10mm? What purpose and why?

[crackerjack]

Years ago the French conducted ballastic tests that were respected to reflect closely to real world encounters LE and self defence. They used goats closely matching human weights. The 357 Mag performance was proven in actual field use years afters there testing and closely matched (as well as many other calibers)the tests results. My point would a effective round on deer not be expected to be as effective on a person ? In this day of modern protective gear, overpentration will probabely be my after the fact consideration. Is is great that we have many tools (calibers) to obtain results in many different situations. Always thought 10mm was perfect backup hunting (in my area) and self defense.
Free air, Free advice, and no the water is not free

 

[Nail Shooter]

by MachIVshooter:

"Bottom line: the 10mm is a penetrating SOB. Since handguns have a rather lowsy reputation in this department anyway, I'd rather take any advantage I can get."


+1 on that post by MachIVshooter.

I've done some informal "tests" of my own, and found that nothing in the other common semi auto calibers seemed to slide thru stuff like the 180FMJ's loaded near max. Since statistics show that the majority of bullets fired at the bad guy (at least by the police) probably miss anyway, why am I to worry about a little "overpenetration"? Give me a bullet that I know will make it into or thru the target and feeds reliably. As an added bonus, I would think that pelvis shots would be particularly devastating w/ the 10mm.

One of Clint Smith's favorite sayings is: "Two holes bleed better than one."

 

[Bob R]

Wow, this thread sure has had its ups and downs. I thought we were going to have to send people to their rooms for a while.

I really like my 10mm, but tell me, if you don't have a 10mm, which is better, 9mm or 45?


Bwaahaaaaaahaaaa


bob

Am I glad I don't have to worry about that!!!

 

[jc2]

Let me see if I can summarize...

The 41 Magnum is obviously better than the 10mm based on having much higher velocity and energy compared to the 10mm. In fact "there truly is no comparison".

Actually, John, as typical, you do a much better job with misstating than summarizing.

No qualitative comparison was made between the .41 Magnum and the 10mm. The only comparison that was made was quanititive, and "there truly is no comparison" when speaking quanitatively--the top .41 Magnum loads easily generate up to 50% more ME than the top 10mm loads.

But the 10mm isn't any better than the .40S&W even though it has much higher velocity and energy compared to the .40S&W. In fact its performance is actually suspect due to its having higher velocity and energy.

No, John, what was actually stated was there is more to consider when selecting a calibre for LE/defence that merely velocity (unless you are one of those absolutists who truly believe "velocity is everything"). It's easy to focus on simple number like MV or MV and ignore the big picture.

 

[Guns_and_Labs]

Since statistics show that the majority of bullets fired at the bad guy (at least by the police) probably miss anyway, why am I to worry about a little "overpenetration"?

I thought we had already determined in a previous thread that THR'rs never missed.

 

[Lennyjoe]

I really like my 10mm, but tell me, if you don't have a 10mm, which is better, 9mm or 45?

Bob, you trying to stir the pot a little.

 

[Phaetos]

As I am the OP, I will state this fact: I started a vitural ???? storm here! Fighters to your corners! Man..... a simple question turns into a slugfest.

 

[JohnKSa]

It's easy to focus on simple number like MV or MV and ignore the big picture.

Clearly it is--you reduced the 41 vs 10mm to a straight MV/ME comparison and made it plain that simple comparison was conclusive. No need for consideration of capacity issues, ammunition costs, shootability issues, etc.

Same thing when comparing the .357 to the 10mm. You made it clear that MV/ME comparison is sufficient to establish that they are ballistic twins. End of discussion.

But when comparing the 40 to the 10mm, somehow we have to touch every base; gun size, bullet performance, bullet selection, ammo cost, ammo selection, weapon selection, firearm ergonomics, detailed analysis of ammo suppliers, etc. We have to focus on short-range encounter LE/Defence applicability without getting into hunting or the longer range capability of the 10mm. AND, THIS time, the significant MV/ME differences are minimized--even couched as being a disadvantage of the 10mm.

 

[jc2]

And clearly, John, you persist in pulling remarks out of context, misstatement, and occassionaly, outright prevarication.

The discussion in this thread of the .357 Magnum and .41 Magnum clearly centered on ballistics (which are most often distilled to MV/ME) and relative power levels. Even then, it was clearly acknowledged there are differences in platform (e.g., the 10mm is the bottom feeder equivalent of the .357 Magnum). Ballistically, there is no comparison between the top-end .41 Magnum loads and the top-end 10mm loads (which barely equal the top-end .357 Magnum loads). I would hope most people reading the thread clearly understand the differences between revolvers and bottom feeders.

The other discussion within the thread centered on LE/defence applications which clearly involves more than ballistics. So, yes John, more than just ballistics were addressed that discussion. Again, it is hoped most people partipating or merely reading the thread would understand more than just ballistics are involved selecting a handgun for LE/defence. BTW, I think just about all the service calibres (9x19/357 SIG, .40 S&W and .45 ACP)--not just the .40 S&W--are better suited in a strictly LE/defence than 10mm.

 

[warriorsociologist]

And clearly, John, you persist in pulling remarks out of context, misstatement, and occassionaly, outright prevarication.

The discussion in this thread of the .357 Magnum and .41 Magnum clearly centered on ballistics (which are most often distilled to MV/ME) and relative power levels. Even then, it was clearly acknowledged there are differences in platform (e.g., the 10mm is the bottom feeder equivalent of the .357 Magnum). Ballistically, there is no comparison between the top-end .41 Magnum loads and the top-end 10mm loads (which barely equal the top-end .357 Magnum loads). I would hope most people reading the thread clearly understand the differences between revolvers and bottom feeders.

The other discussion within the thread centered on LE/defence applications which clearly involves more than ballistics. So, yes John, more than just ballistics were addressed that discussion. Again, it is hoped most people partipating or merely reading the thread would understand more than just ballistics are involved selecting a handgun for LE/defence. BTW, I think just about all the service calibres (9x19/357 SIG, .40 S&W and .45 ACP)--not just the .40 S&W--are better suited in a strictly LE/defence than 10mm.

Sorry to dissapoint you, oh wise one...glad we have experts around like you who can help us "little people." That's all I'm going to direct at this sub-plot since this tit-fot-tat has already gone well past the point of foolishness and to continue this schoolyard slap-fest is counterproductive. Just let it go...bruised egos will heal provided you don't contunue to reopen the wound (or invite more verbal "discipline").

 

[VirgilCaine]

Simply by changing barrels, and in some cases spring weights, you can fire the 10mm Auto, 9x25, .40 Smith and Wesson, and .357 SIG out of your Glock 20 or 29. ... Admitting that at $150 bucks a pop for the barrels, $20 a pop for the magazines, and $10 a pop for the springs, as well as several hundred for the individual slides, this system could get expensive in a hurry, ...

9x25? Haven't heard of that one before.

Not very cheap, but if you can only have one handgun...

Very interesting, thanks.

 

[JShirley]

Virgil, the 9x25mm is basically a 10mm case necked down to 9mm.

OTOH, the 9x23 is similar to the .38 Super, but has no rim, and was designed from inception for very high pressure. Winchester brass is extremely thick and strong. I saw the White Box JSP available for some very good prices for a while. Looks like it's starting to creep up, but you can still find some pretty reasonably, if you look around.

John

 

[JohnKSa]

I would hope most people reading the thread clearly understand the differences between revolvers and bottom feeders. ....
it is hoped most people partipating or merely reading the thread would understand more than just ballistics are involved selecting a handgun for LE/defence.

These are all bounds and limitation that YOU placed on this thread to drive it in the direction that best supports your premises. The original question was purely one of caliber, or one of ballistics, if you please.

YOU decided it was only a question about autopistols.
YOU decided it was only a question about LE/Defense.
YOU decided it was about handgun selection.

10mm? What purpose and why? Why do you need a 10mm? More velocity out of the barrel? Slightly higher energy? And who makes a 10mm?

Remember this very simple question? You're the one who complicated the thread by trying to introduce any and every bit of minutia you could dredge up that might cast the 10mm (one of your favorite calibers ) in a negative light.

And no matter how you try to tapdance out of it, it is painfully obvious that you believe simple ballistics are more than sufficient for comparisons that don't flatter the 10mm. And just as painfully obvious that when these comparisons DO make the 10mm look superior, that you find it imperative to bring up any and every minor detail you can think of that might make the 10mm (your favorite "bottomfeeder" ) seem less attractive.

I think just about all the service calibres (9x19/357 SIG, .40 S&W and .45 ACP)--not just the .40 S&W--are better suited in a strictly LE/defence than 10mm.

I'm puzzled as to why you feel it necessary to post this. You've made this abundantly plain in every post on the 10mm you've ever made on this forum, on TFL, and on Glocktalk. Did you somehow think that perhaps there was some doubt in ANYONE'S mind as to your opinion about the 10mm? Thanks for stating it plainly--too bad it's irrelevant--this thread wasn't about LE/defense until you tried to twist it in that direction.

you persist in pulling remarks out of context, misstatement, and occassionaly, outright prevarication.

Gotta give you points for consistency--as always when the fact abandon you (as they frequently do--it's only fair since you so frequently abandon them) you resort to patronizing tones, pontification and accusations.

 

[jc2]

These are all bounds and limitation that YOU placed on this thread to drive it in the direction that best supports your premises.

No, John, that is the context in which the remarks you pulled out of context were made.

Did you somehow think that perhaps there was some doubt in ANYONE'S mind as to your opinion about the 10mm?

I like the 10mm and make no bones about it. I just can acknowledge that it is not be all and end all of calibres. It has its strengths, and it has its weaknesses--just like every other calibre out there. Its strength is that it is a very versatile calibre--it is a decent low-end hunting calibre and a decent LE/defence calibre (though it is better suited for hunting than for LE/defence). Its weakness is that there are much better hunting calibres available and better defence calibres available. Unless you have a specific need (or just want) a weapon to fill both roles--hunting and defence--there are better choices available for hunting and for LE/defence. That's not a slam on the 10mm--just a realistic appraisal based on a lot of experience with calibre.

this thread wasn't about LE/defense until you tried to twist it in that direction.

Actually, John, had you bothered to read the thread from the beginning you would know that it was a poster who styles himself "MTMilitiaman" who twisted the thread in a LE/defence direction (see post #10).

 

[JohnKSa]

No that is the context in which the remarks you pulled out of context were made.

Wow, did you actually type that thinking it was an intelligent response?

...had you bothered to read the thread from the beginning you would know that it was a poster who styles himself "MTMilitiaman" who twisted the thread in a LE/defence direction (see post #10).

As a matter of fact, MTM did mention defense in post #10, but he was replying to a comment in post #8. From which he actually quoted, lest there be any question why he said what he did. I believe that post #8 was the first to mention defense as being a less than strong point of the 10mm.

Post #8 was made by--JC2.

HEY! That's YOU! IMAGINE THAT!

I guess that maybe you just forgot that he was quoting and replying to YOUR post...

I like the 10mm and make no bones about it. blah, blah, blah

Yeah, you make no bones about it allright.

jc2 says: "The 10mm's strengths are that it does nothing particularly well compared to other calibers and its weaknesses are, well, pretty much everything. And, oh yeah, I'd carry it except that I carry some other caliber..."

What a joke.

 

[jc2]

John, you lack the ability to address any issue within context it was made. You cannot make a point without pulling something out of context and/or just plain misquoting it. You persist in pulling remarks out of context, misstatement, and occassionaly, outright prevarication.

 

[JohnKSa]

What, no comment on the big, BIG, surprise that MTMilitiaman wasn't actually the person who brought up defense on this thread?

You know, like you said he was?

BTW, most folks realize that 'prevarication' is just a fancy way to call someone a liar. Is there some reason that you think it's ok to post personal insults on THR? (That's ok, it'll just be our little secret.)

 

[jc2]

Yep, because it a very succinct and accurate description of your style.

What, no comment on the big, BIG, surprise that MTMilitiaman wasn't actually the person who brought up defense on this thread?

There you go again, John, another typical misstatement. Sure, I mentioned LE/defence in my post #8 as part of very legitimate response to the question the thread asked, "10mm? What purpose and why?" MTMilitiaman is the one who chose to make defence issue (or "to twist it around in that direction," as you, John described it.)

Here's what was said in my post #8:

Its strength is that it is a good general purpose round that is adequate for hunting (at least up to whitetail-size game), and it is a decent defence round (though it is pretty DOA as a LE round).

Its weakness is that there are better hunting rounds, and there are better defence rounds.

Nothing particular inflammatory--just an honest reply and certainly nothing "to twist it" in a LE/defence direction. Just another example of one of your typical misstatements. It was MTMilitianman who chose to twist the thread in a LE/defence direction.

BTW, I see your back to editing your posts after they are replied to. I should know by now that I have to go ahead and quote you so you don't edit it.

Oh, if you're really worried about personal insults on THR, go back and check post #90 by some fellow who calls himself "JohnKSa." You'll be surprised at what you find--maybe even a pot calling the kettle black.

 

[JohnKSa]

STILL no comment on how it could be possible that although you said MTMilitiaman was the person who brought up defense on this thread that it turns out that YOU actually did it?

And that he was actually quoting YOU when he brought it up?

Come on, this will be entertaining...

(Of course, you can just insult me some more if you'd rather not talk about the 10mm)

I see you're editing your posts after they are replied to. ... I have to go ahead and quote you so you don't edit it.

You've got to be kidding me. YOU'RE griping about my editing my posts but then you respond with a one liner to my previous post, and suddenly after I reply to your one liner your post becomes a small novel?

Feel free to quote me all you like.

I mentioned LE/defence ...MTMilitiaman is the one who chose to make defence issue (or "to twist it around in that direction,"

OK, I get it now. YOU bring up defense and when someone else responds, THEY'RE twisting the thread in that direction.

 

[jc2]

I really wonder what you get. The thread asked the question "10mm? What purpose and why?" Are suggesting the 10mm doesn't have LE/defence purpose?

you respond with a one liner to my previous post, and suddenly after I reply to your one liner your post becomes a small novel?

Just addressing the changes you made in your post. Do you remember what your original post (one liner) was?

 

[VirgilCaine]

Virgil, the 9x25mm is basically a 10mm case necked down to 9mm.

OTOH, the 9x23 is similar to the .38 Super, but has no rim, and was designed from inception for very high pressure. Winchester brass is extremely thick and strong.

Ah.

 

[MTMilitiaman]

There you go again, John, another typical misstatement. Sure, I mentioned LE/defence in my post #8 as part of very legitimate response to the question the thread asked, "10mm? What purpose and why?" MTMilitiaman is the one who chose to make defence issue (or "to twist it around in that direction," as you, John described it.)

You brought it up, I just thought it pertinent to challenge you to expound. Like I said previously, the 10mm may not be perfect for everyone and I really don't care if you carry something different. But when someone asks about a cartridge in earnest trying to learn something, he/she might find facts more relevent and useful than opinions, which are not to be confused--especially in your case sense you seem far more full of opinions than fact.

The fact remains you made first reference to the cartridge's role in the LE/defense role. I quoted you in an attempt to get you to support your allegations. You tried but were unable to do so because I provided literature from a reputable bullet manufacture that countered your claims that the 10mm Auto, when loaded to its potential, pushes bullets beyond their capabilties.

So unless you actually have something new to add to this topic, preferrebly more fact than fiction, I'd say you've already discredited yourself enough and don't really need to drag this topic into page five or six.

 

[JohnKSa]

Are suggesting the 10mm doesn't have LE/defence purpose?

I presume you mean "Are YOU suggesting..." And the answer would be no. You said that. Remember this?

it is pretty DOA as a LE round

and this?

I think just about all the service calibres ... are better suited in a strictly LE/defence than 10mm.

or this?

The 10mm has several shortcomings as defensive round

or maybe this?

When it comes to defence, platform (size, weight, ergonomics) argues against the 10mm

Perhaps you remember this?

The 10mm was long dead as a LE/defence round

What about this?

It's rather silly to bet your life on what are essentially unproven/untested loads

And yes, I KNOW, ALL of these quotes are taken out of context. And the 10mm is your favorite "bottomfeeder" caliber and all...

It's no wonder you don't carry it with OPINIONS like that. (Although, yes, I KNOW you WOULD carry it except for the fact that you carry something else.)

 

[jc2]

Yes, John, you stated the facts correctly:

1. The 10mm is pretty much DOA as a LE round (and has been for sometime).

2. The service calibres (9x19/357 SIG, .40 S&W and .45 ACP) are better suited in a strictly LE/defence role than 10mm.

3. The 10mm does indeed have several shortcomings as a LE/defence round. There are good reasons several other calibres are far more popular with LE and for defensive use than the 10mm.

4. When it comes to defence, platform (size, weight, ergonomics) argues against the 10mm. That is one of major shortcomings of the 10mm as a LE/defence (and one of the reasons it was dumped by LE).

5. The 10mm is long dead as a LE/defence round--just look at the lack of LE/defence ammo offered by the major manufacturers. It's long gone the way of the .41 Magnum as a LE/defence round. Of the major manufacturers, the only ones still in the game at all are Winchester with the Silvertip and Federal with the Hydra-Shok--both old technology rounds (i.e., no R&D dollars spent on the 10mm because there is no LE market). Compare that to their offerings (along with Remington's and Speer's offerings) in the 9x19/357SIG, .40 S&W and .45 ACP, and you can easily see what calibres are alive and well in the LE marketplace and which are DOA.

6. It's rather silly to bet your life on what are essentially unproven/untested loads. Of course it is John. There are numerous rounds out there with a long history of good test results in the lab and good results in actual LE use. If anything, "silly" is to mild a word to describe choosing an untested/unproven load for carry when there are other loads available with very good performance records.

I want a calibre that can perform adequately in a hunting and a defence role--even though it does mean compromises in both. The 10mm fills that role well as does the .357 Magnum. Right now, I have almost moved strictly to wheelguns so the .357 Magnum is what I carry. When I carried bottom feeders, John, I carried the 10mm--for the same reason I now carry the .357 Magnum (after all they are basically ballistic twins). I still have my 1076 (and about a half of case of Silvertips). If I ever feel the need to go back to a bottom feeder, it will my 1076 and the 10mm.

And John, if you cannot understand it is possible to like calibre (or anything else) despite it have certain shortcomings, then there's something lacking in you. I appreciate 10mm's stengths and weakness. The world is not perfect--and neither is the 10mm.

MTMilitiaman, you provided data that supported exactly what I said:

The only "full-power" defence/LE ammo available for 10mm besides the 175-grain Silvertips relies on bullets designed for the .40 S&W pushed the the far upper end (or beyond) the optimum performance window for those bullets (and they are all totally unproven in actual defence/LE use).

The message you posted verified the accuracy of my statement that the bullets in question (180-grain Gold Dots) are "pushed the the far upper end (or beyond) the optimum performance window." The fact remains, no matter how hard it is for some to digest, the boutique loads which were the subject of the discussion are "totally unproven in actual defence/LE use." They will likely remain unproven because the "10mm is pretty much DOA as a LE round (and has been for sometime)."

 

[Iron bottom]

When a person thinks about all those people who have used those old Winchesters, Colts, Sharps, Springfields and whatever else they could get their hands on without the knowledge of their performance in the lab on a chunk of jelly, it just makes a fellow want to dig 'em up and slap 'em.

Re law enforcement reports on the 10 mm, I don't expect to see any law enforcement reports on .44 mag, .45 long colt, .454,.460 smith, 500 smith, 480 ruger and the others that did not find favor with law enforcement either. It would be silly to think that any of these rounds could not be used in self defense or that they would not do the job as well as the law enforcement rounds. Or Heaven forbid, better.