Really hot 10mm ammo?

Status
Not open for further replies.
mrbladedude

mrbladedude

Member
Joined
Jan 29, 2011
Messages
213
Location
Oregon
Ive shot 20 rounds of Underwood hard cast 220 grain 10mm
Muzzle Velocity 1200 fps
Muzzle Energy 703 ft. lbs

I thought it would be snappier. Its a nuclear round according to this chart.

10mmPerformance.jpg

Dont get me wrong I'm glad it isnt more snappy since its my carry load. However it got me wondering if there is a snappier/hotter round maybe a hollowpoint weighing less and moving faster? Like a 135 grain travelling at 1500 fps?
 
I've chronographed a fair amount of factory and hand loaded 10MM ammo. My notes indicate that some years ago I chronographed the factory CorBon 135 grain ammo in my S&W Model 610 revolver with 5" barrel and my model 1006 semi-auto with 5" barrel. The 135 CorBon averaged 1475 FPS( 652 fpe) in the semi-auto, and 1585 FPS (753 fpe) in the revolver. More recently, the Buffalo Bore 180 averaged 1380 FPS (761 fpe) in my S&W 1026 pistol with 5" barrel. The old original Norma 200 grain JTC averaged 1200 FPS, or a little more, in most every 5" barreled pistol I tested it in.
 
The DoubleTap 200 gr hardcast is advertised at 1300 fps from G20. I have some and my chronograph showed 1315 fps from my Glock. I don't shoot a lot of it, but it has always fired and functioned just fine. It isn't the most accurate load but good enough to hit a bear at SD ranges. When hiking in bear country is the only time I carry it. For personal protection from2 legged threats I have some 155 gr loads at about 1400 fps that should be more than adequate.
 
mrbladedude said:
Ive shot 20 rounds of Underwood hard cast 220 grain 10mm

Dont get me wrong I'm glad it isnt more snappy since its my carry load. However it got me wondering if there is a snappier/hotter round maybe a hollowpoint weighing less and moving faster? Like a 135 grain travelling at 1500 fps?
Click to expand...

If your goal is just to find the 10mm load with the most recoil, yes, that is the direction you want to go.
 
Remember, even at the high end, the 10mm is not going to have (nor would the guns chambered for it generally be able to handle) the same kind of recoil as full-house .44 or .41 magnum ammo. If that's what you're used to, then good news.... 10mm will always feel reasonable.
 
Power Pistol or Blue Dot for the seizure-inducing flash, if that's your thing.
 
ny32182 said:
If your goal is just to find the 10mm load with the most recoil, yes, that is the direction you want to go.
Click to expand...
Thanks for all the replies. This is my only goal. So you're saying that the lighter, faster rounds have more recoil and the gun snaps more when firing? Compared to a heavy, slower bullet? Why would that be?
 
mrbladedude said:
So you're saying that the lighter, faster rounds have more recoil and the gun snaps more when firing? Compared to a heavy, slower bullet? Why would that be?
Click to expand...

It's all about what come out the muzzle.

For a given gun, the largest factor, by far, in recoil is the projectile's momentum (not kinetic energy, momentum) when it exits the muzzle. And that's just a two-variable problem: mass times velocity. Increasing either projectile weight or velocity while holding the other constant increases projectile momentum, and you can trade off one for the other and keep the momentum/recoil constant.

But the bullet isn't the only think that comes out of the muzzle when you fire a shot... the wave of pressurized, heated gasses that pushed the bullet along also come out. Those gasses have mass and velocity of their own.

Now, for a given bullet momentum, all else being equal, the lighter bullet has to be loaded over a larger charge of powder than the heavier bullet. That extra gas counts. It comes rocketing out of the muzzle and shoves the gun back at you. The difference in recoil between a slow-and-heavy versus light-and-fast projectile of the same momentum is that extra gas.

On top of that, the sensation of recoil is based on more than just the physical impulse of the gun moving backwards the blast and noise of that pressure escaping the barrel also contributes heavily to the sensation of perceived recoil. Again, the light-and-fast bullet riding a bigger wave of gas will feel even more recoil-y.
 
mrbladedude said:
Thanks for all the replies. This is my only goal. So you're saying that the lighter, faster rounds have more recoil and the gun snaps more when firing? Compared to a heavy, slower bullet? Why would that be?
Click to expand...

You want your carry ammo to produce the most recoil / snap possible. ? o_O

A 220 gr. hardcast is not a good choice for SD against humans, nor is the load with the most recoil.

Speed of follow up shots a consideration? It should be.

Calculated recoil (PF):
220 gr. @ 1,200 fps = PF 264
135 gr. @ 1,500 fps = PF 203
Previous poster speculated that the 135 gr. @ 1,500 fps would have more snap than the 220 @ 1,200 which is incorrect.

I suggest selecting a balanced load that expands after 4 layer denim, penetrates 12-18'' and produces a "reasonable" PF.
(Hint: 203 is reasonable, 264 not so much).
 
  • Like
Reactions: FWP
CDW4ME said:
You want your carry ammo to produce the most recoil / snap possible. ? o_O

A 220 gr. hardcast is not a good choice for SD against humans, nor is the load with the most recoil.

Speed of follow up shots a consideration? It should be.

Calculated recoil (PF):
220 gr. @ 1,200 fps = PF 264
135 gr. @ 1,500 fps = PF 203
Previous poster speculated that the 135 gr. @ 1,500 fps would have more snap than the 220 @ 1,200 which is incorrect.

I suggest selecting a balanced load that expands after 4 layer denim, penetrates 12-18'' and produces a "reasonable" PF.
(Hint: 203 is reasonable, 264 not so much).
Click to expand...
Thanks I've looked into all that and no I dont want my carry ammo to snap and recoil hard etc . And the hard cast ammo is for the woods Im just curious man
 
CDW4ME said:
Calculated recoil (PF):
220 gr. @ 1,200 fps = PF 264
135 gr. @ 1,500 fps = PF 203
Previous poster speculated that the 135 gr. @ 1,500 fps would have more snap than the 220 @ 1,200 which is incorrect.
Click to expand...
It isn't speculation, I have fired loads very similar to these from my 10mm.

Also, PF is not one to one with recoil. Holding PF constant, the lighter bullets recoil more than the heavy ones.
Similar to why 357sig recoils more than .40... etc.
 
ny32182 said:
It isn't speculation, I have fired loads very similar to these from my 10mm.

Also, PF is not one to one with recoil. Holding PF constant, the lighter bullets recoil more than the heavy ones.
Similar to why 357sig recoils more than .40... etc.
Click to expand...

I've got 357 Sig and 40. (Glock 32/23)
357 Sig has more blast, 40 has slightly more recoil, PF calculation reflects the slight difference.
Glock 23:
Federal HST 180 gr. @ 1003 fps / 402# KE / PF 181
Glock 32:
Federal HST 125 gr. @ 1,358 fps / 512# KE / PF 170

PF calculation is accurate for my 45 acp too, example:
Ruger 1911 commander
Golden Saber 185 +P @ 1,070 fps / 470# KE / PF 198
Handload Barnes 160 gr. Tac-XP @ 1,154 fps / 473# KE / PF 185
Although the Barnes 160 gr. produces almost the same KE as the 185 Golden Saber, felt recoil is noticeably a bit less.

10mm... got that too.
Glock 20 SF
Handload Barnes Tac-XP 140 gr. @ 1,247 fps / 484# KE / PF 175
Hornady 175 gr. Critical Duty @ 1,146 fps / 510# KE / PF 201
Corbon 150 JHP @ 1,276 fps / 542# KE / PF 191
Hornady 155 XTP @ 1,335 fps / 614# KE / PF 207
 
Your guns must be quite a bit different than mine, as my G32/23 recoils way more shooting 357 sig, and my 10mm recoils way more shooting light bullets.
 
ny32182 You may perceive increased blast as recoil, 357 Sig has more blast.
40 S&W has a bit more recoil, the comparison I gave was "apples to apples" HST/HST
In 40 S&W the 180 gr. loads tend to be a bit "milder" than the "hot" 165 loads...
Another example:
Glock 23: Winchester Ranger T 165 @ 1,146 fps / 481# KE / PF 189
Glock 32: Speer Gold Dot 125 gr. @ 1,344 fps / 501# KE / PF 168
The 165 gr. 40 Ranger T definitely has more "snap" in same size pistol Glock 23/32, whereas 357 Sig has more blast (loud).

That being said, my average split time with 40 or 357 Sig in Glock 23/32 is nearly the same, within a couple hundredths second.
 
No offense, but I'm aware of how to calculate energy and pf. I simply disagree with your observations of which has more recoil/snappiness/muzzle flip/whatever you want to call it. As far as I'm concerned, the light fast bullet has more than the heavy slow bullet, as long as you are comparing cartridges and loads that are pretty similar in energy level or power factor.
 
The PF calculation matches my subjective impression well.
I was testing a new 1911 magazine for reliability yesterday, I mix various HP in the new mag and run it 3 or 4 times.
I can tell the difference, Barnes Tac XP recoiled the least, Ranger T the most.
Handload Barnes 160 gr. Tac-XP @ 1,154 fps / 473# KE / PF 185
Golden Saber 185 +P @ 1,070 fps / 470# KE / PF 198
Winchester Ranger T 230 @ 909 fps / 422# KE / PF 209
 
mrbladedude said:
Ive shot 20 rounds of Underwood hard cast 220 grain 10mm
Muzzle Velocity 1200 fps
Muzzle Energy 703 ft. lbs

I thought it would be snappier.
Click to expand...
What are you shooting it from?

Size and weight of the platform will have some bearing. I generally like lighter bullets at higher velocity; My G20 shooting 155XTP's in front of 12.9 Gr. Blue Dot gives me 1450 fps, but the gun is less "snappy" than my SR40C shooting the same 155XTP at 1300 fps using 9.5 gr. Longshot. The heavier gun, longer barrel seems to make the difference.
 
Perceived recoil may be different than actual recoil.

If the energy is dumped over a shorter period of time with less recoil energy verses a slightly longer energy dump with more recoil energy.
 
There is another component to momentum and power factor. Change in momentum is measured as impulse. Impulse is force*duration measured in time. If you work out the units, they are the same as mass*velocity.

A faster round leaves the gun faster and reaches its full momentum faster because it is travelling the same length of barrel as a slower round in less time. When calculating that as impulse, that means more force was applied for a shorter period of time. That is why it feels snappier. It is conceptually similar to throwing a ball where you accelerate the ball over a relatively long period/arc vs striking it with a bat where you apply more force in a brief impact. That is how it relates to the gun/your hand anyway.

For the bullet, the peak force is the same either way assuming a max load. In a dynamic situation like a bullet being fired, you are really taking the integral of force from pressure over time/travel distance of the bullet. You can calculate it either way. Force interated with respect to time will give you momentum/impulse. Force integrated with reapect to distance will give you energy since force times distance equals work. Since the peak pressure is the same for light vs heavy bullets, the peak force is the same but lighter loads tend to use more powdwr which keeps the pressure higher for a longer portion of the curve.
 
eldon519 said:
There is another component to momentum and power factor. Change in momentum is measured as impulse. Impulse is force*duration measured in time. If you work out the units, they are the same as mass*velocity.

A faster round leaves the gun faster and reaches its full momentum faster because it is travelling the same length of barrel as a slower round in less time. When calculating that as impulse, that means more force was applied for a shorter period of time. That is why it feels snappier. It is conceptually similar to throwing a ball where you accelerate the ball over a relatively long period/arc vs striking it with a bat where you apply more force in a brief impact. That is how it relates to the gun/your hand anyway.

For the bullet, the peak force is the same either way assuming a max load. In a dynamic situation like a bullet being fired, you are really taking the integral of force from pressure over time/travel distance of the bullet. You can calculate it either way. Force interated with respect to time will give you momentum/impulse. Force integrated with reapect to distance will give you energy since force times distance equals work. Since the peak pressure is the same for light vs heavy bullets, the peak force is the same but lighter loads tend to use more powdwr which keeps the pressure higher for a longer portion of the curve.
Click to expand...

Eh, that makes some sense in the context of a revolver... not so much in a semi-auto, where much of the recoil isn't experienced until the slide slams into the frame at the end of its rearward travel... unless the gun is extremely stiffly sprung, in which case the qualities of the spring would seem to have a significant input into how the momentum is spread over time in terms of being related to the shooter.
 
That is a consideration, but I don't think as much of the recoil comes from the slide hitting the frame as we imagine. For instance a light load that doesn't fully cycle a gun still imparts a decent amount of recoil. Same with limp wristers wherein the whole gun moves rather than restraining the grip/frame enough to allow the slide to adequately move relative to the frame.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

N
  • Locked
10mm vs. .45 Super
2
Replies
29
Views
17K
Nightcrawler
N
Cowboybebop
  • Locked
Glock 29 10mm Ammo Carry Choice
Replies
11
Views
3K
CDW4ME
CDW4ME
C
  • Locked
Underwood .40 ammo
Replies
13
Views
3K
ku4hx
K
TomJ
  • Locked
Underwood Xtreme Defender Ammo
Replies
20
Views
11K
2zulu1
2zulu1
P
  • Locked
Quantifiable Criteria for a "Woods" gun?
2 3 4 5
Replies
122
Views
13K
Vern Humphrey
V
Back
Top