Woods gun- Glock 20 vs. S&W .44 mag
- Thread starter Fivesense
- Start date
Blindstitch
New member
Is it just for defense or are you going to be hunting too?
Deaf Smith
New member
Reason I use my S&W 629-1 is cause I can vary it so easily from one mission to another.
See you can put 2 bird shots in for snakes, a couple of .44 Spls. for rabbits/squirrels, and a couple of .44 magnums for hogs/deer/etc..
Just a quick cock of the hammer twice change the load to match the task.
And unless I'm being attacked by 21 ninjas I think the .44 will do fine for self defense.
Oh, don't get me wrong, the 10mm has its good points to, and a .357 does to!
But my all purpose woods gun is this one.
and later after I added the Tyler T grip.
I also have a GP100, 3 inch 'Canadian', but that is just a bit limited if I go after deer.
Deaf
My father-in-law has the S&W 329PD. We have spirited debates about the value of carrying 15+1 of the G20 10mm (spirited because I egg him on...). He's convinced you are likely to only get one shot off at a charging bear, somehow thus rendering the extra capacity of the 10mm worthless. I follow his intended logic, but I still like the idea of the extra capacity- as much for nefarious 2-leggeds as 4-leggeds in the woods.
I love revolvers though too and would feel fine either way.
I love revolvers though too and would feel fine either way.
Pond James Pond
New member
What wanders in your woods?
I think one issue that makes the case for one over the other is what likely threats are you trying to mitigate.
As much as I love the .44 Mag, there is little sense in restricting yourself in capacity and weight if any beast you might meet, however many legs it may have, can be dealt with by the "not-to-be-sniffed-at" 10mm....
I think one issue that makes the case for one over the other is what likely threats are you trying to mitigate.
As much as I love the .44 Mag, there is little sense in restricting yourself in capacity and weight if any beast you might meet, however many legs it may have, can be dealt with by the "not-to-be-sniffed-at" 10mm....
ScaryWoody
New member
I normally carry my SP101 in .357mag when I venture into the woods. I pack my Glocks when I venture into the "city". Somehow a revolver seems natural in the woods.
My personal preference of the two would be the .44 mag revolver.
However I don't have a 10mm and always wondered about the Glock 20...plus FWIW some Scandinavian agencies use 10mm where polar bears
might be a problem...
Guess according to me you can get whatever you want, but have you checked out the S&W .460 Magnum? Fires .45 Colt, .454 Casull as well as .460 magnum and if you want you CAN get it in S&W .500 magnum too.
However I don't have a 10mm and always wondered about the Glock 20...plus FWIW some Scandinavian agencies use 10mm where polar bears
might be a problem...Guess according to me you can get whatever you want, but have you checked out the S&W .460 Magnum? Fires .45 Colt, .454 Casull as well as .460 magnum and if you want you CAN get it in S&W .500 magnum too.
Thank you for the comments.
I had a Glock 20 and really liked it; I just didn't have the proper carry set up for it to make sense at the time. It wasn't inordinately heavier than my G17 but enough so that I didn't want to carry every day.
It was accurate as heck too. Without a trace of hubris, I can relay that I hit a 16 oz. plastic coke bottle at 125 yards (CorBon DPX 155 gr.). It wasn't so much skill as the round went where I aimed the gun. At defensive distances I had tight groupings, hardly different than my G17.
Anyway, as always, it comes down to shot placement. A well placed shot with the .44 mag will probably do the trick more effectively against a big bear and will assuredly do the job against a two-legged. I think the right 10mm will do a good job too, apples to apples.
I had a Glock 20 and really liked it; I just didn't have the proper carry set up for it to make sense at the time. It wasn't inordinately heavier than my G17 but enough so that I didn't want to carry every day.
It was accurate as heck too. Without a trace of hubris, I can relay that I hit a 16 oz. plastic coke bottle at 125 yards (CorBon DPX 155 gr.). It wasn't so much skill as the round went where I aimed the gun. At defensive distances I had tight groupings, hardly different than my G17.
Anyway, as always, it comes down to shot placement. A well placed shot with the .44 mag will probably do the trick more effectively against a big bear and will assuredly do the job against a two-legged. I think the right 10mm will do a good job too, apples to apples.
I own two S&W 629's, one with a 4" and another with a 3" barrel. They stay home and I've been carrying the Glock for a long time. In fact I recently went with a smaller G29 and am considering letting the bigger brother go.
Here are some REAL numbers. The G-29 is a full pound lighter, and about 2" shorter. Depending on the magazine I have either 11 or 16 rounds available. While 44 magnums from 8" barrels look impressive, when fired from shorter 3-4" barrels they don't come close to advertised speeds. With 240 gr bullets around 1200-1250 fps is typical from my 3 and 4" 44 magnums. With 200 gr hardcast 10mm bullets I've gotten 1300 fps from my G-20. The 44 mag wins, but by a much narrower margin than most realize.
If I were going to use it as a dedicated hunting handgun I'd easily pick a 6" or longer barreled revolver. The longer barrel will put the 44 into another power level the 10mm can't match. The longer sight radius and better trigger is going to mean better long range accuracy.
But for hiking, backpacking and general woods bumming where ounces count the Glock is an easy winner.
Here are some REAL numbers. The G-29 is a full pound lighter, and about 2" shorter. Depending on the magazine I have either 11 or 16 rounds available. While 44 magnums from 8" barrels look impressive, when fired from shorter 3-4" barrels they don't come close to advertised speeds. With 240 gr bullets around 1200-1250 fps is typical from my 3 and 4" 44 magnums. With 200 gr hardcast 10mm bullets I've gotten 1300 fps from my G-20. The 44 mag wins, but by a much narrower margin than most realize.
If I were going to use it as a dedicated hunting handgun I'd easily pick a 6" or longer barreled revolver. The longer barrel will put the 44 into another power level the 10mm can't match. The longer sight radius and better trigger is going to mean better long range accuracy.
But for hiking, backpacking and general woods bumming where ounces count the Glock is an easy winner.
Which would I prefer? Hands down the S&W. Primary reasons, I have one, (6" 29-2) and I have decades of experience with the .44 Magnum cartridge in SA & DA revolvers, single shots, lever guns and semi autos.
I have no use for the 10mm round, as I have what I believe to adequate defensive weaponry, and I have Magnum handguns, so I don't personally have any use for a round that is overpowered for one, and less than what I want, for the other.
And, I'm not a fan of GLock pistols, either.
I have no use for the 10mm round, as I have what I believe to adequate defensive weaponry, and I have Magnum handguns, so I don't personally have any use for a round that is overpowered for one, and less than what I want, for the other.
And, I'm not a fan of GLock pistols, either.
Deaf Smith
New member
jmr,
Your G29 ain't no G20. Think about that.
Deaf
Deaf Smith
New member
Clearly you are not aware how fast a bear can run.
Deaf
Deaf
bamaranger
New member
glock
I'm with jmr40, and for all his stated reasons. My 629 Mtn Revolver has stayed home ever since I got the G20. The Glock also retired a 4-3/4" Blackhawk in .357 too.
For general purpose bumming, the flatter, smooither profiled, lighter G20 carries much easier. I have no worry about a large bear or mtn lion here, so the added horsepower of the .44 is not really needed. Heck, I ran the Mtn Revolver loaded down anyhow, a 240 SWC at about 1000 fps. I run the 10mm with a 180 at 1000 as well.
I've found the adjustable sights on a Smith revolver a bit irksome, having mashed the rear leaf on one, and loose screws on others. The screws loc- tited down, but the gun was done till I located another leaf. HOnestly, a service type fixed rear groove, as on the 1917's and the Model 10, the M57/.41, The Colt SAA is likely best on a rough use revolver thinks I anyhow. The target sights are pretty high profile too, and can snag and gouge, you or your gear, one needs to pay attention to holsters. So too the big hammers.
Things I like about the G20. The poly frame and what ever Glock treats the metal with are very tough, maintenance is low. Not stainless, but not a pretty N-frame blue either. I like the lanyard hole in the butt, a length of para-cord and a dog snap makes a simple rig to ensure the pistol goes where I go. No such easy arrangement on the big 'Smiths. Fiftenn cartridges in hand is comforting, but not likely needed.
Once upon a time, I could shoot the big revolvers SA very well, and would have to give a long barreled, targer sighted revolver the nod as a pure hunter.
I'm with jmr40, and for all his stated reasons. My 629 Mtn Revolver has stayed home ever since I got the G20. The Glock also retired a 4-3/4" Blackhawk in .357 too.
For general purpose bumming, the flatter, smooither profiled, lighter G20 carries much easier. I have no worry about a large bear or mtn lion here, so the added horsepower of the .44 is not really needed. Heck, I ran the Mtn Revolver loaded down anyhow, a 240 SWC at about 1000 fps. I run the 10mm with a 180 at 1000 as well.
I've found the adjustable sights on a Smith revolver a bit irksome, having mashed the rear leaf on one, and loose screws on others. The screws loc- tited down, but the gun was done till I located another leaf. HOnestly, a service type fixed rear groove, as on the 1917's and the Model 10, the M57/.41, The Colt SAA is likely best on a rough use revolver thinks I anyhow. The target sights are pretty high profile too, and can snag and gouge, you or your gear, one needs to pay attention to holsters. So too the big hammers.
Things I like about the G20. The poly frame and what ever Glock treats the metal with are very tough, maintenance is low. Not stainless, but not a pretty N-frame blue either. I like the lanyard hole in the butt, a length of para-cord and a dog snap makes a simple rig to ensure the pistol goes where I go. No such easy arrangement on the big 'Smiths. Fiftenn cartridges in hand is comforting, but not likely needed.
Once upon a time, I could shoot the big revolvers SA very well, and would have to give a long barreled, targer sighted revolver the nod as a pure hunter.