's experience (which I don't have-never been in a fight with a bear), I'd say the .44 Mag. would be the hands-down choice if you were doing your hiking in bear country. The .41 Mag. would come in second for me. Other than that, my first sentence runs true. JOG's comments regarding finances strike me as pretty practical also. If I had one of the three and didn't want to buy another pistola, I'd just pay attention to my ammo and go with what I had...as long as I wasn't where I was pretty sure a bear would show up-then, something bigger than any of them.

I would take the 357 Mag with a good 160 gr hard cast bullet over 2400.

So Kevin - what load were you using in that encounter with the .357?

It's all second-hand info to me, but I know of quite a few black bears that were killed with a .357 - and none of them were using any of the top loads I would choose. If I were in Barkoff's position and not wanting to spend money unnecessarily, I'd just load some hot 180gr .357 in my Security Six with maybe an extra speedloader and go on about my business (which is what I do now when amongst black bears and wolves). If, OTOH, I only had a 1911 in .45 - I would probably load it with my semi-hot CLSWC loads that work so well in mine and call it good.

OTOH - if I already owned a 10mm, I'd use that. But if I were looking to buy something - although I've kicked the 10mm idea around a lot lately - I think I'd skip past it to a Mountain Gun or something similar in .44mag or .45 Colt.

In terms of kinetic energy, the .357 Mag and 10mm are very similar.

The difference is in the combination of that energy and frontal area. The 10mm just has more frontal area = bigger hole. The added sectional density of the .357 Mag isn't needed for the application.

Use a quality controlled expanding bullet or a hard case flat-nosed bullet and you'll get all the penetration that you need to do the job with the 10mm.

I just ordered an EAA Witness in 10mm - 4.5" barrel, 33 ounces and 15 rounds.

Maybe it's just me, but I'd rather have 15+1 rounds than 13+1 rounds or 8+1 and some extra mags or 6 in the wheel and some speed loaders... That makes a difference too.

Last comment - I bet if we asked Kevin what the most important thing in each of his contacts it would be "shot placement" (?). As long as you have an "adequate" round I think it ocmes down to that.

For a fighting load against black bear in .357 JHP's are the way to go. I've always used a 158 grain JHP in the .357 against bear after seein the lack of effect that a hard cast Keith 173 SWC had against a black bear. The bullet just punched right through the bear and didn't really slow him down much.

I'm a big fan of hard cast bullets, but you need more frontal diameter for big effect. For hunting from a semi-secure position (such as a tree stand) the cast bullet would be fine, but for on the ground fighting, I want the JHP in .357 (and .44 for that matter), for black bear.

If we're talking griz, then my story is much different.

Well, this happened sometime around 1981-82 (can't remember exactly), and I don't really remember which load I was carrying that day. I can guarantee you that it was a 158 grain JHP and if I had to guess, I would say there's a better than even chance it was a Remington factory 158 JHP.

It was fired out of an 8" Dan Wesson.

So, Kevin, why are you getting in so many fights with black bears? Are you out there calling them names or something?

kevin is the bully of the woods

I have all 3 of choices plus a 45 super and of the 3 i would prefer the 10mm myself.

I was in one standoff with a large pissed off black bear. The 45 ACP at my waist seemed awfully puny at that point. But I didn't shoot him with it so I don't really know. Most people do not; which is why Kevin Gibson's info is so cool!

I have a friend who grew up in what amounts to a black bear sancuary down on the Rogue River. He considers a 45 ACP a joke, a .357 marginal, a 10mm a step up getting into adequate territory, and a 44 mag to be fully adequate. This is as a bear STOPPER, not a hunting gun. Things are a little different for hunting than stopping.

I sold off my 44 mag and recently bought a Glock 10mm. What is important and pertinant to ME is that I can hit stuff much better with the Glock, and the 15-round magazine means no loaded speed-loader in my pocket like I would have with the 44 mag. And you gotta love the cost of the Glock over just about any of the other options.

Lotsa youth, not much brains. I have mellowed in my later years and I now no longer push any issue with a bear unless he's on my property. Haven't been in a fight with a bear since the early to mid '80's. Almost once in the '90's but discression got the better of me.

I used to work with a guy, back in the 70's, who actively hunted black bears with a 6" S&W 19. He gave me one of his bear skins, so I'm pretty sure he killed at least one. He also was using Remington 158gr HP at the time. Probably was the best load available at the time. According to his info, he never failed to kill a bear - but they tended not to die quickly. He usually had time to empty the cylinder into the boiler room at a leisurely pace.

A recently retired coworker of mine had occasion to kill a black bear that was raiding his hunting camp and helping itself to the elk quarters that were hanging there. He used a Ruger Blackhawk and some brand of 158gr HP, IIRC. Only took two good hits, IIRC (he wasn't wearing his glasses).

Another that I know of - in fact, most of 'em - also involve camp raiders and various .357 handguns.

Also had a good friend (GRHS) who hunted bears with a 6" model 29. I don't remember what loads he was using, but his claim (which I have every reason to believe) was that he never needed more than one shot.

These are all hunting, or something close to it as a practical matter. But still useful info, especially in light of the fact that we have more appropriate loads available these days. IMO, which has not been tested by me, a heavy and hot .357 can be counted on to do the job on your average black bear - if he's not on top of you. If he is, it should still work, but yer probably gonna get chewed first. If you want to really be sure - carry a .44mag.

Those mutant 800lb bruins they grow in the northeast may be another matter entirely.

My pal Mark has a funny story of a "small" bear that wouldn't leave the liquor stash alone on a boys-only camping trip. The bear wasn't drinking but it was breaking bottles, they'd chase it off, it'd come back etc. Finally Mark used his little .38 Special to shoot a round right into the dirt in front of the bear. He said that thing ran away SO FAST that he never would have done it, if he'd known how FAST they are <g>.

Kevin, Kevin, you just have to keep up on 'politically correct'. Bears don't like to be called "black" any more - they're now Ursa-Americans.

As far as a hunting round goes, one of our posters, JJHack, stated once that neither the .357 or the .40 S&W are bear rds. in his opinion. But the 10mm is. He's killed, and seen killed scores of black bears with most of the popular rds.
You can argue about sectional density, bullet weight and velocity, etc. On paper, the 10 has it. If I use JJ's experiences, then the 10 has an edge here.
To me, it's a question of an auto pistol vs. a revolver. On that, I'd take an auto pistol for protection, that means reliability, any day over any wheel gun.
I've owned lots of .38 Specials, a couple of .357's, a 41, and a couple of .44 Magnums. I've never seen the light, small game wadcutter ammo shoot any where near the same zero as a full power load. In spite of all of my efforts to make that happen. If you switch ammo in a revolver, you must rezero it. Or try to guess where to hold off. Which can be as much as 6 inches at 25 yds.
All of that said, I hike and back pack in some pretty good bear country all summer and into the fall. I almost never carry a .45, my 10, or my .44 Mag. The most powerful handgun I carry is my 3 inch, .357. And I often carry my 5.7 FN.
I'd also add that I tend to shoot my little 3 inch, .357 better than I do my auto pistols in 10mm and the 5.7. Not the 1911's in .45, however.
So, I think, it boils down to what trade offs you are willing to accept. How bad is the threat, etc. E

Eremicus,

You've really sold yourself a bridge there, pard.

Freeme,

That pretty much echo�s my experience as well. The .357 kills and will even kill in a fight (worked in one for me), but it doesn�t kill very quickly. In the one .357 fight, it took all six rounds and I took off running after that, only to look over my shoulder and see the bear was finished. With my .44 fight, it was over in two rounds. The first round made a HUGE impact on the bear and really took the fight out of him, the second shot really made me feel better, and dropped the bear.

I think the key to defense against a bear is focus and hitting your target. Just like anything else, it�s not so much (within reason) what you hit them with, but that you hit them, and continue to hit them.

Black bears are not fearless like a griz. They are scared as all get out when they square off with a human and I think this has a lot to do with how we defend against them. They don�t want to be there, and 9 times out of 10, they will bolt. Of the one time in ten that they stand and fight, I think 50% of those times, their heart just isn�t in it, because they�re swayed somewhat easily.

The last little percentage is the mom protecting cubs. If this is your situation, you have a real fight on your hands. She will die defending her cubs and there will be no backing off for her. You must hit with some power, you must hit with every shot, and you must continue to shoot and hit until the fight is over, one way or the other.

Kevin, sounds like you are talking people there too.

When did you witness the hard cast bullet shot? What was the circumstance? And I guess you were talkin .357? Through and through and it didn't impress the bear? Wow. Where was that round placed?

Inquiring minds want to know.

Diameter, diameter, diameter...... Give me the 10mm over th .357.

Maybe I should explain further. I have a .45 made in 1918. One, I don't want to scrape it up, and two I have been told to refrain from hot loads in that gun.

Second I have a beautiful model 19 that seems to have never been shot, absolutely pristine, can't stand the thought of falling down on that one either, not to mention with a 6" barrel it is a tad beefy for the trail.

Neither the old .45 or the .357 is well shall we say are pedigree, and not looking to make them so, so there is concern of being out on the trail with those, remember, this is CA we're talking about.

So since CA is leaning towards the damn case printing crap by the end of 2010, I thought maybe some of my tax refund might go to semi-auto before this goes into effect..so which one?

In reality I live in the land of liberals, in my lifetime I doubt I'll ever have a CCW permit, so for the most part I was thinking of buying a gun for the trail. At first I was leaning towards another 45, in stainless. I was content with that choice. One to handle stiffer loads than my relic, and stand up to the weather a bit better. Then I got to reading about the Glock 10MM, and am now throwing the thought of a 10MM in 1911 or a model 20/29 into the mix.

Not familiar with Glocks at all, but it seems some love them, some hate them, some think they are cheaply built, or can't come to grips with a plastic gun, anyway.

So there you have it, a trail gun first, home protection also. I do have a nice registered stainless model 60 loaded with +p's that fits nicely in a back pocket or robe pocket, that I keep in the night stand at night. This might be replaced with the new, pedigree purchase.

The two older firearms I own really can't be used for much do to them being hand-me-downs, from the old man, who picked them up when things were simpler.

I'd like to buy one of each, but now isn't the time for me.

I just bought an EAA Witness from http://www.budsgunshop.com for $406 shipped to my dealer. (they're out of stock right now) This is a 33oz. full sized Witness with "wonder" finish (looks like electroless matt nickel) that has a 15 round magazine capacity. It's barrel is 4.5" long, so you get good velocity out of it. The rifling is standard type which means you can shoot all of the inexpensive cast bullet loads you want without need to clean excessively or worry about kbooms. Has double action/single action trigger and a manual safety. Sights are steel, three dot.



Quite a lot of gun for $406 shipped IMHO. It arrives at my dealer tomorrow, so I should be able to report on it tomorrow evening - I hope. I don't have the dies for the brass and bullets I have yet but they come Wednesday... and then I can put together some loads. I've also ordered a 500 count box of Laser Cast 180 grain rnfp bullets to practice with.

The grips aren't oversized like the Glocks. Though, there are now SF Glocks that have slimer frames - I've not handled one though.

The EAAs handle and point like oversized CZs and BHPs (which, basically, they are), and that ain't a bad thing.

How is the durability of the EAA in the 10mm?

I think it was Phil Shoemaker IIR who wrote of bear protection with a pistol. His daughter carried a 357 loaded with 180g bullets. He said it was enough to penetrated the skull of a bear, a brown bear, but with all things it took a cool head to make the shot.

Barkoff, plastic pistols in general and certainly the one glock I have are the epitome of a "tool". My G20 is brand new and I could care less if I scratch it or fall on it. Or if it gets wet, or whatever. I dropped it on the mud the other day up at the gravel pit... eh... who cares!

Kind of nice, in a trail pistol.

Of current 10mm's, get the Witness. For the money, very good.

Can I ask why you opted for the 20 over the 29?

Since primary use will be for trail and a 10 round max in CA, I'm thinking the compact, the 29 might be the way.

Barkoff-
I sure like the size of my M27 sub-compact for packing and concealed carry compared to the full size M22. By carrying a 15 rnd mag as a backup there's a lot of capacity in a small package. It's just as easy to shoot well with the addition of a finger-grip mag floorplate.

I've owned both. As similar as they are, they feel very different in the hand. The G20 is very controllable, the G29, on the border of being uncontrollable, but not uncomfortable. If limited to 10 rounds, and concealment an issue at all, the G29 would win in a landslide. The G20 is just not concealable under anything smaller than a decent mid-weight jacket. The G29, I've carried under an untucked polo shirt.

Either one is more accurate than it oughta be, and will certainly get most jobs done, ricki-tick.

I believe I read that same article several years back. His reason wasn't because it can penetrate the skull, but rahter because he/she can score hits with good follow up shots with the .357. Penetrating the skull on a griz with a handgun cartridge is an iffy affair, especially with a .357.

If I found myself in griz country, then .44 would be my absolute minimum; fine for hunting griz, but not a fighting arm. I would much prefer a .480 Ruger, .475 Linebaugh or .50 AE with an LBT WFN bullet, and a squad of Rangers behind me.

Again, this was in my younger years and they were Keith style bullets. One that I witnessed was from my gun. (witnessed it two more times from other .357's with nearly identical results) The first shot went right through the front of the chest and took out a piece of the heart. He was dead on his feet, but I'm not too happy to report, he really didn't register much of an event. I put three more rounds through him, one of which hit and broke his front shoulder (excited kid, bad shot on a tree'd bear). The last shot broke his spine and he tumbled out of the tree. But because the impact of my shots was so unimpressive, I took off running when he hit the ground just in case.

4 shots through the chest, the heart was literally cut in half and it took the bear a good 2 minutes to die. At a range of 10 yards, that's 1:58 too long.

With a JHP in .357 and .44, the effect on the bear was much different. Honestly, the .357 was never impressive, just adequate (again, as a hunting round, not a fighting round). A cast bullet in the .44 seemed to be too much like a JHP in a .357, which kinda defeats the purpose of carrying a .44. Way too much penetration on a bear that's not all that big.

A JHP in a .44 was truely impressive each and every time. One well placed shot, and you can visibly see the bear lose muscle tone and watch the wind drain out of his sails; it's really a sight to see, and really gives you a lot of confidence in your .44.

The 240 JHP always expands to around .80 or larger, and about 70% of the time, you still get complete penetration. And that brings me to another lesson; complete penetration has never made a bit of difference when the right bullet is used and your shot is placed well. Again, this is specifically for very close range hunting with dogs. Without dogs to contain the bear, I would probably require complete penetration just for the sake of finding a blood trail; but if you're in a fight, the only blood trail you're worried about is your own.

Now again, all this is for Ursus-Ameicans (how's that JOG?), and NONE of this applies to ANY bear over 600 lbs.

Barkoff,

The overwhelming odds are the handgun will be used to fire three distress shots after you break your leg. Shooting a bear is way down the list. That might rule the Glock out, since managing three shots in a row without jamming might be a problem.

There, that oughta fire 'em up...

My usual trail gun is a S&W M63 with five shots of bee-like .22 LR (empty under the hammer). Minnesota is loaded with bears and wolves, a fair number of loonies, and Redneck drives over from TAX HELL WISCONSIN once in a while. Redneck being the exception, I've never felt under-gunned. In the interest of full disclosure, we get some Canadians too, but they were disarmed before they got here and only interested in US-made beer and cigarettes.

So, if I'm sitting around the campfire surrounded by bears and wolves and, God-forbid, Redneck and some drunk Canadians show up, the perfect sidearm for the occasion is the three-inch S&W M60. In my opinion, you've had a great handgun for the task all along.

Looking at your current battery we can still spend your money. Scratch the semi-auto itch with a good .22 LR or 9mm with a conversion kit, or go to the next level with a revolver in .44 Mag.

I believe you maybe right about her being able to do follow up shots, but I am pretty sure he mentioned the penetrating factor. I'll have to dig it up sometime maybe, to be sure.

Phil has eminently more experience than I with big bears, which is easy because I have none. But cracking a griz's skull is a dicey proposition with any handgun, let alone the .357. When you step up to the real big boys, then the dynamics change, but my bet is there's a good chance a .357 will not reliably penetrate a griz skull.

Thanks for the come back Kev.

I was just curious.

I never thought that at handgun velocities it would make any difference to something like a bear. People? Yes. But I see it also applies to critters as well.

Hi Barkoff.

Can't argue with your logic; the 29 makes all kinds of sense. I'd sure like to have one in addition to my 20.

I'm a big guy with big hands and the G20 feels good in my paws. If I want to go "light" I have a Kahr P45 that I would carry. Otherwise I'm not going to sweat the difference between the G20 and G29; both are big ol' suckers compared to the Kahr, or compared to NOT carrying a pistol.

Smith and Wesson stainless Mountain Gun in .44 Mag., pre-safety, of course.

Call it any way you want JOG. I've seen lots of revolvers put out of action when dropped on hard surfaces, the clylinder getting knocked out of alginment, and no large frame automatics so put out of action. When used as club as well. I understand that the Glock is the exception.
Argue all you want about jaming. I argue that good factory jacketed stuff will not unless the gun isn't made right.
Stopages can be easily cleared and very quickly. But when a revolver bullet pulls out of it's case, a hard primer doesn't fire, or the action skips, the revolver shooter has a serious problem. Granted the beefier single action guns are better in this respect, but I'll still take an automatic. Flat, compact and it holds lots of rds.
To each his own. E

Just for your information Kevin, JJHack's experiences with hard cast bullets vs. expanding soft points and hollow points paralleled yours. He found the expanding bullets, even the 180 gr. .44 Mag bullets, much better killers than the hard cast, keith style stuff. E

I have to admit, I'm no expert on bears & handguns, as I'm primarily an archer. But, some years ago while I was on a Bear hunt (archery) I dropped a fair sized black Bear with (I thought) a well placed arrow. I haven�t a clue as to why he dropped, but thought I might have clipped the spine. However, when I walked up to him, and poked him in the eye with my bow, I found out he wasn�t quite as dead as I though he was.

In any case, I guess he decided he wanted a piece of me because he didn�t run; he stood up and popped his jaws while I was backpedaling (at a right smart pace!). At that point I finally remembered I was toting my 6� mdl 57 on my hip. I jerked it out, and by the time it cleared the holster, the bear was just about on top me. It only took one shot to the head, & he dropped stone dead (didn�t stop me from pulling the trigger a few more times, as I was thoroughly shaken up by then).

I was loaded with 210 gr Sierra MS, staggered in-between 220 gr hard cast. The Sierra bullet went from the bottom of the jaw straight thru the top of the skull. I don�t think it even started to slow down!

So, for me, if I�m going to carry a handgun while hunting, it�s either going to be my 57, or 29.

Richard

PS: I no longer walk right up to my freshly downed quarry. I now will hold up a bit, and look at the eyes (I prefer to see them open!), then look for dust around the nose area, or chest movement of any kind.

That once was more than enough for me!

The key lock safety can be easily removed

And how!

So.........Leupold making revolvers now?

Huh? More reliable than a wheelgun? Step away from the crack pipe!

Military tests have proven that the auto pistol is more reliable, and far more durable than a revolver, so E is right.

A small amount of dirt and debris can lock up a revolver tighter than a drum. But someone who cares well for his sidearm is unlikely to encounter such problems.

When power is required, I opt for the revolver. You can't match revolver power with any sort of practical auto pistol in .44 mag and up.

You've got to be kidding me. There are two kinds of auto pistols: those that jam, and those that will jam -- I add the caveate - at some point. I have autos and revolvers and lovethem both, but you can't tell me that there isn't way more that can go wrong with a semi-auto pistol. What military tests are you refering to?

Sorry but I'd be very suspect of ANY one or TEST that claimed a semi auto is more reliable than a revolver. Reliability is a revolver strong point

The difference in reliability can be answered by one simple comparison:

How many rounds of a new carry/SD cartridge do you fire through a semi-auto before you call it good? How about a revolver?

I'm waaay more forgiving then most, and my answer for a semi-auto is 50-100. For a revolver: zero, unless you count sighting in.

Mechanical malfunctions, bent parts, and drop-kicked revolvers mean nothing. The overwhelming factor in reliability is ammo sensitivity. Take 100 different cartridges with different velocities, bullet weights and styles, and dump them in a bucket. Randomly select a revolver and have at it.

Now try that with a semi-auto.

Great point, JOG!

Barkoff:

I've been through this thread a couple of times, but if you mentioned what trails, in what state and what you might reasonably expect to find on those trails, I missed it.

Grizzly country or no bears at all country? Mountain lion country?

Central California doper country?

One critter at a time or surrounded by multiple ferals?

Stopping a charge or laying down suppression fire while you haul butt out of there?

IMO, there's no perfect do-it-all choice for a trail gun.

- Tom

In reality the best trail gun is a short barrel rifle , like the Win 94 in 30-30

I'm not buying it. Military tests don't trump a bazillion years of combined shooter experience. Miltary tests got us the M9. (Part your hair on the other side and nobody will notice the slide sticking out of your forehead).

How many semi-auto failures have you experienced and witnessed compared to revolvers? A guy can hardly walk across a shooting range without finding someone that's screwing with a choked semi-auto. If I need to bounce a revolver off the cement to make it even I'll risk it.

I'm with you, No way on Gods Green Earth is a Semi Auto more reliable than a revolver..

I have a bit of experience on Bears with a handgun



If you want to slap a Bear down hard and fast forget the Semi Autos and get a big bore revolver..

Thanks, but I was being generous. I could have said 100 different reloads.

Lions, black bear, or stumbling onto some two legged vermin. Fully understand that all are small percentage risks, but like most, feel better not leaving all to fate.

By the way, who can tell me what a S&W .44 Mountain weighs?

In reality though I would probablly bite the bullet and load up the .357 and carry that before putting down hundreds for a 44 Mountain gun. I think the the big factors that could swing me in favor of one of the Glocks is the weight factor, round capacity and quickness of shots.

People are making a lot of a well placed shot over that of a spray and pray scenario, but in reality even with a lot of practice how many wouldn't be served better with quantity of shots when facing down a black bear running at you for the first time in your life?

I would like to believe I could come through like Daniel Boone, but in reality my heart would probablly be pounding so hard, even with a lot of practice, I might be better served laying down a barrage instead of taking my time thinking I'll put that first one on the chili. Just being honest, those who hike around on a regular basis in bear country and have contact with a lot of bear, most likely will be a lot more measured and calm than I'll be.

okay guys, stick a quality auto pistol and your favorite revolver in a box. Pour some dirt into the box and then shake the box around a little. Pull both guns out, and see which works.

If conditions are near perfect, then the revolver is the most reliable and will rarely, if ever have a problem. It's when things get dirty and nasty, that the auto comes through.

Hey, it's your right to disagree, but ask yourself when was the last time a major military organization chose a revolver? Now ask why that is?

Look at the Taurus Tracker in .44 mag.

As for the dirt test, I'd call it even. Grit in the magazine of a semi-auto is a known choker. "Dirty and nasty" might be the bane of a revolver, but those circumstances so rarely happen they're a footnote. Call me a weenie, but I've never had a 'muddy' revolver or semi-auto in my life, and I haven't dropped one on cement yet either.

The semi-auto is king in military circles for good reasons: capacity, ease of maintenance, and simple parts replacement. I'd much rather clean a semi-auto than a revolver, but ease of maintenance and reliability are separate issues.

Most importantly, the military does the one thing most of us don't: standardize ammunition. Your current catalog of military load choices are, well, M882 Ball. Often times the military weapon is built specifically to fire standard issue cartridges and the weapon will choke on the civilian market where ammo sensitivity comes back into play. Two of the greatest pistols ever suffer from that - hump-ramped Hi-Powers and sharp-ramped 1911's.

Your points about the reliability of semi-autos vs. revolvers are valid, but the circumstances under which they occur are rare. From my standpoint, the reliability factors come into play every time a guy buys, borrows, or reloads ammo.

Lastly, there's no "tap, rack, bang" drill for revolvers. Just keep pulling the trigger - you get five fresh ones. Oh, and feel free to limp-wrist the revolver.

JOG,

You make your points so eloquently and I can agree with them. For us civies, the revolver is more reliable than the auto for exactly the reason you say, ammunition standardization.

Still, the auto has been much more reliable in military service than any revolver. In my dirt test that I mentioned, it's doubtful you'd even get dirt into the magazine unless it was not inserted, or the slide was open. And if you're goint to do that, then you should be fair and open the cylinder...do that, and it's game over for ANY revolver, DA or SA.

And let's say we manage to take both the revolver and the semi auto out of commission with the dirt test. You can literally hoze the auto pistol off with water until it starts working again. If you lock up a revolver, it has to be detail stripped before you're likely to see it work again.

Still, your arguement is valid and I can agree with that.

Kevin,

"Eloquent"? Did you just call me gay? Yeah, well you're a gentleman.

Not wishing any additional hardship on our soldiers in Iraq, but since dust entering into magazines was such a problem there it would have been interesting to see how revolvers held up.

The weight factor might not be as much as you think. Fully loaded, Glock advertises the G20 at 39.14 ounces. A loaded Mountain Gun will weigh around 44.3 ounces. You'll never notice the difference on your belt.

Sure, the G20 gets you 10 more rounds for the weight, but the Mountain Gun is .44 Mag. We could argue whether round number seven is going to be a factor with a charging bear, but the weight between the two handguns is mostly a wash.

It surprised the heck out of me too, but it's true. The military has proven it, as well as others. Read Jeff Cooper's exploits in South America in "Another Country" as one example.

They're mostly talking about swing out cylinder DA revolvers though. You could probably run over a single action Ruger with a tank and not hurt it.

I agree with you on that, just reporting what I believe he said.

I was told of a couple bears hunters in Idaho who carried 357s until one failed to penetrate a black bears skull. No idea what load. They switched to the 41 Magnum and were please with the results from then on.

"No" dont look at the .44 tracker. Bought one new and had a lock up prob from day one! Sold it quick and bought a glock 20.
Here in Ca, the G-20 is all I need. For grizz country I take my Ruger SBHH stocked, Bottom line.

It is a wise man that has his pistol or revolver protected while in the back country - either a flap holster or just a garment that drapes over the handgun to keep loose dirt and such off of it.

Revolvers for all of their merrits do have a lot of exposed and open areas that dirt can get into and bind things.

Autoloaders are entirely closed in comparison.

Given that you keep good care of your sidearm, the difference comes down to power vs capacity IMHO.

I don't think the ammo is a factor with people that shoot the piece ahead of the trip with the ammo to be carried. If they don't then they're asking for trouble regardless.

I personally would feel good sporting a .44 Mag revolver or a 10mm Autoloader. Both with heavier controlled expansion bullets. At least 240 grain for the .44 and 200 grain for the 10mm.

Even a SP-101 .357 with 180 grian xtp's or a Kahr9 with 147 grain XTP's is better than nothing - if you need a really concealable piece.

Its great to have the choice!

Regardless of capacity, remember this rule...save the last one for you

Contrary to your experience I have had great service from a 4" .44 tracker. It's accurate, has great trigger pulls and functions flawlessly. I think it's a great choice.

Have hesitated to weigh in here, but it seems the logical choice for any OhSh*t! handgun is to pick the one that the individual user is most assured will give him a first round accurate hit when your brain is going Oh SH*T, I'm really about to die here!!! Stuff that you can shoot well on the firing range when you have time to position yourself might not be the best one to use when your hand is fumbling to snatch it from it's holster while your feet are tripping over each other as you try to get out of the way.

But I figure in any "now or never" situation the first shot is the one that's going to count. Having a rapid second or third shot is not a bad idea, but I'd never rely on firepower alone to get any job done, unless maybe you need to suppress an enemy force. I'd certainly get the biggest hole in the barrel you can handle, and if you can get off an accurate shot better with some particular auto that fits your hand then I'd go that way.

All these sweeping statements about "this ALWAYS works better in ALL conditions and circumstances" stuff (translation - MY choice is better than YOUR choice 'cause MY opinion is better than YOUR opinion) is just chest thumping to me.

Get what you can hit with when your eyes are glued to a big set of white snarling teeth. That's the best one for you, and what anybody else chooses is of no concern.

Jim, that's a very good point. Kind of the same logic as the handgun that you carry is better than the one back in the safe....

Somebody run their DA revolver through this little test and report back on how durable it is.

Glock 21 torture test

That is a good point. Over the years, I've seen lots of pistol shooters. Very few could shoot even a standard weight .44 Magnum well. Most, however, could shoot a standard weight .357 pretty well. Experienced shooters, not new shooters.
I'd say much the same about the 10mm and the guns chambered for it. All of the 1911 pattern guns I've shot, and seen shot, were tough to shoot well. One of the reasons why I opted for the the 1006 Smith instead of a Colt Elite. I've shot 1911, 45's for over 50 yrs, so I'm not exactly new at it. I found the 10mm in the 1911's a strain to shoot well. I can do much better with my 4 inch, .44 Smith 29. With the Smith 1006, I shoot it about as well as I do my .44. Since the trigger isn't nearly as good, probably not as well when under stress.
I haven't shot a Glock 10. But I have shot their 9's, the .45's and their 40's. Got a hunch that if your hand fits the Glock 10mm's frame, it would be a good match for a 10. They handle recoil very well. Not my idea of a good pistol trigger either, but that's up to the guy shooting it. At least they won't beat up as badly as some other designs.
Besides the lighter kicking .357 in a good steel revolver, the Ruger "Alaskan" in .454 Casull might be worth something to a recoil shy guy. Shot with .45 Long Colt ammo, they ought to get the job done. E

Okay,

I put my money where my mouth was. I came home this afternoon, and took a stainless Ruger Blackhawk in .45 Colt (my neighbor was kind enough to lend me his Blackhawk, even after I told him what I would do to it), a S&W model 15 and a S&W M1911PD into a small box and poured in a mixture of fine dirt with flour added. All guns went in fully loaded.

Now I live in NW Arkansas, so the finest dirt is rather course, and contains lots of itty-bitty rocks, so the flour was added to add in something like real fine dirt.

Dirt and flour were poured onto each gun as it sat in the box (about 2 cups of each). The lid was put back on the box, and the whole thing was shaken several times. I cringed as I shook the box up with each gun in it.

The guns were taken out, shook off and then fired. Results:

S&W M15: DOA No DA pull, and couldn't pull the hammer all the way back
Ruger: DOA Could not draw the hammer all the way back
S&W 1911PD: 8 rounds fired

Full disassembly of the M15 and Blackhawk showed the flour was the real killer. The courser dirt didn't have much penetration into the inner workings mostly because it was too course. I think in my neck of the woods, a revolver would put up with a lot in the field. If I were back in CA, I think the story would be different.

Oh, and flour is a B-Otch to clean out of guns; still haven't gotten to my 1911 yet.

Sorry guys, no photos available; I have church tonight and I just didn't have time to do all that stuff.

The M-15 is a revolver?

I never would have dreamed a semi-auto would be more reliable in the muck, but in all honesty I don't know much about firearms period.

Love my Tracker. Shoots more accurate than me, no problems, and feels great on the hip. Taurus has done miles of work to fix their problems of the past, and it's easier at this point to find satisfied customers than the contrary.

How about this "torture" test: Let's use reloaded brass and lead bullets. My great great great grandchildren will still be shooting my Model 28 decades after your uber-pistol becomes splinters.

The M15 is the Model 15 Combat Masterpiece


IMO, it is one of the finest revolvers ever produced regardless of maker, regardless of cartridge (the Model 15 is a .38 Special K frame)

Kevin, I agree with your opinion of the Model 15. I carry one every day as I work cows in central Texas. We do have the fine dirt. My black Border Collie assumes a medium brown color after a ride in the truck bed. Not doubting your test results, but I have found with minimal care, the Model 15 holds up well and is completely reliable in this condition. It never is dropped in the dirt, however. The best thing about the revolver for my purpose is that I can carry different loads at the same time, some for snakes, some for small stuff, and a couple for dangerous game (people).

Jim

Great point. You also never need to wonder if you chambered a round or not with the revolver.......

Kevin's test is interesting. If I'm going to spend the day on a tractor doing field work under dusty conditions I learned long ago to pack the Glock 20. It can get filthy and still work, not so a revolver. If both guns are clean and lubes the revolver is less sensitive to ammo quality, grip, a whole lot of things. If things are going to get dirty the advantage moves to the autopistol pretty fast.

In reality Barkoff, this is much ado about nothing. The way to buy a gun is decide what gun you want, buy it before you change your mind, then figure out what advantages it has over everything else you own. When you start to itch again, repeat the cycle.

I think it's important to keep it all in perspective. I have maintained that the auto pistol is more reliable in extreme conditions. But how reality based is my test? That's a LOT of dirt and debris. One would have to either fall into a mud puddle, or just plain abuse their sidearm to ever replicate the results in the field.

What I'm gettin at is; I've never once worried about whether my revolver would go bang. I have worried about various auto pistols.

I think it's not until you get into extreme conditions that the auto starts to shine. Everything else shy of that, the revolver really has the edge for most things as a field gun. (power, reliability and versatility).

I have personal experience that tells me what's best in the field for defense against a black bear; a .44 magnum revolver stoked with 240 JHP's. But after years of hunting bears, I also have a good sense of what it takes to put them out of commission. Therefore, I'm willing to carry a .45ACP, .357, 10mm, or a .41 magnum.

If I walk down to the hollow on my property where I know there's a mamma bear, I carry a Winchester 94 or Remington 81 AND a sidearm; otherwise I just carry a sidearm.

Kevin,

Your test does a great job of demonstrating the importance of the proper holster and carry method for the conditions. Switching from a revolver to a semi-auto under say, extremely dusty conditions, is still trusting to luck. IMO it's much more important to get the handgun under cover and prevent filling it with dust in the first place.

Wonder what dirt is as fine as flower? Seen a hell of a lot of jams with semi auto, and a few, but (dam few) with a revolver.

I think that I'll try a simular test

The only negatives with a revolver for a self defense piece is fewer rounds before reloading and the speed loader are more of a pain to carry. A spre mag is falt and easy to carry in a pocket IMHO

jwp- I remember reading that flour was substituted in one of the stateside military tests to simulate the sand in the Middle East because they couldn't find anything that fine here.

My thought was, Arkansas "dirt" (really, it's fine gravel), and flour represent the two extremes of the "dirt" realm.

A couple points I thought about after reading the posts. Many times after riding through dusty conditions on the ranch, I blow the dust off the gun with an air compressor (carefully), works great. Also, the last thing I want to shoot a mad bull, or a 400# hog or anything else large and mean with is a 38 revolver. I always carry a 30-30 in the ranger or the truck. Still, I almost can't leave the house without my 38 revolver.

Jim

Mad bulls call for a judicious amount of Nike-Kwon-Do.

Ain't that the truth...........

I owe my cow elk this last year, in part to two unhappy bulls. I think she stood up from bed to see what the fuss was all about when my friend and I were walking through that herd of beeves below her...

I got chased into the Pecos as a kid by a bull or range cow; couldn't tell you which but there wasn't much apparant difference to my 11-year-old eyes... grin... got washed down the canyon a ways and got out and saw a bear, then had to come back up the canyon past the god damned cows to get back to camp!

My wife and I, way back in the day when she was my girlfriend, got chased by some cows... or more likely stampeded them our own direction somehow... up above Alvord Ranch in the Steens... we were on mountain bikes, which are sadly inferior to a cow, for hauling ass across a sage desert. I had two native redbands and a fishing rod strapped to my bike.

I guess those bulls helping me out on my cow elk evens things up a little at least.

You want some? I can get as much as you need. Fine as volcanic ash. Maybe that's what it is/was. It's all over southern Idaho. And I would be careful carrying any revolver where it might fall into the stuff.

A 30/30 win has more energy at 100 yards than a .44Rem Mag at the muzzel and a 44 is really a 42 cal,and the 10 mil is 40 cal.

And the 10 mil with HDY 200 XTP #9 powder will get you 1030 vel.

With a good flat nose bullet it can be loaded to take any game up to bear and Democrates!

Bob

hey barkoff:
how about a 230 grain completely flat metplate .357magnum doing about 900fps? I think that by par puts into the relm of some of these other pistola rounds guys are talking about.
http://www.pennbullets.com/38/38-caliber.html

Save for the fact that it is missing one of the most important features: DIAMETER. It's only a .357 no matter how fast you push it.

Well it's not that I have a problem with the .357 caliber, only that the .357 I own is kind of long, big and pristine. The other reason for buying a semi-auto is to purchase one more before the 2010 bullschitt CA imprinting law goes into effect.

Absolutely. The .357 stands tall than it really is becuase of hollow point ammunition. It will penetrate right along side the big boys if you want it to, but you will give up penetration with a big hole. That's what you get with a cast .357...penetration is excellent, but it's a small hole.

Amen to that!

What law is that? Are they going to stash fired cases from every new pistol, or something?

My Glock came with 2 fired cases in a sealed envelope for just that reason (I guess). I tore it open, for the brass, only to find out they were aluminum cases!

Ballistic Fingerprinting � Gun dealers or manufacturers must provide police with sample bullets/cartridges or digital images of bullets/cartridges prior to the sale of a handgun. This is not required in California, fortunately. In another article by John Lott (National Review Online, �Ballistic Fingerprinting�s a Dud, Another failed gun-control strategy�, February 04, 2005), Professor Lott points out, �New York is spending $4 million per year. Maryland has spent a total of $2.6 million, about $60 per gun sold. But in the over four years that the systems have been in effect neither has solved a single crime.�

Microstamping - This is a new technology that is not in commercial use today. Basically a unique serial number is engraved in the firing pin of each pistol. This serial number is then imprinted on the primer of the bullet casing, or in some instances on the cartridge, when the gun is fired. Unfortunately, California has already passed a law requiring use of the technology by all manufacturers who sell firearms in California. This new law will go into effect in 2010.

It is surprising (or not since the Brady Campaign rates California best) this law passed when the technology was tested by the University of California, Davis, and found lacking. Their original press release on May 3, 2007, was titled (emphasis added) Microstamping Guns Feasible but Flawed, Study Finds. The first paragraph stated (emphasis added):

�New technology to link cartridge cases to guns by engraving microscopic codes on the firing pin is feasible, but does not work well for all guns and ammunition tested in a pilot study by researchers from the forensic science program at UC Davis. More testing in a wider range of firearms is needed to determine the costs and feasibility of a statewide program of microstamping, as called for by proposed state legislation, the researchers said.�

Sounds like microstamping is not ready to me.

Their press release was updated on May 13; new title: �Firearms Microstamping Feasible but Variable, Study Finds�. And the first paragraph says (emphasis added):

�New technology to link cartridge cases to guns by engraving microscopic codes on the firing pin is feasible, but did not work equally well for all guns and ammunition tested in a pilot study by researchers from the forensic science program at the University of California, Davis. More testing in a wider range of firearms is needed, the researchers said.�

So they softened their position. /sarcasm mode on/ I am sure it was not because they were funded by a California Congressional Committee who wanted to pass the law to require the use of the technology /sarcasm mode off/. Still sounds like microstamping is not ready to me.

In addition, there are major flaws in the use of this as evidence. Spent cartridges are often left at a range, a criminal could collect these and leave them at a crime scene to divert suspicion. The microstamps on firing pins can be easily removed with a nail file. Firing pins can be exchanged easily. Given the expensive failure of ballistic fingerprinting should we add another layer of useless expense?

Owner-Authorized Handguns � Two states, Massachusetts and California, have passed laws to require all newly manufactured or imported handguns to be �owner-authorized� or personalized in a way that would allow them to be fired only by authorized persons. Essentially this would be a biometric recognition device built into the handgun to limit only the owner to shooting the weapon. Clearly the author of this POS legislation watched the movie �Judge Dredd� too many times. This is currently handgun science fiction.

Both states recognize this is yet-to-be-developed technology and currently requires the Attorney General to monitor and report on the progress in the technology with an eye to pre-authorize a mandate to use it immediately upon availability. Aside from the fact of venturing into pre-legislating �future� laws, the technology itself is silly today. Biometrics for computers and security devices are still largely experimental and can be circumvented.

Just as a reminder, the USAF issued M10s and Speed Sixes, both in .38 Special, in the not too distant past. I have the TM that covers both.

I think much of the problems encountered with Keith bullets (Lyman 358429) in .357 is commercial cast bullets that are way too hard. If an alloy closer to 20 to 1 is used, about 50/50 clip-on to stick-on wheel weights, the results are much more favorable. When it's loaded to Elmer's specs, 15.0 gr of 2400 in Mag brass, it clocks at about 1420 fps MV. That's seated deep for a M28-2's short cylinder.

We don't have very may bears in East Texas, but we do have a goodly population of feral hogs. I was talking to a local recently and his preference for hogs runs along the lines of a .22 LR. If he's real serious, he uses a .22 Mag!

I shot this hog at 40 yards in my front yard and used one 00 buckshot to do the job.



It doesn't take nearly as much to kill a hog as what people think.

Depends on the hog. The only shot that will guarantee a drop on the spot is a CNS hit (like every animal), but they are a lot denser in construction than a deer. I have had them fatally wounded (shredded heart), and they still managed to run off 100 yards or so. So, shoot 'em in the head or spine and it's lights out. Shoot 'em in the boiler room, and all bets are off when the animal will give up the ghost.

The one in the picture has hit way too far back, since it was 11:30 at night when I shot him. I could only see three hits and none of them exited. He ran about 30 yards and expired where you see him. As you can see, by comparing him to the Yamaha Timberwolf, it's about a 200-250 pound hog.

A feral hog isn't exactly the same thing as a Russian cross, but they still aren't as hard to kill as what people let on. In fact, if you leave them in a trap for a day or so, they'll die on their own. Like this one.



I think the little ones could be killed with a BB gun, but we used a .357, .30-30 (both with cast bullets) and a 100 gr .243 loaded down to 2200 fps on these.