10mm 220gr Heavies... Anyone Messing With These?

I'm about ready to start working up loads for the new Ruger GP100 10mm. I have the Lipsey's edition, 5.5" barrel. I have a supply of Rimrock 220gr cast. I'd like to get what I can out of them, Underwood and Buffalo Bore are getting 1200fps. Two powders I have on hand are 800x and Blue Dot. Longshot and Power Pistol and AA#9 appear to be the other popular choices for experimentation. I'm not opposed to buying them.

If you have done this, you know about the scarcity of data. Anyone else messed with these? Appreciate any related experience.

 

In my experience 10mm and 800-x go well together for heavy bullet full power loads. I have found it best to weigh each load cause it doesn't meter well but it does shoot nice. I have not done 220gr but I like 800-x with 180 gr and 200 gr in my S&W 610. I am getting 1300fps with the 180 gr and 1250 fps with 200 gr. I think 1200 fps with a 220gr should be easily achieved with 800-x.

 

Right on. What load do you like for the 180s? I have a bunch of 175swc as well. Blue dot will probably be my work horse with those though

 

Never tried anything heavier than 200gr.

After trying 5 or 6 powders, Blue Dot is my go to, hands down, from 165 to 200 grainers.

 

...went back to find some, but couldn't. I hadn't realized that 220gr data was not readily available.

 

These 10 mm guys are great, and this guy has some good advise and some data for you to consider. http://10mm-firearms.com/reloading-10mm-ammo/220-grain-hardcast-loads/

 

Yeah been looking over there, that post and a few others are good. I certainly have some starting points.

 

Just a question for this or any other caliber for that matter. What is the gain in using a "heavy" for caliber bullet?

There is a trade off in velocity so playing with the energy numbers, there is no real gain in energy. A slightly smaller bullet going faster and all that.
Something gets hit with a 180 grain, 200 gr or 220 gr does it make a difference?

Other than Buffalo Bore, not much 220gr ammo most is 180.

Yes, then it leads to penetration discussion etc, etc.
A 200 grain bullet going faster than a 220 what is the end result??

 

Heavy for caliber bullets might be preferred for 4 reasons:

1) Greater sectional density, which tends to increase penetration.
2) Can match momentum (or, sometimes, energy) at lower total velocities, and may be able to stay subsonic. There are various reasons why some people prefer a projectile to both start and finish subsonic, or start and finish supersonic, but not be in between/on the edge.
3) Can match momentum (but not generally energy) with a smaller charge of powder, resulting in reduced recoil for a given projectile momentum.
4) Typically retains velocity better at extended ranges, though this is heavily projectile-dependent and not super relevant to most handgunning purposes.

Are any of those of interest? Depends on the user and the application.

 

Heavy for caliber are often seen to penetrates more reliably in hunting application especially when talking about hard cast lead. You give up some energy since you have less case volume to use for propellant but the heavier bullets tend to penetrate better and also tend to be tougher and more reliable penetrators simply due to their mass. If they shed some mass passing through a bone or similar hard object it will still have more mass to continue. A lighter bullet might loose too much mass, break up, and fail to penetrate much further after hitting a hard bone or similar. It is a balancing act though. If you go too heavy you give up too much energy and will fail to penetrate for that reason. If you go too light your bullet might have so much energy that it can fail structurally in some targets/conditions. Bullet construction plays a huge role in this balance act.

Personally I like 200gr JHP bullets in 10mm they have performed well for me. I hit a doe two years ago and penetrated a shoulder blade and spine and the bullet still exited. That said a lot of 10mm fans swear by 220gr hard cast.

 

Also would depend( any caliber) what gun and recoil springs are used. I do not think the "original" 10mm auto was designed based on a 220 grain bullet,but for a 5.5" revolver who knows?
Plus depends on the end use of the cartridge, Shooting Polar Bears or Hogs?

 

For certain applications where penetration is important, giving up some velocity for bullet weight and increased sectional density is a worthy sacrifice.

Energy is not the most important measurement in many applications, especially at making larger animals die. Making holes in important organs and breaking as many bones along the way is what is important.

I agree the top end 200's and the top end 220's are probably going to give similar terminal results, and both are good, and neither load is a polar bear load.

The end goal is to push the heaviest available bullet as fast as I safely can. Underwood and Buffalo Bore are ding 1200+ with a 220, I think I can too at a fraction of the cost.

I may well end up at 200gr in the end for my heavy loads. But I'm going to see what I can get out of the 220's.

 

You can have the biggest hole and calculate energy,velocity,sectional density all day long.
Shot placement is what matters.
Kinda like folks trying to make a 45 Colt into a Magnum

The Danish Sirius Patrol in Greenland use 200 grain bullets for Polar Bears.

But all that aside, I only use 180 grain JHP and either Longshot or Power Pistol.

 

Shot placement is one thing that matters. Having enough penetration and/or tissue disruption potential to do the job for a realistic level of shot placement is another thing that matters. A .22lr will kill pretty much any creature alive if you can place the shot right behind the ear or at the correct angle through some portion of the face. But that's not a realistic level of "shot placement" to demand in a sudden confrontation, nor even in most hunting contexts. So we up the power to enlarge the area(s) in which the "shot placement" will be adequate to the task.

Does a 220 grain projectile increase that area versus a 200 grain projectile? That's a harder question to answer. The answer could be yes, if you're at the ragged edge of adequate/inadequate penetration with the 200. Otherwise, probably not (and the possibility of greater tissue disruption/displacement of the lighter, faster round might even drive things the other way).

 

Appreciate all responses.

Shot placement should not necessarily be the same, depending on the bullet. This is very important. It's why people who shoot monolithics at the shoulder are just as successful as people who shoot Bergers at lungs. There are many ways to skin a cat. However, that's the topic of another thread, and one that comes up often.

Underwood sells their 200gr hardcast at 1250fps. They sell their 220gr hardcast at 1200 fps. If there is a winner here, it's the 220gr offering, and at best (or worst), you could say they are practically and for all intents and purposes identical. So... what are we arguing about?

The intent of this thread is not to decide whether or not the 220gr bullet is the "best." They are what I chose. They are what I want to shoot. I'm going to do it. I have them, I'm not sending them back, and I'm gonna get all the velocity I can out of them. Underwood and Buffalo Bore are both making and selling this product for a reason, and one of those reasons is because a 220gr bullet moving upward of 1200fps is good.

As far as "making the cartridge something it isn't," I'd argue I'm trying to load this cartridge to its potential. I'm not trying to make the 10mm into a 44 mag. I have a 44 Mag. I have a 45 Colt. I load them anywhere from low potential to full potential, and there are various reasons to do each.

I'm going to get full performance out of this pistol and this bullet weight. A 220gr hardcast 10 bore bullet moving at 1200+fps in a 6-shot L-frame revolver is appealing to me. It doesn't appeal to everyone. Underwood and Buffalo Bore have BOTH done it in this cartridge, and for a reason. I think the fact that there are two producers for this niche product speak to its popularity, or at least, the popularity of the idea.

And one more thing regarding what a cartridge was "designed" to do... look what we have done with bullet shape and construction, and gunpowder, and case shape and etc etc. Sometimes you can discover new potential with what you have. Sometimes you have to create something new to get what you want, based on what you had. Look at how far the 9mm has come!


P.S.

Full disclaimer, I may come back in a month and say screw this, I'm gonna buy a 41 mag and dedicate this pistol to semi-stout 175gr SWC loads. This is somewhat of an experiment, but it's the main reason I bought this pistol.

I just picked up a can of Longshot

 

Wanker the Wildcatter!

 

Haha if thats not marketable then I don’t know what is!

 

You are just going to have to work up your own loads. There is little to none for a 220 bullet. Some out there but those are for semi autos(on forums). There is usually a reason for lack of data in manuals and powder companies for a bullet
Carefully interpolate from 180 to 200 to 220. Heck it's a Ruger it can take it!

 

I think LS is a great powder for trying to eek the targeted velocity out of that 220. Keep us updated on your progress, wankerjake. Ease on up there, fella.

 

Yeah the auto guys are limited to an oal of 1.26”

I’m comfortably out to 1.358” on this first batch. Will be another week until I can shoot them though

 

You could always have the cylinder reamed for 10mm Magnum if you really want to push the performance. You would then have a three caliber revolver; 10mm Mag, 10mm Auto, and 40S&W all from the same revolver. Double tap is pushing a 230gr hard-cast 10mm bullet to 1250fps in 10mm Mag.

The GP100 in 10mm Auto is about the only double action Ruger revolver I have been tempted to buy. If I didn't already have a S&W 610 I probably would have; the GP100 is a better fit than for 10mm Auto than a big old N-frame.

 

Yeah mcb, and I might. Gonna try this first but a GP100 in 10mm Magnum is quite appealing.

The L frame is the biggest appeal, to me. In a Redhawk is rather have a 41 or 44 or 45.

 

I also might mess around with trimming 41 mag brass to fit

 

Why S&W has never come out with a 10mm L-frame is quite the mystery. They did the big N-frame in 10mm and the 646 L-frame in 40S&W but the 646 used a titanium cylinder. Had they used a stainless-steel cylinder it would have been so easy to have made/converted that to 10mm Auto. A fixed-sight, 4-inch, L-frame in 10mm Auto would be a combat revolver beyond compare.