I have owned a bushel basket full of .44 mags. and also have had two 10mm's on a 1911 platform. One was the big long slide Dan Wesson Bruin, easy to shoot due to the extra long slide and weight. The other is a Kimber Camp Guard that is a bit more snappy, but still not bad for recoil with 220 grain hard cast full power loads.
My S&W .44 mag. Mountain Gun has been a companion for over 20 years. After hunting in Alaska for over 50 years and seeing big brown bears up close and shooting one at about 30' and having friends that had run ins with bears and talking to many old school guides that are long gone, I long ago decided I never want to get in a fight with a pissed off brownie with any handgun. Big difference between that scenario and "hunting" a unwounded unaware brownie where one can get a good hit with the first shot.
My 280 grain hard cast .44 mag. load is a better choice for big bears then the 10mm. If were looking at the one that can be shot the fastest and loaded the fastest then using that logic many feel the 10mm is the way to go. Well, I can shoot my 10mm 1911 faster then my .44 mag. and my rifle. But, I still want the rifle for big bears since I shoot a rifle better.
I also think revolvers allow a wider meplat on cast bullets then a semi auto that may have feeding issues if to wide. Just compare the nose of a 10mm hard cast to a .44 mag.
When I came to Alaska in 1965 I met several big game guides that hunted polar bears, brown-grizzly in the Wrangell Mountains, Alaska Peninsula and Kodiak. None of them carried a handgun for back up as they had a rifle and if a client showed up with one by day three it was left in the tent, as it was a pain to carry for miles a day, through alders, pucker brush, etc.
Also, in Alaska if you are shooting "charging" bears at much past 30' our game enforcement officers will want to know why.
