10mm

[jc2]

a hot-loaded 200gr 10mm bullet will provide about 100 ft. lbs more than a 180 gr. .357 mag.

Standard Glock 20--DT 200-grain XTP--1250 fps/694 fpe
Standard four-inch S&W 686--180-grain HCLFN--1375 fps/765 fpe

Do the math

I did. It sure looks like the .357 Magnum a "slight but insignificant advantage" over the 10mm (71 fpe).

JC2, in what way do you see that the .357 magnum has a "slight, but insignificant advantage" has over the 10mm?

BUT you had already answered yourself :

(though, I still use my 686 from time to time) - one being a slight edge in power of the .357 with about the same recoil.

I might add you ended up agreeing with me in the thread to which you linked. The 10mm remains the autoloading equivalent of the 10mm--nothing more, nothing less.

 

[AndABeer]

edited: nevermind

 

[warriorsociologist]

Quote:
a hot-loaded 200gr 10mm bullet will provide about 100 ft. lbs more than a 180 gr. .357 mag.


Standard Glock 20--DT 200-grain XTP--1250 fps/694 fpe
Standard four-inch S&W 686--180-grain HCLFN--1375 fps/765 fpe

Quote:
Do the math

I did. It sure looks like the .357 Magnum a "slight but insignificant advantage" over the 10mm (71 fpe).

Well, I tried to spare you by pointing out how you needed to measure the barrel length (don't forget the cylinder)...read my post again and think about the error you just made. A 4" .357 revolver is better compared to a 5.5" 10mm auto barrel - even if you consider the loss of pressure due to venting at the cylinder gap. I have fired .40 caliber loads in a 5.5" KKM G20 conversion barrel and a 4" 610 to verify this. Perhaps you should try firing the same loads you mention from 4" 610 and a 4" 686 and see what happens (my hunting trials that I used to choose my 610 over my 686 compared REAL velocities fired from the 6.5 and 6" versions of these 2 respectively...the 10mm won handily I might add). As it happens, the DT 200gr. XTP hums along at about 1450 from a 6" Glock 20 barrel...so, even if we downgrade it to 1400fps - or even the 1375fps you provided for the .357 example above (for a hypothetical 5.5" barrel) and then compare it to a 4" .357 load above...don't you see how having a 200gr. 10mm bullet traveling at the same speed as your 180gr .357 bullet has an advantage???

Quote:
JC2, in what way do you see that the .357 magnum has a "slight, but insignificant advantage" has over the 10mm?

BUT you had already answered yourself :

Quote:
(though, I still use my 686 from time to time) - one being a slight edge in power of the .357 with about the same recoil.


I might add you ended up agreeing with me in the thread to which you linked. The 10mm remains the autoloading equivalent of the 10mm--nothing more, nothing less.

Umm...try reading that complete sentence...the "slight edge in power" was why I switched to the 10mm....

As is is, you are 1/2 correct...the 10mm is certainly nothing less. While I am a huge revolver fan, I simply can't fathom how you can't see that a demonstrably more powerful round that is capable of being fired from a higher capacity platform (G20 vs. revolver for example) doesn't have an advantage. Anyone can see tht the 10mm has the potential to be a "slightly more" powerful round when you compare them in a fair contest (for example, not when you "stack the deck" in favor of your argument by comparing a 4" revolver with a 4" auto; but rather, when you fire them both from a 4" or 6" revolver, or match barrel/chamber lengths someother way) I am not sure what else can be said to help you see your error... You can lead a horse to water... Oh well. How is this not clear to you?

As for "endng up agreeing with you" on the last thread, I think most people will easily see I decided to "choose the High Road" and let others make my point for me than to continue the childish and unproductive bickering that we were seemily trapped in. Further, you should read the thread in its entirety if you want to eveluate the "verdict" to which it leads. I don't intend on dragging that same bickering into this thread so that is what I posted a link to a place where those with open minds who truely want to read what has already been discussed on this topic can do so...

 

[kansas45]

Thank's you guy's. I have a chance to buy a Colt Commander from a friend at work (10mm) & just wondered if it was worth having or not. Sound's like it might be.

 

[jc2]

warriorsociologist -

No matter how much you whine about a "fair contest"--like comparing a box stock 686 to box stock Glock 20 is somehow "unfair--no matter how you try to split hairs, no matter how "yow but" it, or much you want to recompute barrel length, the figures remain:

Box stock Glock 20--DT 200-grain XTP--1250 fps/694 fpe
Box stock four-inch S&W 686--180-grain HCLFN--1375 fps/765 fpe

The four-inch S&W 686 has a slight, but insignificant, advantage in power over a Glock 20 (to the tune of roughly 125 fps and 71 fpe).

The best a stock Glock 20 can do is get close to a stock four-inch 686, period. The .357 Magnum in a four-inch 686 has a slight but significant advantage over the 10mm in a Glock 20.

When it comes to energy, the .357 Magnum retains a slight, but insignficant advantage over the 10mm. In reality, they are ballistic twins. The 10mm is nothing more than the autoloader equivalent of the .357 Magnum revolver. Now, if you want to discuss the differences in platforms--wheelgun versus bottom-feeder--that is a whole other story, but when you talk calibre, it's a wash.

Depsite all your histrionics," you don't get any "fairer" than comparing two of the most common pistols in stock configuration with the current "hot" commercial loads.

 

[Soybomb]

Well I don't get into talking about fps, ft/lbs, or other energy dump related things but if we're talking defensive use heres what two of my favorite 10mm rounds do over clothed gelatin:
(both from doubletap)
165gr Gold Dot JHP @ 1400fps - 14.25" / 1.02"
180gr Gold Dot JHP @ 1300fps - 15.25" / .96"
and if you're more of a hunter theres always
200gr XTP @ 1250fps - 19.5" / .72"

I like 10mm, its versatile. You can load soft .40s&w rounds to practice with or some hot rounds which poke really big holes in people.

 

[jc2]

You have to take Double Tap's penetration and expansion figures with a healthy dose of skepticism. While they may be hotshot load developers, they are not necessarily qualifed ballistic testers. Until DT's figures have been verified by an independent, professional ballistics lab or testers, I would lend very little credence to them (and point out the results achieved in actually usage have fallen considerably short of DT's advertised figures).

 

[Soybomb]

point out the results achieved in actually usage have fallen considerably short of DT's advertised figures

Link or source? I've not heard of this yet.

I do give them more credit than I should perhaps seeing that I haven't seen any 3rd party gel tests on their rounds, but at the same time their procedure seems sound and their business practices have given me no reason to doubt they're lying either. I'd be a little surprised if they were too far off actually. Unusually non-skeptical of me though I'll admit.

 

[Bob R]

While they may be hotshot load developers

I think hot is the operative word when it comes to DT. I love the ammo, my gun doesn't.

I have a Delta Elite that would not slide lock after the last round when using the DT ammo.

The gentleman who built my Delta for me (Ted Yost) said the ammo from DT was just a tad to hot. To make it work properly I would need a heavier recoil spring, and a heavier mainspring. Just throwing a heavier recoil spring would help, but the gun would still take a battering. As I spent a good chunk of change on this pistol, and plan on my great-grandchildren using it I will stick with 165gr golden sabers loaded to right at 1200fps and spare the gun.

I am thinking of a Glock 20 so I can help DT get rid of some of their ammo.

bob

 

[warriorsociologist]

I give up. If you can see how flawed this part is, I don't know what more I can say:

warriorsociologist -

No matter how much you whine about a "fair contest"--like comparing a box stock 686 to box stock Glock 20 is somehow "unfair--no matter how you try to split hairs, no matter how "yow but" it, or much you want to recompute barrel length, the figures remain:

Box stock Glock 20--DT 200-grain XTP--1250 fps/694 fpe
Box stock four-inch S&W 686--180-grain HCLFN--1375 fps/765 fpe

Are you actually trying to be serious? You seem to have been around here for too long to be a troll, so I can only assume you believe this stuff. Let me enlighten you about one very important point you have failed to consider: You are comparing both platforms and calibers there...AT THE SAME TIME...and then drawing a conclusion about the caliber's performance while discounting any affects the different platforms may have imparted. This is a "discussion" (or it was) about ammunition (e.g., the performance of 10mm ammunition)...not 2 random firearms + ammunition. If you want to draw conclusions about a comparison between only 2 things, then you need to control for all other factors (as much as possible). Even the most basic high school logic courses teach this - that is if they still teach logic in HS...most likel only taught as a college class now. Anyway, if you are trying to say that a 4" 686 with 7 rounds (lets say it's a 686-plus) is better than a stock G20 for the first 7 shots by 70fps or so per shot, ok then...do you not see how little that contributes to this argument? - it is also foolish to conveniently forget that a G20 would still have another 9 rds left [(15+1)-7 = 9 for those who are having trouble following along]. I guess based on your "logic" I could also say that ".308 is balistically superior to .30-06" based on "testing" them from a 24" and a 18" barreled rifles respectively, but that wouldn't make much sense now would it? Hmmm....how about this: consider trying to compare 2 car engines side-by-side by putting one in a much heavier car with different gearing and then trying to extrapolate which engine (only) is "better" based on the two cars' 1/4 mile speeds... Ring any bells? Make sense???

...but when you talk calibre, it's a wash.

This is exactly what this thread is about - a point you seem to have missed. You have yet to seperate caliber and platform from your analysis. I have tried to give you the benifit of the doubt by "playing nice" and not resorting to dragging down this thread by engaging you directly, but for the sake of unsuspecting others who might miss the obvious flaws in your argument, I am compelled to respond. You seem too blinded by your own need to believe your flawed logic that you don't seem willing to consider anything else. Of course this happens in politics all the time (capital L liberals hate anything GW says...just because it's coming out of his mouth, etc.), but I guess your homebrewed "cult of the .357" has you too firmly in it's grasp.

I am not going to try to reason with someone who's so determined to be unreasonable. When someday you get around to matching the platforms so you can actually control for them and thus compare only the calibers we are talking about, you might then "see the light of truth" and have something worth contributing. I can't say that I care if you do one way or the other, but if you insist on continuing to deliver your story with such conviction, it might be nice to post a link back here in the future so that unsuspecting readers can see what your opinions are actually based on.

Anyway, like I said, it's clearly no use having this one-sided "discussion" with you at this time...maybe after a few more years under your belt...we'll see. Until you have some comparible data to share or are willing to give up "preaching" and take up "thinking", I guess you can have & keep your fantasy alive. As long as the remaining people reading this thread have access to the information that is and should be clear to just about anyone, I am not going to waste any more of my time with you.

 

[jc2]

The most common platform for the .357 Magnum is a four or six inch revolvers. The Glock 20 is one of the most common (and certainly most recommended) platforms for the 10mm. It only makes sense to compare performance out of their common platforms. Theory is nice, but when you get practical, but we don't use weapons in a vacuum--the four-inch is 686 and a Glock 20 is and remains a very legitimate real-world comparison.

 

[[email protected]]

JC2, I wouldn't mind seeing some the "actual usage" data you claim to have for the DT ammo. You seem to have the mother of all bones to pick with Double Tap... every time the company comes up you're right there with the exact same "grain of salt" routine. The fact of the matter is, the study of wound ballistics is in an infant state relative to other avenues of science. There are several "experts" in the field, and the opinions are split and damn near diametrically opposed. To say that any "scientific testing" done on the incapacitation potential of various handgun loads is authorative is intellectually dishonest. The closest thing we have to a "standard testing protocol" is the use of ballistic gelatin mixed to a certain formula, which isn't exactly rocket surgery. In a perfect world, I suppose we could have Germans in startched lab coats spend six months studying every aspect of a shooting incident before we had to pull the trigger, but in the world I live in, we don't. Simple physics, common sense, anecdotal eveidence, and a certain consistency of jello are all we have to make our choices, and all of those things tell me that a bigger is better, faster is better, bigger and faster is way better.

DanO

 

[Johnny Guest]

Here it is again - - -

A generally logical discussion gone south. I'm quite disappointed in some of the exchanges above. Y'all check your Private Messages.

CLOSED

Johnny Guest
THR Staff