460 Rowland vs 10mm Woods Defense

[FLAK]

Same here, My Redhawk has a 7.5" barrel. Just too big/bulky.
Got a Glock 30SF.

 

[thinhorn_AK]

Same here, My Redhawk has a 7.5" barrel. Just too big/bulky.
Got a Glock 30SF.

Mine is a redhawk too but a 4.2” barrel. At 40-50 bucks for practice Ammo, I just didn’t practice with it all that much. I can shoot my g20 for half the cost, plus when I shoot my other glocks it’s still practicing since all glocks function the exact same way. I can shoot my g19 and still count it as g20 practice.

 

[marshland_max]

I had a Blackhawk 5.5" barrel. I found it also to be expensive to shoot and I just plain shot my G40 10 mm a lot better.

 

[Downeaster]

Another vote for the G20. Ive got a 329 pd as well, but the g20 just gets the nod most often. Cant say its because one has a better holster cause they both ride in guides choice chest rigs. As a side not i discovered a buddys PMR30 fits perfect in the the G20's holster on the guides choice today. Might need one now

 

[thinhorn_AK]

I wish I’d gotten a 329 rather than a redhawk.

 

[Downeaster]

Ive got a few big bore ruger revolvers (love heavy .45colt loads) , but honestly i never carry em.

 

[Downeaster]

Yup, same here, I have 4 big river revolvers and I love them but when it comes to carrying all day long, the g20 wins.

Yeah buddy

 

[AkMtnRunner]

The answer to woods carry questions is always .44 revolver or carbine.

S&W 69 is 4 ounces more than FNX-45 and 6 ounces more than the G20. The difference seems like a big deal when you're holding it or bouncing it on your belt. The weight difference goes unnoticed when you're not paying attention to it.

I have not bothered with a 10mm, but it is about the same as a .357, which I have fooled with some. The difference in effect on target between a .357 and .44 is most definitely noticeable. Recoil is subjective. I find the workings of a pistol much more distracting than the kick of a magnum revolver.

Regarding workings, which do we think will work more effectively when jammed into the side of a bear mauling the man holding the handgun? There might be a dozen left in the mag by the time the bear gets on you, but only one is going to fire from a pistol. All will fire from a revolver. It is the same with the backwoods meth cook. You don't get to kill him at 20 yards. He's got to be right on you and your coat might become a factor. This does not hold true if you are LEO or military, but these are the facts for the most of us.

I am glad someone posted this link for some real world data. It shows that 35 caliber pistol bullets can still plain work, including all of the semi auto handguns used (9, 40, 45 acp and super). The one handgun failure was when it seems the shooter missed with a 357 revolver. In light of this, I think everyone should make sure they are carrying something they can shoot accurately and not always a 44.

Successful bear defenses with a pistol are probably under reported, much like successful firearm defenses against criminals. If a predatory black bear is shot and runs off, there are strong incentives for the shooter not to report the incident. Incidents where no human is injured are seldom considered news. This creates a strong selection bias against successful pistol defenses against bears.

Predatory black bear attacks are themost common fatal black bear attacks in North America. Only 8 of the pistol defenses listed above are defenses against black bears, or 23%. It is reasonable to believe there should be about twice that number. Black bear predatory attacks often give potential victims good opportunities to use a pistol effectively.

I have two reported instances of successful bear defenses with a .38 special revolver. One against a black bear, and one against a grizzly. I have not been able to verify either. I have found two more reported cases of the successful use of the 10 mm pistol, and one more for the .357 magnum, but have not been able to verify them.

Even in the age of the Internet, reports can become difficult to find after a few years. I recall an incident where an Alaskan State Trooper killed a grizzly bear with his duty pistol, while an associate with a 12 gauge shotgun did not fire. I have not been able to find that report. It may have been the 2013 incident where unarmed Thomas Puerta was killed and eaten. I am not certain.

If anyone has sources for that incident, or of others not recorded here, either successes or failures, please let us know.

Pistol defense failures against bears should be widely reported. When humans are injured by bears, it is news.

In this compilation of incidents, one was a failure. The .357 magnum was fired three times. The shooter was mauled after the first shot and after the second and third shots. It seems likely the shooter missed with all three shots. It is the only bear defense with a pistol, that failed, that we have found.

 

[FLAK]

I like a .357 too and have carried a Security 6 for many a woods mile.

 

[TauPhi111]

OK I'm not trying to start a fight here, but why does it seem that some revolver purist guys who scoff at an automatic for bear defense are stuck on the idea that when a grizzly is on top of them trying to tear their face off, they are going to turn belly up (mistake #1) and face the bear, look steely eyed into the bear's soul, jam the muzzle of their smith and wesson into the bear's ribcage or into its mouth, and fire off the rest of the cylinder. Am i the only one that finds this pretty ridiculous, or are there actually documented cases of this? These seem to be the same people that carry 300 grain nuclear loads in an airweight 44. Maybe they're partial to that scenario because they know they ain't gonna hit a thing until the bear is at contact distance. I'm pretty sure that game plan would go to shit even for the manliest of mountain men. Now this is pure speculation, but if watching bears respond to bullets and arrows tells me anything, that bear is gonna turn around and rip your arm off after that first shot. If anything, you'd want to keep that pistol close to your center so it doesn't get swatted away, create some distance with your legs, and try to get more shots off, which at that point being out of battery due to muzzle contact is no longer a problem - and even that is an iffy plan. By that point you're SOL by any measure and I'd much rather carry something where I know I can put multiple shots on target accurately. Again, not trying to fight with anyone and sorry for the smart-assy comments, but I've seen the same thing said on multiple threads on various forums, and to me it sounds like some people either have watched too many movies or believe they're way tougher than they are. But if anyone out there has had the cajones to face a bear like that and the scars to prove it, I'd love to hear some stories.

 

[FLAK]

In the end, revolvers and autos have their pros and cons.
I like and carry both.

 

[Josey D]

I have to agree with you on that is a bad argument for revolvers. When the bear hits you running full speed the gun is no longer remaining in your possession. You need to carry something you can shoot well & will carry. Our everyday carry is a 10mm G29 SF. I can shoot it with either hand & my wife has used it successfully on wolf & black bear. IMO its not to heavy to tote around. I shot a buddies Sig Sauer 10mm this weekend & it was a dream to shoot but way heavier than I want to carry with me all time. I know there is a guide on this forum that carries a 10mm on coastal Brown Bear hunts, so it all what you are confident in. One of these days I would like to extend my range & step up to a G40 with the long slide, but for now I use what works for me.

 

[AMac]

Put a muzzle break on the end of your 10mm or 460 rowland and jam it into the bear. 460 Rowland necessitates a muzzle break anyway. Don't overlook handgun retention if building a bear gun, la anyard or retention strap... 2 cents