10MM for Woods Gun?

The 10mm is a near perfect woods sidearm, especially if you like autos.
A Glock 20 is the only pistol that I have carried in the woods ever. I shoot Underwood 200 gr. XTP's with phenomenal results on big hogs. Great choice and I would personally go Glock, but the caliber will serve you very well.
 
"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."

A soft leather holster doesn't guarantee that anything rubbing against the outside of the holster can't possibly pull the trigger. My gun is pointed at ME all my waking hours, and I couldn't be at ease with that without the multiple independent safeties on my Kimber. I'm also comfortable carrying my S&W69 .44mag in that same way, because it has a very long and heavy (9 lb) trigger pull when the hammer is down.
 
A soft leather holster doesn't guarantee that anything rubbing against the outside of the holster can't possibly pull the trigger.
Click to expand...

You are entitled to your own misgivings about the glock/soft holster myth.
But most advise against the soft holster on the basis of snagging on holstering, rather than an outer object being able to set the trigger off.

I wonder how many have actually tried to set the trigger off from the outside of a soft holster. Unless the holster was like silk, it's virtually impossible, as the object would have to reach deep enough and at an angle which it could also snag the trigger safety. I cannot do it on any of my soft leather holsters even if I tried all day long. If your holster can do that, it's time to get a better fitting one. It's too loose and flimsy!

On top of that, I am sure that you would be aware of the snag since the holster is under your outside garment, so any object would have to be "attacking" the holster from the outside of your cover garment.
And if you were carrying open, then you would also be aware of any situation where an object could TRY to snag the trigger.

I'm sure that if one gives this enough thought, then you might as well create a senario where the 1911 safety could be moved in a soft holster as well.

Just trying to expose how much this is an internet myth.
 
What the heck is a soft leather holster, I can only think of a marble bag or a moccasin. Although they seem a little large in the grip for me, I think the Glock 20 really shines as a woods gun.
 
I either carry my S&W 625MG 45C or my S&W 1006 10mm, either one will do what I need while searving as a great back up waepon weather it be 2 or 4 legger dangers I need to protect myself from. I choose these weapons because I already own them, I guess if I owned a G20 that to would be in the rotation.
 
Are you saying that a Glock in 10mm is not worth considering because it carries too many rounds?
Click to expand...
Pond, no I'm not implying that. I'm just saying that most people don't get off more than 3 shots so the extra capacity doesn't matter. You're not going to get into a shootout with a bear. Actually, it's more likely that the bear will be on top of you and you'll be trying to shoot it off you. Maybe the discussion should be "which is better and more reliable to shoot a bear off you when it's got your head in it's jaws, a pistol or a revolver?".

10mm has the advantage over 357 when it comes to meplat. More meplat is better.
357 has the advantage over 10mm when it comes to sectional density. In equal weights, the 357 should penetrate deeper than the 10mm.
IMO, these calibers a pretty close. I don't buy the argument that 10mm is equal to 41M. 10mm tops out at 200 grain bulllets. 41M bullets run from 250 to 300 grains.
I don't believe in muzzle energy or knockdown power comparisons when talking about woods carry/bear loads. You need to get 1000-1300 fps velocity (I like 1250) out of your handgun. After that, it's all about meplat and penetration.

A couple of bear attacks happened this week.
In Yellowstone, a park employee got eaten by a grizzly.
http://abcnews.go.com/US/hiker-killed-grizzly-bear-yellowstone-national-park/story?id=32965459

In Alaska, a girl jogger was attacked but survived
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/alaska-woman-fair-condition-bear-mauling-32905752

10mm (or 357) might be ok in the Colorado Rockies but in Yellowstone or Alaska, I'd carry, at the very least, a 44M with 300 grain hardcasts.
 
Last edited:
Just to clarify the converstion, what exactly is a "wood's gun"? What is in the "woods" to require a firearm to deal with?

The thread has drifted to bear defense, which I get. But the most dangerous thing you might encounter in the "woods" is two legged.

Given that it is illegal in most states to any kill any animal outside of a game season, the gun that I would carry in the woods is the same one that I would carry everyday on the street.

The one implement that I do add for walks in the woods is a long stick to deal with snakes, given that it is illegal to kill any snake in my state.
 
Given that it is illegal in most states to any kill any animal outside of a game season, the gun that I would carry in the woods is the same one that I would carry everyday on the street.
Click to expand...

HMMMM. Break the law or be eaten.........let me think about that.
 
Pond, no I'm not implying that. I'm just saying that most people don't get off more than 3 shots so the extra capacity doesn't matter. You're not going to get into a shootout with a bear. Actually, it's more likely that the bear will be on top of you and you'll be trying to shoot it off you. Maybe the discussion should be "which is better and more reliable to shoot a bear off you when it's got your head in it's jaws, a pistol or a revolver?".
Click to expand...

I understand the point being made about the fact that capacity may not be all that relevant in a bear attack.

The point I was driving at was that given the specs of something like a Glock in 10mm (that being the calibre the OP is interested in) in terms of weight and reliability makes a very good choice for a woods-gun and the fact it has very good capacity for such a potent cartridge can only be a bonus, even if few rounds might be shot in a bear attack.... Note the "might" not "will".

Then there is the possibility that you need it for something other than a bear. Other people also walk the woods.

Furthermore, as you rightly pointed out, if the bear is mauling you I am pretty sure that having another 9 10mm shots after the first 6 would be welcome.
 
There might be a motorcycle bear gang as well!:D

What about a pack of wolves????

Around these parts, there are wild boars with pretty nasty looking tusks!
And of course mountain lions.

Although the likelihood of an attack might be rare, statistics count for poop when it happens to you. Bear poop, that is!:cool:
 
"What the heck is a soft leather holster ...?"

My under-the-shirt vertical shoulder holsters are all homemade. The 1911's holster was made out of a 16"-square piece of leather I bought from a shoe repair guy down the street, about 20 years ago. It is almost as thick as the leather typically used to make belt holsters, but has been tanned much more so that it is soft and very flexible ... that makes it much more comfortable to wear all my waking hours. My .44mag S&W69's holster is also homemade, but it isn't leather ... I made it out of heavy cotton cloth (called "cotton duck"), because I knew I'd be using it when hiking on the mountain trails around here, and getting sweaty, so I wanted to be able to wash it by hand when needed. Both holsters have a retention strap that also keeps the hammer from contacting the firing pin in the 1911 (or from being cocked, in the case of the .44mag's strap), so that's an additional safety that I wouldn't have with a hammer-less gun.

I like very light SA triggers, so I highly value all of the independent safeties on my 1911, to compensate for the very light trigger ... sear and hammer blocked by the thumb safety, and trigger and firing-pin blocked by the grip safety. I'm OK with the fact that my S&W69 doesn't have any safeties (other than the retention strap that prevents the hammer from being cocked), even though its SA trigger is even lighter than my 1911's trigger, because I (obviously) don't carry it cocked, and the DA pull is very heavy and long.
 
One thing I really like about a auto, even for a woods gun is it's much nicer to carry your extra ammo in the gun or extra mags than a bunch of loose shells in your pocket, even speedloaders are bulky.
 
Just to clarify the converstion, what exactly is a "wood's gun"? What is in the "woods" to require a firearm to deal with?
Click to expand...

I'm with you on the snake part. Long stick is all you ever need. But....

In VA, you are probably right that 2-legged is your biggest potential adversary.

I have hiked & camped in the wilderness all my life, almost always without a firearm. Given the risks out there, having a gun was low on my list of priorities, especially considering the weight.

However, there *are* instances of serial killers specifically targeting hikers. It's not unheard-of. So when Kel-Tec came out with its P3AT, which weighs next to nothing, I started carrying it on occasion.

The next thing is bears. It's endless entertainment - like sharks - but again, low down on the dangers while hiking. But not zero. I have had a bear harass me aggressively once, in the Huerfano valley in Colorado. Pretty remote place. Turns out that's where CO sends its problem bears. Gee thanks. It would have been nice to have something besides rocks and pine cones to throw at it when it started growling at me.

Pepper spray is probably your first defense, if you are going to carry anything, but I see nothing wrong with having lethal force handy as well, especially when I'm hiking with small kids.

Grizzlies and brown bears are a different matter. They DO hunt people, on occasion. Anybody who spends enough time in the woods in the West will eventually find him or herself in grizzly country.

Polar bears really, really do hunt people, not just on occasion, but fairly regularly from what I know. But that's outside most people's experience. Mine certainly.

I grew up in a fairly hippy-dippy family, the kind that would probably poke fun of people taking guns into the woods. Especially in black bear country, I'm not *afraid* of going on long solo multi-day hikes in the wilderness, sleeping in nothing but the hollow of a tree, without a firearm or pepper spray on me, let alone satellite phone. I do it all the time. But, I also have no problem with bringing a gun with me, either, for protection from both 2-legged and 4-legged animals. Despite what you may hear from other people who like to go on about statistics of lightning vs hypothermia vs everything else, it is, frankly, not remotely a crazy idea. People do, in fact, get killed while hiking/camping either by other people or by critters. It does happen.

P.S./Edit: Other than people and bears, there's also feral pigs. The feral pigs in East Texas backwoods are on occasion aggressive enough that, if you are on the old/infirm side, you are unwise to walk in the deep woods without either a gun or a very large and protective dog. The pig population has actually exploded across the country in fact, for reasons that nobody knows.

As for cats though, personally I don't worry about them at all unless bowhunting in which case they are a potential threat when I return to my carcass to carry out the next load of meat. Big kitty-kats can be rather protective of a kill site.
 
Last edited:
The chances of getting attacked by animals is pretty slim, but always possible, I've followed bear tracks on some trails only to find out they circled around and followed me, same with wolves. So my idea of a woods gun is powerful enough to repel big critters, and two legged varmits, accurate enough for impromptu plinking and taking the occasional grouse or rabbit when in season, also for pest control, every so many years we get a overabundance of skunks and beaver are cutting oaks and ash when they run out of aspen and willow, usually a sign there starving out. Besides that the little buggers flood out roads and driveways making getting in and out of some properties interesting. Since I live and work in the woods my woods gun is usually my everyday gun too.
 
Given that it is illegal in most states to any kill any animal outside of a game season, the gun that I would carry in the woods is the same one that I would carry everyday on the street.
Click to expand...

It is normally illegal to shoot people too, but exceptions for self defense are there. No one has ever been prosecuted for lawful self defense from an animal attack. There have been cases where people have been accused of shooting in a situation that wasn't really needed. And it wasn't truly self defense. Snakes aren't self defense. If you see it and have time to shoot one, you have time to step out of the way. It is the ones you don't see that bite you.

I'm just saying that most people don't get off more than 3 shots so the extra capacity doesn't matter
Click to expand...

Probably not even 3 before the animal is on me, but I don't plan to stopping shooting just because I'm being eaten. There are lots of examples of shooters running revolvers dry during animal attacks. Lots of people keep shooting after the attack is underway.

What it really comes down to is size, weight and barrel length. The 357, 41, and 44 magnums are in another league if used with 6-8" barrels. 10mm is a decided step down. But when you shoot magnum revolver rounds through 3-4" barrels the 10mm beats 357, truly is the equal of 41 mag and just isn't that far behind 44. If you're hunting the magnum revolvers win hands down and are a very good choice even with shorter barrels. My decision to choose a Glock over a revolver comes down to size, weight and capacity, not any difference in bullet performance.

45 ACP, even with +p loads just isn't close. The problem is that those fat bullets just don't penetrate enough. With the right bullets 45 Super or 460 Rowland would probably be an option. But as scarce as 10mm ammo is, the other semi options are even scarcer.

I would carry in the woods is the same one that I would carry everyday on the street.
Click to expand...

I don't totally disagree. I don't normally carry a larger, heavier magnum revolver even though I own several. I think the 10mm Glock is a good compromise on size capacity, and weight. I would normally carry a G19 or G26 and when in the woods with no large predators those are still my carry guns.

Even where large predators are a possibility the threat of 2 legged predators is more likely. The G20 gives me all the advantages of the G19 in a slightly larger size, but with magnum revolver power if needed.
 
"But when you shoot magnum revolver rounds through 3-4" barrels the 10mm beats 357, truly is the equal of 41 mag and just isn't that far behind 44."

That doesn't jive with my experience, for the .44mag vs the 10mm. My 4-1/4" S&W69 .44mag, when shooting full-spec DoubleTap or Underwood has a LOT more recoil than my 10mm Kimber shooting full-spec DoubleTap or Underwood (and the two guns are almost equal in weight, with larger and softer rubber grips on the 69). I can't believe that all that extra recoil doesn't translate into a lot more damage at the receiving end.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top