Civil discussion about 10mm, .40 cal, .357 please

warriorsociologist

June 12, 2006, 02:52 PM

Leadcounsel,

If you have small hands, you'll want to stick with the .40 or consider a single stack 10mm (1911 or a now discontinued S&W 10xx series - though they will be heavier) if you want to move to a 10mm. One of the things you do want to do before racking your brain about this is to try to find & test fire a few 10mm handguns. The grip on a 10mm / .45 caliber Glock is significantly larger than a 9mm/.40/.357sig Glock. Most men with medium to large hands will have little trouble with the larger grip frame, but it will probably take some getting used to vs. the smaller glock frames.

FWIW, I can "grip" the 10mm G20 just fine, but I rarely carry it unless I am hiking, hunting, or in heavy clothes. It is more of an "everything gun" only if you want to include some short-range med game hunting/critter defense in your repertoire (though I prefer to hunt with a wheelgun if using 10mm FWIW & you will want to check your local min. barrel length laws carefully before hand either way). Anyway, it sounds like you will continue to be well served by a .40 or even a 9mm for EDC. Think of the .40 as a "10mm special" if you will - it still works just fine & there are lots of effective .40 cal factory loads out there. Most of the time, you don't "need" the extra "flash & bang / shock & awe" of a "magnum" round as "standard" rounds will often do just fine for most purposes. As much of a 10mm fan I am, my EDC actually rotates between a S&W 642 (.38 spec.) and a Glock 19 (9mm) 90% of the time. The way I figure it, I have 3 size categories of CCW pieces that I match with anticipated conditions & my clothing for that day. The j-frame is my pocket-carry "always gun", the G19 is taken when I have a sport coat/suit/sweater/etc. on, and the G20 gets the nod when I am less concerned about comfort and want to have "a little something extra" on tap if needed (hell, it's still smaller than the M9 I have to conceal in the military). YMMV.

Anyway, back to your original question. To me, it sounds like you are looking to possible sell off what you have and move to a .357 sig or 10mm....so my suggestion is "don't do it" and stick with what you have unless you think you might want to drop in a 6" barrel in a 10mm someday and hunt with it. P.S. If you really want a fast bottle-necked cartridge & are willing to pay for it in ammo costs, get a 10mm and then buy a 6" 9x25 Dillon conversion barrel (think .40 vs. 10mm = .357sig vs. 9x23...and then 9x25 - roughly speaking.). Whatever you choose, go and test fire a few of these before you make your call.

Good luck.
:cool:

Vitamin G

June 12, 2006, 02:54 PM

What I mean by "Best of both worlds" is capacity and power.

9mm = more capacity
.45acp = more power

15+1 rounds of near magnum performance, and larger wound channel, at the same grip size as a .45

I dunno why either, I have small hands, but i grip the G20 better than a did my G26 with extensions.
I also prefer 1911's.
I'm getting a G29 with my tax refund check :)

leadcounsel

June 12, 2006, 03:01 PM

Good points all...

I have larger hands (can palm a basketball) and am not particularly recoil sensitive. Glocks, 92FS, Xds etc. fit my hand very well. 1911s I find to also fit well, possibly a little too thin. Thin single stack guns only have the advantage for concealment purposes.

I'm really on the fence here. I could just carry my .357 Magnum for my handful of camping trips during the summer and continue to rely on the .40 for my daily carry.

Or, I could treat myself to a new 10mm (I'm in the market for a Glock and also for my first CZ -- could get the Witness instead) anyway with profits from an upcoming financial deal. Get some .40 barrels for each too....

Decisions decisions.... :)

Guns_and_Labs

June 12, 2006, 04:15 PM

I'm really on the fence here. I could just carry my .357 Magnum for my handful of camping trips during the summer and continue to rely on the .40 for my daily carry.

The .357 Magnum can be a wonderful backcountry cartridge if properly loaded. I haven't seen any .357SIG cartridges with proper anti-critter loadings; maybe they're out there. I'd be hesitant relying on standard .357SIG or .40S&W loadings in the great outdoors. [Personally I don't like them in the city, either, but that's my own bias.]

But if Glocks fit you right, you like them, and you're looking for a purchase, a Glock 20 or 29 should fit the bill. .40 barrels are available, if you really want to swap around. I have a G29 that is frequently my backcountry carry. I'd probably prefer a G20, given the higher round count, but I live in CA and standard capacity G20 mags are not available here.

Haycreek

June 12, 2006, 04:54 PM

Each of the three can be good answers, just depends on what you like. I have went thru three 40 S&W, don't have one now. Personally the 45 and 357 are my favorites of the three mentioned. For everyday carry, it is a model 1911 or a [hold on to you hat] a model 37 Glock 45 GAP! I carry the 357 or 44 mag at the ranch. Nothing wrong with a properly loaded 9MM however. The thing that matters mostly is what you like and PLACEMENT !

loadedround

June 12, 2006, 05:14 PM

I am an owner of a Colt Delta Elite in 10mm and I am really found of this caliber. But to be practical the 10 mm is now in the catagory of "classic catridges" and is getting more or more difficult to get factory ammo for it and there is very little variety when found. Also I believe only two manufacturers make pistols in this caliber. Ever since the FBI dropped this round for the 40 S&W it has become less and less popular especially for people with small hands. I would not consider this round unless I was a reloader(which I am) and have access to a large quantity of cases(which I do). Think 225 Win or 8mm Rem mag.

critrxdoc

June 12, 2006, 05:28 PM

Here is the picture comparing several calibers in ballistic gel side by side that demonstrate little difference between them. Not included are the 357mag and 10mm. I agree with the other posters that the difference between the 9mm, .40, and .357sig are minimal with velocities in that order. The 10mm is in a different category with performance slightly superior to the .357mag and similiar to lower end of the .41mag. I carry a G-23 or G-17 as my CCW and feel confident with either, but a 12gauge pump with 00buck and a G-20 10mm protect my home and family.

http://www.tacticalforums.com/cgi-bin/tacticalubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=78;t=000581;p=1

AK103K

June 12, 2006, 06:10 PM

Mmmm, if you went by the cavities in that pic, the 9mm is nowhere near the others, by about a third. The 357SIG is right up there with the .40's and .45, and possibly a tad bigger than the .40's in the larger portions of the cavity.

If the 357SIG performs about the same in soft tissue as the larger calibers, shoots flatter, longer, which the big calibers generally dont, and still out penetrates "barriers" better, which, according to some reports it does, and was one reason for some agency's acceptance, then it sounds like they got pretty close to the desired results, an automatic .357Mag.

I havent had an opportunity to try the 357SIG out on any car doors yet, but I've shot enough of them over the years with a .45 to know its not the best round on getting through things. 9mm ball was usually always better. Sounds like the 357SIG is starting to look like the best of both worlds, barrier penetration like 9mm ball, with results similar to the larger calibers in soft tissue. If it all pans out, what more could you ask for.

Personally, the data I'd rather hear about, is actual shooting data on living things and how well it did or did not perform. All the gel, paper data, and car bodies aside, is nice and all, but confusing and mostly, well, more confusing and inconclusive.

Dead is dead, and the one that does it fastest and deadest, firstest, seems to me would be the winner. So where are all those tests?

leadcounsel

June 12, 2006, 06:18 PM

Does anyone know the exact reason why the FEDS dropped the 10mm in favor of the .40?

I've heard remarks about stout recoil, smaller field agents, and too much barrier penetration... any thoughts?

JohnKSa

June 12, 2006, 11:42 PM

The FBI chose a reduced power 10mm loading to ameliorate the recoil. When S&W figured out that they could duplicate that power level in a smaller case and therefore a smaller gun, it was only a matter of time...
there is nothing to indicate it offers any advantage in effectiveness over the .40 S&W in an anti-personnel role.jc2,
I agree with this, but only because the statement is strictly true--that is, there is no evidence to suggest that it is more effective in an antipersonnel role over the .40 S&W.

However, that is because, strictly speaking, there is little or no evidence to indicate that ANY of the service class pistol calibers (9mm, .357SIG, .40S&W, 10mm, .45ACP, .38SPl) have any significant advantage in effectiveness over any of the others in the class in an anti-personnel role.

I guess the question that springs to mind is: What do you consider reasonable evidence that a given service class pistol caliber "offers any advantage in effectiveness" over any other service class pistol caliber "in an anti-personnel role"?

The root of the matter is that there is not and has never been any universally agreed upon definition of what gives one caliber an advantage in an anti-personnel role over another caliber in the same general class. There certainly is no question at all that the 10mm (speaking purely from a caliber standpoint) shows a clear superiority in performance over the .40 S&W in any MEASURABLE parameter excepting bullet diameter. Parameters such as momentum, power factor, kinetic energy, velocity, trajectory, the ability to handle heavier bullets, etc.

You are absolutely correct in your comments regarding the size of 10mm pistols. In general, a 10mm pistol is noticeably larger and heavier than a similar capacity pistol chambered in .40 S&W.

FireBreather01

June 13, 2006, 12:11 AM

Does anyone know the exact reason why the FEDS dropped the 10mm?

While recoil and over-penetration are oft-cited reasons for the FBI dropping the round, those issues were 'used' to discredit the 10mm for reasons of professional jealousy during a political battle that was fought within the Bureau at the time. There was one agent in particular that became associated closely with the 10mm project and he and his 'pet project' became the object of derision and somewhat of a smear campaign. The 10mm was more victim of politics than performance.

For more comprehensive information on the 10mm please see Gary's site for 10mm info galore! It's excellent. - http://www.home.earthlink.net/~gnappi/index.htm

Soybomb

June 13, 2006, 12:21 AM

Mmmm, if you went by the cavities in that pic, the 9mm is nowhere near the others, by about a third. The 357SIG is right up there with the .40's and .45, and possibly a tad bigger than the .40's in the larger portions of the cavity.
What you're talking about is the temporary cavity, not the permanent cavity. Most of the people regarded as being ballistics experts agree that temporary cavity is of little to no importance in handguns since it does generally no damage. Thats more or less a complete misinterpretation of the graph.

vynx

June 13, 2006, 01:34 AM

leadcounsel - for 2 legged threats I think the .40 is fine but for out in the woods, mtns, etc. the 10mmm seems better for protection against animals or for hunting. To me, the glock 10mm has an advantage over .357 mag revolvers in that it is lighter for a given barrel length anf has greater capacity.

But, it depends on where you go camping. And what you might encounter.

jc2

June 13, 2006, 09:15 AM

roo_ster

June 13, 2006, 10:09 AM

From what you have written, you don't NEED another/different weapon to serve as EDC (.40) and backwoods weapon (.357mag).

I am not a .40 fan, but it will surely do the antipersonnel job just fine. No NEED to change, but you might have some fun trying out different weapons.

If you are worried about 4-legged critters in the sticks or possibly using your sidearm to harvest some protein, .40 is lacking in comparison to .357mag & 10mm, period.

.357mag has it all over the .40 (& .357sig) in terms of penetration when stoked with bullets weighing more than 125gr. Loads can be found in gun stores up to 180gr that will penetrate like crazy and are still flatter-shooting than equivalent weight .40 rounds. Mail order can get you 200gr bullets.

10mm is in the same realm as .357mag power & penetration wise, but obtainable in a semi-auto. FWIW, I have shot the small Glock 29 10mm and found it accurate & controllable. Quite a nice package.

cookekdjr

June 13, 2006, 10:09 AM

leadcounsel,

I have investigated and prosecuted hundreds of homicide cases, and hundreds (if not thousands) of other non-fatal shootings.
I can tell you without hesitation that nothing outperforms the .40in a self-defense role. Generally speaking, .357, .45 ACP, and .40 S&W all perform the same. .357 is more load dependant, and has had some notable failures. But in the shooting investigations and prosecutions I've been involved in, the three calibers all perform about the same. Some platforms may work better with different calibers (say, the 1911 platform probably works best with .45, for example), but generally speaking, any of the three perform exceptionally well.
If you shoot a .40 accurately, then stick with it. There is absolutely no reason to change calibers from a stopping power standpoint.

warriorsociologist

June 13, 2006, 07:11 PM

The bottom line is the .40 S&W works as well in a LE/anit-personnel role as the 10mm but in a smaller, lighter, easier to carry package. FWIW, we need to remember the FBI dropped the 10mm in favour of the 9x19. The .40 S&W was only recently adopted by the FBI.

I believe at the time of the adoption of the 9mm by the FBI, the .40 wasn't in the running (9mm, .45, and the 10mm were all the was considered). I thought that .40 S&W came to be a couple years later as the result of the desire to cram what was already known as the "FBI lite" 10mm load into a "9mm-size-framed" pistol? So, they shortened the case and created the .40 S&W. Here's another link to a well-compiled history of the 10mm. http://www.bren-ten.com/id7.html

FWIW, there is lots of good info there. The info specifically pertaining to the .40 is as follows:

.40 SMITH & WESSON

The .40 Smith & Wesson is easily the most popular of the 10mm Auto offspring. In fact it has become so popular that it has pushed its predecessor out of the limelight and into relative obscurity.

The .40 S&W was a collaborative effort between Smith & Wesson and Winchester. The actual concept for the cartridge had been around a while, but when the FBI decided to download the 10mm Auto the time was right. Basically the idea behind the .40 S&W was to duplicate the FBI 10mm "Lite" loading, but at the same time shorten the case enough so that the new round would fit in a 9mm Parabellum platform giving the the handgun a greater cartridge capacity. Winchester loaded a 180gn JHP bullet at 980fps while Smith & Wesson modified their 59xx series for the larger cartridge and introduced the S&W 40xx series pistols. The .40 S&W was released to the public in January of 1990 and it became an instant success and soon numerous other firearm manufacturers were racing to bring out their own .40 S&W guns.

The .40 S&W cartridge has become incredibly popular. Now the FBI, which made the 10mm Auto the preeminent law enforcement cartridge only a few short years before, has switched to Glocks chambered for the .40 S&W.

It's still worth reading the entire page though as it contains much more on this subject. ALso, in case I missed someone's post of this elsewhere, Tom Marten's page on the 10mm is here: http://www.greent.com/40Page/ammo/10/10mm-advoc.htm <-- It's of course only his opinion on this subject too & it will need to be read with "a grain of salt" ....esp. if you are not at least open to becoming a convert... :)

agtman

June 13, 2006, 07:56 PM

"...we need to remember the FBI dropped the 10mm in favour of the 9x19. The .40S&W was only recently adopted by the FBI."

Incorrect - but that's not really a surprise. :rolleyes:

The correct chronology begins in the late 1980s (circa 1987-88) when the FBI was then undergoing a kind of internecine "caliber" battle between the 9mm advocates and the .45acp stalwarts, all prompted by competing hindsight analysis of the 1986 Miami firefight that resulted in dead and wounded agents.

SA John Hall, head of the FTU, suggested the Bureau take a close look at a third cartridge, the 10mm AUTO. Interest was peaked and eventually the 10mm was placed in competitive testing against the other two (the .40S&W was not yet invented).

I believe this link to Hall's 1989 article explaining this is still good. It reviews the testing protocols and the results, the bottom line being that the 10mm bested both the 9mm and .45acp in the two areas the FBI was most interested in: penetration (especially against intermediate barriers) and accuracy. Here's the link:

http://www.textfiles.com/politics/GUNS//10mmpist.txt

The .40S&W, as a auto cartridge, didn't come into being until just after the FBI's 1989 adoption of the 10mm and the issuance of S&W 1076s to field agents.

Beginning in the late 1990s (not "recently"), the FBI began officially "transitioning" new agents to the .40S&W (Glock 22s/23s), although at that point older agents still retained the authority to carry what they had previously qualified with, to include autos in .45acp and 9mm (e.g., Sigs), as well as the 10mm 1076. In point of fact many decided to keep their 1076s for as long as they could.

As late as 2001 it was said that you could identify an experienced senior agent by the 1076 he still carried. Probably by now all the field agents are armed with one of the Glock "foties," excepting those HRT/SWAT-trained personnel who also qualified with the Springfield .45.

:cool:

jc2

June 13, 2006, 08:30 PM

The 1076 (10mm) was dropped after a brief flirtation in favour of the P228 (9x19). The G22/23 (.40 S&W) was only recently adopted (mid-1997).

The "full-power" version of the 10mm was never adopted. A moderate, the 190-grain Federal JHP, load was initially adopted, but it quickly morphed into what is commonly referred to the "FBI-Lite" load. Overall, the FBI's flirtation with the 10mm was very brief--just a flash in the pan. As soon as the .40 S&W hit the street, the 10mm was DRT as a LE calibre.

stiletto raggio

June 13, 2006, 09:10 PM

As for converting a .40 to a 10mm, it can be done and is done with regularity. In a 1911 platform, it only takes a barrel swap or a reamed chamber. The USP .40 has been converted with a chamber reaming, heavier springs and a steel magazine (para ord, I believe).

The standard FBI subgun is still the HKMP5 10mm, and they use HOT loads. Probably the best subgun configuration out there.

As to "stopping power," it is my firm belief--nay, a fact--that a CNS or pelvis hit is the only way to really "drop" someone immediately, but an arterial shot will kill pretty quickly, too. As always, shot placement is key, but a more powerful weapon give you more room for imperfect shot placement. Some would argue it also contributes to poor shot placement, but I disagree. I can shoot a 10mm as fast accurately as I can shoot a 9mm with the same degree of precision; my shooting platform has more to do with recovery than the round does.

Try the 10mm. If you like it, get one. If not, don't. No skin off my back.

JohnKSa

June 13, 2006, 11:04 PM

The bottom line is the .40 S&W works as well in a LE/anit-personnel role as the 10mm ...You misunderstand. Your opinion was stated quite clearly in your earlier post; there is no need to reiterate.

I was asking for the evidence you used to develop this opinion.

jc2

June 13, 2006, 11:17 PM

I really wasn't replying to you. You did agree with my statement:
jc2,
I agree with this, but only because the statement is strictly true--that is, there is no evidence to suggest that it is more effective in an antipersonnel role over the .40 S&W.
I thought you summed it up rather well yourself:
there is little or no evidence to indicate that ANY of the service class pistol calibers (9mm, .357SIG, .40S&W, 10mm, .45ACP, .38SPl) have any significant advantage in effectiveness over any of the others in the class in an anti-personnel role.
The .40 S&W in particular, as well as the 9x19 (at least with current generation, premium JHPs), the 357 SIG and the .45 ACP does have record of being effective in a LE/anti-personnel role--something that noticably lacking in the case of the 10mm.

cookekdjr

June 13, 2006, 11:24 PM

I've never been involved with a case where the perp or cop used a 10mm, but I have a hard time seeing it doing better than the .40 or .45.
The reason I say this is that, once you reach a certain level of power in a handgun, you reach a level of diminishing returns. A hit from a 180 gr slug going 1200 fps isn't going to do much more than one going 980 fps (well, this is my guess anyway). The one going 980 fps is going to shatter whatever bones it hits and basically wreak havoc on all the human tissues it contacts, and almost certainly will go staright through anybody it hits. That extra 200-300 fps doesn't really get you more. The guy won't be any deader.:)
Now, on bigger animals, it might make a difference. But on people? I'd rather have the lower velocity lower powered rounds so that I can fire more follow-up shots if needed.
Mind you, I've never seen a 10mm used on people (or the results of it), so maybe it has some kind of magic death-ray effect. But I've seen the results of enough .40 S&W shootings to verify that it is a world-class manstopper.
Have any of y'all seen the results of a 10mm in action against people? I'd be really interested to know how it has performed. No one in my jurisdictions has used it.
-David

Black Snowman

June 13, 2006, 11:32 PM

10mm could have an advantage in a wider range of situations, but not enough of a differance to go ga-ga over. That being said I've got my 2nd 10mm on order and plan and buying a few more before I'm thorugh. Still, the RAMI in 40 is going to see the bulk of CCW duties in '07. :D

warriorsociologist

June 14, 2006, 12:09 AM

jc2, for the good of this discussion (and to keep it from being locked like the last "10mm thread"), could you please tell us where you are getting your contrarian information? Several people who you are (and have been) disagreeing with have "showed their cards", myself included, with respect to the data on which they are basing their claims. So far, you seem to be disagreeing "merely to disagree." Please, just tell us what you are basing your opinions on here.

jc2

June 14, 2006, 12:25 AM

I don't really know what you're talking about. The FBI briefly adopted the 1076 (as the issue weapon) with a less than full-power load (the Federal 190-grain JHP) but quickly switched to what is commonly known as the "FBI-Lite" load. Shortly after adopting the 1076 as the issue weapon (and well before switching to the G22/23), the FBI adopted the P228 as the issue weapon. The 1076/10mm was the issue weapon/calibre for only a very brief period. It was very quickly replaced by the P228/9x19 as the issue weapon (which was replaced by the G22/.40 S&W in mid-1997). The FBI's flirtation with the 10mm was very brief indeed.

JohnKSa

June 14, 2006, 12:39 AM

The .40 S&W in particular, as well as the 9x19 (at least with current generation, premium JHPs), the 357 SIG and the .45 ACP does have record of being effective in a LE/anti-personnel role--something that noticably lacking in the case of the 10mm.Again, that is correct, but not for the reason that is implied. The 10mm has no impressive record of LE/anti-personnel performance because it has never been particularly popular, not because of any inherent deficiency in the round.

Furthermore, if you're going to agree that the service pistol class calibers are for all practical purposes identical in performance AND then also try to imply in the next sentence that the performance of the 10mm is inferior, then I have to second warriorsociologist's comments about disgreement for its own sake.

Here's the best history of the FBI issue firearms I could find. It doesn't agree 100% with the other sources on the web, but it is far more comprehensive than anything else I found and it doesn't seem to be contradicted directly by anything that looks credible.

While the 1076 pistol was only issued for a period of less than 5 years (sources vary on the exact number with a range from 2 to 4 years), the FBI's "flirtation with the 10mm" round could not really be described as brief since it is still ongoing. The 10mm round is still standard issue to FBI SWAT and HRT teams in the H&K subgun.

http://www.sondereinheiten.de/forum/viewtopic.php?p=109755
Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)
Issued the 7.65×27mmR (.32 S&W) Colt Pocket Positive revolver in 1935-1949.
Issued the 9×33mmR (.357) S&W .357 Magnum revolver (4” barrel) in 1937-1970.
Issued the 9×29mmR (.38 Special) Colt Official Police revolver (4” barrel) in 1938-1984.
Issued the 9×23mmSR (.38 Super Auto) Colt Super Automatic pistol in 1938-1958.
Issued the 9×29mmR (.38 Special) S&W Model 10 Military & Police revolver (4” barrel) in 1950-1991.
Issued the 9×33mmR (.357) S&W Model 19 Combat Magnum revolver (4” barrel) in 1958-1991.
Issued the 9×29mmR (.38 Special) S&W Model 38 Bodyguard Airweight revolver (2” barrel) from 1972 until the 1990s (backup).
Issued the 9×29mmR (.38 Special) S&W Model 10-6 Military & Police revolver (2.5” barrel) in from 1974 until the 1990s (backup).
Issued the 9×29mmR (.38 Special) S&W Model 60 Chief’s Special revolver (2” barrel) from 1979 until the 1990s (backup).
Issued the 9×29mmR (.38 Special) S&W Model 13 Military & Police revolver (3” barrel) in from 1982 until the 1990s (backup).
Issued the 10×25mm S&W Model 1076 pistol from 1991-1992 (9,500 acquired).
Issued the 9×19mm SIG-Sauer P226 pistol in 1992-1998 (more than 10,000 acquired).
Optionally issued the 9×19mm SIG-Sauer P225 pistol and 9×19mm SIG-Sauer P228 pistol (agent’s choice) in 1992-1998.
Issues the 10×21mm (.40 S&W) Glock 22 pistol and 10×21mm (.40 S&W) Glock 23 pistol from 1998.
Issues the 10×21mm (.40 S&W) Glock 27 backup pistol.
Issued the 9×19mm H&K MP5SFA2 semiautomatic carbine and 9×19mm H&K MP5SFA3 semiautomatic carbine in 1989-1994.
Issued the 10×21mm (.40 S&W) H&K MP5/40SFA2 semiautomatic carbine in 1994-2003.
Issues the 5.56×45mm Rock River Arms LAR-15 DEA Rifle semiautomatic carbine from 2003 (with EoTech 552 reflex sight and Sure-Fire light).
Issues the 18.5×76mmR (12-gauge) Scattergun Tactical Response Model 90102 FBI pump-action shotgun (14” barrel) and 37×122mmR Federal Model 203-A Gas Gun grenade launcher.

Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)
Regional SWAT
Issued the 9×19mm S&W Model 459 pistol.
Issued the 9×19mm SIG-Sauer P226 pistol in 1988-1998 (1,500 acquired).
Issued the 9×19mm S&W Model 5946 pistol in 1988-1998 (1,000 acquired).
Issued the 7.62×51mm Remington Model 700 bolt-action sniper rifle (10× scope) and 7.62×51mm H&K G3A3 battle rifle.
Issues the 11.43×23mm (.45 ACP) Springfield Bureau Model pistol from 1998 (1,200+ acquired).
Issues the 10×25mm H&K MP5/10A2 submachine gun and 10×25mm H&K MP5/10A3 submachine gun from 1994 (1,400 acquired).
Issues the 5.56×45mm SIG SG551 SWAT assault carbine from 2003.
Issues the 9×19mm H&K MP5A2 submachine gun, 9×19mm H&K MP5A3 submachine gun, 9×19mm H&K MP5SD3 suppressed submachine gun, 5.56×45mm Colt CAR-15A2 R777 assault carbine, 5.56×45mm Colt AR-15A2 R603 (M16A1) assault rifle, 7.62×51mm FN SPR A5 bolt-action sniper rifle, 12.7×99mm McMillan Model 87 bolt-action sniper rifle, 18.5×76mmR (12-gauge) Scattergun Tactical Response Model 90102 FBI pump-action shotgun (14” barrel), and 37×122mmR Federal Model 203-A Gas Gun grenade launcher.

Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)
Hostage Rescue Team (HRT)
Issued the 9×19mm FN-Browning HP Mk 2 pistol in 1983-1995 (optionally the 9×19mm SIG-Sauer P226 pistol from 1986).
Issued the 11.43×23mm (.45 ACP) Les Baer SRP Bureau pistol in 1995-1998 (75 acquired).
Issues the 11.43×23mm (.45 ACP) Springfield TRP pistol from 1998.
Issues the 10×25mm H&K MP5/10A2 submachine gun and 10×25mm H&K MP5/10A3 submachine gun from 1994.
Issues the 9×19mm H&K MP5A2 submachine gun, 9×19mm H&K MP5A3 submachine gun, 9×19mm H&K MP5SD3 suppressed submachine gun, 9×19mm H&K MP5SD6 suppressed submachine gun, 5.56×45mm Colt CAR-15A2 R777 assault carbine, 5.56×45mm H&K HK33A3 assault rifle, 5.56×45mm Colt AR-15A2 R705 (M16A2) burst-fire rifle (3RB), 7.62×51mm H&K G3A3 battle rifle, 7.62×51mm H&K PSG1 sniper rifle (with 6× scope), 7.62×51mm Remington Model 700 bolt-action sniper rifle (M40A1 configuration with 10× scope), 12.7×99mm (.50 BMG) Barrett Model 82A1 sniper rifle, 12.7×99mm McMillan Model 87 bolt-action sniper rifle, 18.5×76mmR (12-gauge) Scattergun Tactical Response Model 90102 FBI pump-action shotgun (14” barrel), and 37×122mmR Federal Model 203-A Gas Gun grenade launcher.

warriorsociologist

June 14, 2006, 12:49 AM

I don't really know what you're talking about.

What part?

jc2

June 14, 2006, 12:58 AM

Furthermore, if you're going to agree that the service pistol class calibers are for all practical purposes identical in performance AND then also try to imply in the next sentence that the performance of the 10mm is inferior,
I never implied or attempted to imply the "the performance of the 10mm is inferior." Those are strictly your words, John. What I said (and you not only quoted but agreed with) was:
there is nothing to indicate it offers any advantage in effectiveness over the .40 S&W in an anti-personnel role.
While the FBI does indeed maintain a H&K submachineguns in 10mm, this thread (and indeed, this forum) is about handguns. If you want to nitpick, the FBI had a very, very brief flirtation with the 10mm handgun.

The FBI begin to receive a few 1076s in 1990. By May 1991, they had all been sent back to S&W. In the interim, the FBI purchased ~7,000 SIGs in 9x19 (P226s and P228s--the bulk being P228s). Eventually (late 1992), about 2,500 (not the 9,500 of the initial contract) 1076s made it back into FBI hands, but by then the 10mm was DOA as a LE calibre. The FBI's use/involvement with the 10mm (and role in its demise as LE calibre) is generally greatly exagerrated on the internet.

JohnKSa

June 14, 2006, 01:01 AM

What you said and what I quoted in my response so you would be CLEAR on what I was referring to was this:The .40 S&W ... does have record of being effective in a LE/anti-personnel role--something that noticably lacking in the case of the 10mm.That easily qualifies as "attempting to imply the the performance of the 10mm is inferior."The FBI begin to receive a few 1076s in 1990. By May 1991, they had all been sent back to S&W. In the interim, the FBI purchased ~7,000 SIGs in 9x19 (P226s and P228s--the bulk being P228s). Eventually (late 1992), about 2,500 1076s made it back into FBI hands, but by then the 10mm was DOA as a LE calibre. The FBI's use/involvement with the 10mm (and role in its demise as LE calibre) is generally greatly exagerrated on the internet.What is this supposed to mean??? I posted a complete issue history for the FBI, the FBI HRT and FBI SWAT. What's the point of summarizing a tiny piece of it and then tacking on your opinion as if it is supported by a rehashed section of my post?

The FBI's adoption of the 10mm was a huge boost to the 10mm cartridge. Their subsequent drop of the 10mm was an equal change of fortunes but in the opposite direction. The veracity of both statements can be easily verified by looking at the number of 10mm handguns introduced and then subsequently dropped from catalogs during the time period, and also by the number of publications about the 10mm during the FBI's "flirtation with the 10mm handgun".

warriorsociologist

June 14, 2006, 01:03 AM

this might be useful here:

http://www.firearmstactical.com/pdf/fbi_10mm_notes.pdf

jc2

June 14, 2006, 01:09 AM

That easily qualifies as "attempting to imply the the performance of the 10mm is inferior."
That didn't imply or attempt to imply anything, John. That was simply a statement of fact: the 10mm simply does not have a record of being effective (or ineffective) as a LE/anti-personnel calibre. We can look at the .40 S&W and truthfully say it has proven effective in a LE/anti-personnel role--we cannot do that for the 10mm (because the 10mm is largely DOA as a LE calibre).

warriorsociologist

June 14, 2006, 01:19 AM

What is the difference between a "10mm lite" and the .40S&W round developed to mimic it? If the .40 round works, why not the 10mm?

JohnKSa

June 14, 2006, 01:23 AM

jc,

If the two rounds were similar in popularity then the statement would be meaningful in the context you claim you intend it. Given the HUGE disparity in popularity, the statement can only be either meaningless or an attempt to disparage the effectiveness of the round by exploiting its relative lack of popularity.

I gave you the benefit of the doubt and assumed you were not making a meaningless comment.

Here's the deal.

You started out claiming that the 10mm had no performance advantage over the .40S&W.
Now you're making a point of the lack of service record of the 10mm.

But the 10mm as loaded by the FBI is identical to the .40S&W.

Therefore it is absolute folly to make any statements impugning the 10mm based on its relative lack of service when compared to the .40S&W. If we're going to try to cling to even a tiny shred of logic, we have to admit that the fact that the two rounds (FBI "10mm Light" and .40S&W) are ballistically identical DRIVES us to the conclusion that any performance record of the .40 S&W APPLIES EQUALLY to the "light" 10mm in the FBI loading.

So, let's try again.

If they're equal and one can be downloaded to ballistically mirror the other using identical bullets, tell me again how the service record of one round vs the other has any significance other than as a sidewise dig at the less popular round?

jc2

June 14, 2006, 01:25 AM

WS -

Nothing really--except the .40 S&W fits into a smaller, lighter, easier to carry weapon. In fact, the 10mm Federal Hydra-Shok just about falls into that class.

John -

It wasn't meaningless. It was a simple statement of fact--and a point to be considered. One might, as WS suggests, safely assume (but still assume) that the Federal 180-grain 10mm Hydra-Shok will perform roughly like the Federal 180-grain .40 S&W Hydra-Shok because they are so close (within 50 fps), but that does not necessarily hold true across the board. The bottom line remains, the 10mm lacks any meaningful record as a LE/anti-personnel round (and that's particularly true for any vaunted boutique rounds that are so popular today).

warriorsociologist

June 14, 2006, 01:36 AM

OK, so can't we "borrow" some of the vast and impressive .40 data to show what the 10mm may have performed like "for real" if it had not met the missfortune of a large influx of small handed/statured FBI agents? If the "lite 10mm" loads are the "mold" from which a well-respected & proven .40 S&W "clone" load was designed, what's to fuss about concerning the 10mm's likely performance?

JohnKSa

June 14, 2006, 01:41 AM

what's to fuss about concerning the 10mm's likely performance?I think it's clear that is not what the fuss is about... :rolleyes:

jc2

June 14, 2006, 01:42 AM

John -
If they're equal and one can be downloaded to ballistically mirror the other using identical bullets, tell me again how the service record of one round vs the other has any significance other than as a sidewise dig at the less popular round?
It doesn't so long as we limit the 10mm strictly to "FBI-Lite" (180-grains at ~1000 fps).

WS -

Nothing at all so long as we stick to 180-grain JHPs ~1000 fps. Now, if you want to talk about 180-grain JHPs (designed to function optimally at ~1000 fps), that's another story. The 10mm loaded with 180-grain, current generation, premium JHPs at ~1000 fps is probably every bit as good as good as a .40 S&W loaded with 180-grain, current generation, premium JHPs at ~1000 fps--but that pretty well leaves all other bullet weights and velocities.

Of course, that brings us all right back where we started (and a statement on which we all agree):
there is nothing to indicate it [the 10mm] offers any advantage in effectiveness over the .40 S&W in an anti-personnel role.

JohnKSa

June 14, 2006, 02:08 AM

Ah yes, we are back to that aren't we...

So, here was my reply to that, which was answered by an attempt to imply that the difference in the service record of the 10mm and the .40S&W was somehow significant in terms of the utility of the 10mm for anti-personnel use. Since that objection has now been dealt with, let's try it again.

The statement about anti-personnel effectiveness does not in any way cast a shadow on the universally accepted ballistic superiority of the 10mm over the 40 S&W, but merely exploits a factoid. Namely, that there is not and has never been any universally agreed upon definition of, nor method to simply measure what clearly gives one caliber an advantage in an anti-personnel role over another caliber in the same general class.

On the other hand, there is certainly no question at all that the 10mm can be loaded to demonstrate a clear and significant advantage in ballistic performance over the .40 S&W in any MEASURABLE parameter excepting bullet diameter. Parameters such as momentum, power factor, kinetic energy, velocity, trajectory, the ability to handle heavier bullets, etc.

jc2

June 14, 2006, 02:17 AM

Parameters such as momentum, power factor, kinetic energy, velocity, trajectory, the ability to handle heavier bullets, etc.
Pretty much--and there is nothing at all to suggest those differences are significant other than your opinion. As you have stated at a couple of times in this thread, there's really nothing at all support any assumption that any of them, singularly or in concert, result in any advantage in effectiveness in a LE/anti-personnel role (and in fact, some contributed directly to the 10mm very short life in a LE/anti-personnel role).

The bottom line remains the .40 S&W has a proven, documented record as an effective LE/anti-personnel calibre--the 10mm does not. A page later, we're still at (and will remain at) there is nothing to indicate the 10mm offers any advantage in effectiveness over the .40 S&W in a LE/anti-personnel role.

warriorsociologist

June 14, 2006, 02:42 AM

Pretty much--and there is nothing at all to suggest those differences are significant other than your opinion. As you have stated at a couple of times in this thread, there's really nothing at all support any assumption that any of them, singularly or in concert, result in any advantage in effectiveness in a LE/anti-personnel role (and in fact, some contributed directly to the 10mm very short life in a LE/anti-personnel role).

The same critique you made about him could be applied to your judgement of "nothing at all..." etc. What's your point?

Jc2, the problem that is beginning to occur here again has actually less to do with what you write, but rather it concerns the arrogance with which you present your side of things. You may not intend it this way (though, I believe you do), but it's what I and many others here perceive about you. You seem to like to find every thread that mentions "10mm" or ".357" and then proceed to nit-pick others more than offering anything new. This is what got the last thread closed down. You have said your piece on this many times. Here, let me say it again for you:

A page later, we're still at (and will remain at) there is nothing to indicate the 10mm offers any advantage in effectiveness over the .40 S&W in a LE/anti-personnel role.

OK then. That's your opinion. Many here simply dissagree with you. Please move on. I don't want this thread to dissintegrate like the one before it, but I fear that it is heading there...

JohnKSa

June 14, 2006, 02:43 AM

there is nothing at all to suggest those differences are significant other than your opinion.There is no statement of opinion in that post. The parametrical differences are ballistically significant as stated--there can be no debate.The bottom line remains the .40 S&W has a proven, documented record as an effective LE/anti-personnel calibre--the 10mm does not.Which is a meaningless statement, bordering on ludicrous, given the potential of the 10mm to be downloaded to PRECISELY duplicate ANY and ALL past, present and future .40 S&W loadings.

Here is your "argument" in a nutshell.

Given the lack of an absolutely conclusive measure of anti-personnel performance, and the lack of popularity of the 10mm round, it is not possible to say for certain that the 10mm's obvious and significant numerical ballistic superiority over the .40S&W, in virtually every regard, translates into similarly superior anti-personnel performance.

Ok, your last four posts on the thread have been pretty much carbon copies of each other so I'm guessing you're out of things to say. I'm also guessing that won't stop you. So say it again--I'll let you have the last word this time. ;)

jc2

June 14, 2006, 03:26 AM

There is no statement of opinion in that post.
Yes, there are differences in velocity, energy, etc. between the .40 S&W and 10mm, but there is nothing suggest the difference between the two is significant in terms of effectiveness in a LE/anti-personnel role. In your opinion, the difference in velocity, the difference in energy, etc. might be signficant, but it is nothing more than an opinion.
Which is a meaningless statement, bordering on ludicrous, given the potential of the 10mm to be downloaded to PRECISELY duplicate ANY and ALL past, present and future .40 S&W loadings.
When the 10mm precisely duplicates "ANY and ALL past, present and future .40 S&W loadings," then, and only then, can you reasonably extrapolate the the .40 S&W's historical effectiveness data do those particular loads that duplicate .40 S&W's load. If you change any of the variables (for example, velocity), then you can no longer reasonably extrapolate the data. In other words, your argument only holds true for 10mm loads that mirror precisely .40 S&W (which pretty well eliminates some of the more popular loads like the Texas Ammo, Buffalo Bore, Double Tap and even the Winchester Silvertip loads).

Plain Old Bill

June 14, 2006, 09:21 AM

All second place to the 45 ACP!!!

:) :neener: Yeah, I know...here come the flames! :neener: :)

roo_ster

June 14, 2006, 10:11 AM

Did anybdy cathc this tidbit from the firearmstactical.com pdf on the weapon trials leading to the adoption of the 10mm by the FBI (see image of text)?

An agent could buy & carry their own Sig or S&W in 9mm or .45ACP in addition to the issue S&W1076 10mm.

Beats the heck out of making everyone use the same hunk of tupperware.

warriorsociologist

June 14, 2006, 12:30 PM

Jc2, the differences in velocity that John mentions are not statistically significant - FWIW.

warriorsociologist

June 14, 2006, 12:33 PM

:evil: ;)

Wrong topic Mr. Bill (see title) - but since you brought it up, read item 2 under "Reasons for adopting the 10mm" in the paper I linked in my post at the top of page 2.

I'd be happy with a .45 too, but to me, the 10mm provides more capacity without sacrifice. :)

The original author wanted a "civil discussion" on the merits of 3 calibers. Please all...if you post here just to stir up trouble, please don't (Mr. Bill, I know your's was only in jest - no worries). If you read the entire post and then find a "hole" in the information that needs to be "filled", then by all means do so. To those who have a habit of doing so, please don't continue to make "trouble for trouble's sake" here... For those who would rather not waste anymore time with those who choose to not walk "the high road", there is an "ignore list" that works quite well. I added my first 2 names to it ever, in the 3+ years I have been here, today.

agtman

June 14, 2006, 01:39 PM

"A moderate, 190-grain Federal JHP, load was initially adopted."

Incorrect. Source, please?

As SA Hall states here:

http://www.firearmstactical.com/pdf/fbi_10mm_notes.pdf

and here:

http://www.textfiles.com/politics/GUNS/10mmpist.txt ...

... the first 10mm load created by the FBI was the 180gn "FBI Lite" load, a Sierra JHP @ 980fps. This is the duty ammo that Federal first produced and what the agents received for their 1076s. Federal's 190gn 10mm bonded JHP (designated "XM1003A") came later. From various chronograph sources, this load was spec-ed @ 1050fps/465fpe from the 4.25" tube of a S&W 1076.

Interestingly, as Hall states in his article, the then "commercially available" 10mm ammo (i.e., specifically, Norma's 170gn 10mm JHP @ 1300fps/638fpe) created unacceptable "heavy recoil and muzzle blast" - despite "the otherwise excellent performance of the round," i.e., the FTU testers liked the ballistic performance, penetration and "stopping power" attributes of the "full-power" Norma 170gn JHP, but given who would have to qualify with this load, other considerations took priority.

Hot Norma-level 10mm ammo, still fairly accessible in the late '80s, rendered qualification difficult for the general run of nonshooter "Mulder & Scully-type" agents, though not for the FBI's experienced shooters, virtually all of whom were men. At least as late as 1986, the Bureau was still mired in a gender discrimination lawsuit in federal court brought by female agents that had challenged, among other things, the Bureau's alleged "sexist firearms training." :rolleyes: So creating a dumbed-down version (velocity-wise) of the newly adopted 10mm AUTO, with which everyone could qualify, was, ... ah ... clearly a practical imperative. :scrutiny:

For those really interested in some "hidden history" involving the 10mm 1076 pistols themselves, provided for us by a now-retired agent (someone in a position to know the facts - and it's not that difficult to figure out who he was), you might check out the following link. It clears up a lot of errornet misstatements:

http://home.earthlink.net/~gnappi/history.htm

By the way, I for one am glad to see that no one's yet mentioned Double Tap 10mm ammo - or suggested how great it really is, or posted velocity, energy, penetration or expansion numbers for DT 10mm loads, as this would only aggravate jc2.

That would then lead to a series of posts between jc2 and others et. al, in which all manner of inane points get argued into a kind of reductio ad quibbling. (Okay, strictly speaking, that's not real Latin ;) ).

That, in turn, would prompt Johnny Guest to come flying in here (as with previous umpteen "10mm threads"), declare the party over, and lock it down faster than a Katrina refugee can spend a wad of FEMA money. :D :D :D :neener:

stiletto raggio

June 14, 2006, 03:05 PM

Fact: among the many factors of terminal ballistics are bullet weight, diameter and velocity.

Fact: as any of these factors increase, the overriding trend is that a bullet's stopping or killing power increases.

Fact: a moderate increase in velocity will, given identical bullets, generally produce increased penetration.

Fact: the .40 has an excellent record in documented police and civilian shootings.

Fact: the 10mm, in it's reduced loads, produce velocities equivalent to the .40 when loaded with identical bullets.

Fact: the 10mm, in it's full power loading, produces higher velocity than the .40 with the same weight and type of bullet.

Based on these facts, it can reasonable be determined that:

Conclusion one: the stopping record of the .40 can be logically applied to a reduced 10mm round because their external ballistics are identical.

Conclusion two: the full-power 10mm load will perform at least as well as its reduced-power counterparts but will most likely have increased performance as measured in terms of internal (terminal) ballistics.

Conclusion three: these improved terminal effects will most likely be manifested in increased penetration of a full-powered 10mm over the .40 or 10mm-lite.

To break briefly from the topic, if I offered you the choice of two envelopes, (A) which contains a single $100 bill and nothing else or (B) which will contain at least $100, which would you choose? The rational person would choose (B). They could be equal, but one has the potential to be greater.

Taking that as an example, a rational person would, all things being equal, choose a round that has at least as much power as the other round in question.

Now, there are other factors in whether you choose a .40 or a 10mm, such as ammo cost and availability, recoil, weapon size and availability, muzzle blast, etc, but these factors can only be considered subjectively based on the values and priorities of the shooter in question. Thus, you may rationally argue against all other qualities of a 10mm weapon, but its ballistic capabilities relative to the .40 are beyond reproach.

It shouldn't take a philosophy major to figure this out.

jc2

June 14, 2006, 03:52 PM

If it were only that simple!
Fact: as any of these factors increase, the overriding trend is that a bullet's stopping or killing power increases.
Not necessarily. For example, the light to middle weight .357 Magnums (which is a ballistic twin to the 10mm) have proven more effective in a LE/anti-personnel role than the super-fast heavy weight bullets (for example, the 170/180-grain bullets at 1400 fps).
the stopping record of the .40 can be logically applied to a reduced 10mm round because their external ballistics are identical.
Everybody has pretty much accepted that conclusion.
the full-power 10mm load will perform at least as well as its reduced-power counterparts but will most likely have increased performance as measured in terms of internal (terminal) ballistics.
Pure speculation on your part when it comes LE/anti-personnel and totally unsupported by any actual performance record.
these improved terminal effects will most likely be manifested in increased penetration of a full-powered 10mm over the .40 or 10mm-lite.
Ahhh, if were that simple when it comes to LE/anti-personnel roles, we could just chuck all our JHPs and go with FMJs for increased penetrtion and "improved terminal effects."

The bottom line remains the .40 S&W with middle to heavy weight bullets (165-grains/~1150 fps to 180-grains/~1000 fps) has proven to be very effective in a LE/anti-personnel role. We can probably safely extrapolate the .40 SW to the 10mm loaded with the same bullets at the same velocity. We cannot reasonably assume increasing the velocity (particularly if using bullets optimized for .40 S&W velocities) maintains or increases effectiveness--in fact, it is just as likely the exact opposite may result.

The 10mm is fun a calibre. It is a general purpose round in that with the right loads (for example, the 175-grain Silvertip) it makes an acceptable LE/defence weapon, and it can also be decent hunting round for smaller medium game, but there are better calibres for a strictly LE/anti-personnel role, and there are most certainly better calibres for hunting (though not available in an autoloader).

leadcounsel

June 14, 2006, 04:11 PM

Fact: among the many factors of terminal ballistics are bullet weight, diameter and velocity.

Fact: as any of these factors increase, the overriding trend is that a bullet's stopping or killing power increases.

Fact: a moderate increase in velocity will, given identical bullets, generally produce increased penetration.

Fact: the .40 has an excellent record in documented police and civilian shootings.

Fact: the 10mm, in it's reduced loads, produce velocities equivalent to the .40 when loaded with identical bullets.

Fact: the 10mm, in it's full power loading, produces higher velocity than the .40 with the same weight and type of bullet.

Based on these facts, it can reasonable be determined that:

Conclusion one: the stopping record of the .40 can be logically applied to a reduced 10mm round because their external ballistics are identical.

Conclusion two: the full-power 10mm load will perform at least as well as its reduced-power counterparts but will most likely have increased performance as measured in terms of internal (terminal) ballistics.

Conclusion three: these improved terminal effects will most likely be manifested in increased penetration of a full-powered 10mm over the .40 or 10mm-lite.

+1

And:
Stopping and killing power derives from a variety of factors including kinetic energy dump into the creature, speed of the bullet, size of the bullet, shot placement, wound depth, wound channel and disrupting organs and breaking bones.

Now, we know that the 10mm full power is faster and hits harder with more energy than the .40 caliber. We also know that it creates a larger wound channel and deeper penetration. This extra energy is then dumped into the bad guy. And, the added penetration may reach a bone or an organ that the .40 was unable too, or it may have the energy to break the bone that the .40 could not break.

Is this significant? Well, of the two options I'd rather shoot the bad guy with a bullet that creates a larger hole. It's not for ME to decide if that extra energy dump is significant, it's for the bad guy to decide.

Also, the added damage this bullet causes allows for slightly less accurate shot placement.

And, the added penetration of the 10mm is likely better than the .40 due to the extra energy. Say the bad guy is wearing body armor, partially concealed behind a wall, car door, windshield, etc. That added velocity and energy may reach and injure the bad guy where a .40 might fail.

Just a few thoughts on my end.

Barriers.

jc2

June 14, 2006, 04:45 PM

We also know that it creates a larger wound channel and deeper penetration.
We don't know the 10mm "creates a larger wound channel." That depends more on how the bullet performs than velocity or energy. We cannot even really say the 10mm results in deeper penetration (particularly with expanding bullets)--that really depends more on how the bullet performs than anything else. And, at some point, you reach a point of diminishing returns with penetration (at least when it comes to a LE/anit-personnel role--hunting is another matter). Even the most most deep-penetration fanatic generally acknowledges that anything over 18 inches is meaningless.
And, the added penetration may reach a bone or an organ that the .40 was unable too, or it may have the energy to break the bone that the .40 could not break.
May (or may not) is the operative word--again, probably more important in the hunting field than in LE/anti-personnel since the .40 S&W has already proven to be effective in that role (something the 10mm has not done because it is not as well suited to that role as the .40 S&W). It really boils down a whole lot of "mays," "mights," and "assumes"--unfortunately totally without historical performance record in actual use. We do, thanks to its wide-spread LE use--have pretty good idea of how the .40 S&W performs. It's more a case of a known (the .40 S&W) with a proven record of effectiveness as a LE/anti-personnel round versus an unknown (the 10mm) and a lot of wishful thinking and largely unsupported assumptions.

Guns_and_Labs

June 14, 2006, 06:14 PM

<snip> (something the 10mm has not done because it is not as well suited to that role as the .40 S&W). <snip> versus an unknown (the 10mm) and a lot of wishful thinking and largely unsupported assumptions.

The former is an personal conclusion. OK, not everyone agrees with you (and the .40 S&W got the same criticisms when it supplanted the .357 as the "manstopper"). There are quite a few LEO's that don't like the .40S&W.

The latter is an unfortunate dismissal of observations and reasoning that you don't happen to agree with. Personally I find animal studies at least as informative as ballistic lab studies, and field records are notoriously unscientific.

And neither is paying attention to the original thread subject.

I believe we started with, "wants to buy a new and different gun", and "may use it when camping and hiking", among other things. At least that's what got my attention. From that standpoint, the .357Mag might be a good move with big loads, and the 10MM is a great choice, IMHO. The .40S&W doesn't have a very good critter record, based on anecdotal evidence from FS & BLM Rangers and Animal Control Officers and watching a couple of cops try to hunt pigs with their service .40's. I don't know about the .357SIG.

The original post didn't ask about other calibers, but I wouldn't dismiss the .44Mag, in, for example, an S&W 629 Mountain Gun or the nasty little 329. Magnum loads for the woods, .44 Special defensive loads for the town... it has a lot going for it. It's just not concealable (for me).

agtman

June 14, 2006, 08:06 PM

"...totally without historical performance record in actual use."

:rolleyes: Seriously? You're making this up, right? :scrutiny:

You mean no bad guys have been shot by a LEO firing a 10mm pistol since the cartridge's introduction in 1983?

You mean police departments or LE agencies that issue or once issued a 10mm duty pistol, or that have allowed one to be carried by their officers/agents upon qualification, have never made and kept shooting records that carefully document the "performance record [of the gun and the ammo] in actual use"?

Do you understand the detailed paper trail created by an officer-involved shooting? Among other things, such paperwork documents things like number of rounds fired at the suspect, where he was struck, bullet performance indicia (mushrooming vs fragmentation, etc) and contains either the autopsy report itself or autopsy data pertinent to ballistic issues (e.g., bullet trajectory, depth of penetration, etc).

Backing up a bit, earlier in this thread there were numbers thrown around about how long the 10mm S&W 1076 was "issued" by the Bureau. Someone claimed it was 2 years, someone 5 years.

Actually, once the 1076s were issued in 1990, and even after they were re-issued to field agents once Smith fixed a Bureau-induced problem with the trigger units, the guns remained in service with senior field agents in significant numbers through the end of the 1990s, dwindling after 2001. The point here is that FBI shootings with the 10mm occurred in the field during this period, so there exists an actual, documented, "historical performance record" of how the FBI's 1076s and the issued 10mm ammo worked on the street (both the 180gn & 190gn loads).

The real issue is getting access to official records containing that shooting data involving the FBI's 10mm duty ammo, which it currently retains. Apparently, as I am told, the Ballistic Research Facility at Quantico, which has them, won't release them publically, but may do so to police departments or LEAs.

But there are also state and local police departments that complied shooting data involving their 10mm guns and ammo during the time this caliber was issued to their officers. (For the ambitious, and others who happen to have a lot of free time, these police records might be more easily accessed under a state's public-records law if it's got enough teeth in it, than by going the FOIA route against the Bureau).

Anyway, the link for the list of Depts and LEAs that used a 10mm has been posted before, but it's always nice to post it again whenever some know-it-all claims there's no actual "historical performance record," as if no department or agency ever issued or allowed a 10mm gun into police service. If a police-issued 10mm gun was ever fired, there'll be detailed documentation. This list is incomplete, as some departments that issued a 10mm aren't on it. Here's the link:

http://home.earthlink.net/~gnappi/10user.htm

For example, there's the Virginia State Police (not on the list) which, IIRC, once issued the S&W 1026. They used these guns for years and had a number of shootings during that period. There's a track record to be examined there. It exists, but again the question is accessing it.

The Kentucky State Police (KSP) not only issued the 10mm 1076 for over 12 years, but they switched their 10mm duty load several times during that period, moving away from the "FBI-Lite" ammo to the Winchester STHPs for a while. After that, they went to Georgia Arms' 180gn 10mm Gold Dot HP (@ 1150fps). GA loaded this ammo in nickel cases with the headstamp marked "KSP." The KSP likewise made and kept shooting records during these years documenting, among other things, the performance of their issued 10mm duty load during officer-involved shootings.

The fact that you might not have seen any of this data written up in, e.g., the pages of American Handgunner is not, as they say, "evidence of absence." ;)

:cool:

Guns_and_Labs

June 14, 2006, 09:32 PM

You mean no bad guys have been shot by a LEO firing a 10mm pistol since the cartridge's introduction in 1983?

Sonny Crockett in Miami shot LOTS of bad guys with his Bren Ten. One shot stops, usually. Does that count? :D

jc2

June 14, 2006, 10:09 PM

You mean no bad guys have been shot by a LEO firing a 10mm pistol since the cartridge's introduction in 1983?
Nope, I mean the 10mm with currently available loads doesn't have an established record of successful performance in a LE/anti-personnel role. We know the with current loads the .40 S&W performs effectively in a LE/anti-personnel role. The 10mm does not have enough of a record for us to determine how effectively (or ineffectively) it will perform in a LE/anti-personnel role (with the sole exception of possibly the 175-grain Silvertip which is probably its best current LE/anti-personnel load).

BTW, hasn't the Kentuck State Police pretty followed the lead of the rest of US law enforcement and adopted the .40 S&W? I know they dropped the 10mm several years ago.

Soybomb

June 14, 2006, 11:48 PM

jc2, did you get my PM about the poor performance of the doubletap loads you cited in another thread? I'd still love to read more about it.

stiletto raggio

June 15, 2006, 12:28 AM

You can't smoke a quitter and you can't convince the irrational.

Say you have a car with a ten gallon fuel tank. I modify that same car to give it a fifteen gallon fuel tank, making no other modifications. By the logic presented by some on this board, it is unreasonable to assume that the modified car will go further before needing to refuel.

By this logic, then, a charge of C4 that is powerful enough to blow a safe door off it's hinges may fail to do so if the charge is doubled. Two candy bars may not have double the total calories that one identical candy bar has. Sure, we don't know that it will be the case, but reasonable assumptions and derivations are the basis of functional human existence.

You are bringing up what is known as the "problem of induction." All of science--indeed, all of human civilization--is based on assumptions about the nature of the universe. Do you have proof that gravity will continue to function in tomorrow? In an hour? Thirty seconds? No, but you act as though you can make that assumption because to not do so would be irrational given the trend set forth through all of recorded history. Gravity has always worked, so we assume it will in all circumstances. That said, all science does is support or undermine the legitimacy of a hypothesis. Science does not prove things in a real sense.

Let's say the 10mm round never existed and we were building it from the ground up as round based on an extended .40 case. If you put the same powder behind the same .40 bullet, would you not think it reasonable to assume, before a single round was ever manufactured, that this would duplicate the performance of the "mother" .40 cartridge? We are talking about the laws of physics here. I would hope that nobody on this board thinks we should discount every assumption we make about the world outside our own heads simply because we can't prove that our assumptions will continue to be valid.

You can play word games all you want, but logic makes you out to be either a sophist, a fool, or both. After all, I can't prove that getting shot with a .40 won't turn me into a unicorn unless I try it and document it, right?

warriorsociologist

June 15, 2006, 02:44 AM

After all, I can't prove that getting shot with a .40 won't turn me into a unicorn unless I try it and document it, right?

LOL. Be careful... you never know... ;)

You know folks, life is better now that I have added a certain someone to my ignore list (especially seeing as though I actually have better things to do with my free time than argue with those that seem to begin with their minds irreversibly made up already).

My suggestion to all who have witnessed what's happening to this thread occur before...time and time again...is to just keep a file of links to the many threads that have ended up where this one is heading so that you can post them every time someone comes along with another legitimate question about either .40, 10mm, or .357 caliber ammunition or handguns. Then we won't have to revisit this nonsense and the new poster can see what evidence and judgment each contributor has brought to the table over the last few years. I am sure anyone armed with that knowledge will not have any trouble understanding how to value the contributions of everyone here.

Of course, I am sure that a certain someone will be hard-pressed not to point out that I am "assuming" *gasp* that a reasonable person will come to the same conclusions that most of us here have come to...but truthfully, I'm more than happy to make the bet that "said reasonable person" will do just that.

:)

So, in the spirit of getting this thread back on topic, I am reposting my initial response:

Leadcounsel,

If you have small hands, you'll want to stick with the .40 or consider a single stack 10mm (1911 or a now discontinued S&W 10xx series - though they will be heavier) if you want to move to a 10mm. One of the things you do want to do before racking your brain about this is to try to find & test fire a few 10mm handguns. The grip on a 10mm / .45 caliber Glock is significantly larger than a 9mm/.40/.357sig Glock. Most men with medium to large hands will have little trouble with the larger grip frame, but it will probably take some getting used to vs. the smaller glock frames.

FWIW, I can "grip" the 10mm G20 just fine, but I rarely carry it unless I am hiking, hunting, or in heavy clothes. It is more of an "everything gun" only if you want to include some short-range med game hunting/critter defense in your repertoire (though I prefer to hunt with a wheelgun if using 10mm FWIW & you will want to check your local min. barrel length laws carefully before hand either way). Anyway, it sounds like you will continue to be well served by a .40 or even a 9mm for EDC. Think of the .40 as a "10mm special" if you will - it still works just fine & there are lots of effective .40 cal factory loads out there. Most of the time, you don't "need" the extra "flash & bang / shock & awe" of a "magnum" round as "standard" rounds will often do just fine for most purposes. As much of a 10mm fan I am, my EDC actually rotates between a S&W 642 (.38 spec.) and a Glock 19 (9mm) 90% of the time. The way I figure it, I have 3 size categories of CCW pieces that I match with anticipated conditions & my clothing for that day. The j-frame is my pocket-carry "always gun", the G19 is taken when I have a sport coat/suit/sweater/etc. on, and the G20 gets the nod when I am less concerned about comfort and want to have "a little something extra" on tap if needed (hell, it's still smaller than the M9 I have to conceal in the military). YMMV.

Anyway, back to your original question. To me, it sounds like you are looking to possible sell off what you have and move to a .357 sig or 10mm....so my suggestion is "don't do it" and stick with what you have unless you think you might want to drop in a 6" barrel in a 10mm someday and hunt with it. P.S. If you really want a fast bottle-necked cartridge & are willing to pay for it in ammo costs, get a 10mm and then buy a 6" 9x25 Dillon conversion barrel (think .40 vs. 10mm = .357sig vs. 9x23...and then 9x25 - roughly speaking.). Whatever you choose, go and test fire a few of these before you make your call.

Good luck.
:cool:

leadcounsel

June 15, 2006, 03:23 AM

stiletto raggio

June 15, 2006, 09:30 AM

Rather, the only justifiable, rational conclusion.

To some people, the world will always be flat.

cookekdjr

June 15, 2006, 10:18 AM

We don't need to demonstrate the killing power of the 10mm. I'll do it with another example, smaller than 10mm.

We take an 8mm rifle bullet, or a 7.62x39, or a 7mm. They are all smaller in diameter than the .40 pistol bullet, but has signifcantly more powder.

The increase in powder give the bullet more speed and energy transfer/dump into a human. It creates a massive wound channel and destruction of bones and organs because of this incease in speed.

It is WELL documented that rifle bullets are significantly more potent against humans than ANY handgun rounds.

Therefore, the idea that the 10mm handgun cartridge, being the same diameter but FASTER due to MORE POWDER, delivering MORE Energy to the human target and will cause a greater wound channel and destruction and stopping power, is the ONLY conclusion one can come to.

Here's the thing: The .40 doesn't need anymore power or penetration. As a general rule, folks shot with this round end up dead or disabled. This round does perfectly what it was designed to do. When it hits bone, it shatters it. It makes a pretty big hole. When it hits a bad guy, he goes down. There is absolutely nothing lacking in the round from a power standpoint.
I believe adding more power to the .40 S&W is useless. Mind you, I've never shot a 10mm, so maybe I'm wrong. But the increased recoil could hinder accuracy and rate of fire. In exchange for what? Extra power that's un-necessary.
If you have a 10mm gun, and can shoot it fast and accurately, then more power to you (so to speak). I'm happy for you, you have the perfect hand cannon.
But I bet most people would fare better with the .40 S&W. By way of illustration: I prefer .40/.357/.45 over 9mm. By far. I wanted a reliable lightweight hi-cap polymer pistol. I found a good deal on used Glocks. . I was going to buy one in .40. I found that I could not shoot the .40 cal models accurately. Something about the way they sat in my hand prevented me from controlling recoil like I'd want. I just wasn't accurate enough in rapid fire. Because of that, I settled on a Glock 19. Why? Because even with +p+ ammo I could empty the clip (ok, "magazine") as fast as I could pull the trigger, and still hit what I was aiming for. So, I pick the 9mm loads I trust, and stick with 9mm even though I know .40 has more power.
Here's the difference with .40 and 10mm: .40 already has all the power you need from the beginning. Unless you are going to bear country, the added power is useless.
Like I said, I've never been exposed to 10mm performance, but I already know the .40 has all anybody needs in a defensive handgun.
-David

jc2

June 15, 2006, 10:42 AM

When discussing performance as a LE/anti-personal round, increasing MV/ME does not necessarily result in an increase in effectiveness of a handgun round (at least at currently achievable handgun MVs/MEs)

For example, increasing .40 calibre FMJ from ~1000 fps to ~1300 fps (~300 fps) would not increase the the bullet's effectiveness in a LE/anti-personnel role--basically, you will end up with a .40 calibre hole in and .40 calibre hole. By increasing the MV ~300, you will necessarily lose a little shootability, however. The only justifiable, rational conclusion is adding ~300 fps to the MV does not necessarily increase the effectiveness of a bullet in LE/anti-personnel role.

Another example (though a little a more hypthetical) would be a .36 calibre 125-grain SJHP at ~1450 fps MV that has proven an effective, albeit hard to shoot, LE/anti-personnel round. It routinely penetrates a rather shallow ~11-12 inches and fragments. If you increase that bullet's MV to ~1750 fps, chances are very good that you will decrease the bullet's already rather shallow penetration and increase its fragmentation resulting a less effective LE/anti-personnel round (and a significant decrease in controllability).

Another corresponding example would a 180-grain JHP that routinely delivers "textbook" expansion and penetration at ~1000 fps for LE/anti-personnel use (just like the engineers designed to do at ~1000 fps). Increase the MV ~300 fps, and you end up with a bullet folds back on itself within the first two-inches of penetration and becomes a little more than a .40 calibre ball round (with the penetration to match).

The only justifiable, rational conclusion is increasing MV does not always increase a bullet's effectiveness in a LE/anti-personnel role. Bullet effectiveness--especially when it comes to LE/anti-personnel use--is not necessarily a linear equation (as the MV increases the effectiveness increases)--there are a lot more variables at work than just MV and ME (including some not directly related to bullet performance like controllability).

Soybomb

June 15, 2006, 11:45 AM

Another corresponding example would a 180-grain JHP that routinely delivers "textbook" expansion and penetration at ~1000 fps for LE/anti-personnel use (just like the engineers designed to do at ~1000 fps). Increase the MV ~300 fps, and you end up with a bullet folds back on itself and becomes a little more than a .40 calibre FMJ round (with the penetration to match).
Sounds good except the documentation for this round doesn't show that happening. In fact with some bullets you get greater expansion, up to nearly an inch. Perhaps the engineers got the best expansion they could at 1000fps but theres more left if you can put more energy behind it. Either way I'll take proof over speculation in this case.

jc2

June 15, 2006, 11:57 AM

I was documenting the performance any particular load. It was just a hypothetical example.

If you are referring to the 180-grain Double Tap Gold Dot load and DT's "documentation," you need to remember that those results have not been duplicated by an independent, reputable, experienced, professionl ballistics lab or tester. They are figures provided by an amateur (at least when it comes to ballistics testing) whose primary purpose is to sell you his ammunition. Basically, his figures are a long, long ways from "proof."

At least one of the those reputable, professional, independent labs (you know, the ones LEAs actually pay to test ammo--NOT the ones trying to sell their own products) has openly questioned those results (and his methodology--ballistic testing is a more complicated than mixing up some Vyse and shooting it).

At least one other reputable poster (who happens to be 10mm fan) has posted pictures of that round he extracted from feral dogs which he had shot. His experience and pictures show a round that folds backs on itself and penetrates like ball. Despite DT's rather feeble first attempt at ballistic testing (and/or marketing their product) in actual use, the DT 180-grain Gold Dot actually performs very much like my hypothetical example.

DT's expansion and penetration figures aren't worth the bandwith they take-up. They are totally unverified by any form independent third party testing, and they bear no resemblance to what is happening in actual use. THERE is a reason why an actual historicial performance record is important.

stiletto raggio

June 15, 2006, 01:48 PM

If you have issues with DT, I suggest talking to Mike McNett. He is tremendously experienced with the 10mm, reloading it and, recently, producing it on a very large scale. The man has an excellent reputation and has helped a lot of people do what is best for them even though it undermines his sales. He continues to be a source of expert information of reloading the 10mm to full potential even though he now has a vested interest in convincing people to buy his ammo.

As for overexpansion, you are correct. The same .40 bullet may not perfrom well at increased velocities due to weakness in bullet construction. A bullet must be designed to perform within a certain range of velocities. However, numerous companies (say Hornady) have created bullets that are almost identical excpet for small aspects of their designs that are modified depending on the velocity it is intended for. For example, Hornady makes a 250 grain XTP for standard .45 Colt velocities and another 250 grain XTP for "magnum" level velocities. Saying that the bullet loaded in a .40 can't just be pulled, set in a 10mm case and be expected to perform well is quite rational, but only an amateur would attempt such a thing, not an experienced reloader or commercial premium ammo company.

jc2

June 15, 2006, 02:33 PM

I don't have an issue with Mike McNett or Double Tap (and I didn't introduce DT into the discussion), but DT's advertised test results need to be verified by at least one independent, professional ballistics lab/tester before they can be considered "documentation." I am not the only one who has questioned DT posted test results. They have been openly questioned by at least one qualified professional with credentials and experience in ballistic testing.

The very reasons you stated in your second paragraph is why I have insisted for the need of corresponding (and hopefully correlating) historical performance records. What little actual use penetration and expansion data I have found for DT's 180-grain Gold Dot (and that from hunting, not LE/anti-personnel, use) is very much at odds with the data which DT has published on their website.

The bottom line is DT sells velocity first and foremost. Even if the load in question performed better and more consistently (in terms of penetration and expansion) at 1200 fps, it would still be loaded to 1300 fps because, unfortunately, velocity sells (and especially when it comes to the 10mm).

I'll admit it's a matter of personal choice--YMMV--BUT before I bet life and limb on any load, regardless of calibre, I want to see two things: testing by an independent, professional third party and some sort actual performance data (because, while there is generally good correlation between the test results achieved by professional, experienced labs and actual results achieved in LE use, some loads that have performed well on the street have fared miserably in the lab, and some loads that have performed well in ballistic testing have been less than stellar on the street).

I wouldn't want to see this turned into a Double Tap thread (and I'm sure the moderators wouldn't either). We've already strayed to the very far edge of being on-topic as is. If somebody really wants to discuss DT, it would probably be to start a new thread (in the Autoloader Forum).

warriorsociologist

June 15, 2006, 02:57 PM

jc2, I couldn't resist looking at a few of your posts today - mostly because I could see them quoted in others' posts. I have to say that it does appear that you do have “chip” on your shoulder against Mike at Doubletap and based on that, we should take what you have to say here with a large grain of salt according to your very own logic. Many of us became 10mm fans because of the round's convincing performance...we are not simply cheerleaders for it because we were "born 10mm fans." It took me a long while to switch my primary hunting caliber from .357 to 10mm. I will sometime carry a 6” 686, but usually I take a 6.5” 610 or my 6” barrel equipped Glock 20 now (variety is “the spice…” right?) (and, in case anyone cares, soon, I'll probably be making the switch again to .45 Colt, though that will be due to nostalgia more than anything the 10mm lacks :cool: ). Anyway, I agree that Doubletap has “tapped” into the “velocity is king” market and that some of their lighter Gold dot loads don’t seem to hold up well at high velocities in tests on deer, wild dogs, and hogs. That said, McNett has done the shooting community a tremendous service in offering a range of very good 10mm rounds – esp. the 165gr GSHP and the 180 through 200+ grain XTP and WFN loads (I think there is a 180gr GSHP too).

Jc2, I have watched you for well over a year now on these forums. I appreciate the “mellowing” that has occurred in your last few posts but date, you seem to go out of your way to harass anyone who dares to post any 10mm performance data. In particular, you suggest that data from Mike McNett (owner of doubletap ammo & as such he has a vested interest in posting only "the good stuff") is not to be trusted.... Sure, it is reasonable to use caution when someone talks about anything they have a vested interest in...but again, to date, you have offered no evidence of your own that he has ever deliberately misled anyone. What you have done is demonstrated and long history of bias against anything 10mm - especially if it has "Doubletap" written on it – seemingly based on the fact that you seem to ignore any of the positive corroborating evidence posted over the last few years that supports Mike’s performance claims (like the dozens, if not hundreds of individuals who have chronoed the rounds themselves or posted hunting threads here and elsewhere). Instead, you pick and choose to reprint only the parts of posts that fit your already established opinions. So, by the very same logic you seem to be so determined to acknowledge anything positive about the 10mm’s performance, is it any wonder why few find your position on the 10mm very credible? You have become the very caricature of a "10mm is bad" salesman...someone who one should never expect to listen to others’ evidence and reasonable arguments because they are already invested in selling their own story.

So far jc2, in my opinion, you have in fact made two worthwhile points, and one was echoed by cookekdjr (the first is that velocity is not an end all/be all…but remember that this point cuts both ways…don’t say this and then use velocity alone to defend the .357mag). I completely agree that the ".40 is (more than) just fine." It works. It works because it was designed to mimic the “FBI lite” 10mm round. It was also designed before we had some of the bullets that we do now – bullets like Hornady’s 200gr. XTP that can take advantage of the 10mm’s extra velocity without failing (the “evidence of this comes in the forms of the MANY hunting threads that have documented this. Also, FWIW, Hornady makes an excellent SD round with the XTP).

So, let me further say that if someone is not a seasoned shooter or used to shooting warm/hot .45 auto, a reloader, or thinks he/she may someday hunt with an autoloader, I would steer them to a .40 (or maybe even a 9mm) over a 10mm. The 10mm comes into its own when you want to move beyond "normal" autoloader duty. Most people I have met at the range do find my Glock 19 (same side grip at the .40 cal Glock 23) easier to grip & hold than my Glock 20. They also generally shoot it noticeable better. I do think its shorter length allows the .40 to fit into a platform that fits most people's hands and experience levels better than a 10mm or .45 auto – not surprising since this is what it was designed to do. That said, these comments are generally about the .10mm vs. the .40 S&W pistol platforms only...not the cartridge itself. Since the .40 is a great performer in its own right, I feel confident in issuing "get what fits your hand - they're all good" recommendations because for the most part, they are all (modern 9mm, .357sig, .40, 10mm, .45…) "good enough" for LEO/SD use.

I guess one could look at the many people that pocket-carry alloy .38 spec j-frames instead of .357 magnum alloy j-frames for an analogy. Many people, myself included, consider the advancements in bullet design and purposeful “snubbie loadings” like Speer's 135gr +p "short barrel" .38 spec. round sufficient to enable us to opt for these more controllable rounds over their magnum counterparts when choosing something for such a light & small package. To me, the added recoil, wear and tear, and muzzle flash of a .357 magnum fed alloy j-frame is not worth it when there are such well-made .38 spec. loads available.

The same could be said of the .40 S&W - again, it was designed with this very idea in mind. The .40 is to the 10mm what the .38 Special is to the .357 magnum…sort of (though the .40 came after the 10mm, rather than the other way around). It was born from the realization that the 10mm didn’t need to be loaded to its full potential in order for it to produce extremely effective results. For those who to like the 10mm, it can be loaded hot for hunting or we can buy and or duplicate (by reloading) the current excellent .40 S&W LEO/FBI rounds. For me, since I have no trouble with the larger grip on my 10mm autos (several S&W 10xx series pistols and 2 Glocks), and since I reload, and since I do want the option of hunting with it, I chose the 10mm over the .40 a dozen or more years ago. YMMV.

jc2

June 15, 2006, 03:35 PM

Sure, it is reasonable to use caution when someone talks about anything they have a vested interest in...but again, to date, you have offered no evidence of your own that he has ever deliberately misled anyone.
I have never even suggested that Mike McNett or Double Tap has deliberately misled anyone so it's kind of foolish to ask for evidence that he as done so. The points I have ever made concerning DT's Gold Dot loads are:

1. The DT published penetration/expansion figures need to be verified by an independent, professional third party.

2. DT's published results have been openly questioned by at least one independent, professional tester (who is very familiar with Gold Dot performance).

3. Ballistic testing is not a job for amateurs--particularly amateurs trying to sell a product.

4. The DT loads lack any real world performance history in a LE/defence role.

5. What little evidence I've seen in the form of photographs and discussion (from a source I trust, BTW) indicates that DT's loads perform considerably differently in actual use (hunting--not LE/defence) than they do in DT's published gelatin test data.

6. There are sufficient legitimate questions about DT's actual performance that I won't risk it (or recommend it) when life and limb are at stake.

What you have done is demonstrated and long history of bias against anything 10mm
Nope, I've just said some things about the 10mm with which you (and a few other very vocal posters) disagree. I have 10mm handguns which I like very much and carry when I choose to carry a large (versus a pocketable) autoloader. In fact, the .357 Magnum replaced the 10mm as my carry gun because I prefer a revolver to a wheelgun where I'm at right now (and that means a relocation or change in job could conceivably put a 10mm back on my hip). The fact that I like the 10mm doesn't mean I have to put on blinders and toe the party line.

For a general purpose autoloader, it's hard to beat a S&W 10xx stoked with Silvertips (carried one for years), but when it comes to (1) specialized LE/defence handguns/calibres (and FWIW, I don't own nor want a .40 S&W) or (2) to specialized hunting handguns/calibres, there are better choices available than the 10mm (which is often misinterpretted--as it was by you--to mean I have a bias against the 10mm). Maybe, just maybe, what really needs to change is that you (and a few others) should be more willing to discuss the 10mm (and less quick to defend it).

JohnKSa

June 16, 2006, 01:39 AM

Sorry, folks. I know I said I wouldn't post on this thread again, but this is too much.I have never even suggested that Mike McNett or Double Tap has deliberately misled anyone...That's not true.

You have repeatedly said that his numbers are questionable due to his lack of expertise in terminal ballistics testing. Here's an example...the penetration and expansion "data" Mike McNett provides for his loads (Double Tap) is at best highly questionableOne could argue that saying "at best" is, in and of itself an implication that they are not just questionable but deliberately misleading. Quoting the word 'data' could be seen as an implication that his numbers are not even measurements but are made up.

HOWEVER, it's not necessary to debate those points because you go a step further on another thread and imply that he used his influence in a deliberate attempt to squelch public inquiries regarding his testing data.The Gold Dot figures McNett published in the thread you describe as a "General DT Info Article" need to be taken with a very large grain of salt... There have been some posts questioning/discussing Mike's "results" on Glock Talk ... but they have all disappeared. It probably has something to do with Mike being a moderator and a major contributor to Glock Talk.Your implication that he had the posts deleted is also an implication that he has something to gain by squelching questions about his testing results. Something that would not be true if he believed them to be correct.The fact that I like the 10mm...I think that you're severely underestimating the intelligence of THR members.

Your main points on this thread have been that the velocity and energy advantages of the 10mm over the .40 do not imply superior performance.

At the same time, you have been arguing on ANOTHER (http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=205339) thread that the velocity and energy advantages of the .357Magnum over the 10mm do, in fact, imply superior performance. As do the velocity and energy advantages of the .41 Magnum over the 10mm.

On this thread, energy and velocity advantages are meaningless and therefore 10mm is therefore no better than the 40.
On the other thread, energy and velocity advantages are good and therefore the .357 is better than the 10mm. And the same argument is used to show that the .41Magnum is also better than the 10mm.

On this thread, the limited usage of the 10mm as an LE/anti-personnel caliber is a definite negative worth many repetitions and therefore the .40 is more desirable than the 10mm.
On the other thread, the limited usage of the .41Magnum as an LE/anti-personnel caliber isn't even worth so much as a mention and therefore your assessment of the .41Mag as "much better than the 10mm" is in no danger.

The only thing these blatantly contradictory premises have in common is that in all cases, the 10mm comes out on the short end of the stick if the reader takes your word for it.

Do you have an explanation for why you would simultaneously argue contradictory premises that disparage a caliber you like?

Here, I'll give you a start based on a summary of your comments from both threads.

The 10mm is:

Too fast (possibly causing bullet failure), too slow (not as good as .357Magnum)
Too energetic (to justify the effective performance it provides), not energetic enough (to be as good as the .357Magnum)
It's not as good as calibers with less energy (like the .45ACP, .40 S&W) that have voluminous service records, and also not as good as calibers with equally sketchy service records but with more energy (like the .41 Magnum).
It can't handle heavy enough bullets (like the .41 Magnum can), but it's not as good as calibers (like the .40S&W) that can't handle bullets as heavy as it can.
It's not as good as smaller more portable firearms (like the .40) and also not as good as larger more bulky firearms (like the .41 Mag.)
It's the ballistic twin of the .357Magnum, and at the same time it's not as powerful as the .357Magnum.
It compares favorably to some .41Magnum loadings, but it's misleading for anyone but you to say so.

jc2

June 16, 2006, 08:33 AM

Well, it had been a fairly civil discussion for a while. :rolleyes:

Deer Hunter

June 16, 2006, 10:48 AM

Until your logic was ripped a new one.

As for my imput, all I can do is chime in on what others have already stated. The 10mm has the ballistics of a .357, but with heavier bullets, larger caliber, and availible in high-capacity automatic handguns. THe .40 S&W is a nice round, but no matter how you dice it, it will never be as strong as the 10mm. It will still take a man down, but the 10mm will do it just as well or better. The 10mm has a lot going for it. For me, I believe that the issue lies in one simple fact: People hunt with the 10mm, not the .40 S&W.

I've seen rather large white-tails taken down with the 10mm. The same deer shot with a .40S&W would require much tracking, something I detest.

jc2

June 16, 2006, 12:51 PM

Until your logic was ripped a new one.
Nope, until he popped in with a bunch of half-truths, distortions, misrepresentations and quotes pulled way out of context.
The 10mm has the ballistics of a .357, but with heavier bullets, larger caliber, and availible in high-capacity automatic handguns.
Yep, there never has been any doubt that the 10mm can be had in a capacity high autoloader while the .357 Magnum is generally available in six-shot revolvers. That's why I usually describe the 10mm is the autoloader equivalent of the .357 Magnum.

Yep, there never has been any doubt the 10mm is a whopping four one hundreths bigger in diameter than the .357 Magnum if you really want to get excited about four one hundreths of an inch more power to you.

As for heavier bullets, the .357 Magnum and 10mm both handle bullets up to 200-grains (and I personnally wouldn't go over 200-grains in either of them). Since you mentioned hunting, we should note that a 180-grain .357 Magnum bullet has a greater sectional density than the 200 grain or even the 215-grain 10mm. That extra sectional density will give you better penetration (which is generally what you're looking for in a heavy hunting round).

Frankly, if you want to go over 200-grains, you're much better off with a .41 or .44 Magnum than with a .357 Magnum or 10mm.
THe .40 S&W is a nice round, but no matter how you dice it, it will never be as strong as the 10mm.
Nope, and nobody said it was. What was said, however, that the .40 S&W is a better choice as specialized LE/defence calibre for a number of reasons.
The 10mm has a lot going for it. For me, I believe that the issue lies in one simple fact: People hunt with the 10mm, not the .40 S&W.
Yep, the 10mm does have lot going for it. In fact, I have two, and if I ever feel compelled to go back to carrying an autoloader again, my 1076 will probably go back on my hip. If somebody is buying handgun primarily for hunting and absolutely insists they want an autoloader, I recommend a 10mm (though there are certainly better choices available for hunting than the 10mm or the .357 Magnum).

I have done a lot of deer hunting, and I while I wouldn't recommend the .40 S&W for the role (it is far better suited for a LE/defence role), if you watch your range and shot placement, and pick your shot, you shouldn't have a tracking problem--now if someone were to get a bad case buck fever and just go out there and blast away, they might need a 10mm and all 16 rounds in a high capacity autoloader (and still have tracking problem). Frankly, I've never needed more than one round of my six (and haven't had any nasty tracking jobs).

lbmii

June 16, 2006, 03:55 PM

One should consider the barrel length that one will be using when choosing a round. Some rounds do better in short barrels than others. Notice below the 40 S&W Glock 27 verses a two inch barrel 357 MAG. If you measure the revolver the same way as you measure the auto; the 2" revolver barrel plus the cylinder measures 3 5/8 inches. The Glock 27 has a 3 1/2 inch barrel. As you can see from the photo below the two pistols are very similar in size.

http://www.thehighroad.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=28225&d=1125289057

From my own average velocity readings:

My Glock 27:

155 Speer GDHP................1106 fps / 421 energy 76 momentum
155 Win Ranger T..............1151 fps / 456 energy 79 momentum
165 Win Ranger T..............1093 fps / 438 energy 80 momentum
180 Win Ranger T...............896 fps / 321 energy 72 momentum
180 Rem HP.......................947 fps / 358 energy 76 momentum

My Rossi 357 MAG:

158 PMC SJSP.................... 968 fps / 329 energy 68 momentum
158 Federal SJSP................1022 fps / 366 energy 72 momentum
125 Federal SJHP................1145 fps / 364 energy 64 momentum

The 357 Mag and the 40 S&W are similar. The 357 will really come to life and out power the 40 in longer barrels but the 40 out powers the 357 in shorter barrels. Also the 40 does have the advantage of having a wider bullet.

My carry load for the Glock 27 is the mild Winchester 180 grain Ranger T.

My carry load for the Rossi is the Federal 125 SJHP 357 MAG.

I also have a 5 1/3" barrel Glock 35. My carry load is the Speer Gold Dot 155 grain that does 1245 fps / 533 energy 86 momentum.

critrxdoc

June 16, 2006, 05:32 PM

Dude, why are you even trying to justify yourself. There is nothing that you can possibly say to dig yourself out of what was just discussed by Johnksa. Just Find a new userid.

jc2

June 16, 2006, 07:26 PM

What John discussed was a stawman he built with misquotes, half-truths, distortions and misrepresentations. It's a better example of a gross prevarication than a discussion.
Too fast (possibly causing bullet failure), too slow (not as good as .357Magnum)
Any calibre can push a bullet beyond its design parameters and possibly cause a bullet failure. Most shooters understand that (and realize its not limited to the 10mm). As for the "too slow" and "not as good as the .357 Magnum," that's just John making stuff up. I have always described the .357 Magnum and 10mm as "ballistic twins"--the 10mm is nothing more or less than the autoloader equivalent of .357 Magnum.
Too energetic (to justify the effective performance it provides), not energetic enough (to be as good as the .357Magnum)
I don't know really know where he gets this from. With full-power loads both the 10mm and .357 Magnum can be a little hard to control for the casual shooter (including many LEOs). The .357 Magnum and the 10mm pretty match each other across the board (in fact, the 10mm is the autoloader equivalent of the .357 Magnum) so "not energetic enough to be as good as the .357 Magnum" is just more of John's fabrications.
It's not as good as calibers with less energy (like the .45ACP, .40 S&W) that have voluminous service records, and also not as good as calibers with equally sketchy service records but with more energy (like the .41 Magnum).
The 10mm is not as well suited ("good" if you will) in a LE/defence role as some of the service calibres. I don't ever recall recall recommending the .41 Magnum for LE/defence use so this is probably just another example of John's "creativity" at work here.
It can't handle heavy enough bullets (like the .41 Magnum can), but it's not as good as calibers (like the .40S&W) that can't handle bullets as heavy as it can.
The 10mm cannot handle as heavy of bullets as the .41 Magnum can. It's not rocket science, but rather common knowledge among knowledgable shooters (even though it's evidently news to John). Yes, the .40 S&W is probably better in an LE/defence role than the 10mm (but then you don't normally use a 10mm 215-gain gas-checked lead bullets--the only heavier bullet commercially loaded for the 10mm--in a LE/defence role).
It's not as good as smaller more portable firearms (like the .40) and also not as good as larger more bulky firearms (like the .41 Mag.)
The fact that calibres like the .40 S&W are available smaller, more portable arms is one of the reasons they are better suited for LE/defence than the 10mm (LEAs have definitely "voted with their feet" on that one). Calibres like the .41 Magnum and .44 Magnum are better suited for hunting than the 10mm (and since the 10mm has been available in the same sized weapon, I have no idea what planet from which John got "larger and more bulky"). What I have actually said many times is the 10mm is a good general purpose round (suitable for defence and hunting), but there are better calibres for specialized LE/defence use, and there are much better calibres for hunting. Most knowledgable shooters do not put the 10mm (~700 fpe) in the same class as the .41 Magnum (~1000-1100 fpe) or the .44 Magnum (~1200-1250 fpe) when it comes to hunting. Again, no rocket science here.
It's the ballistic twin of the .357Magnum, and at the same time it's not as powerful as the .357Magnum.
It is the ballistic twin of the .357 Magnum--nothing more or less. The "not as powerful as the .357 Magnum" is just another example of John's lack of familiarity with honesty.
It compares favorably to some .41Magnum loadings, but it's misleading for anyone but you to say so.
Of course, hot 10mm loads compare favourably to some powder puff .41 Magnum from the big three . . . and it is very misleading when you do not explain you are comparing the hottest to 10mm loads to the mildest .41 Magnum loads. For example, I could point out that some 9x19 loads (at 441 fpe) compare "favorably" to some 10mm loads (425 fpe), but it would intellectually dishonest (a concept with which John is very familiar) not to point out that I am probably comparing one of the hottest 9x19 available to one of the mildest 10mm loads available (and I'm sure most of you would be justifiably offended if tried even though John thinks it's an acceptable practice).

JohnKSa

June 16, 2006, 10:27 PM

...until he popped in with a bunch of half-truths, distortions, misrepresentations...You know, as I was punching the quote button I was thinking EXACTLY the same thing! ...But I really didn't expect you to confess so readily! :D :D As for heavier bullets, the .357 Magnum and 10mm both handle bullets up to 200-grainsOf course you know (since I quoted from the DT website to you yesterday (http://www.thehighroad.org/showpost.php?p=2509873&postcount=20)) that the 10mm will handle bullets up to 215grains, and based on DT's numbers will even shoot that bullet faster than their .357Mag loading of a similar 200gr bullet.10mm DT 215gr WFNGC Hardcast 1225fps/ 717 ft./lbs. - Glock 20
357Mag DT 200gr WFNGC Hardcast 1200fps / 640 ft/lbs. - 4" Ruger GP-100What John discussed was a stawman he built with misquotes, half-truths, distortions and misrepresentations.I posted links and used ONLY information from this forum. Everything I posted can be readily verified by any member of this forum.I have always described the .357 Magnum and 10mm as "ballistic twins"...The "not as powerful as the .357 Magnum" is just another example of John's lack of familiarity with honesty.Always? You mean that if I can find an example of you arguing that the .357Mag is better than the 10mm you'll apologize for calling me a liar? Then what about two days ago when you posted this:Actually, "hot" 10mm loads out of Glock 20 barely reach the same energy levels of "hot" factory loads loads out of a four-inch 686.That was the post where you compared a 200 gr bullet 10mm loading to a 180gr bullet .357Mag loading and since that obviously wasn't lopsided enough, you inflated the energy number for the .357Mag loading...

Then there was this post yesterday:not only does the .357 Magnum deliver more muzzle energy 180-grains than Double Tap does at 180, 200, and 215 grains, it also delivers more sectional density. In other words, you can reasonably expect the Buffalo Bore 180-grain .357 Magnum load to outperform Double Tap's 180-grain, 200-grain and 215-grain loads in the field due its superior ballistics ...To call the 10mm the ballistic twin of the .357 Magnum might be a little being over generous to the 10mm.The real kicker is that while you were using energy to prove that the .357Mag would "outperform" the 10mm, you were arguing on this thread that the 10mm's energy advantage over the .40S&W was meaningless.I don't ever recall recall recommending the .41 Magnum for LE/defence use Good! 'Cause I don't recall saying you did. ;)

I'm not going to go through your post line by line because you're clearly missing the point. Yes, many of the statements you made were correct. The problem is that you are impressively inconsistent in the way you apply them.

For example: If handling heavier bullets makes the .41Mag better than the 10mm (a true statement) then logically handling heavier bullets makes the 10mm better than the .40S&W. But you argue that in the latter case it's meaningless while simultaneously maintaining that it's a significant advantage in the former. it is very misleading when you do not explain you are comparing the hottest to 10mm loads to the mildest .41 Magnum loads.You must be referring to this post...

I'll quote it here and see if anyone thinks it's misleading.

"interesting that the 180gr and 215gr loadings from Double-Tap exceed the energy figures for the 180gr and 210gr .41Magnum loadings offered by Federal (respectively). It's only the super-heavyweight 250gr Castcore from Federal's .41 Mag offerings that finally pulls away from the 10mm. Of course there are much heavier loadings for the .41Mag out there, but clearly the 10mm can reach and even exceed the performance level of some common .41Mag factory loads." I compared Federal's ENTIRE .41Mag line to the 10mm. I pointed out that the 250gr load outperformed the 10mm. I then went a step farther and noted that there are "much heavier loadings for the .41Mag out there".

Then, I was VERY careful to qualify my comparison as being between the 10mm and "SOME COMMON FACTORY" loads.

I didn't cherry pick loads from the Federal line. I used them all.
I was objective enough to note the loading that outperformed the 10.
I was careful to point out that there were "much heavier loadings out there"
I made it clear that the comparison was only the 10mm vs SOME COMMON factory loadings, not a sweeping comparison of the two cartridges.

I find it ludicrous that you can even so much as imply that this was a misleading comparison. Honestly, you would do well to hold yourself to the same standards of objectivity, clarity and attention to accuracy.

BTW, your post is MOST notable for what you chose NOT to respond to. I'll let you figure that one out on your own.

NordicG3K

June 16, 2006, 10:34 PM

Must not post... Must not, must not get sucked in... Resist... Must resist...

Oh well, that lasted about 30 seconds...

In my opinion, if you don't mind a few less rounds in the mag and a slightly bigger gun (on average) then there's no reason not to opt for the 10mm over the .40 S&W. With light loads the 10mm duplicates the performance of the .40 S&W. When loaded with identical bullets to identical velocities there is no argument because there is no difference. The reason the 10mm Auto is a superior choice today is the exact same reason the F.B.I. chose the cartridge in the first place over a decade ago, and can be summed up in one word--- "potential."

During the original F.B.I. testing the two .45 loads actually performed better than the 10mm test load. Only marginally better, but still better. Then why did the F.B.I. go with the 10mm? The reason is simple. The .45 loads tested were maximum performance for the .45 at that time, while the 10mm load was at the low end of its performance spectrum. By going with the 10mm agents could pack a load that was basically equal to the .45 (which was what the F.B.I. really wanted in the first place), but could dramatically upgrade the power of their duty guns by simply slapping in a mag of full-power ammo.

This is why I prefer the 10mm to all other cartridges when selecting a carry gun. If I'm going to be walking around town I can load up with Federal 190gn JHPs and feel completely comfortable with my gun/load combo. Should I decided to head out to the woods all I have to do is grab a couple mags of Silvertips or Doubletaps and I'm ready for just about any four-legged critter I might encounter in my neck of the woods.

I am not a ballistician, nor do I play one on T.V. (or the internet for that matter). This is just what makes sense to me and I see no need to change what works.

jc2

June 17, 2006, 11:01 AM

Fortunately, John has provided us with some very good examples "JohnKSa Technique":

What John quoted to build a strawman:
Originally Posted by jc2 (cut and paste by JohnKSa)
As for heavier bullets, the .357 Magnum and 10mm both handle bullets up to 200-grains
Then uses that quote as strawman:
Originally Posted by JohnKSa
Of course you know (since I quoted from the DT website to you yesterday) that the 10mm will handle bullets up to 215grains, and based on DT's numbers will even shoot that bullet faster than their .357Mag loading of a similar 200gr bullet.
You'd think I'd totally ignored the 215-grain bullet based on John's creative use of cut and paste (quoting only the first half half of one sentence). Now, for what was really said before JohnKSa got creative:
As posted before the application of "JohnKSa Technique":
As for heavier bullets, the .357 Magnum and 10mm both handle bullets up to 200-grains (and I personnally wouldn't go over 200-grains in either of them). Since you mentioned hunting, we should note that a 180-grain .357 Magnum bullet has a greater sectional density than the 200 grain or even the 215-grain 10mm. That extra sectional density will give you better penetration (which is generally what you're looking for in a heavy hunting round).
Now, another example of the "JohnKSa Technique":
Originally Posted by jc2 (cut and paste by JohnKSa)
not only does the .357 Magnum deliver more muzzle energy 180-grains than Double Tap does at 180, 200, and 215 grains, it also delivers more sectional density. In other words, you can reasonably expect the Buffalo Bore 180-grain .357 Magnum load to outperform Double Tap's 180-grain, 200-grain and 215-grain loads in the field due its superior ballistics ...To call the 10mm the ballistic twin of the .357 Magnum might be a little being over generous to the 10mm.
Now, for the original before application of the "JohnKSa Technique" (emphasis added):
As posted before the application of "JohnKSa Technique":
So, if you really want to compare hot loads mild loads, the .357 Magnum clearly blows the 10mm out of water. ;)

It's interesting to note when you start comparing sectional densities (which is actually more important than bullet weights when it comes to penetration in hunting), the 180-grain .357 Magnum bullet has a greater sectional density than either the 200-grain or 215-grain bullet. So, not only does the .357 Magnum deliver more muzzle energy 180-grains than Double Tap does at 180, 200, and 215 grains, it also delivers more sectional density. In other words, you can reasonably expect the Buffalo Bore 180-grain .357 Magnum load to outperform Double Tap's 180-grain, 200-grain and 215-grain loads in the field due its superior ballistics (though, to be technical the differences--which does favour the .357 Magnum--probably really aren't significant). To call the 10mm the ballistic twin of the .357 Magnum might be a little being over generous to the 10mm. :cool:

Hey, John, let's not hi-jack this thread into another .357 Magnum-10mm argument. We both know that in any reasonable comparison of hot 10mm loads to hot .357 Magnum loads there's not enough difference to make difference. The only question really is do you want to get there in an autoloader or a revolver.
(1) John chose to leave out the context in which the remark was which was clearly tongue-in-cheek. (2) John didn't include the "smilies" which indicated a humorous, less than serious response. (3) Then he also chose to cut the serious closing statement: "We both know that in any reasonable comparison of hot 10mm loads to hot .357 Magnum loads there's not enough difference to make difference. The only question really is do you want to get there in an autoloader or a revolver."

lbmii

June 17, 2006, 11:30 AM

I think it might be better to place the 40 S&W and the 357 Mag together and the 10 mm and the 41 mag together.

Note my velocity readings in my above posts.

jc2

June 17, 2006, 12:19 PM

I don't really think so (Buffalo Ammunition):

.357 Magnum 4 inch S&W L frame Mountain Gun
180 gr. Hard cast LFN -1375 fps/756 fpe
170 gr. JHC -1411 fps/750 fps
158 gr. Speer Uni Core -1485 fps/774 fpe

.41 Magnum 4 inch S&W N frame Mountain Gun
265 gr. LWN-GC - 1310 fps/1010 fpe
230 gr. SWC - 1370 fps/959 fpe
170 gr. JHP- 1551 fps/908

10mm 5 inch 1911-type
200 gr. FMJ-FN - 1200 fps/639 fpe
180 gr. Speer Uni Core - 1350 fps/728 fpe

It's pretty clear the .357 Magnum has a slight (but not signficant) energy (and sectional density) advantage over 10mm, but for all practical purposes they are ballistic twins. Double Tap loads their 10mm slightly hotter and their .357 Magnum slightly milder, but they are are still in the same range. When you compare the hottest 10mm loads to the hottest .357 Magnum loads, there's not enough difference to make a difference. The major difference is .357 Magnum is normally found in revolvers and 10mm is normally found in autoloaders.

When you compare the .357 Magnum and 10mm to the .41 Magnum, the .41 Magnum has the clear advantage over both of them outstripping the 10mm by almost 60% with heavier bullets.

It's pretty clear when we look at these numbers (and remember the .357 Magnum was not designed as defence cartridge as pocketable two-inch but as a hunting cartridge for a large frame revolver) the .357 Magnum and 10mm belong in one family while the .41 Magnum is in a totally different league.

All that being said, and FTR, if I had to choose between a two-inch Rossi (of all things) in .357 Magnum and a G27 in .40 S&W, I'd pick the G27 in .40 S&W because it is better suited in that role.

JohnKSa

June 17, 2006, 08:44 PM

You'd think I'd totally ignored the 215-grain bullet based on John's creative use of cut and paste (quoting only the first half half of one sentenceThe quote is from your post directly above mine. Do you really think that not quoting the entire paragraph constitutes some sort of attempt to mislead?

If you knew that the 10mm would handle 215gr bullets then why make the comment that "the .357 Magnum and 10mm both handle bullets up to 200-grains"? The clause "up to" is a limiting clause and implies "up to and no higher". My whole post was in large part about your inability to be consistent and your attempt to argue both sides of the argument--this was a classic example.

So let me get this straight: YOU make an incorrect statement and then follow it up immediately with a comment that indicates you KNEW it was incorrect when you made it--and then when I point it out the original error, that's showing that I've got a problem. Wow...

As far as your second objection, it's identical to the first. In a SINGLE paragraph you started by arguing that sectional density and velocity favor the .357Mag, then end it by saying that the advantage PROBABLY isn't significant, then tack on a statement indicating that the advantage might be significant after all (that you now say is an attempt at humor).

Trying to argue both sides of the argument at once in an attempt to make sure that a person can't answer you for taking either position is pure craziness. If you think the .357Mag is superior to the 10mm then say so and defend your premise. Saying it's superior and then saying it's not and then that it is again makes it hard to argue against you, but only because it's hard to get hold of a spinning top. And it's a PERFECT EXAMPLE OF YOUR AMAZING INCONSISTENCY in the way you try to argue your points.

Here are some very basic principles of debate: YOU CAN'T HAVE BOTH SIDES OF THE SAME ISSUE AND STILL BE RIGHT!
YOU CAN'T CONTRADICT YOURSELF TWICE IN A SINGLE PARAGRAPH WHILE MAINTAINING THAT YOUR POSITION IS CORRECT!
YOU CAN'T USE THE SAME ARGUMENT BOTH FOR AND AGAINST A SINGLE PREMISE.
You've employed these techniques frequently because it confuses the issue and because when you are called on one argument, you can merely bring up a place where you argued the opposite to "prove" that the person debating you is confused.

A CLEAR example is in the post immediately above this one. After ranting in one post that you believe the .357Mag and the 10mm are not significantly different and berating me for saying that you favor the .357Mag, you posted again--this time with some data favoring the .357Magnum over the 10mm . And then you tacked on this "winding" sentence:It's pretty clear the .357 Magnum has a slight (but not signficant) energy (and sectional density) advantage over 10mm, but for all practical purposes they are ballistic twins.In a SINGLE sentence you say that the 357 has two advantages but that at least one is not significant and then end up by saying that they're twins.

If they're twins, how many times do you need to say it to prove it?

And if you're really trying to convey they're identical, then why do you need to keep quoting loading data that you claim shows that the .357Mag has an advantage? It just doesn't make sense, except that it allows you to keep trying to "prove" the superiority of the .357Mag while also trying to deflect criticism by saying repeatedly that you think the superiority "isn't significant."

If they're twins then say so and be done with it.

If you think that the .357Mag is superior and you need to argue and post data to prove the point then why keep saying over and over that they're twins and the advantages are not significant.

You've spent a large amount of time posting contradictory arguments, arguing both sides of the same issue and using the same arguments for and against the same premise. You can't blame people for finding these inconsistencies and quoting them back to you.

You're like someone passionately arguing that the world is flat, but ending every statement by saying that it might be round. Then when anyone tries to answer your "world is flat" arguments you get irate and try to counter by pointing out that you ALREADY said it might be round. Sure, it's hard to lose if you take both sides of the argument, but it's not productive unless your only goal is debate for debate's sake.

Again, the MOST significant aspects of your post are the things you chose not to address. And you can rest assured in knowing I'm not the only one who sees what you're avoiding.

P95Carry

June 17, 2006, 08:56 PM

Watching this is like watching folks try to go down the up escalator ;)

There has been some most interesting input but seems part of the latest battle of words is not resolving some basic differences of opinion and argument techniques.

I hope things stay civil but detect some frustrations!! It may soon be time to let this thread rest!

jc2

June 17, 2006, 09:13 PM

John, it is entirely possible for slight differences not to be significant. When you compare the hottest .357 Magnum loads (Buffalo Bore) with the hottest 10mm loads (Double Tap), the .357 generally has a slight advantage in ME over the 10mm, but that difference is so small as not to be signfiicant.

A 180-grain 10mm load has a ME 728 fpe, and a 180-grain .357 Magnum load has a ME 756 fpe--the .357 Magnum clearly as a slight advantage in ME over 10mm, but that advantage (28 fpe) is not significant. It's not a contradictin, and it's not rocket science, John. Even though there are some minor differences in ME, those differences are not signficant.

There is absolutely no contradiction in the stating the .357 Magnum has a slight ME advantage over the 10mm and describing that slight ME advantage as not significant. For all practical purposes (despite some slight ME differences that generally favour the .357 Magnum), the 10mm is the autoloader equivalent of the .357 Magnum. They are ballistic twins.

JohnKSa

June 17, 2006, 09:29 PM

P95,

Rather than simply locking the thread, I recommend you deal quickly and effectively with the person or persons who are the cause of any unpleasantness that may arise, delete any posts inconsistent with the THR philosophy and then let the thread continue.

I support the new forum rules 100% and have voiced the level of my endorsement of the new strategy HERE (http://www.thehighroad.org/showpost.php?p=2509829&postcount=59).

it is entirely possible for slight differences not to be significant. Not only do I agree, I kind of think it goes without saying. :D ;)...the 10mm is the autoloader equivalent of the .357 Magnum. They are ballistic twins.And there you have it folks!

The .357Mag and the 10mm are ballistically identical for practical purposes.

Whew!

That's half of the original question answered.

Now that we all agree that the .357Mag and the 10mm are twins for practical purposes, we just need to figure out how the ballistically identical performance of these two cartridges relates to that of the .40S&W.

jc,

Since you have stated repeatedly and in no uncertain terms that the 10mm and the .357Mag are "for all practical purposes equivalent", (also berated me and others for suggesting you believe anything other than this--and spent your entire last post affirming their equivalence) we don't even have to bring the 10mm into this part of the comparison.

So would you say that the .357Mag is superior to the .40S&W?

jc2

June 17, 2006, 10:47 PM

The .357Mag and the 10mm are ballistically identical for practical purposes.

Whew!

That's half of the original question answered.
John, I've been saying that for years (and more than once in this thread). Where have you been? It's not like it's anything new.
So would you say that the .357Mag is superior to the .40S&W?
If that was your question, why didn't you ask it four days ago? The answer the same as it is for the 10mm: the .40 S&W (and other service calibres) are better suited for LE/defence than the .357 Magnum (matter of fact, I've already said words to that effect in this thread).

Just like the 10mm, the .357 Magnum is great general purpose calibre. Just like the 10mm, the .357 Magnum is suitable for defence and hunting (at least up to smaller medium game). Just like the 10mm, there are better calibres for a dedicated LE/defence role, and there are better calibres for a dedicated hunting role. John, it's not rocket science. The 10mm is the autoloader equivalent of the .357 Magnum.

It's just like I've said numerous times, John. I have (and like) 10mm handguns. I consider them interchanable with my .357 Magnum handguns; I just lean toward revolvers (at least for the present--it hasn't always been that way).

warriorsociologist

June 17, 2006, 10:52 PM

John, it is entirely possible for slight differences not to be significant. When you compare the hottest .357 Magnum loads (Buffalo Bore) with the hottest 10mm loads (Double Tap), the .357 generally has a slight advantage in ME over the 10mm, but that difference is so small as not to be signfiicant.

:rolleyes:

JC2, this is flat wrong and you know it. As I (and others) have said many times, one needs only to fire both of these rounds from the same platform/barrel length (either 4" revolvers or 6" revolves would do just fine) and then look at the numbers again. What's so hard about this to understand? I just can't believe that you sincerely can't understand this so I/we are left with the only conclusion we can come to - that you are just trying (and succeeding) to stir up trouble. In the future, I sincerely hope that when you see "Civil discussion wanted" at the beginning of a thread that you think long and hard about "just passing it by".

jc2

June 17, 2006, 10:58 PM

JC2, this is flat wrong and you know it.
Nope, it's not.

The .357 Magnum is typically used in the four to six inch revolvers.

The 10mm is typically used in autoloaders.

It makes far better real-world sense to compare them based on the platform in which are typically used.

There's absolutely nothing "hard about this to understand."

warriorsociologist

June 17, 2006, 11:36 PM

Nope, it's not.

The .357 Magnum is typically used in the four to six inch revolvers.

The 10mm is typically used in autoloaders.

It makes far better real-world sense to compare them based on the platform in which are typically used.

There's absolutely nothing "hard about this to understand."

wow....sad...just sad. So much for the high (or reasonable) road.

Ok, then save that kind of post for a "revolver vs. auto" thread. (though if you want to play that game, It's still more reasonable to conclude that a handgun with 15+1 rounds on tap vs. one with 6-7 rounds on tap is "higher performance" so long as the ammo used in both were "ballistic twins" (your words, not mine). That said, I still like revolvers...go figure...which brings me to my next point:

Here we are (supposed to be) talking about ammunition (take a look at the title again). 10mm/.40 gets used in revolvers too. I own two of them...and use 10mm (in a revolver btw) over my .357 for hunting because of the better performance I get from the 10mm. Back then, I reasoned that I could get better performance than my .357 (by moving up to a 10mm wheelgun for hunting) without having to buy new reloading dies (for a .41 mag, which I considered) since I already owned .40/10mm dies (I owned S&W 10mm autos before I got my first 10mm revolver) and the lower-end .41 loads I could duplicate with my 10mm were still "plenty enough gun" for whitetails. If you want to compare two rounds, you should control for as many other variables as possible - otherwise you contaminate your results. It just doesn't get any simpler than this. It seems by your logic, we should all conclude that a 2.0L 4-cylinder engine is "higher performance" than a 6.0L V8 engine since it can push a little encono-box car to a quicker 0-60 than a full-size SUV....afterall, there are lots of little 4-bangers and big SUV's on the road...right?...so, we need not talk about those pesky v8 powered sporty cars... :rolleyes:

At the very least, this thread is evidence of your bias and unwillingness to see reason. I hope this is top on peoples' lists for "read this link first" posts when others later come up with a "10mm vs ..." question again.

P95Carry

June 17, 2006, 11:54 PM

John - to deal with ''the persons'' presupposes I would have to ''take sides'' - and the perceptions regarding who is more to blame for any ''inconsistencies'' can vary according to perspective.

I am purely ''on the outside looking in'' - and do not have time for tedious pruning and filtering, based only on my judgements, which well may not be in agreement with others.

As I said earlier - I see much useful info - in fact in some ways enough to deal with the question but as well I observe "combatants'' still thowing brickbats and not really resolving things.

That is where I have a problem and because I am unwilling to take sides am tempted to see closure eventually - we have stuff that gets ''beaten to death'' - IMO this is one of those matters.

It is I admit an easier option - but I have things to do and a life to lead :)

Zen21Tao

June 18, 2006, 12:26 AM

My primary IWB carry guns are my Sig P239 in .40 and my Glock 29 10mm. The size difference in the two really isn't that noticable. On the other hand, the double stack 10mm is noticably more think than the single stack .40. However, I find the minor comfort difference worth the tradeoff to have 10+1 10mm rounds instead of 7+1 .40 rounds. Also, the Glock 29 will take the 15 round G20 magazines too if you want to carry a couple of them seperately.

http://img65.imageshack.us/img65/8159/glockvsigsize0cm.jpg

http://img224.imageshack.us/img224/5016/thicknesscomparisonglockandsig.jpg

jc2

June 18, 2006, 12:31 AM

wow....sad...just sad. So much for the high (or reasonable) road.
So, the only "reasonable" or "high road" is to see it your way? That is sad.

Sure, you can find .357 Magnum autoloaders, and yes, you can find 10mm revolvers (none in current production)--BUT the most common platform for the .357 Magnum is a revolver, and the most common platform for the 10mm is an autoloader. It makes very good sense to compare .357 Magnum performance in a revolver to 10mm performance in an autoloader, because in the real-world, that's how they are most commonly used.

If you like to use the 10mm to hunt deer with fine. I've done it too. There's really not enough difference between the .357 Magnum and the 10mm to make a difference (or that the deer would even notice).
Here we are (supposed to be) talking about ammunition
So why are you whining about a "handgun with 15+1 rounds on tap?" :rolleyes:

lbmii

June 18, 2006, 12:40 AM

Let us use real world ammo (not Buffalo, and not handloads) fired in real world handguns of similar size and bulk. The 40 S&W and the 357 mag are very similar.

My 5.3 inch Glock 35 throws a Speer 155 grain bullet an average of 1245 fps and a 155 grain Winchester bullet at an average of 1255 fps. I suspect that a typical 357 revolver of about the same overall size and bulk of my Glock 35 will do just about the same with a 158 grain bullet from a regular major brand name of ammo.

I do not have a duty size 357 revolver similar in size to my Glock 35 so I can not prove my above statement but I suspect I am pretty safe in assuming little difference from a duty size 357 and my Glock 35.

I do have a Glock 27 and a Rossi 2 inch 357 and as you can see in my previous post that the two handguns are similar in size.

My Glock 27 throws a 155 grain Winchester bullet an average of 1151 fps and my Rossi throws a Federal 158 grain bullet an average of 1022 fps.

There are ammo manurfacture's numbers and there are handloaders numbers and then there are my numbers with normal rounds with normal handguns. If you go with my numbers, the 40 S&W throws a 155 grain bullet at velocities that are at or above the velocities a similar size 357 mag will throw a 158 grain bullet.

I stand by my contention that one is better to associate the 357 with the 40 S&W and the 10 mm with the 41 Mag.

lbmii

June 18, 2006, 12:48 AM

Zen21Tao,

How is that Glock 29 in recoil? Have you ever put the hotter 10mm rounds through it?

My Glock 27 is a bear with the hotter 165 grain rounds so I bet your 29 with hot rounds are something.

warriorsociologist

June 18, 2006, 12:59 AM

:rolleyes:

Jc2, I'm done with your for now. I don't want to see this thread closed. I have no idea how old you are, but I have seen enough to ascertain how "mature" I think you are. You claim to be old enough to have been shooting & hunting with handguns for some time, so perhaps that's why seeing what you have been posting really gets to me. You're not fooling anyone & I guess if I knew you were just a "wet-behind-the-ears" young buck I could forgive and forget a little easier. Maybe in a few more years we'll have to "sit down" online and have this chat again. Until then, I'll let your's and my posts speak for themselves.

Again, Mr. Moderator...I'm done here. John & others - have "fun" fighting "the good fight". I sincerely do hope everyone actually interested in getting something more than a misguided ego-trip out of this thread takes the time to gleen the worthwile info from it and &%$#pile the rest as they see fit. I'm tired of being lured done to this ditch...back to the 'road for me.

SO, JC2, if your goal was to get rid of me from this thread & have the last word - well have at it 'sport.... I just wish your goal would have been to contribute something worthwhile to this discourse. I guess it's just as well since have already wrote what I have to say on the subject of this thread anyway. It's a shame that every "10mm thread" has to come to this.

- WS out.

jc2

June 18, 2006, 01:08 AM

lbmii -

Buffalo Bore (and Double Tap) are very much "real world" ammunition (at least if shoot the .357 Magnum, 10mm or .41 Magnum). The big three are notorious for downloading .357 Magnum (and 10mm) ammo. For example, Federal's one 10mm load (P10HS1G) throws a 180-grain JHP at 1030 fps (five-inch barrel), but Federal also has a .40 S&W load (P40HST1) that throws a 180-grain JHP at 1030 fps (four-inch barrel)--the identical MV from a shorter barrel. If you want to base comparison strictly on what the "big three" loads, you better be prepared to associate the 10mm with the .40 S&W (NOT the .41 Magnum--it's no where even close on the upper end).

Having a G29, the recoil is not bad (and it does carry pretty well IWB, but it is wide). It's more of a G19/G23 size weapon than a G27 size.

JohnKSa

June 18, 2006, 02:04 AM

If that was your question, why didn't you ask it four days ago?Well, it wasn't exactly my question, but it was asked at the beginning of the thread--by the originator. ;) For example, Federal's one 10mm load (P10HS1G) throws a 180-grain JHP at 1030 fps (five-inch barrel), but Federal also has a .40 S&W load (P40HST1) that throws a 180-grain JHP at 1030 fps (four-inch barrel)--the identical MV from a shorter barrel.But jc, wouldn't this qualify as comparing hot loads to mild loads? Something you clearly spoke against on a thread two days ago?My Glock 27 throws a 155 grain Winchester bullet an average of 1151 fps and my Rossi throws a Federal 158 grain bullet an average of 1022 fps.Now this sounds like a more reasonable comparison. Revolver to auto as you said should be done a couple of posts ago, in similarly sized guns as you said is a fair way to compare, and also using hot loads in both guns... In fact, you suggested exactly such a comparison down to the brands, barrel lengths and models.

His results would seem to admirably support the comment you just made indicating you believed that the .40S&W was a better cartridge than the .357Magnum for self-defense use. Just to clarify--are you arguing against lbmii's assertion?

warriorsociologist,

IMO, it's the duty of all forum members to ensure that this board is a good source of information rather than just a soapbox for the vocal (but perhaps misinformed). jc2 has said many times on this board (and others) that his goal is to inform, so his goals are surely similar to yours and mine. Therefore I'm sure that he joins with me in asking you to continue posting on this thread as long as you have useful and pertinent information to contribute. ;)

Zen21Tao

June 18, 2006, 02:20 AM

Zen21Tao,

How is that Glock 29 in recoil? Have you ever put the hotter 10mm rounds through it?

My Glock 27 is a bear with the hotter 165 grain rounds so I bet your 29 with hot rounds are something.

It is about the same as a similar sized .45 - just a stiff push. I haven't put the hottest rounds through it yet but I don't think it would be that bad. I have a tiny AMT backup .45 that has quite a sharp recoil and I shoot a S&W 500 pretty regularly. The secret to controling recoil is practice, practice and more practice.

jc2

June 18, 2006, 08:01 AM

Well, it wasn't exactly my question, but it was asked at the beginning of the thread--by the originator.
Nope, John, it was clearly your question (see your post 105). The originator asked at the beginning of the thread:
Can somebody please convince me that the 10mm or the .357 is worth the added cost of getting new guns and buying more expensive ammo.... or, can I convert my .40 pistols (Glock, Springfield XDs) to 10mm or .357
Since he's talking about converting .40 S&W pistols (Glock and Springfield XDs) "to 10mm or .357," he was asking about the 357 SIG not the .357 Magnum. Surely, you didn't assume he meant to convert .40 S&W Glocks and XDs to .357 Magnum, John.
But jc, wouldn't this qualify as comparing hot loads to mild loads? Something you clearly spoke against on a thread two days ago?
Yep--and it was intended to show the folly of doing so.
His results would seem to admirably support the comment you just made indicating you believed that the .40S&W was a better cartridge than the .357Magnum for self-defense use. Just to clarify--are you arguing against lbmii's assertion?
Nope--you missed by my reply to him:
It's pretty clear when we look at these numbers (and remember the .357 Magnum was not designed as defence cartridge as pocketable two-inch but as a hunting cartridge for a large frame revolver) the .357 Magnum and 10mm belong in one family while the .41 Magnum is in a totally different league.

All that being said, and FTR, if I had to choose between a two-inch Rossi (of all things) in .357 Magnum and a G27 in .40 S&W, I'd pick the G27 in .40 S&W because it is better suited in that role.

jeepmor

June 18, 2006, 08:46 AM

Anytime someone mentions the 357 and the 10mm in the same thread you guys always start pissing and moaning like school kids...

....recess is over, back to class.

leadcounsel

June 18, 2006, 10:34 AM

Thanks to all who have contributed... although it wasn't as CIVIL as I had hoped.

I don't know why this is such an emotional topic for some of you! :rolleyes:

I think I've concluded the following from the information posted:

1) That the .357 Magnum and 10mm are ballistically equivalent loads with capabilities about 20% greater in velocity and energy than the .40 and .357Sig, the latter traveling faster with the former hitting harder;

2) I think it states the obvious to say that the .357 Mag/10mm are better suited for hunting rounds because they are fastest and hit hardest of the rounds under scrutiny;

3) It stands to reason that in ANY and ALL scenarios, a round that is better suited to take game is BETTER for self defense than a smaller/slower round. To extrapolate and take the analogy to the next level, if all things were EQUAL (e.g. shot placement, distance, barriers, etc.), a .308 would be more effective than a .22 in self defense; a .44 Mag would be better than a .32. I cannot be convinced that a 10mm traveling 20% faster with 20% more energy than the .40 caliber is going to be LESS effective than the .40 caliber. It is illogical. If it hits harder and faster, then it will be more effective, period. I don't need "real world" cadavers to tell me this because it is an absolute. If a bullet traveling at 1000fps will penetrate 10 inches, break a bone, or penetrate a car door and damage an assailant then the same size yet faster bullet CAN ONLY penetrate as deep or deeper, break a bone as bad or worse, or punch through the car door and hit harder. To state otherwise is illogical. It's all about energy transfer, no??? :confused:

4) Penetration: Further, the 10mm is more effective at penetrating barriers such as thick clothing, car doors, wood, bones, etc than the .40. Not only is this LOGICAL (because the bullets are the same size, but the 10mm is traveling significantly faster) but this has been tested. If I'm shooting at a badguy who is concealed, I want my bullets to hit him hard. If I'm shooting from the side, I want the bullet to break his arm bone and continue into his lungs and heart, etc.

5) Versatility: Seems that the 10mm Glock which I have my eye on is going to be very versatile b/c I plan on getting a .40 spare barrel. I am still a fan of the .40, but want the versatiliy of lower cost shooting too.

I'm excited to try this "new" 10mm caliber on for size as it seems to have a verocious following! :)

Again, thanks for all of the contributions.