Stevie-Ray
New member
Jaughtman, your thoughts on Kimber are sound, as Kimber currently has the best chamber/case mouth support of any 1911 out there.
10MM for Woods Gun?
- Thread starter jaughtman
- Start date
Mike_Fontenot
New member
"Quote:
There IS no 10mm magnum.
Yes there is.
http://shop.reedsammo.com/10mm-Magnum_c17.htm "
WOW! That's a monster! What gun(s) shoot it? Is there a spec on max pressure for it? And what is the highest muzzle energy that is produced in any available commercial ammo? (Midway sells brass for it, but no ammo.)
There IS no 10mm magnum.
Yes there is.
http://shop.reedsammo.com/10mm-Magnum_c17.htm "
WOW! That's a monster! What gun(s) shoot it? Is there a spec on max pressure for it? And what is the highest muzzle energy that is produced in any available commercial ammo? (Midway sells brass for it, but no ammo.)
Stevie-Ray
New member
It's pretty old. Believe it was chambered in AMT's Automag IV, possibly also in Wildey pistols and LAR Grizzlys. Ballistically, it can surpass .41 magnum, and therefore makes a great hunting round. 10mm was always enough for me, so I wasn't very interested in it back then, but it's capability can't be ignored, much like .460 Rowland.
Pond James Pond
New member
I personally prefer my .44 Mag, but I must say the 10mm has me intrigued. If I ever went that route, I would doubtless do so going back to Glock.
There's a lot to be said for that sort of power with that sort of capacity, in that sort of weight and that level of reliability.
There's a lot to be said for that sort of power with that sort of capacity, in that sort of weight and that level of reliability.
22-rimfire
New member
The 10mm has always been compared to the 41 mag in terms of performance in a pistol versus revolver. If I were getting a 10mm, there is little doubt in my mind that the first would be a Glock. They just work.
My personal take is that you probably don't need a 10mm for woods defense unless you are in big bear country or there is a real and present danger. The same applies to things larger than 44 mag in a revolver. These kinds of considerations are always based on one's preference for a pistol (semi-auto) versus a revolver. Hunting (deer and larger) with a handgun is different however and for that I prefer something larger than 44 mag although I would carry my 4" M57 (41 mag) as a backup if I were carrying a rifle and not walking too far for the hunt. Otherwise, just the rifle.
My personal take is that you probably don't need a 10mm for woods defense unless you are in big bear country or there is a real and present danger. The same applies to things larger than 44 mag in a revolver. These kinds of considerations are always based on one's preference for a pistol (semi-auto) versus a revolver. Hunting (deer and larger) with a handgun is different however and for that I prefer something larger than 44 mag although I would carry my 4" M57 (41 mag) as a backup if I were carrying a rifle and not walking too far for the hunt. Otherwise, just the rifle.
Thanks all......
Good points on all, but I am not going back to the dark.....ER, GLOCK side. LOL. I did handle a Tanfoglio, and it was neat in that it had a .22 conversion unit with it. My smaller-than-average hands, however, had trouble getting around the double action trigger. Neat gun, however, and about 300 less than the Colt or Kimber.
J
Good points on all, but I am not going back to the dark.....ER, GLOCK side. LOL. I did handle a Tanfoglio, and it was neat in that it had a .22 conversion unit with it. My smaller-than-average hands, however, had trouble getting around the double action trigger. Neat gun, however, and about 300 less than the Colt or Kimber.
J
Mike_Fontenot
New member
"The 10mm has always been compared to the 41 mag in terms of performance in a pistol versus revolver."
The 10mm and .41mag aren't in the same league. .41mag and .44mag are quite close in power. 10mm is just slightly more powerful than .357mag (and I've seen an Underwood .357 load that has a slightly higher energy than any commercial 10mm round that I've ever seen).
I'm not knocking 10mm ... I full-time carry a 10mm Kimber most every day. I think it's a much better self-defense gun (against human bad guys) than any of the other popular handguns. But when I'm out where the bears are, I much prefer my S&W69 .44mag, and I would be happy with a .41mag there also.
The 10mm and .41mag aren't in the same league. .41mag and .44mag are quite close in power. 10mm is just slightly more powerful than .357mag (and I've seen an Underwood .357 load that has a slightly higher energy than any commercial 10mm round that I've ever seen).
I'm not knocking 10mm ... I full-time carry a 10mm Kimber most every day. I think it's a much better self-defense gun (against human bad guys) than any of the other popular handguns. But when I'm out where the bears are, I much prefer my S&W69 .44mag, and I would be happy with a .41mag there also.
Last edited:
Except that in most, if not all, bear attacks, you barely have time to get the gun out and get off one or two shots. The few times that someone emptied a full magazine into a bear (like in Denali a few years ago with a 45ACP), most people did not believe that the bear was attacking. If the bear is really going after someone, they are very fast. What's important is making the first shot (and maybe the second or third) really count.
In the Greg Brush bear attack a few years ago, he got off 2 or 3 shots.
http://www.adn.com/article/20090813/twig-snap-alerts-dog-walker-charging-grizzly
A woman was attacked in Alaska on Tuesday. These things happen fast. There aren't many details available but hopefully once she gets out of the hospital we'll learn more about it.
http://www.adn.com/article/20150804/woman-injured-bear-attack-near-sterling
by people who don't know what they're talking about. It's closer to a 357 in terms of bullet weight, velocity, etc. There are some top end 357 loads that will outpenetrate a 10mm.
I wouldn't carry either 10mm or 357 around really big bears. At least 44Mag, at least 300 grain hardcast, at least 1200 fps. Then you might have a chance, but you've got to get the gun out and make that first shot really count.
Last edited:
The new Glock 40, 6" slide 10mm would be ideal.
I'll claim some credit for it's existence because back in early 2004, I put together a custom German 6" 45acp slide as you see with melted Bo-Mar rear sight and blade front and coupled with a 6" Jarvis 45acp blue steel barrel I bought from JR at Lone Wolf Dist. I called it my G21L.
Not one to leave well enough alone, later that year, after some mockup testing with my G22 barrel, I asked Kevin at KKM Precision to make me the world's first convertible G20/21 6" SS barrel for it. He agreed and in late 2004, I assembled the world's first G20L for the first time.
Together, they made up my custom G20/21L as I called it. I posted pictures of it frequently in early 2005 and 2006 and as a result of the interest generated by it, I worked with JR as he developed his line of SS extended slides he sells today.
Over the years I've developed some decently hot (but safe) loads for it; my 165grn Speer Gold Dots at 1,589fps and 926ft/lbs of muzzle energy and my 180grn Speer Gold Dots at 1,479fps and 874ft/lbs of muzzle energy. These are not the hottest I seen (see Glocktalk's 10mm handloading link for some really scary velocities) but mine have worked well over many, many rounds.
I also handload 357mag for both rifle and pistol and have compared performance with my 10mm loads. In short, the 357mag's 158grn bullet out of a 6" revolver comes up short to my 165grn 10mm out of my 6" custom Glock. Bottom line, my 6" G20L, 10mm shoots a larger diameter, heavier weight bullet at a slightly higher velocity than the 6" S&W 686. My G20L produces much more muzzle energy with a larger metplate. When one compares the 180grn 357mag load against the 180grn 10mm, it still falls short as it's still a smaller diameter bullet going slower so it produces less muzzle energy with a smaller metplate.
Further, the revolver platform itself fails to measure up to my Glock as a 6" S&W 686 is larger, bulkier, produces significantly more recoil torque, and is actually heavier with 6 rds of 158grn 357mag ammo aboard than my G20L with my extended mag giving me 17+1 rds of 165 or 180grn 10mm ammo. That's correct, my Glock is lighter with 3 times the ammo load. Add to that the better rust resistance of the Glock and the fact that the Glock costs less and it's hard to justify carrying a 357mag revolver in the field.
BTW, along the way I had the slide hardchromed and added a SS magwell for a bit of bling as well as did some trigger work on it. Recently, I've started handloading 45 Super for it and the performance of 200grn 45 Super loads is exciting. Here is my G20/21L in it's current configuration some 11 years and over 9,000 rds later.
ETA: I take my G20L up into the Rockies as my woods gun at my hip in a tight fitting, Yaqui Slide holster all the time. I remove the magwell and load it with 17+1 rds of 180grn Hardcast. I feel well protected against everything that moves save for the the largest bear (I make noise in bear country) and even then with 18 rds of 'persuasion' I'm comfortable that save anything but an all out determined attack, I'll be able to convenience one to 'have a nice day' and move on.
I'll claim some credit for it's existence because back in early 2004, I put together a custom German 6" 45acp slide as you see with melted Bo-Mar rear sight and blade front and coupled with a 6" Jarvis 45acp blue steel barrel I bought from JR at Lone Wolf Dist. I called it my G21L.
Not one to leave well enough alone, later that year, after some mockup testing with my G22 barrel, I asked Kevin at KKM Precision to make me the world's first convertible G20/21 6" SS barrel for it. He agreed and in late 2004, I assembled the world's first G20L for the first time.
Together, they made up my custom G20/21L as I called it. I posted pictures of it frequently in early 2005 and 2006 and as a result of the interest generated by it, I worked with JR as he developed his line of SS extended slides he sells today.
Over the years I've developed some decently hot (but safe) loads for it; my 165grn Speer Gold Dots at 1,589fps and 926ft/lbs of muzzle energy and my 180grn Speer Gold Dots at 1,479fps and 874ft/lbs of muzzle energy. These are not the hottest I seen (see Glocktalk's 10mm handloading link for some really scary velocities) but mine have worked well over many, many rounds.
I also handload 357mag for both rifle and pistol and have compared performance with my 10mm loads. In short, the 357mag's 158grn bullet out of a 6" revolver comes up short to my 165grn 10mm out of my 6" custom Glock. Bottom line, my 6" G20L, 10mm shoots a larger diameter, heavier weight bullet at a slightly higher velocity than the 6" S&W 686. My G20L produces much more muzzle energy with a larger metplate. When one compares the 180grn 357mag load against the 180grn 10mm, it still falls short as it's still a smaller diameter bullet going slower so it produces less muzzle energy with a smaller metplate.
Further, the revolver platform itself fails to measure up to my Glock as a 6" S&W 686 is larger, bulkier, produces significantly more recoil torque, and is actually heavier with 6 rds of 158grn 357mag ammo aboard than my G20L with my extended mag giving me 17+1 rds of 165 or 180grn 10mm ammo. That's correct, my Glock is lighter with 3 times the ammo load. Add to that the better rust resistance of the Glock and the fact that the Glock costs less and it's hard to justify carrying a 357mag revolver in the field.
BTW, along the way I had the slide hardchromed and added a SS magwell for a bit of bling as well as did some trigger work on it. Recently, I've started handloading 45 Super for it and the performance of 200grn 45 Super loads is exciting. Here is my G20/21L in it's current configuration some 11 years and over 9,000 rds later.
ETA: I take my G20L up into the Rockies as my woods gun at my hip in a tight fitting, Yaqui Slide holster all the time. I remove the magwell and load it with 17+1 rds of 180grn Hardcast. I feel well protected against everything that moves save for the the largest bear (I make noise in bear country) and even then with 18 rds of 'persuasion' I'm comfortable that save anything but an all out determined attack, I'll be able to convenience one to 'have a nice day' and move on.
Last edited:
Ok, I am a beginner with firearms, but I'm pretty handy with physics.
The scientific way to compare the cartridges is with the specs. You can easily calculate the maximum theoretical energy per cm of barrel length. It's just the product of the bullet sectional area and the maximum spec'ed pressure. Granted, you won't actually *achieve* this pressure for the full barrel length, but that's a function of powder chemistry & grain shape/size etc, and is the same for all handgun cartridges - at least to first order.
So here you go, using wikipedia, supplemented straight from SAAMI:
cartridge bullet diameter (mm) max pressure (MPa)
=====================================
.357 mag 9.1 241
.41 mag 10.4 241
.44 mag 10.9 250
10mm auto 10.17 230 (CIP), *or*, 259 (SAAMI)
So let's do the math and find maximum theoretical energy, in joules, per cm of barrel:
cartridge max theoretical energy per cm
============================
.357 157
.41 205
.44 233
10mm 187 (CIP) or 210 (SAAMI)
"Midway" between a .357 mag and a .44 mag is the geometric mean of the two (square root of the product), which works out to.... 191 J/cm. The 10mm is bang on for that with CIP specs, and exceeds it with SAAMI specs.
And how does it compare with the .41? Pretty close with CIP, and exceeds it with SAAMI.
Seems to me a 10mm is pretty much dead on equivalent to a .41 mag in all practical senses, from an energy perspective. The .41 has it *slightly* beat in terms of area - to the extent that helps with "knockdown power" (?) - but just barely; conversely, loaded to SAAMI specs, the 10mm beats it for energy, but just barely. Again, basically the exact same as far as I'm concerned.
P.S./Edit: the case volume of the .41 is higher, so in principle you might be able to get closer to the pressure spec for longer down the barrel, but that gets into specifics of powders that I don't know much about.... On the other hand, it'll lose some of that gas through the cylinder gap. So again, probably about the same...
Last edited:
Black Bears are far more likely to attack a human and kill them...mostly for eating.
They're freaking everywhere...Florida finally lifted its moratorium on hunting them after an old lady got munched in her home...
bear literally broke in thru a window and ate her...and folks started quietly solving the bear problem the Old Fashioned Way...
With Bear Tags now available, which means Florida Wildlife gets a lot of really sweet data on their black bears...
and the mass killings of bears at night stops.
Its odd that we actually cover up new repotrts of bears eating folks in Florida,
but they do the same thing with some shark attacks...
nobody wants to "spoil the playground", as it were...
Pond James Pond
New member
Are you saying that a Glock in 10mm is not worth considering because it carries too many rounds?
I'd agree if it was a high capacity in a heavy and finicky gun, but when the Glock has neither of those negative traits.... Just because you're unlikely to need them all, doesn't mean they're not worth having:
My .44 Redhawk unloaded: 47oz
Glock 20 LS loaded: 40oz
I have a RIA tactical in 10mm that I carry occasionally over my .357 mag.
Most often I've been running a Glock 21 with a 6" barrel and Underwood hard cast +P's in it. Not quite 10mm levels, but I can live with it now that I'm in smaller bear country.
If I wanted to dedicate a 10mm woods gun, it would be a Glock 40, or a Glock 20 with a 6" aftermarket barrel (so i can legally carry it whilst whitetail hunting also).
Most often I've been running a Glock 21 with a 6" barrel and Underwood hard cast +P's in it. Not quite 10mm levels, but I can live with it now that I'm in smaller bear country.
If I wanted to dedicate a 10mm woods gun, it would be a Glock 40, or a Glock 20 with a 6" aftermarket barrel (so i can legally carry it whilst whitetail hunting also).
Mike_Fontenot
New member
"You can easily calculate the maximum theoretical energy per cm of barrel length. It's just the product of the bullet sectional area and the maximum spec'ed pressure."
You are correct that that simple calculation gives you the maximum possible muzzle energy for the given max pressure spec and barrel length (length ahead of the bullet). But if you compare what that gives you to the highest energy commercial ammo, you'll find that the maximum ACHIEVED energy is no where near that maximum possible energy.
It is also true that the larger cross-sectional area of the 10mm bullet, combined with its slightly higher max allowed pressure, SHOULD allow substantially more energy for the 10mm over the .357mag, but for some reason, that doesn't show up on the top commercial loads. I don't know why not, but it doesn't. Same is true for .357sig vs .357mag.
You are correct that that simple calculation gives you the maximum possible muzzle energy for the given max pressure spec and barrel length (length ahead of the bullet). But if you compare what that gives you to the highest energy commercial ammo, you'll find that the maximum ACHIEVED energy is no where near that maximum possible energy.
It is also true that the larger cross-sectional area of the 10mm bullet, combined with its slightly higher max allowed pressure, SHOULD allow substantially more energy for the 10mm over the .357mag, but for some reason, that doesn't show up on the top commercial loads. I don't know why not, but it doesn't. Same is true for .357sig vs .357mag.
You're absolutely right, and I was waiting for somebody to call me out on that. Strike one on me for smugly posting while sipping my Friday evening beer.
Of course, there's no way you can possibly keep the pressure up near max spec for the full length of bullet travel; that much I knew. It's a place to start though.
Actually, this has gotten me fairly interested in internal ballistics, but I don't know a good source on that. I'm a physicist, which means I think all cows are spherical, so keep that in mind. Also I'm fairly new to this and would like to start reloading someday but haven't done that, so keep that in mind, too. But...
My guess is the difference is case volume. In fact if you look at the SAAMI specs for .40S&W, you find that based just on my "area * max pressure" formula, you'd expect nearly the exact same performance from .40 as from 10mm. In reality however, 10mm clearly outperforms it (in terms of raw energy), although not by much.
Going just by "area * max pressure", the .41 and the 10mm look nearly identical. BUT, the .41 has more case volume. Take a look at DT's numbers for .41 versus 10mm and .41 clearly wins. I'm gonna assume the higher volume is why.
So on reflection, I suspect the truth might lie between what RalphS said and what 22-rimfire said. I take it back. 10mm (which I have, and love) is not as powerful as .41. But it's still more powerful than .357 mag. This really comes down to the limitation of powders, I'm guessing.
As for *practicality*, I'll say this.
1) 10mm is plentiful in Alaska. There's a reason.
2) For a novice shooter like myself, my experience is it's far easier for me to point-and-shoot with my Glock than it is with my revolvers. Partly this is just a matter of the center-of-mass being much closer to the center of your palm. Less of a lever-arm at the end of your hand. Plus, the Glock carries 15 (or 10, if you live in CA). I strongly expect that in a stressful real-life situation when you are s&*^$g your pants and shaking like an aspen tree, even a pro who's put 100,000 rnds down-range would find the Glock easier. I'm not saying it's *better* than a Dirty Harry revolver, but it's not worse either.
Anybody with real-world experience trumps any of my speculation. I *will* say however that I have had many run-ins with bears (no, I don't keep a messy camp; I just do a lot of wilderness backpacking). In my experience, black bears have always given me a warning, whereas my one experience with a grizzly happened at lightning speed. I have heard the same from others.
Mike_Fontenot
New member
"Actually, this has gotten me fairly interested in internal ballistics, but I don't know a good source on that. I'm a physicist, [...]".
I'm a physicist/engineer/mathematician also (retired). I'm frequently accused of over-analyzing EVERYTHING!
"My guess is the difference is case volume."
I'm not a reloader, but I WAS very surprised when I pulled the bullet out of a Federal 158 gr "Hi-Shok" JHP .357mag. (Back about 15 years ago, that was pretty much considered full-spec .357, but now it's way below full-spec Underwood and DoubleTap .357). I poured out the powder, and was VERY surprised to find such a small volume of powder in the case ... probably well under 25% of the volume available. I don't know if that is common or not.
"10mm (which I have, and love) is not as powerful as .41. But it's still more powerful than .357 mag."
Not if you look at the Underwood offerings (especially the lighter/faster bullet offerings). I don't know how Underwood gets a higher energy for their .357 load than for their 10mm load, but they do. And I think their 10mm load is about the hottest 10mm there is ... I've seen some missing primers in some of my ejected brass when using Underwood.
" For a novice shooter like myself, my experience is it's far easier for me to point-and-shoot with my Glock than it is with my revolvers."
I can't use a Glock, because it wouldn't be safe (to my standards) with my carry method (under-the-shirt vertical shoulder holster, with a soft (not stiff) leather holster). I carry either my 10mm Kimber, or my S&W69 .44mag DA/SA revolver ... mostly the 1911, but usually the .44mag when on the mountain trails around here. The Kimber DOES point a bit better for me, probably because the .44mag has large grips with a roughly circular cross-section, compared to the very rectangular ultra-thin grips on my 1911. (I bought the .44mag last year, after a very close eye-to-eye encounter with a big mama black bear and her two second-year cubs ... my 10mm 1911 just didn't seem as big as it usually does ... she looked ENORMOUS to me, but was small by your brown bear standards).
" my one experience with a grizzly happened at lightning speed. I have heard the same from others."
My son lives in Haines, Alaska, and he had a VERY scary incident last spring while moose hunting (that time, with a bow). He was charged from behind (unprovoked) by a brown bear, who clearly had been stalking him, and clearly wanted to eat him. Fortunately, it ended badly for the bear, not for my son.
I'm a physicist/engineer/mathematician also (retired). I'm frequently accused of over-analyzing EVERYTHING!
"My guess is the difference is case volume."
I'm not a reloader, but I WAS very surprised when I pulled the bullet out of a Federal 158 gr "Hi-Shok" JHP .357mag. (Back about 15 years ago, that was pretty much considered full-spec .357, but now it's way below full-spec Underwood and DoubleTap .357). I poured out the powder, and was VERY surprised to find such a small volume of powder in the case ... probably well under 25% of the volume available. I don't know if that is common or not.
"10mm (which I have, and love) is not as powerful as .41. But it's still more powerful than .357 mag."
Not if you look at the Underwood offerings (especially the lighter/faster bullet offerings). I don't know how Underwood gets a higher energy for their .357 load than for their 10mm load, but they do. And I think their 10mm load is about the hottest 10mm there is ... I've seen some missing primers in some of my ejected brass when using Underwood.
" For a novice shooter like myself, my experience is it's far easier for me to point-and-shoot with my Glock than it is with my revolvers."
I can't use a Glock, because it wouldn't be safe (to my standards) with my carry method (under-the-shirt vertical shoulder holster, with a soft (not stiff) leather holster). I carry either my 10mm Kimber, or my S&W69 .44mag DA/SA revolver ... mostly the 1911, but usually the .44mag when on the mountain trails around here. The Kimber DOES point a bit better for me, probably because the .44mag has large grips with a roughly circular cross-section, compared to the very rectangular ultra-thin grips on my 1911. (I bought the .44mag last year, after a very close eye-to-eye encounter with a big mama black bear and her two second-year cubs ... my 10mm 1911 just didn't seem as big as it usually does ... she looked ENORMOUS to me, but was small by your brown bear standards).
" my one experience with a grizzly happened at lightning speed. I have heard the same from others."
My son lives in Haines, Alaska, and he had a VERY scary incident last spring while moose hunting (that time, with a bow). He was charged from behind (unprovoked) by a brown bear, who clearly had been stalking him, and clearly wanted to eat him. Fortunately, it ended badly for the bear, not for my son.
Last edited:
Well, Mike_Fontenot, you have now gotten me thoroughly interested in this topic. Thanks. As if I didn't have enough to do already. 
Yes, I can imagine feeling a bit underpowered with a Glock 20 when you're talking coastal brownies. I *do* own a Ruger SR in .454, but the dang 7.5" barrel is so friggin' long, and talk about a heavy gun.
Anyway, just for show-and-tell before I'm off to go get my kids a puppy, here's my normal woods carry guns when I'm not in grizzly/brown bear country. The Glock has the Glock laser/light on it. Some people don't like this b/c it's not LED. I think they're wrong, but that's another topic. (Duty cycle modulation of LEDs for brightness, blah blah blah technical stuff....)
As for lights on guns: in my view, based on my own experience, if you are talking about sleeping on the ground or in a tent in the middle of nowhere, absolutely. I know it's controversial b/c you might use it as a flashlight and blow away a loved one, or so I've heard. I'm sure it's happened. In your home? Fine, you have a point. In a tent though?
Look, you are dead asleep and in two seconds flat you need to find a light and your weapon. If the light's already on your weapon, you're that much faster. Ever try to find your weapon in your tent in the dead of night when one second ago you were in the middle of some pleasant dream? I have. Good luck if you need to find *two* objects, let alone one.
And then people say, well, it's never really THAT dark.
Ok, have you camped 20mi away from the nearest dirt road let alone person, on a moonless night, with overcast low clouds? That's DARK, my friend.
Apologies for straying from the OP....
P.S./Edit: oops, I posted TWO guns. So sue me. The other's a Scandium-Aluminum alloy S&W .357 Mag. Harder to point-and-shoot with b/c of the smaller site (sight?) radius, and lower-vis rear site. Also I don't like the rubber grips. And I can't put a light on it - at least not easily. But, it IS very light....
Yes, I can imagine feeling a bit underpowered with a Glock 20 when you're talking coastal brownies. I *do* own a Ruger SR in .454, but the dang 7.5" barrel is so friggin' long, and talk about a heavy gun.
Anyway, just for show-and-tell before I'm off to go get my kids a puppy, here's my normal woods carry guns when I'm not in grizzly/brown bear country. The Glock has the Glock laser/light on it. Some people don't like this b/c it's not LED. I think they're wrong, but that's another topic. (Duty cycle modulation of LEDs for brightness, blah blah blah technical stuff....)
As for lights on guns: in my view, based on my own experience, if you are talking about sleeping on the ground or in a tent in the middle of nowhere, absolutely. I know it's controversial b/c you might use it as a flashlight and blow away a loved one, or so I've heard. I'm sure it's happened. In your home? Fine, you have a point. In a tent though?
Look, you are dead asleep and in two seconds flat you need to find a light and your weapon. If the light's already on your weapon, you're that much faster. Ever try to find your weapon in your tent in the dead of night when one second ago you were in the middle of some pleasant dream? I have. Good luck if you need to find *two* objects, let alone one.
And then people say, well, it's never really THAT dark.
Ok, have you camped 20mi away from the nearest dirt road let alone person, on a moonless night, with overcast low clouds? That's DARK, my friend.
Apologies for straying from the OP....
P.S./Edit: oops, I posted TWO guns. So sue me.
The other's a Scandium-Aluminum alloy S&W .357 Mag. Harder to point-and-shoot with b/c of the smaller site (sight?) radius, and lower-vis rear site. Also I don't like the rubber grips. And I can't put a light on it - at least not easily. But, it IS very light....Attachments
HighValleyRanch
New member
Just curious how carrying a lock and cocked 1911 Kimber could feel any safer than a striker fire glock in a shoulder holster? Even if it's soft.
I must register another vote for the .45 ACP loaded to +P with whatever bullet one feels is needed for the situation. I don't have a real problem with 10mm. but being the owner of a handful of .45ACP in autos as well a S&W 625s I see no reason to invest in another caliber that I already have covered.
I have no interest in the light weight bullets for woods use and beyond that my Les Baer PMII will do everything I need done before I switch to .44 Mag or .45 Colt in revolvers for the much greater power levels.
If I feel the need to lighten the load I can switch to my Kimber Tac Pro II with it's alloy frame for limited duty with hot loads in the woods.
If you already own all the 10MM autos listed in this thread then more power to you. I just can't see a purpose for me to go that route.
I have no interest in the light weight bullets for woods use and beyond that my Les Baer PMII will do everything I need done before I switch to .44 Mag or .45 Colt in revolvers for the much greater power levels.
If I feel the need to lighten the load I can switch to my Kimber Tac Pro II with it's alloy frame for limited duty with hot loads in the woods.
If you already own all the 10MM autos listed in this thread then more power to you. I just can't see a purpose for me to go that route.