Once again, you are fabricating an argument.
Well, from my point of view, it's you who are fabricating. The 10mm has a
great bullet selection, including, as you seem to say, bullets that should have excellent performance on smaller bear.
Yet you choose to subcategorize with an arbitrary bar: why didn't you just say: "bullet selection above 250 gr for 10mm is dismal"? Makes about as much sense as the qualification you did make.
The 10mm is not a revolver cartridge, or a cartridge designed for large animal defense. The fact that it can be stretched into an excellent performer there shows its versatility. Your comment is kinda like looking at a decathlete and saying, "Yeah, but he's not a 9.65 sprinter."
By the way, your original point was:
Problem with the 10mm is bullet selection.
No qualifier. I didn't respond to it, but responded to another's post:
And yea, lack of good bullet selection doesn't help at all...
That's who and what I responded to. You, unaddressed, jumped in,
then qualified what you said, and added "dismal"--even though it's performace is apparently "excellent."
And you have decided that what all that means is I'm from another planet. Well, apparently some are here specifically looking for opportunity to insult others, and I'm not the only one you've gone after in this thread. Not very high road.