InTheSwamp
Member
9mm is just fine.
.40 vs 10mm for CCW/Self-Defense (Against Humans)
- Thread starter LookAtYou
- Start date
-
- Tags
- .40 10mm 40 s&w ballistics caliber ccw s&w self-defense
There are scientific reasons why clear jello is NOT a viable ballistic testing medium.
quantitative ammunition selection
The biggest hindrance to factory/handloaded 10mm JHP ammunition is it's limited by using JHPs designed for 40S&W ammunition.
Here's a handloaded 10mm 155gr Gold Dot 1420fps, it over expanded, result being much less penetration compared to factory 40 Speer 155gr Gold Dot,
Speer published data states Gold Dots have a max velocity window of ~1300fps
Add a 10mm, fragged 155gr XTP MV 1420fps,
A common 10mm carry choice for nefarious two legged critters is the fragging 135gr Nosler JHP at uber MVs, this round does NOT give deep penetration, but it does give very large crush cavities in soft tissue and it would be a good choice, IMO, for crowded areas. This ammunition also has light felt recoil when fired from a 1911, fast split times on target.
This handloaded 10mm 180gr Gold Dot was downloaded from the 1300s and impacted 4LD at 1267fps, it meets FBI protocol and it also delivers a large crush cavity,
Comparing the 10mm to the .357mag, 357mag JHPs are designed for magnum velocities, this symmetrical diameter 158gr Winchester JHP impacted at 1437fps,
There are more factory 10mm ammunition choices than ever before, the 175gr Silvertip is a proven, old tech design JHP. My preference for carry on the ranch is handloaded 180gr Gold Dots, it's also an excellent performing bullet against thick bone.
For handloaders, Starline brass for the 40 is 19 cents per thousand, 10mm is 20 cents per thousand, 357mag is 17 cents/1,000
Last edited:
I'd take a 10 mm all day long. Ammo selection helps mitigate some of the concerns. You can get soft shooting, less penetrating 10 mm ammo for dangerous 2 legged critters or heavy hitting, more penetrating 10 mm ammo for larger, dangerous 4 legged critters.
Basically, a 10 mm can do what a .40 S&W can do, but not the other way around.
Basically, a 10 mm can do what a .40 S&W can do, but not the other way around.
S.Crockett
Member
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2022
- Messages
- 327
Correct.
Moreover, unless you handload for the .40S&W, that cartridge in factory ammo tops out with the ubiquitous 180grn bullet-weight @ about 980-1000fps, commercial ammo-makers not wanting to push it harder out of concern for liability resulting from user KABOOM!-skis.
The 10mm AUTO, on the other hand, is just starting to get frisky these days with modern hybrid propellants and 200grn bullets @ 1250fps, and with 180grn bullets at or near 1375-1400 fps. … Not to mention the heavy, coated hard-cast WFN 10mm boolits that are now available in factory ammo: 200, 210, 220, and 230grns.
Which is all to say that the 10mm’s greatest virtue is its versatility of use from the platform of a modern autoloader of reasonable size and weight and with decent mag capacity.
The FBI did issue a 190 grain 10mm round. It’s also important to remember that until the late 2000s they also issued 10mm H&K MP5s. Out of a longer barrel, the lower powered 10mm was still a thumper! Unfortunately, all of those guns have been taken off the line.
my three 10mm, the S&W 3rd Gen is a 1066 issued to me by my PD new in the box in 1991. Other than long dead night sights, it still runs great. I hunt with the G40, but have come to love the M&P 4.6 Inch. I’m kind of a fan…..
my three 10mm, the S&W 3rd Gen is a 1066 issued to me by my PD new in the box in 1991. Other than long dead night sights, it still runs great. I hunt with the G40, but have come to love the M&P 4.6 Inch. I’m kind of a fan…..
Attachments
When it comes to comparing rounds I don't factor in the human equation. I don't give a frick how well the average shooter can shoot a round or how well Joe Blow shoots a particular round the only thing that matters is how well "I" shoot the round. How well "I" shoot a round has a lot more to do with the gun I am using than the particulars of the round. I shoot .45 acp out of my 1911's better than I shoot .45 acp out of my XDS or CM45. But I am proficient enough with my XDs and CM45 that I feel very confident in my ability to defend myself with either of them as well as I can with my 1911's.
If I was Mr Gun Salesman helping Mr and Mrs. beginner choose a first handgun I might steer them towards a 9mm over a .40 cal or 10mm. But I am not Mr Gun Salesman so your whole premise on what is easier for me to shoot and what I can get faster follow up shots with is really garbage when it comes to me choosing a handgun to carry. The chances of missing with a 10mm vs a 40 cal are the same for me. Either I calm my adrenalin and take good controlled shots like I have practiced hundreds of thousands of times or I loose my cool and start popping off rounds willey nilley. The particular cartridge I am shooting really doesn't have any affect one way or the other for me.
The premises you present are very "gun magazine". This is a board filled with experienced shooters that are comfortable and very proficient with shooting .44 mags, 50AE, 454 Casul and a 10mm is a fun little pop gun to play with. You are really preaching to the wrong audience. You really should be preaching to the Anti-Gunners and others that don't know any better.
I decided a long time ago that I am comfortable with .45acp with my own Golddot handloads. 10mm is tempting but for me it won't really buy me anything. I have picked up my first .40 cal which is a Kahr CM40 because I get a more powerful round in a pistol the same size of my CM9. There isn't really a significant difference between how well I shoot my CM40 vs my CM9. So for that size gun I choose to carry the CM40. There aren't any 10mm pistols of comparable size to the CM9/CM40. The 10mm compacts are very close size wise to .45 acp compacts and don't really buy me anything over the .45acp.
As far as magazine capacity goes I live in a state that limits me to carrying 10 rounds so I would rather carry 10 rounds of .45acp than 10 rounds of 9mm or .40 S&W. I also believe that if I am not able to eliminate the threat with 10 rounds of .45acp or at least remove yourself from danger with 10 rounds an extra 5 rounds of 9mm really isn't going to do me much good as I am probably already dead. Running through the ship yards engaging in a shootout with the evil South Africans, shooting hundreds of rounds of ammo, makes for a good movie but there are too many people that are not able to differentiate the movies or their favorite video game from real life.
Last edited:
I like 40 and really like my Glock 22.5
That said, I do not think penetration & expansion in gel completely reflective of ASAP incapacitation potential.
An example that mostwillshouldmight understand:
https://www.luckygunner.com/labs/revolver-ballistics-test/
4'' barrel Remington 125 SJHP 357 Mag - 13.6'' / .54 - 1,473 fps - 602# KE
4'' barrel Remington 158 LSWCHP +P - 13.4'' / .56 - 921 fps - 298# KE
Penetration & expansion in gel is near identical for those two bullets.
I (and probably most other people) think 357 Mag has better ASAP potential than the 38 special - it has 2x the KE.
Overpenetration? Pick the right bullet.
https://www.luckygunner.com/labs/10mm-auto-self-defense-ammo-ballistic-gel-tests/
Hornady 155 XTP - 14'' / .68 - 1,344 fps - 622# KE
Hornady 180 XTP - 16.9'' / .64
Winchester Silvertip - 16.2'' / .68
None of those are over penetrative.
Now to tie back to my 357 vs 38 example.
https://www.luckygunner.com/labs/self-defense-ammo-ballistic-tests/
Federal 165 gr. Tactical Bonded - 14'' / .73 - 978 fps - 350# KE
If we think the 357 Mag has better ASAP potential than the 38 Special - then we must apply the same to this 10mm vs 40 example.
I can't quantify it, but I think the 10mm has better ASAP incapacitation potential than the 40 - same shot placement is assumed.
Look at the 10 mm bullets I posted above from Lucky Gunner testing; none of those are over penetrative and would be good for self defense against human attacker(s).
Also looking at the 38 special versus 357 Mag example, if we think 357 Mag has better ASAP potential than 38 special, most people do...
Apply that to 40 vs 10mm example above. If one thinks 357 Mag has better ASAP potential than 38 special then in the 40 vs 10mm example its the same thing.
S.Crockett
Member
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2022
- Messages
- 327
The 357 also gains a little more as the barrel length increases, if you go to the extremes this is very evident from a Carbine length barrel the 357 has a good advantage, but from a snub nose the 357 is really closer compared to my similar size Walther PPS in 40.
Only if you can guarantee that you will never have to shoot more than once in a self-defense encounter or that there will be no time constraints on how long it takes you to make the second shot.
Sure. But that doesn't mean that they can shoot them all with exactly the same level of performance. There's no one in the world who can shoot a .50AE pistol just as fast as they can rip off accurate rounds with a 9mm. It's just not happening. That's why they categorize guns by recoil (power factor) in many competitions--to prevent people from getting an unfair advantage by going with a lower recoil round.
True enough. But if there's a need for a second shot (e.g. a second attacker), how long it takes you to get off another shot to deal with the second threat can be absolutely critical. Also, people miss in gunfights. Sometimes they get injured, sometimes they are moving while the target is moving at the same time, sometimes during movement barriers can get in the way. If that happens, again, getting off the next shot in a timely manner is pretty important.
I'm not saying you can't shoot a 10mm fast enough to be effective with it--I really don't know that. Some years ago, I took a class and due to ammo issues, I chose to shoot a 10mm, most of the other folks were shooting 9mms. At one point we had an impromptu speed competition using plates and a timer and I ended up winning it. So it is certainly possible to shoot fast with a 10mm. But I could have shot a 9mm even faster because recoil follow-up is quicker.
At any rate, the issue of faster follow-up shots is definitely something to think about seriously. There are certainly real-world situations where a defender needs to be able to shoot more than once and where being able to get that second shot off a little faster could make all the difference in the world.
Apparently that's true. Having to fire a second, or maybe a third or fourth round in a self-defense encounter is a far cry from a running gunfight shooting hundreds of rounds.
Gun-Reck
Member
- Joined
- May 16, 2023
- Messages
- 553
The point is - both the .40S&W and 10mm are the same caliber, and will expand and completely penetrate even a large 10" torso.
And, as we know, handgun velocity bullets only produce permanent wound cavity damage, the crush channel of the expanded bullet.
So support your argument.
They also, of course, produce a temporary cavity. There's no question that they do, it can be easily documented. The contention is that the temporary cavity can not be counted on to produce a reliable wounding effect in terms of damage to vital organs. Again, that is true. That doesn't mean they NEVER damage vital organs, just that it's not a reliable effect. Some organs can't stretch much without tearing and can be severely damaged by temporary cavity/tissue stretch--even from a handgun. The liver, kidneys, spleen and brain are some examples. Some organs are pretty stretchy and temporary cavity/tissue stretch will have no significant wounding effect on them. Obviously, if an organ that is susceptible to temporary cavity damage is close to the bullet track, the larger the temporary cavity is, the more likely it is to damage the organ, and the more severe the damage is likely to be.
Finally, temporary cavity acts, in some ways, like blunt trauma, causing immediate pain and discomfort and the sensation of being struck. Purely penetrating wounds often do not produce this effect. Small, non-expanding pistol rounds can sometimes produce injuries that the attacker is not aware of until later. It's definitely to a defender's advantage for the attacker to immediately realize that injury has occurred and to feel the sensation of pain. This can have a profound mental effect on the attacker which is likely to cause the attack to break off, even if no disabling injury is inflicted. Similarly, the distraction can rattle the attacker providing an advantage to the defender. The bottom line is that a significant temporary cavity is to the defender's advantage, even if the wounding effect in terms of damage to vital organs is not a reliable effect.
Anchorite
Member
Isn’t it great to have choices.
Gun-Reck
Member
- Joined
- May 16, 2023
- Messages
- 553
With no detriment.
That's why they are called temporary, as the tissue stretches and then returns.
Only the crush channel of the expanded bullet, at handgun velocities, does any appreciable damage.
Check with the ballistic engineers at ATK on this.
Last edited:
I carefully explained the detriment.
Some organs stretch and return. Some organs do not stretch, they tear instead which does cause wounding. Here's some more information on the topic.
Gunshot wounds in parenchymatous organs: the morphology mainly depends on the physical properties of the affected tissues*
In contrast to gunshot wounds in skin and bone, the medico-legal literature pays little attention to the appearance of bullet penetration sites in abdominal organs. It was only in 1983 that Metter and Schulz published an article entitled “Morphological ...
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
"According to their observations, the organs in question showed stellate tears at the bullet penetration sites resembling skin wounds from contact shots to body regions having a bony support. The study presented simulated the real conditions by means of test shots to composite models consisting of porcine organs embedded in ballistic gelatin. The ammunition used was pistol cartridges 9 mm Luger with full metal jacket round nose bullets. The shots were video-documented with a high-speed camera in order to record the bullet’s travel through the target. In addition, the composite models fired at underwent CT examinations followed by a macroscopic assessment of the organs. The study confirmed the findings of Metter and Schulz with regard to the star-like appearance of gunshot wounds in the liver and spleen. Likewise, the kidney showed radiating tears originating from the bullet path, whereas the wound track in pulmonary tissue was tube-shaped and lacked additional cracks. The varying wound patterns in parenchymatous organs can reasonably be explained as a consequence of the respective viscoelastic tissue properties."
"Ruptures radiating from the bullet path indicate that the target material was temporarily exposed to tensile stress beyond the limit of plasticity. This applies to proportionally dense organs such as the liver, spleen, and kidney, but far less to the air-containing and highly elastic lung."
The article contains additional information, including pictures of the damage to tested organs.
That is incorrect --as I've explained.
The ATK engineers correctly note that at rifle velocities, even the elastic tissue can tear and be wounded. They are wrong about temporary cavity not causing any wounding at all with handgun rounds because they don't take into account that not all organ tissue is elastic. If you try to stretch a kidney, it will tear, not stretch. Same with a spleen, same with a liver. You can verify this if you really care about the topic. The issue is that if those inelastic organ are not close enough to the bullet path to be affected by the temporary stretch cavity, then the temporary stretch cavity will not have any wounding effect at all. So it's very true to say that temporary cavity is not a reliable wounding effect in handguns, but it's not correct to say that it can't ever have any wounding effect at all. If you go back to the original source of this information, you will see that it most often makes the statement that "Temporary cavity has no reliable wounding effect in elastic body tissues..." but the word "reliable" is often dropped when the quote is restated. Here's an example.
The myth of the temporary wound cavity - Gun Nuts Media
The tissue disruption caused by a handgun bullet is limited to two mechanisms. The first, or crush mechanism is the hole that the bullet makes passing through the tissue. The second, or stretch mechanism is the temporary wound cavity formed by the tissue being driven outward in a radial...
www.gunnuts.net
"The only wound mechanic of a pistol bullet is the permanent crush cavity, which is the actual path of tissue destroyed by the bullet." Which is not the same thing at all as noting that Temporary cavity is an unreliable wounding effect.
And at what velocity does handgun velocity end and rifle start? I have heard 2400 fps down to 2200 fps. Here is where that breaks down. A 30 Carbine is 1900 fps, and the projectile is the same diameter as a 32acp. So do you believe a 30 Carbine does the same terminal damage as a 32/7.65 subsonic handgun round? To keep it a more apples to apples comparison, do you think that a standard pressure 38 Special does the same terminal damage as a full power 357 Magnum? The ballistic engineers at ATK (and every other ammo company) have tweaked their JHP SD rounds to exhibit the terminal performance in gel that the FBI (and by extension, every other LEO) requires. So of course all their handgun calibers perform the same.
Gun-Reck
Member
- Joined
- May 16, 2023
- Messages
- 553
An exception to the rule, that will be affected by either expanded 10mm bullet.
You are splitting hairs.
The only advantage to the 10mm - is the deeper penetration capability on larger bodied animals.
For an even large 10" human torso, both will penetrate, and create identical crush channels, and similar damage to those few organs also prone to stretch damage if hit.
Academic arguments - are just that.
It's not just if they are hit, it's if they are within the temporary stretch cavity extent. Larger temporary stretch cavity means that it's more likely to impinge on a vulnerable (inelastic) organ and that the vulnerable organ is likely to suffer more damage.
Perhaps, perhaps not. It depends on the size of the temporary stretch cavity and the bullet's path. The bottom line is that it is incorrect to say that temporary cavity has no wounding effect with handgun bullets. Clearly it CAN have a wounding effect and the paper I posted has the proof. It just doesn't have a reliable wounding effect because in some cases it doesn't cause wounding while in others it does.
Look at the pictures in the paper I posted. That is actual damage to actual organs. Done by a 9mm FMJ.
Gun-Reck
Member
- Joined
- May 16, 2023
- Messages
- 553
By what significant factor, given a 150 fps impact velocity increase over an equally expanded .40S&W?
And, even then, what fight-ending significant damage, compared to the identical crush channel?
Academic minutia.
The collateral damage, however, from over-penetration, might be significant.
Potentially a lot in some cases--nothing in many cases.
It depends entirely on the path the bullet takes through the target. Just as the "fight-ending significant damage" done by crush channel depends entirely on the path the bullet takes through the target.
Hah! So based on one's personal opinions, one probabilistic effect (the odds that an overpenetration might hit something important) is significant, but another probabilistic effect (the odds that temporary cavity might impinge on an organ that could sustain significant wounding from it) is not significant. If only it were that simple. We could all win at the casinos every time by holding the personal opinion that one probabilistic outcome (winning) is more significant than another probabilistic outcome (losing).
Anyway, the bottom line is that temporary cavity can definitely be shown to have a significant wounding effect in some cases. That means totally dismissing it and basing an analysis on that flawed view of reality is unwise.
And that's without getting into the "blunt trauma"/"notification" effect on an attacker that is struck by a bullet that has significant temporary cavity effect that I mentioned above.
Gun-Reck
Member
- Joined
- May 16, 2023
- Messages
- 553
The thread is RE: .40S&W v. 10mm for CCW/SD.
The "temporary cavity can definitely be shown to have a significant wounding effect" will not be significantly different between the Two cartridges, and, in even a large 10" human torso, there will be identical crush channels that completely penetrate.
Which leaves minutia, and excess penetration/collateral damage, in exchange for larger pistols, muzzle blast, and recoil.
A better round for bigger animals - a field round.
Thanks, I remember what the thread is about.
Remember posting this?
"And, as we know, handgun velocity bullets only produce permanent wound cavity damage, the crush channel of the expanded bullet."
It has been shown that claim is incorrect as demonstrated by the contents of the paper showing wounding due to temporary stretch. From a 9mm FMJ, no less.
Then you changed your position to saying that there was no detriment. That position was also shown to be incorrect.
Then you argued that it's not a significant effect and that overpenetration (also a probabilistic effect) is a more important consideration. Obviously a very weak argument.
Now you claim, without any evidence whatsoever to support the claim, that the difference in temporary cavity between 10mm and .40S&W will not have any significant effect.
Do you see that every time one of your sweeping assertions is shown to be incorrect, you just take a step back and continue arguing exactly the same position but with a new set of claims. When a person finds themselves in such a situation, they should carefully consider whether or not their position is actually fact-based. That type of behavior suggests that instead of looking at the facts and choosing a position, that a position was chosen in advance and then, afterwards, "facts" were sought to support the position. That means, when the "facts" being used to support the position are shown to be incorrect, the position is not reexamined. Indeed, there's no need to reexamine the position in light of new facts or evidence--because the position was not chosen based on facts or evidence in the first place.
Look, I'm absolutely not saying that everyone has to carry a 10mm. I own 10mm pistols, but I carry other calibers. I'm not saying that people who don't carry 10mm are automatically going to put themselves at a big disadvantage in a gunfight. Frankly, my position is that for the most part, gunfight outcomes (within the service pistol caliber class) are far more heavily dependent on shot placement than on differences in terminal effect due to caliber. I've made the comment more than once that the ability to make rapid follow-up shots can be a very important consideration and that heavier recoil will have a negative effect on this ability.
But all of that doesn't change reality. The fact is that temporary cavity (higher velocity/energy) can have a positive effect on the outcome of gunfights. I don't carry a 9mm because I think it will have identical terminal effect as a .357Mag, I carry it because I think it's a good combination of size, weight, controllability, capacity, low practice costs, etc.. If I carried a .40S&W, I wouldn't try to claim that terminal effect between it and 10mm is not significant because it is. I'm not going to make unsupported/unsupportable claims to justify my carry choices--no one should.
Trey Veston
Member
I live and hike/fish/hunt in large predator country. We have black bears, wolves, cougars, and the occasional grizzly. I carry a 10mm in the woods and a 9mm in town. I would absolutely carry the 10mm in town, but not the 9mm in the woods. I reload and my SA XD-M Elite OSP loves 200 grain GDs. The Glock G29 prefers 180 gr XTPs. Probably picking up a SA Ronin 10mm this week and will have fun figuring out what it likes.
In the best 380 defense thread, I provided several links to why at least 12'' penetration:
https://www.thehighroad.org/index.php?threads/best-380-defense-load.922957/
You have ignored that there is nobody (no "expert", LE organization, government agency) that currently recommends less than 12'' penetration.
You again are citing 10'' as if not having an unobstructed shot to the vitals has not already been thoroughly explained.
In this thread, I provided the 357 vs 38 special example using Lucky Gunner testing, they both penetrate & expand the same in gel.
If you think penetration & expansion in gel is all that matters then you think the 38 to have equal ASAP incapacitation potential to 357 Mag; I don't.
In Lucky Gunner testing the 10mm Hornady 155 XTP expands to about .65 - if one thinks gel is the whole picture of bullet potential then they would expect .65 holes in tissue.
Tissue damage from a 10mm 155 XTP that I shot a deer with, approximately a 1 1/4'' hole:
The bullet continued to make a hole bigger than a quarter (.95) in the heart:
So NO I do not think all handgun bullets only produce crush damage the size of the expanded bullet or those would be ~.65 holes.
Back to the 38 special versus 357 Mag example, 357 Mag had a better reputation on the street for ASAP incapacitation than 38 Special; apply that to 40 vs 10mm.
