Phaedrus/69
Member
I'm a little confused?
You run 200gr Underwood in your 40s&w, but you don't have confidence in running the same bullets in a 10mm. Please explain?
In my experience the .40 cal guns almost universally run the 200gr reliably while it seems like none of the 10mm guns will (aside from a 1911). I'm leaning on the experiences of some very very knowledgeable ten sourdoughs on this one as my own experience with the ten is limited. Folks I know that own Glocks that have had troubles tell me that the company doesn't consider inability to run 200gr as a defect; it's aparently outside the design window. I'm not sure if it's a geometry issue, slide velocity, etc but no one I know that has done high volume shooting with 200gr in the ten (we're talking thousands of rounds, not hundreds) has managed to get them to run reliably. It seems everyone that disagrees is testing fifty or a hundred rounds and calling it good. Do a search here, there's some really good threads discussing this.
When it comes to handguns (and mostly with rifles) I'm a fan of heavy-for-caliber bullets. In the 9mm I use nothing but 147gr, in the .38 I run 158gr hard cast and in the .40 I run 180gr HST in town and 200gr Underwood cast in the woods. If I can't use that big bullet in a 10mm I'd rather just stick with a .40 S&W. The penetration I want to drill deep into a big bear or moose is more a function of a heavy bullet with high sectional density than velocity. If I could find a 10mm auto that ran 200gr reliably and wasn't a 1911 it would be the perfect woods gun for sure. Or at least as good as it gets for a service-type round.