Firearm & Gun Forum - FireArmsTalk.com

Firearm & Gun Forum - FireArmsTalk.com (http://www.firearmstalk.com/forums/)
-   Glock Forum (http://www.firearmstalk.com/forums/f56/)
-   -   New to group/glock 20sf vs 29 sf thoughts appreciated (http://www.firearmstalk.com/forums/f56/new-group-glock-20sf-vs-29-sf-thoughts-appreciated-23118/)

DocSuzi 02-07-2010 02:18 AM

New to group/glock 20sf vs 29 sf thoughts appreciated
 
I moved to Southcentral Alaska from the mountains of Colorado. A 9mm was perfectly adequate to deal with the mountain lions there. Here we have lots of healthy bears, and I know a 9 would just tick one of them off. I fish and hike and both of these activities present great opportunities to meet the local bears. They even wander around in town if the salmon run is late. I do not need a 5 pound revolver, so am trying to decide between the Glock 20sf and the 29sf. The 29sf would be a little easier to conceal, but I'm wondering if it would be less powerful & accurate, and have more recoil to enough of an extent to make the 20sf a better choice. Thanks for any advice.


"Neither a man nor his property is safe as long as the legislature is in session."
Mark Twain

willfully armed 02-07-2010 03:49 AM

Well, velocity in the 29 will be a little less than the 20, due to approx 7/8" less barrel. Smaller grip, and shorter barrel/sight radius will affect accuracy to a point.


All in all, for a defensive pistol, Id much rather have 15+1 in the 20, than 10+1 in the 29.

I own a 20, and shoot it regularly in IDPA. I wouldnt really want to wrangle a smaller pistol in 10mm.

DocSuzi 02-07-2010 03:53 AM

Thank you. Accuracy and the ability to shoot quickly are key to survival with large and dangerous animals. I appreciate hearing from someone with more experience with these larger caliber firearms.

canebrake 02-07-2010 04:13 AM

You should re-think your 5# revolver rejection again!

When a firearm is carried for self-defense from bear attack, there is a strong consensus that the double-action revolver is the better choice. And because of the CQB conditions a short barrel would be high on my list. Something < 4".

I wouldn't walk among the bears with anything less than a .44 Mag topped with a large meplat, heavy, solid bullet.

When the target is close and extremely tough, reliable performance is always improved by increasing bullet weight and decreasing velocity.

canebrake 02-07-2010 04:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DocSuzi (Post 225874)
Thank you. Accuracy and the ability to shoot quickly are key to survival with large and dangerous animals. I appreciate hearing from someone with more experience with these larger caliber firearms.

I wouldn't call a 10mm (.40 cal) round a "larger caliber firearm" and the kinetic energy from the 10mm comes from it's muzzle velocity and not the bullet weight. A 180 Grain 10mm is considered heavy. And correct me if wrong but the vast majority of commercially available 10mm is produced as JHP. This may work well in dropping bad guys with it's rapid expansion but you are not talking about protecting yourself from bad guys.

You're going to be shooting a tough old bear, not a soggy bag of cottage cheese!

I'd re-think the revolver before you become bear scat.

http://i695.photobucket.com/albums/v...tupid/11-1.jpg

DocSuzi 02-07-2010 05:28 AM

I was think more of using 230gr Wide Flat Nose Gas Check Hardcast rounds in the woods.

MB44 02-08-2010 09:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by canebrake (Post 225889)
I'd re-think the revolver before you become bear scat.

+1 to the cane. I do not know anything about bears, but the general consensus is that you bring a .44Mag or better to the woods.

If you are worried about to much weight then there are lightweight options like the Taurus Raging Bull 4" revolver in Titanium

http://www.taurususa.com/images/imag...s/444MULTI.jpg

It weighs in just below 2 pounds, - now, I do not know about the recoil in such a "thing", but for what it is worth I got the regular 8" version, and I'd rather shoot that than my Colt King Cobra 4" with .357 Mag. The grip on the Taurus makes them less painfull to shot, but I'd figure that a light 4" version is still going to kick some.

If you really got B****, and a thick wallet, there is the S&W 629 in a 2 5/8" version. Slightly heavier, but neverthless..... I'm not sure if anyone would enjoy shooting that....

http://www.smith-wesson.com/wcsstore...0135_thumb.jpg

On the other hand, should you end up in a confrontation with a bear, I'll bet ya that you'll be so high on adrenaline, that you won't even think about the recoil :eek:

SigGambler 02-09-2010 01:44 PM

+2 to the Cane.
I wouldn't go with anything less than a .44 mag. I would even think about one of those .454 Casull short barells. Remember anything that is wild is going to be stronger and tuffer than a human being. The animal has to kill for a living, we don't!

MB44 02-09-2010 02:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SigGambler (Post 227195)
Remember anything that is wild is going to be stronger and tuffer than a human being. The animal has to kill for a living, we don't!

Stupid me,.. and I who thought that Bears only ate berries and honey,...:D

http://blogs.pitch.com/plog/winnie_the_pooh.jpg

SigGambler 02-09-2010 02:35 PM

You would be really suprised how many people out there think like that. I wasn't trying to be condesending to anyone, it's just a saying I have when you are chossing a firearm for self defense(2 legs) vs. hunting(4 legs).


All times are GMT. The time now is 12:18 AM.

Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.