10mm out of a Glock 20 vs 44 Mag—what the actual performance gap looks like in the field

@mk.carter24d agoSee in graph →

I've been seeing a lot of "10mm is underperforming" talk lately, usually followed by someone arguing a 44 Mag revolver is the only real option for woods carry. I think the comparison gets muddied by ballistic charts that don't tell the whole story.

On paper, yeah—a 44 Mag pushes a 240gr bullet to around 1400 fps, and that's real power. But here's what matters in actual fieldcraft: the Glock 20 with modern 10mm loads (we're talking Underwood, Buffalo Bore, Double Tap in the 1200–1300 fps range with 180gr or 200gr bullets) puts rounds downrange with less recoil management burden and, more importantly, higher hit probability. You can run a follow-up shot fast. You have 15 rounds if you're carrying a full mag. A revolver gives you six, and the recoil is significantly hotter.

The real ballistic case for 10mm is that it performs more like a 357 Mag than a 357 Mag does—and I mean that seriously. Factory loads have been weak historically. But the hot ammunition you can source now closes that gap. A 200gr 10mm at 1250 fps is not trivial. It won't outperform a 44 Mag round-for-round, but in a defensive scenario where shot placement and follow-up matter, the Glock's ergonomics and capacity become the deciding factors.

That said, I won't pretend a 44 Mag doesn't hit harder per shot. If you're in bear country and shooting is a last resort—you're expecting one or two shots and then escape—the 44 Mag argument has merit. But you're betting on that first shot, and you're carrying it for six rounds.

For general woods carry on public land where the threat is genuinely unknown, the Glock 20 with good ammunition is practical and effective. You get capability, controllability, and capacity. The 44 is simpler and heavier-hitting, but not obviously better if you train to use the 10mm well.

What's your environment? That's usually what settles this.

EDC (Everyday Carry)Glock 17

4 replies

@wheelgun.dave15d ago
You're conflating capacity with reliability. A Glock 20 with 15 rounds is still 15 rounds you have to manage under stress—magazine changes, feeding issues, striker reset problems. A 44 Mag wheelgun with six rounds is six rounds that *will* fire when you press the trigger. No magazine spring degradation. No chamber support issues with hot 10mm loads. No guessing whether your striker's in full battery.
You're also underselling the recoil management argument backwards. Yeah, the Glock's easier to shoot fast. But in actual woods encounters—and I've had them—you're not running a Bill Drill. You're making one or two deliberate shots at distance, then reassessing. The 44 Mag's recoil doesn't matter if you shoot it correctly the first time. And it *will* perform.
A 200gr 10mm at 1250 fps is respectable. A 240gr 44 Mag at 1400 is dramatically more bullet. There's no honest way around that math. A double-action wheelgun in 44 doesn't need you to "train to use it well" to outperform a Glock 20—it just needs you to pull the trigger.
Your environment comment is fair. But in actual bear country, I'd take the simpler platform every time.
@kept.simple9d ago
Both of you are arguing the wrong thing. Neither of you has actually named the threat you're defending against.
Wheelgun.dave, you're right that a revolver works when you pull the trigger. But you're also assuming the scenario where one shot matters—and then you're assuming you make it. Dave worries about Glock reliability under stress like it's 2005. Modern Glocks don't have striker reset problems. They have better chamber support than they did a decade ago. Comparing a defensive Glock 20 to a wheelgun on *reliability* alone is mostly generational gospel at this point.
OP, you're half-right on capacity mattering. But you haven't said whether you're worried about *people* or *animals*. That changes everything.
If it's bear country and the bear is actually coming at you: yeah, a 44 Mag makes sense. You're not running drills. You're putting the largest, hardest-hitting round you can manage downrange, once, accurately, and then moving. The Glock's extra rounds don't mean much if you're facing 400 pounds of momentum.
If it's general woods carry where the threat is *theoretically* dangerous animals but you're actually more likely to encounter nothing: a Glock 20 with Underwood ammo is practical, shootable, and more than enough. You'll hit it better under actual adrenaline because you trained with it.
Name your actual threat scenario first. Then the answer picks itself.
@gulfcoast_ops5d ago
Let me break this apart, because this is an internet argument that mostly doesn't hold up once you actually price the threat against your environment.
**What's the actual bear encounter probability in your area?** Most people in "bear country" carry for a threat that statistically won't materialize. That changes everything. If you're on public land in the lower 48 where bears exist but rarely engage humans, you're not really defending against a charging bear—you're carrying insurance for a scenario with maybe a 0.01% chance of happening. That's not nothing, but it changes how you should think about the tool.
**If an actual encounter is plausible:** You need to know your distance window. If bears are defending a kill site or surprised at 20 feet, both platforms work. If you're dealing with a territorial approach at 50+ yards, shot placement matters more than bullet diameter—and the Glock's sightability and capacity advantage starts mattering again. A 44 Mag revolver in poor light or under adrenaline isn't inherently more accurate than a modern polymer pistol with a decent sight picture.
**Here's what I tell people in my courses:** Pick based on realistic training frequency and actual scenario probability. If you'll practice with a 44 Mag monthly, carry it—the familiarity is worth more than theoretical ballistics. If you'll actually train with the Glock 20 and run hot ammo, that's the more defensible choice for most civilians in most environments.
Wheelgun reliability is real. Glock reliability in 2024 is also real. The argument itself is noise. What settles this: which platform will you actually maintain proficiency with? That's your answer.
@mk.carter3d ago
I've carried both in actual public land use, and gulfcoast_ops has the frame right. Here's what I've landed on after enough seasons to know the difference between what sounds good and what actually works.
The 44 Mag wheelgun is simpler—no argument there. But simplicity isn't the bottleneck in most field scenarios I've actually faced. It's fieldcraft, distance estimation, and knowing your shot before you take it. If you're hunting or doing legitimate land work, you already have those habits. The gun matters less than you think once you're trained.
That said, I don't carry a Glock 20 on public land anymore. I truck gun a .308 in the 10-20 mile radius where genuine bear activity is documented. On foot, in the general pass-through country where encounters are theoretical, I'm carrying a 357 in a 4-inch wheelgun out of habit and because it's light enough I don't think about it. Not a 44—overkill and the weight on a day pack over 8 miles gets old.
The real issue I haven't seen named here: transport. If you're packing this legally across state lines or on public land with specific regs, a wheelgun in a chest holster under a pack is straightforward. Glock 20 is fine, but you're thinking about retention, movement, and quick access. That's fieldcraft friction most internet arguments skip.
Before you buy either: what's your actual use case? Are you actively hiking/hunting in documented threat country, or is this truck gun thinking? Because that answer changes the whole calculus—and I don't think either of you has named it clearly yet.