10mm ballistics reality: what Glock 20 actually does in woods vs. the .44 Mag fantasy

@mk.carter1mo agoSee in graph →

I've been running a Glock 20 on public land for three seasons now, and I think there's a lot of myth-making around how it stacks up against a .44 Magnum revolver in a defensive woods encounter. Both are legitimate choices, but the ballistic picture is messier than most people admit.

The Glock 20 with quality 10mm loads—say, a 180gr Federal Hydra-Shok or Speer Gold Dot at 1,300 fps—will penetrate deep and expand reliably into soft tissue. That's documented. A .44 Magnum with a 240gr load does similar energy work, sometimes more. The real difference isn't the headline numbers; it's what happens after the first shot.

With the Glock you get 15 rounds. With a revolver you get 6. That matters if you're actually in trouble and your first two shots don't stop what's coming. I'm not interested in relying on a single hit with a revolver in brush or at angles you can't control. The 10mm lets you put follow-up shots quickly if you need them, and the ergonomics are faster than reloading a wheelgun under stress.

That said, the .44 shoots heavier bullets. A 300gr load changes the penetration math in ways 10mm doesn't match—thicker stuff, further distances, less chance of deflection off heavy bone or hide. If I'm hunting in grizzly country, I get the argument for a revolver. If I'm on foot in the Lower 48 dealing with mountain lions or defensive bears, the Glock's magazine capacity and shot placement wins.

What people don't talk about: cold-weather function. I've run both in December. The revolver is simpler—nothing to short-stroke, no mag reliability variables. The Glock requires you to think about springs and chamber temperature. That's not a dealbreaker, but it's real.

Capacity, controllability, and speed favor the Glock for general woods carry. Stopping power per shot and mechanical simplicity favor the .44. The ballistic gap between them is smaller than the gap between either and a 9mm, so if you're choosing based purely on energy transfer, you're already past the point where trigger control and shot placement matter more.

I trust my Glock 20. I trust friends who carry .44 Mags. The ballistics are close enough that fieldcraft—knowing the country, staying aware, avoiding surprise distances—matters more than which gun you pick.

EDC (Everyday Carry)9mm (9x19)

5 replies

@wheelgun.dave23d ago
Cold-weather function isn't a revolver advantage—it's the only advantage that matters in actual conditions, and you're underselling it. A double-action wheelgun works when it's 20 below because there's nothing to fail. No striker reset issues, no magazine spring stiction, no slide velocity problems from thick oil or cold-soaked metal. I've run .44 Mags in December too. Cylinder gap doesn't freeze. Moon clips don't bind.
Your Glock works fine in cold if you baby it—thin the lube, keep the chamber warm, know the rifle. That's maintenance knowledge you have to own. A revolver doesn't ask you to own anything. You pull it and it fires. That's not a minor thing when you're miles from help and your hands are numb.
Capacity math is solid on paper. In the brush at contact distances—which is where you're actually in trouble—follow-up shots are academic. You don't need 15 rounds if the first two do their job. And they will, with the right load. The .44 doesn't need to match the 10mm's energy because it never has to. It stops what it needs to stop.
You've got a working solution. But don't call cold-weather reliability a wash. That's where wheelguns win clean.
@kept.simple16d ago
Dave's not wrong about cold function—that's real. But the penetration gap is worth naming directly.
Federal's testing shows a 180gr 10mm Gold Dot at 1,300 fps gets 16–18 inches in ballistic gelatin with reliable expansion. A 240gr .44 Mag at similar velocities (most aren't going 1,500 fps out of a 4-inch tube) runs 18–22 inches, same expansion profile. The heavier bullet does penetrate further, yes. But both are past the 12-inch minimum for large game.
Where the .44 actually wins: when you're shooting *through* something. Heavy cover, bone-on angles, or a 300gr hard cast load that doesn't expand. That's grizzly country math. For everything else in the Lower 48—mountain lion, defensive bear, worst-case human threat—the penetration difference doesn't move the needle on stopping performance if you're placing shots.
The cold-weather point stands. Revolver simplicity is legitimate. But don't frame it as a reliability problem with the Glock if you're maintaining it correctly. It's a *management* difference. One requires nothing from you; the other requires you know what you're doing.
Both work. The tradeoff is real: simplicity versus capacity and speed. Pick what you'll actually carry and practice with.
@hollow_hank10d ago
Dave and kept.simple have both made solid points, and I'm not here to undo either one. The cold-weather case for a revolver is real—I've seen it. The penetration numbers are what they are. But I want to talk about something neither of them quite nailed: the revolver just handles better in the woods, and that matters more than people think.
I'm not arguing nostalgia here. I'm arguing handiness. A four-inch .44 Mag on your hip or in a chest rig doesn't print. It doesn't snag brush. You draw it in thick timber without worrying about the muzzle clearing a pack strap or catching a branch. The Glock is fine—compact, reliable—but it's still a frame plus a slide plus rails that want real estate to clear. The revolver is just *there*, simple geometry.
And in an actual encounter at the ranges you're likely at on foot? Both guns do the job. Dave's right that two well-placed rounds from a .44 stop what needs stopping. kept.simple's right that the 10mm gets there in cold if you know what you're doing. But the revolver doesn't ask you to *know*. You can be tired, numb-handed, running on adrenaline, and the thing still works. That's not a small thing when your nervous system is hijacked.
Capacity is a real argument, and I'm not dismissing it. But for most people carrying in the Lower 48, the revolver's constraint is a feature, not a bug—it forces better shot placement than spray-and-pray math ever will. The Glock wins if you're drilling regularly. The revolver wins if you're a guy who carries and hopes you never need it.
Both are legitimate. The revolver's just more forgiving of the way real people operate under stress.
@gulfcoast_ops7d ago
Let me break this apart, because this thread is doing what internet 2A arguments do—treating gear choices like they exist in a vacuum instead of inside a holster system and a training reality.
**What's actually being debated here?**
Dave's right about cold function. Kept.simple's right about penetration math. Hank's right that a revolver doesn't snag brush. But nobody's asked the question that matters: *What holster system are you running, and does it actually work for your truck or pack carry?*
That's where this argument breaks down. A Glock 20 in a quality IWB or chest rig at your actual carry location is not the same decision as "Glock" in abstract. Same with the revolver. A four-inch .44 Mag in a Bianchi speed scabbard prints differently than it does in a leather crossdraw. The gun doesn't exist alone—it exists *in the rig*, and the rig determines whether you actually have it accessible or whether it's just weight on your belt.
**What I'd actually ask before choosing:**
Which holster system will you consistently wear without complaint? Will you practice draws from that rig monthly? Because cold-weather reliability means nothing if your revolver is at home because the holster is uncomfortable, or your Glock's magazine didn't seat because you were rushing in heavy gloves.
If you're truck carry or day hikes in the Lower 48, train with whatever you pick. Six rounds of .44 Mag from a rested, practiced shooter beats fifteen rounds of 10mm from someone who shoots twice a year. Shot placement—which comes from training, not horsepower—is where this argument actually resolves.
Tell me what your carry rig looks like and how often you're drawing. That changes the answer.
@mk.carter4d ago
gulfcoast_ops nailed something I should've led with: this whole thing lives in a holster, not on a spec sheet. That changes the math hard.
But I want to push back on one piece—the "six rounds beats fifteen if you don't train" framing. That's true for *any* gun, and it's why I own both. The real question I'm sitting with after three seasons is reload speed on public land when you're alone.
I'm not running a chest rig for a day hike. I've got a Glock 20 in a Safariland ALS on my hip in a fanny pack, sometimes inside the pack itself depending on the country. Draw and first shot from pack carry takes maybe two seconds if I'm alert. Follow-ups are quick.
With a revolver at the same rig position? Same two-second draw. But if I burn four rounds and miss—which happens, especially in brush or if the animal's moving—I'm looking at a reload that takes ten seconds minimum with a speed loader, probably longer with cold hands. That's a real gap.
I get that most people don't *need* that capacity. But gulfcoast_ops, I want to ask you straight: if you're actually carrying for self-defense on public land in the Lower 48, would you rather have the reload problem or the cold-weather problem? Because I don't think you get both solved in one gun.
I've chosen the Glock knowing I need to maintain it. My .44 lives in a truck bag for that reason. That's not a weakness in either gun—it's just picking what problem you're willing to own.