10mm vs 357 mag in gel test

Status
Not open for further replies.
My thoughts 10mm = 357 mag; 357 will have a penetration advantage, 10mm will have a wound track size advantage as well as a greater weight bullet selection.

I really like both cartridges, however my woods gun is a Glock 40 10mm with a 6.5” Lone Wolf barrel.

I put together this spreadsheet to show the top end factory loads:

10mm%20vs%20357%20Cartridges%20from%20Buffalo%20Bore%20and%20Underwood%20-%2009.21.20.png
 
I would say for SD and thin-skinned targets the 10 mm is the better choice. If you are going to deal with windshields, car doors or other light barricades like plywood the .357 Mag would be better just judging from that one test.

There were no 4 layers of denim covering so we don't know how potential plugging of the cavity would have affected the results.

For me mo bullet at mo speed = mo better (and I always go with mo-mentum).
 
I've killed a lot of deer with the 10mm. Seen the wound channels and damage done. I would have no issue using one for SD and at one time I did carry a Glock 29. I went down a frame size to the 27. Ive used everything from the 155 -180 and 200 grain xtp to the old norma rounds and Silvertip.
 
He kept on mentioning sectional density as a determining factor in both calibers' performance, but quoted no numbers to back it up. Both those bullets are so close as to not matter in sectional density. The .357 158 grain XTP has a sectional density of 0.177; the 10mm 200 grain XTP has a sectional density of 0.179 (per the Hornady tenth edition manual). Using those rounds is a fair comparison in terms of SD, but generally, the smaller diameter bullet will penetrate more with an equal SD.

In either case, I carry both at times, and see them as fairly equal when all considerations are made (bullet weight and type, MV, SD and barrel length.
 
I have autos and revolvers in both calibers. They are similar in ballistics and I like shooting both in either platform.

Yes, there are more powerful cartridges. I have some of the same firearm models in larger calibers. They all have their place.
 
Both calibers are great fun in revolvers!

I have a Ruger SBH in 6.5” convertible .40/10MM the thing is a HOOT! My power pistol loads within published data are running around 1500-1525 FPS with 155 gr Speer TMJ bullets, it’s crazy. Love 10MM!

Of course I have .357 covered well in revolver I’m not crazy :) !!
 
He had that 10mm loaded quite hot, not so much for the 158gr .357, he could have gotten more out of the 158gr 357 but from past experience, sometimes jacketed 158's need some persuasion to get moving along real good, wasn't the OG 357 Mag loads decades ago a 158gr @ 1500 fps? But either say, 357 is better for penetration but the 10mm has it's benefits too, mainly platform related.
 
Was really surprised at the outcome of this. Thoughts?



The 200 gr XTP @ 1250 fps is being driven much closer to its manufacture recommend max velocity than the 158 gr XTP @ 1150. The 158 gr XTP is shown in Hornady's manual, IIRC, having a max velocity threshold of 1500 fps. You could probably achieve similar results to the 10mm round in terms of relative expansion and penetration at around 1350 or 1400 fps. Their Sectional Densities are almost identical. The 158 gr .357 has an SD of .177. The SD of the 200 gr .40 is .179. A 158 gr bullet @ 1350 fps has 639 foot pounds. So in terms of energy and sectional density, design and relative velocity, their performance should be very similar. The 10mm still has an advantage in diameter and mass, meaning it will probably still penetrate farther due to its greater momentum, and have a slightly wider wound channel when driven to similar velocities relative to the manufacture's listed max.

The 200 gr XTP @ 1250 fps is a very good load, one of the best available for the 10mm Auto, especially as a trail or wood's gun that doubles as a urban carry option. I've taken a couple deer with that load, and also dispatched some feral cats and other critters on the property. I have come to respect that it opens fast, even on light, thin skinned critters, but still penetrates well. I've seen that bullet go in the base of a fat doe's neck on a steep quartering shot and exit behind the last rib on the right side. Deer ran 40 yards, stopped and spun around a couple times, and keeled over. I am not a 9mm hater. But sometimes I like the piece of mind of 15 rounds of 10mm on my hip, stoked with Underwood 200 gr XTPs.
Sge8yad.jpg
 
My thoughts 10mm = 357 mag; 357 will have a penetration advantage, 10mm will have a wound track size advantage as well as a greater weight bullet selection.

I really like both cartridges, however my woods gun is a Glock 40 10mm with a 6.5” Lone Wolf barrel.

I put together this spreadsheet to show the top end factory loads:

View attachment 953412

They have nearly identical SDs but the 200 gr 10mm has the advantage in momentum. Why would you think it would penetrate less when driven to similar velocities relative to the manufacture's recommended max?
 
I love both of these calibers. 2 of my favorite handgun calibers for SD, HD, and Hunting.
I love my S&W Model 27-2 in 357
I love my Glock model 40 MOS in 10mm

Ive handloaded for both calibers for many years.
357 magnum really shows its extreme spread in accuracy and recoils more for me (even with the heavier smith N frame) which might contribute to that extreme spread in accuracy as i start to reach top end. I notice the 10mm is more accurate for me once i hit the full tilt loads. (Compared to 357)However, if i need to guarantee a single shot in the Vitals on a deer, bear or Boar at 50 yds, ill want the M27 in 357 with a medium warm load that balances power and accuracy.
I tend to hunt with the 357 magnum
I tend to pack 10mm around for protection.
Sometimes the other way around.
This is just me. Like trying to pick a favorite of two children. Cant do it!
Im going to settle on if youre a hunter whos primary purpose for the caliber is for hunting, get a wheelgun in 357. If youre a self defender who wants a gun that can whallup and wants a higher capacity of rounds, get a 10mm. Buy both if you can, someday.
 
I think on big nasty predators the 357 still edges out the 10mm in pure power, though the 10mm can come pretty close and allows for greater capacity and reload speed.

Check out these heavy outdoorsman loads and foot lb numbers. Just an example.

HEAVY 10MM OUTDOORSMAN - 220 gr. Hard Cast - FN (1,200 fps/ME 703 ft. lbs
https://www.buffalobore.com/index.php?l=product_list&c=160

OUTDOORSMAN - 180 gr. Hard Cast LFN-GC (1,400fps/M.E. 783 ft. lbs.
https://www.buffalobore.com/index.php?l=product_list&c=162

So the 10mm is driving a slightly heavier bullet slightly slower, 357 a lighter bullet slightly faster.

But nearly 800 foot lbs in the 357 is impressive, good medicine if you like a revolver for field carry. Single action shooting is also a helpful option if you really need to place a round at a specific point on target.

But 44 magnum is in its own class and can double these numbers if loaded up for bear, so to speak.

Heavy .44 Magnum +P+ Ammo - 340 gr. Hard Cast, L.F.N. - G.C. (1,425 fps/M.E. 1,533 ft. lbs.) - wow!
 
I think on big nasty predators the 357 still edges out the 10mm in pure power, though the 10mm can come pretty close and allows for greater capacity and reload speed.

Check out these heavy outdoorsman loads and foot lb numbers. Just an example.

HEAVY 10MM OUTDOORSMAN - 220 gr. Hard Cast - FN (1,200 fps/ME 703 ft. lbs
https://www.buffalobore.com/index.php?l=product_list&c=160

OUTDOORSMAN - 180 gr. Hard Cast LFN-GC (1,400fps/M.E. 783 ft. lbs.
https://www.buffalobore.com/index.php?l=product_list&c=162

So the 10mm is driving a slightly heavier bullet slightly slower, 357 a lighter bullet slightly faster.

But nearly 800 foot lbs in the 357 is impressive, good medicine if you like a revolver for field carry. Single action shooting is also a helpful option if you really need to place a round at a specific point on target.

But 44 magnum is in its own class and can double these numbers if loaded up for bear, so to speak.

Heavy .44 Magnum +P+ Ammo - 340 gr. Hard Cast, L.F.N. - G.C. (1,425 fps/M.E. 1,533 ft. lbs.) - wow!

Energy is irrelevant with handguns, because they don't have the velocity to use it. So power with handguns is determined by size of permanent wound channel only. And a heavier and wider bullet will typically have greater momentum, and will almost always penetrate farther and make a bigger wound than a lighter bullet of smaller caliber but similar nose profile and construction.

And there is no SAAMI spec for +P or +P+ .44 Remington Magnum. If it is .44 Magnum and it is loaded above 36,000 PSI, it is simply overpressure. It is not +P or +P+, which are official industry designations with actual meanings and standards applied to them.
 
Energy is irrelevant with handguns, because they don't have the velocity to use it. So power with handguns is determined by size of permanent wound channel only. And a heavier and wider bullet will typically have greater momentum, and will almost always penetrate farther and make a bigger wound than a lighter bullet of smaller caliber but similar nose profile and construction.

And there is no SAAMI spec for +P or +P+ .44 Remington Magnum. If it is .44 Magnum and it is loaded above 36,000 PSI, it is simply overpressure. It is not +P or +P+, which are official industry designations with actual meanings and standards applied to them.

So a .429 inch diameter 240gr JHP will be equally effective at 750 fps as 1300 fps? Neither of us believe that. Energy and momentum (inseparable physical properties of a projectile in motion) do have meaning even at pistol velocities.

Shoot enough stuff with both your 44 Special and your 44 Magnum and that velocity will show you what extra it can do.
 
So a .429 inch diameter 240gr JHP will be equally effective at 750 fps as 1300 fps? Neither of us believe that. Energy and momentum (inseparable physical properties of a projectile in motion) do have meaning even at pistol velocities.

Shoot enough stuff with both your 44 Special and your 44 Magnum and that velocity will show you what extra it can do.

The 240 gr JHP @ 1300 fps will expand faster and to a greater diameter, increasing permanent wound channel size, and provide momentum for penetration, increasing permanent wound channel depth. Both of these increase the volume of the permanent wound channel, and therefore, the effectiveness of the round. But the 240 gr JHP going 1300 fps will not be twice as effective as the JHP going 750 fps, as its energy wound suggest, because energy doesn't really contribute to wounding at handgun velocities. Basic physics says impulse is as important as quantity of energy. Tissue is elastic enough to stretch, deform, and return to normal having absorbed incredible amounts of energy without damage because the impulse was too long. i.e, the impact velocity of the projectile was too slow. It takes an impact velocity of about 2200 fps to start seeing consistent, useful amounts of stretch cavitation, or hydrostatic shock damage. At rifle velocities, tissue can not stretch far or fast enough, it tears and breaks down, damaging tissue for several inches from the path of the bullet; damage rarely seen out of even a magnum pistol cartridge, even out of a carbine. This is due to the shorter impulse of a higher velocity. For energy to contribute significantly to wounding requires it to have a short enough impulse, a high enough impact velocity, to exceed the stretch threshold of the tissue being penetrated. Hanguns, even large caliber magnum handguns, can't consistently do this, hence, energy is nearly completely irrelevant to the discussion of handgun effectiveness.
 
Or if you would rather hear it from someone who designs and tests bullets rather than someone who builds $6000 rifles, here's some guys from Federal Cartridge:

Starts discussing pistol ballistics at about 5 minutes...
 
Last edited:
The 240 gr JHP @ 1300 fps will expand faster and to a greater diameter, increasing permanent wound channel size, and provide momentum for penetration, increasing permanent wound channel depth. Both of these increase the volume of the permanent wound channel, and therefore, the effectiveness of the round. But the 240 gr JHP going 1300 fps will not be twice as effective as the JHP going 750 fps, as its energy wound suggest, because energy doesn't really contribute to wounding at handgun velocities. Basic physics says impulse is as important as quantity of energy. Tissue is elastic enough to stretch, deform, and return to normal having absorbed incredible amounts of energy without damage because the impulse was too long. i.e, the impact velocity of the projectile was too slow. It takes an impact velocity of about 2200 fps to start seeing consistent, useful amounts of stretch cavitation, or hydrostatic shock damage. At rifle velocities, tissue can not stretch far or fast enough, it tears and breaks down, damaging tissue for several inches from the path of the bullet; damage rarely seen out of even a magnum pistol cartridge, even out of a carbine. This is due to the shorter impulse of a higher velocity. For energy to contribute significantly to wounding requires it to have a short enough impulse, a high enough impact velocity, to exceed the stretch threshold of the tissue being penetrated. Hanguns, even large caliber magnum handguns, can't consistently do this, hence, energy is nearly completely irrelevant to the discussion of handgun effectiveness.
What did the extra work you just described? The extra expansion, the increased permanent wound channel size, the extra penetration? Kinetic energy did that work, it is the only energy a bullet has to do anything at the target. Just because there is not a nice simple and linear relationship between any one of those factors and the kinetic energy of the bullet does not mean the kinetic energy is not doing all that extra work. There is no other mechanism possible other than kinetic energy to do the work, unless our bullet brings another energy source like high explosives or incendiary with it.
 
What did the extra work you just described? The extra expansion, the increased permanent wound channel size, the extra penetration? Kinetic energy did that work, it is the only energy a bullet has to do anything at the target. Just because there is not a nice simple and linear relationship between any one of those factors and the kinetic energy of the bullet does not mean the kinetic energy is not doing all that extra work. There is no other mechanism possible other than kinetic energy to do the work, unless our bullet brings another energy source like high explosives or incendiary with it.

Bullet expansion is a product of velocity, not energy.

A bullet has energy as mass and velocity. The only way the bullet does work, or loses energy, is by losing velocity or mass. A bullet expands as a matter of velocity. This is why bullet manufactures will list a minimum velocity for expansion and a maximum velocity for retained weight or optimal diameter. As a bullet expands, it creates a larger wound, but also increases in frontal area and drag. This causes it to lose velocity, and thus energy, at a higher rate. As this energy is absorbed by the body, it displaces tissue, but at handgun velocities, this energy is simply absorbed by the body. That displaced tissue is technically work being done. But it isn't being done fast enough to damage the tissue it is displacing, and thus is simply absorbed by the elasticity of our tissue without damage. Again, for those sleeping in the back of the classroom, impulse matters. The energy from a handgun still does work, still displaces tissue, but it does it too slowly to damage the tissue, and thus, doesn't contribute significantly to wounding.

We have two factors to consider here; quantity of energy and impulse. The impulse is how fast the energy is transferred. Think push vs shove. A 240 gr bullet @ 1450 fps and a 62 gr bullet @ 2950 fps have similar energy, but behave in vastly different ways because the 5.56 round has an impulse less than half the length of the .44 Mag round's. If for comparison sake, both bullets come to a rest still inside the body, the target will have absorbed the same amount of energy, but that energy will have done vastly more damage and contributed to its overwhelming effectiveness of the 5.56 round because it is being absorbed in 1/2 the time. The bullet has twice the velocity, and easily exceeds the 2200 fps threshold for hydrostatic shock, and so it actually is able to use its energy to contribute to wounding. I have seen deer shot with both of these loads and there is nothing you can load in a .44 Magnum that will do half the damage of an expanding 5.56 load, even though they have similar energy.
 
Bullet expansion is a product of velocity, not energy.

A bullet has energy as mass and velocity. The only way the bullet does work, or loses energy, is by losing velocity or mass. A bullet expands as a matter of velocity. This is why bullet manufactures will list a minimum velocity for expansion and a maximum velocity for retained weight or optimal diameter. As a bullet expands, it creates a larger wound, but also increases in frontal area and drag. This causes it to lose velocity, and thus energy, at a higher rate. As this energy is absorbed by the body, it displaces tissue, but at handgun velocities, this energy is simply absorbed by the body. That displaced tissue is technically work being done. But it isn't being done fast enough to damage the tissue it is displacing, and thus is simply absorbed by the elasticity of our tissue without damage. Again, for those sleeping in the back of the classroom, impulse matters. The energy from a handgun still does work, still displaces tissue, but it does it too slowly to damage the tissue, and thus, doesn't contribute significantly to wounding.

We have two factors to consider here; quantity of energy and impulse. The impulse is how fast the energy is transferred. Think push vs shove. A 240 gr bullet @ 1450 fps and a 62 gr bullet @ 2950 fps have similar energy, but behave in vastly different ways because the 5.56 round has an impulse less than half the length of the .44 Mag round's. If for comparison sake, both bullets come to a rest still inside the body, the target will have absorbed the same amount of energy, but that energy will have done vastly more damage and contributed to its overwhelming effectiveness of the 5.56 round because it is being absorbed in 1/2 the time. The bullet has twice the velocity, and easily exceeds the 2200 fps threshold for hydrostatic shock, and so it actually is able to use its energy to contribute to wounding. I have seen deer shot with both of these loads and there is nothing you can load in a .44 Magnum that will do half the damage of an expanding 5.56 load, even though they have similar energy.

You throw along of terms around that you clearly do not fully understand. ie impulse is simply the change in momentum. A bullet going from 1200 fps to 0 fps in .01 sec or in 10 seconds has experience the exact same impulse. They have certainly experienced a difference force vs time curve to achieve that impulse but there change in momentum/impulse was exactly the same.

All the various thing you talk about can only happen if energy does work. The only form of energy a bullet has is its kinetic energy, the energy of mass in motion (good old KE = 1/2mv^2). A bullet doesn't bring any other form of energy (chemical, electrical, magnetic etc) with it. So if it does anything at the target it does so with kinetic energy. The relationship between that kinetic energy and the work done is often very difficult to calculate/model especially in the case of of tissue given the very difficult to model materials (tissues are highly viscoelastic) and arrangement of those materials in complex structures but kinetic energy is still the only energy available to the bullet to do anything.

In other case the relationship between kinetic energy and a projectile's work is very direct and easy to follow due to a simplified projectile and target. Going clear back to the physics work of the early 1700's physicist show that the work a projectile did was proportional to the kinetic energy. It was one of the experimental proofs they did to show that kinetic energy truly was equal to 1/2mv^2. Willem's Gravesande dropped brass balls into soft clay and found that if he double the velocity the ball (by dropping if from four times the height) the ball would penetrated four times as deep into the clay supporting the theory that kinetic energy was proportional to mv^2 (later they would determine that proportionality was 0.5). In more recent and real world data an AP projectile that does not expand hitting a solid material like steel (one without viscoelastic properties such as tissue) the relationship between kinetic energy and penetration is again linear assuming the projectiles does not appreciable deform or structurally fail and hits the steel squarely enough to not deflect off.

Energy(KJ) Penetration (mm)
4978.9 202
4604.0 185
4169.8 165
3757.1 148
3374.2 132

This is the penetration data for the 8.8cm KwK 43 gun on the WWII era King Tiger (Germans love lots of data and much of it has survived into the public domain today). If you plot that data and run a linear regression on it you will find the relationship between pentation of roll homogenous steel armor and kinetic energy to be very linear and run at approximately 25KJ/mm.

Again I have ramble more than is probably good. My point is that kinetic energy is the only energy a bullet has to do anything you see a bullet do at target impact the more energy you bring the more potential work it can do. Not all that work is always useful. I would also say this has very little to do with lethality other than ensuring you achieve sufficient pentation and assuming your projectile does not fail.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top