.44 Magnum Versus 10mm For Bear
BY Herschel Smith
2 years ago
During the 10mm vs .44 Mag. test, none of us were looking forward to running the S&W 329 PD with the Hornady 240-grain JHP loads I had brought along. But while our hands were fresh we shot the revolver first. According to Hornady’s data, the XTP bullets from a 7.5-inch barrel clock at 1350 fps and generate 971 foot-pounds of energy at the muzzle. And I can vouch that you feel every one of the foot-pounds when you pull the 329’s trigger. (I’m glad I didn’t bring the 305-grain hardcast bullets I normally carry in the revolver, which step out at 1,325 fps with 1,189 foot-pounds of muzzle energy.)
Not only was the muzzle flip difficult to control, but running the revolver quickly was painful as hell. And quickly was a relative term. Our average run on the five-target array was 5.5 seconds with a -1.3 accuracy score. (Meaning we missed an average of 1.3 targets during the drill.) Interestingly, one of the misses was an edge hit that failed to knock over the steel popper, which drove home our collective observation of how difficult the revolver was to control while going for vital hits.
Well no wonder. They were shooting a Scandium frame wheel gun. I also don’t understand why they were shooting JHPs. No one would carry JHP for bear defense.
We all shot the 10mm Autos much better, despite the fact that the webs of our shooting hands were swollen and bruised after running the .44. We alternated through the pistols, running them in no particular order, but recording our impressions after each run. For ammo we ran 180-grain JHPs from Federal and Hornady loaded to similar velocities. Published data gives speeds of 1,275 fps and a muzzle energy of 650 foot-pounds.
So what? I confess that I just don’t get this fascination with 10mm guns for the bush.
I can push 230 grain 450 SMC (Short Magnum Cartridge) bullets at 1150 FPS, and Buffalo Bore +P .45ACP almost that fast. I don’t consider those rounds difficult to shoot at all.
If you wanted to take a step up for semiautomatic handguns, you could buy a new barrel (with compensator and new spring) and shoot the 460 Rowland and have all the advantages of the rapid reload.
But to each his own
On April 15, 2022 at 6:54 am, Ratus said:
Why go to all that trouble, your own recent post on handgun effectiveness on bears has shown that 9mm worked.
I’d rather have more shots, that I can hit with faster than a “more powerful” cartridge and gun combination with less capacity and that is more difficult to get accurate fast hits.
It’s also more likely that I run into two legged problems than the bigger four legged ones.
Remember folks, more pew is always better than less pew and all handgun cartridges suck.
On April 15, 2022 at 8:05 am, Frank said:
Really the only problem with the Rowland is that depending on the comp you choose, you may have issues finding an appropriate holster– you’ll probably end up with something with a strap or flap. And that might be OK.
There are steel comps out there, custom made, that completely tame the Rowland, to the point that you could grossly overload the cartridge and still not have much muzzle rise or painful recoil. Well over 1000 ft-lbs. (I am not suggesting one do this, mind you.)
But I’m writing this because of the “So what?” factor. If you want penetration, you can get that with 275 gr. Hunters Supply hard-cast .45 bullets… run at .45 ACP or .45 Super pressures– no Rowland kit needed. Incidentally, this bullet is superbly accurate in all three guns I’ve tried it in.
I do not have handgun hunting experience, only “water jug” experience. But that bullet penetrates very well. Is it really more effective at 1050 vs. 775 from an ACP?
On April 15, 2022 at 9:17 am, Fred said:
Carrying a weapon you can’t hit with is supremely stupid. The very first consideration when purchasing a weapon is whether you can hit with it or not. Don’t carry a gun you can’t hit with. Don’t be stupid.
The lack of ability (so far) to establish a clear first, second, and third choice in bear protection may make this ongoing topic interesting but shooting hollow points from something that you’re unable to hit the target with doesn’t advance the conversation at all. They eliminated two variables that don’t even apply to establishing a baseline for defense against large predators.
On April 15, 2022 at 9:46 am, Frank said:
That really is a dumb article– comparing a lightweight .44 to a whole slew of 10mms… pointless. I could have written the “conclusions” section without shooting the guns… obviously, the .44 was going to be hard to control and shoot well.
Is it really that hard to borrow some more appropriate .44s to compare against? I am seeing this more and more in the “gun press”– authors that don’t bother to acquire the right guns to compare, or either are too ignorant to know what they should be comparing.
On April 15, 2022 at 9:52 am, TRX said:
I’ve shot a lot of .44 Magnum through a Redhawk and a Desert Eagle. I’m more accurate with the Redhawk, but I always had trouble keeping a consistent grip between shots; follow-up shots generally suffered. Changing grips might have helped. I don’t blame the gun; various friends had no problem with it.
The Desert Eagle was easy to shoot; the relative lack of muzzle flip made follow-up shots consistent. But it’s a BIG gun, and heavy, and I wouldn’t want to haul it around out in the woods.
I’ve gone to .460 Rowland in a 1911; just GI clone with a Clark drop-in kit and a Pachmyr grip. The load data I’m using is supposed to be about the same as mid-range .44 Magnum. There’s a bit more felt recoil than the DE, but the comp does a good job controlling muzzle flip. Think of an aluminum-frame Commander shooting .45 Super; definitely more thump in your hand than an all-steel ACP, but not enough to make it annoying to shoot.
As far as the scandium-frame .44 mentioned in the article; if the Discretionary Spending Fairy tapped my wallet with her wand, I’d be holstering one as my new EDC. I like autos better than revolvers, but I keep coming back to revolvers for daily carry. I’m sure it would be a big pile of No Fun to shoot much, and I might even have to wimp out and make some lower-power reloads to get acceptable accuracy, but I’d cheerfully put up with that.
As you noted, FMJ would be a poor choice for bear. .40 caliber bullets span the range for ninja-death-razor “defense” applications, but there’s not much out there for deep-penetration hunting loads. The .44, on the other hand, has a wide selection of bullets designed for hunting large and thick-skinned game. It doesn’t matter what kind of gun and cartridge you shoot it with, it’s the bullet that does the work.
Finally, if I was hiking somewhere where encountering a bear could be expected, I wouldn’t even consider the .44 Magnum, 10mm, or .460 Rowland. If I was limited to a pistol, I’d be looking at .454 Casull, .460 S&W, or one of the other big boys. There are at least two documented cases of people killing bears with a .22 Long Rifle; “do you feel lucky, punk?”
If someone wants to buy a 10mm Auto, I fully support their choice. It’s a nice cartridge. The sainted Jeff Cooper would probably put a word in for you with the Big Guy. And if you’re carrying it out in the woods because that’s all you have, well, you have to make do. But it’s not enough cowbell to safely engage a bear.
On April 15, 2022 at 10:48 am, NOG said:
TRX is on the right track, but in my view just missed.
“Finally, if I was hiking somewhere where encountering a bear could be expected, I wouldn’t even consider the .44 Magnum, 10mm, or .460 Rowland.” Then he went off the rails with ” If I was limited to a pistol,…”. I will not be limited by anyone, including myself.
I would just use the proper weapon for the situation. 12 gauge. Slugs and 00 Buck. Back in the day, I saw a Brown take down a moose. That was a sight that still gives me chills. So no pistol Momma did not raise a fool. 12 gauge only. 7 or 8 rounds. Now is a A1 Abrams was a possibility…….
On April 15, 2022 at 11:41 am, MTHead said:
His problem was brought up right off the top. Even Scandium framed 38’s are hard and painful to shoot.
On the other hand. I own both a 7.5″ and a 2.5″ Ruger Super Redhawks. And shoot 300gr.’s thru them all the time. There both accurate and fast. And very comfortable to shoot.
And a weird fact is the 7.5″ is less controllable than 2.5. The only thing I can figure is that the 7.5″ barrel gives that slow 300grn’er more time to push rearward?
Can I shoot my 45 faster? Yes I can.
But running into a pissed off mama? I want all the punch I can get.
Garrett cartridges has done yoeman’s work in 44 mag. for bear. Check them out.
All that said. In the words of the great Ross Seyfried. “Probably anything you have will beat using your fingernails.”
On April 15, 2022 at 1:34 pm, Bradley A Graham said:
Apples and Oranges
For nostalgia and tradition I would chose my 629 Mountain Gun but for ergonomics and performance I would go with my G40.
On April 15, 2022 at 2:15 pm, Jimmy said:
Does anyone have any experience with bear defense with a shotgun? I always read opinions like the 12g with slugs would be the ultimate in bear defense. I’ve never witnessed it or known of it happening. If there is some evidence out there, I’d love to see it.
Plus, my 12g will be a heckuva lot easier to get through Canada on my way to Alaska than a handgun.
On April 15, 2022 at 6:51 pm, Furminator said:
I carry a 329PD when I don’t carry a subcompact 9mm. No I don’t shoot it for fun but it is up to any job if I need it. I finally settled on the Hogue grip that’s identical to the one they put on the 460 and 500 and it still stings ALOT. But it’s not as horrible as the article makes it sound and I’d take it over a 454 (of which I have two) or 10mm (of which I’ve sold all four) any day in bear country.
On April 15, 2022 at 7:18 pm, TheAlaskan said:
@Jimmy
Up here, I use Brenneke. black magic 3 inch magnum slugs for my 12 Ga…..for bear. All five models: black, brown, Kodiak, grizzly and polar.
This slug is a 600gr rifled sabat with a muzzle energy of 3,014 and a drop of only 1.5 ” @ 100 yards. My choice for bear.
You can transport shotguns through Canada, declared and serial numbered, however, the legal barrel length is 20.” The US legal length is 18.” Your short US barrel (18″) is not legal in Canada.
Hope that helps.
On April 16, 2022 at 9:06 am, NOG said:
Jimmy, on my Alaska guided hunt, the outfitter had 10 old veteran guides. 8 carried a 12ga, 1 carried a 444 lever rifle and 1 carried a Ruger 44mag rifle (don’t remember the model, but it was a semi-auto). All carried a 44mag pistol for back up in bear country. One told me that was in case he “screwed up and left his shotgun out of reach”. Those guys had real experience with bears and guns. 8 out of 10….. pretty good rec.
On April 16, 2022 at 2:48 pm, Ditchcritter said:
Stuffing a 329 with 44 special instantly transforms it into a lovely revolver to shoot, whereas full house 44 mag loads do seem to cause one to question prior life choices. And leaves really neat looking back strap shaped bruises. Which the author of that article, and his companions, richly deserve for this dumpster fire of an article. They were paid for this tripe. Mostly what they accomplished was a man spa trip to Gunsite Academy; followed by the composition of an advertisement piece for S&W, Gunsite, Springfield Armory, and Glock. Maybe tickled a sphincter or two, and complimented each other on their manicures.
On April 16, 2022 at 4:37 pm, TheAlaskan said:
NOG is correct, I also always pack a holstered 44, especially while working on the farm or when working nets during runs. Sometimes a belt holster, sometimes a chest rig.
The 12 is carried on the trail when bear sign is about. Much rather have the 12 to bare on the bear.
On April 17, 2022 at 9:15 am, RCW said:
@ Fred: Well said.
On April 17, 2022 at 9:37 am, RomeoCharlieWhiskey said:
Failed to mention above I saw an innovative (at least it was when 1st seen ~a year ago) destructive scattergun cartridge (spotty availability) that might be worth considering, while playing in the woods:
makerbullets.com/proddetail.php?prod=12GASLUGREX
To date, I’ve neither bought nor tested them, but they are on the procure list.
On April 17, 2022 at 12:41 pm, Jimmy said:
TheAlaskan, NOG, Thanks for the input and the 20″ requirement. Always good to know now before I show up at the border.
I’ll do some more research. Gotta get to Dick Proenneke’s cabin before I’m too old.
On April 17, 2022 at 4:34 pm, DTG said:
@TRX, 15 Apr, 0952, RE: “The Desert Eagle was easy to shoot; the relative lack of muzzle flip made follow-up shots consistent. But it’s a BIG gun, and heavy, and I wouldn’t want to haul it around out in the woods”.
I carry one hunting with either the .44 mag or 50 AE barrel in a chest holster. Balance is nice, and doesn’t tire me out after a long day.
RE: Comment on JHP or Buffalo Bore: That’s all I carry when using my DE for protection in bear or wolf country.
Also have carried. 45ACP w/Buffalo Bore from time to time. All 3 calibers with BB bring great peace of mind.
On July 10, 2022 at 2:26 am, Georgiaboy61 said:
@ Ratus
Re: “Why go to all that trouble, your own recent post on handgun effectiveness on bears has shown that 9mm worked.
I’d rather have more shots, that I can hit with faster than a “more powerful” cartridge and gun combination with less capacity and that is more difficult to get accurate fast hits.”
For reasons of simple curiosity, and the fact that I was once a bona-fide field biologist, I have done a fairly deep dive into this issue of handguns for defense against the largest bears and other dangerous N. American game.
You always want a rifle – most Alaskan guides recommend 30-06 using 220-grain round-nose bullets as the minimum thump and most recommend 300WM or larger, i.e. 338 Win-Mag, 375 H&H, etc. in a center-fire rifle – or a 12-gauge shotgun with Brenneke slugs.
Rifles generate terminal ballistic damage not only by creating a permanent would channel or cavity, but by imparting enormous hydrostatic shock due to the supersonic shock wave, to surrounding tissue.
Handguns, on the other hand, punch holes in things but – as a rule – do not generate enough MV to impart hydrostatic shock to any appreciable degree.
This is true even of the most-powerful handguns… many of which are truly impressive, but do not match the performance of a center-fire hunting rifle or shotgun with slugs.
Bears, in particular the largest species of grizzly, brown and polar bears, are tremendously tough and well-armored creatures. They are not only protected by a thick and tough hide, but layers of subcutaneous fat which may approach reach 9-10″ in thickness in some cases. They also have layers of tough connective tissue and muscle overlaying large and stoutly-constructed bones.
Whatever projectile you fire must penetrate these protective layers to reach the vitals inside the body cavity – the heart, lungs and so forth.
Maybe you are thinking head-shot. Well, a big bear’s skull is no bargain, either. It is thick-enough in some places to shrug off hits from some pistol calibers, and glancing blows from rifle shots, too. Just as in a human, the one-shot stop right now is through the brain stem above terminus of the spine. That’s an instant fight stopper. If you can hit it.
It isn’t enough to mortally wound that bruin if he remains alive long enough to inflict damage on those near it.
I saw an interview with a hunting guide who works in the Boundary Waters National Park and Quetico Province Park in Ontario, Canada, and N. Minnesota, and who has led/supervised numerous bear hunts in that area (which I know well myself in fact). These are black bears, which are not as large as the bigger species further north and west. He said he and a group of three men encountered a black bear who absorbed over thirty shots from pistols before finally being brought down. The guide finally gave it the coup de grace with a group of four shots when the bear stood up on its hind legs, exposing its chest cavity.
The handguns used were one 10mm Auto, two 45 M1911s, and one other I can’t recall. I don’t have data on the ammo they were using, apart from the fact that the guide was using hardcast Buffalo Bore or the like. Premium hunting ammo designed for deep penetration against big, mean dangerous game.
Over thirty shots! They found most of the slugs embedded in the bear’s layers of fat and muscle. Many had not penetrated into the chest cavity.
The rifle is what you take to a gunfight, whereas a pistol or handgun is something you grab when you find yourself in a lethal emergency. I’d rather have a powerful handgun than nothing, a hundred times out of a hundred, if I found myself facing an angry bear….but I’d much rather have a powerful hunting rifle or a 12-gauge shotgun with heavy and tough Brenneke slugs instead.
One final anecdote illustrates how tough the biggest bears really are. The Danish Navy Sirius Sledge Patrol is a special ops-capable unit of that country’s navy, which patrols the vast wilderness of Greenland. They’re sort of a cross between park rangers/game wardens, elite soldiers, survival experts and paramedics who patrol in pairs for months at a time. They encounter polar bears all the time, and need a way to deal with them. They use Glock 10mm Auto handguns and M1917 rifles in 30-06, loaded with black-tip armor piercing rounds! AP – that’s what it take to bring the big ones down. Wow.