.40 vs 10mm for CCW/Self-Defense (Against Humans)

[.38 Special]

Funny how a .40 vs. 10mm thread would have gotten testy. Who knew?

I'm a fan of the 10mm. I like horsepower, and I think nearly all handgun cartridges are underpowered for self-defense. The .500 Magnum, with a light, fast, frangible bullet is probably enough, though of course carrying the gun is annoying. (I do have my .500 on my permit...)

My Glock 29 carries a bit easier, and the power level is just on the right side of barely adequate, i.e. .357 Magnum levels. (That does not make it any sort of a cannon, and I don't really consider it a deer cartridge, let alone a bear one.)

The trouble is that even though handgun recoil doesn't really bother me at all (and just to prove I'm not any sort of tough guy, I'll admit that rifle recoil beyond the .243 level makes me want my mommy) it does slow my splits - and anyone who says recoil doesn't slow him down is, um, "mistaken". Recoil slows down Jerry damn Miculek, so it slows you down too. The G29 is a vicious little gun with full-power loads, and it dramatically slows my follow-up shots. It's bad enough that I've been experimenting with ultralight bullets (like the all-copper 115 grain Lehigh Defense stuff) at high velocity. That cuts down recoil enough to bring my splits back up to respectability, but only the lord knows if those bullets would work in a self-defense situation.

The other choice, of course, is to stick with standard bullet weights and cut the loads down to .40 levels, but of course that brings power down below a level with which I'm really comfortable, and also means that buying a G29 was silly.

And now that I've written all that down, I've convinced myself to go back to the .500 Magnum.

 

[S.Crockett]

Neither is ever going to completely die but it's hard not to notice that nobody is making any new models of any kind in 40.

Which has been the opposite in the case of the 10mm, the cartridge's resurgence in the early 2000s having generated a rollout of new polymer and steel 10mm pistols since then (e.g., Sig, Springfield, S&W, FN, various 1911-makers), not to mention a maker bringing out an additional10mm model to an existing line (e.g., Glock 40 long-slide)

 

[someguy2800]

Which has been the opposite in the case of the 10mm, the cartridge's resurgence in the early 2000s having generated a rollout of new polymer and steel 10mm pistols since then (e.g., Sig, Springfield, S&W, FN, various 1911-makers), not to mention a maker bring out an additional10mm model to an existing line (e.g., Glock 40 long-slide)

Yeah the selection for both is currently pretty small, but 40 has sunk to that level while 10 rose to that level.

 

[crestoncowboy]

I'd say 10mm would go before .40S&W. I don't see .40 going anywhere any time soon. Not even close. Its spot is solidified.

10mm was dead. When our county issued the 10 in the late 90s the Glock and Kimber were about it. Colt made some limited deltas. EAA imported a few tanfoglio. For ammo Federal made American eagle FMJ that you could usually find and Winchester made the silvertips and Hornady had the 155/180/200 GR xtp in 20 rd custom boxes. Mcnett was selling his ammo on forums. I shot tens of thousands of rounds bought bulk from Georgia arms and bitterroot. Nothing was close to the 1200fps 200 gr norma though.

Neither is ever going to completely die but its hard not to notice that nobody is making any new models of any kind in 40. Seams to just be going on momentum at this point. And I say that as a 40 s&w fanboy.

I have most certainly noticed that. My buddy was always a "9mm is better" guy amd his buddy is a 45 guy. They own a massive gunstore. They fill me in each time a 40 is nixed and its been a LOT lately. I have 20 or so .40 guns. At one time I had all the 10s in some form. But after the 220 in 10mm I doubt I get anymore. Ive always said I'd get a mk 23 (or elite or tactical at least) in 10mm if they offered one. Why.... Rainbow six on dream cast I suppose. Lol. Id put it in a safe sprayed down with wd-40 specialist for storage though. Just like all my 10s except for my hunting 10s ( a 6 inch Glock and a mediocre stainless delta elite circa 2011 or so). Amd like almost all my 40s. I pretty much exclusively carry a Glock 27 in 40. I keep a Glock 22 beside the bed in a vaultec. I squirrel hunt with a Glock 44 or a Smith 617 4 inch and deer hunt with one of the aforementioned 10s or a 44 anaconda, redhawk, or N frame. On the farm i may have my FN 5.7 or my 329 pd. I might think hard on an FN-x tactical in 10mm though.

 

[someguy2800]

I have a friend who owns a few guns for protection and hunting but almost never shoots. Like its probably been well over a year since he pulled a trigger. He is a hardware focused guy and tends to go around in circles with me about what is best for this or that purpose but he never actually spends the time or money to shoot anything. He was asking me a month ago if I like 9mm or 40 better. I knew where he was going with that and I just said hands down I like 40 better, but you should not buy one, you should be shooting standard pressure 9mm or maybe even something like a security 380 because you don't shoot enough be proficient with anything, let alone a 40 or 45 or 10mm. I will stand by that claim that a 9mm is a better choice for MOST people, simply because they will shoot it better and shoot it more. I am not most people. I am 6'4" and I have a range at my house so I shoot every couple days. I'm confident I could pass pretty much any course of fire with a 40 or 45 or 10mm because I am a big guy and I shoot a lot. Even still I shoot more 9mm than 40 just for the fact that its half the cost. I like that 9mm and 40 are available in the exact same gun with the same grip circumference because it makes a 9mm a good trainer for a 40. I love the little micro 9's like an LC9s or P365 and I think that is where 9mm really stands out.

 

[LookAtYou]

Neither is ever going to completely die but its hard not to notice that nobody is making any new models of any kind in 40. Seams to just be going on momentum at this point. And I say that as a 40 s&w fanboy.

Stoeger STR-40. New for 2023.

 

[JohnKSa]

Nothing was close to the 1200fps 200 gr norma though.

Yup, not even the 200gr Norma. The original 200gr Norma was closer to 1100fps out of a 5" pressure barrel.

An Official Journal Of The NRA | The 10mm Auto: History & Performance of a Potent Pistol Cartridge

Nearly four decades after it made its debut, the 10mm Auto is offered in more loads and guns than ever before, including four different M1911-based pistols.

www.americanrifleman.org

"At the factory, I observed 170- and 200-gr. ammunition being tested in a 5" pressure barrel. Ten-shot averages were 1,246 f.p.s.(170gr) and 1,115 f.p.s. (200gr), respectively. "

People complained about being unable to find full power 10mm, but I never had that problem. Winchester 175gr STHP at around 1200fps was always available, and I also managed to find some Remington 10mm that was full power and bought a large batch of it. Then DoubleTap came along and filled in the spaces for people who wanted more variety. It sure didn't have the ammo selection that some more popular calibers did, but even before online ammo purchasing made things easy, I was always able to feed my 10mm.

 

[crestoncowboy]

Yup, not even the 200gr Norma. The original 200gr Norma was closer to 1100fps out of a 5" pressure barrel.

I chronoed the norma at pretty close 1200 in warm 70 degree weather at 3500 ft. And the old 200 gr black talon at 1100. Either in a Glock or 1911 colt (all i had back then)

The silvertips were my choice as well. Always available somewhere. Id forgot the Remington but yeah I shot those too. Those and American eagle. I'm pretty sure i remember some cci 180 gr fmj too back then. But there wasn't a great assortment of ammo in my 10mm early years (late 90s-2012ish). By the time colt released the stainless finished, later delta it was catching on again.



I was glad for those. I could shelf my older one and hunt with that one. I always hunted with handloads though.

 

[LookAtYou]

I shoot 40SW out of my 10mm. It shouldn't work but it does.

40sw was a fad cartridge that died.

Care to explain why you say .40S&W is "dead"?

 

[LookAtYou]

10mm is much better. 40 short and weak is good for old ladies and such. So both are useful.

You'd recommend .40 to an old lady? Are you 4 real?

 

[crestoncowboy]

Care to explain why you say .40S&W is "dead"?

I'm sure he is referencing the number of guns that the 40 has been dropped from production while the 9 is still made. Everyone from Wilson combat to sig to HK has dropped new .40 production and usually say "no plans to produce more". Smith dropped some of theirs as well. Maybe all .

As far as dead there are too many for 40 owners to worry. Ive never had a bit of trouble finding 25, 10mm back when it was dead, 460, 454, 5.7 or even 22 Remington jet ammo. And all those combined wouldn't equal the amount of Glock 22 sold. Much less all the others.

Glock will never drop it....they sold too many and haven't even dropped the GAP yet. Lol. I have several 40 and I'll be the first to tell you, 40 is on its last legs. Most have been discontinued and more will follow. I don't like it, but the evidence is pretty clear that folks are abandoning it for 9mm .

 

[LookAtYou]

10mm has been my daily carry since 1991. I have always carried CorBon ammo since it has become available in that caliber. (For the first few years, I carried Winchester Silvertips.) The CorBon loads have always been either the 150grn Nosler JHP, or the 135grn Nosler JHP once it became available. And the 135grn JHP CorBon is what I still carry today.

In either of those loads, the energy and tissue destruction (as implied by gel tests) is even more than that created by the vaunted and respected .357mag 125grn JHP. A proven man-stopper.

And just like the comparison between .38spl. and .357mag,... yes, the .40S&W is a capable cartridge in capable hands. But the 10mm is just more so. I would not feel under-armed with a .40 in a pistol I am competent with. But if I am equally competent with the 10mm in a similar fashion,...why wouldn't I carry the 10mm?

Do I recommend the 10mm for everybody? Hell no! Not everybody can handle the recoil of the even the .40S&W! For new shooters or small people without the hand and arm strength of the typical American male, I say the 9mm is very capable of fulfilling the role of every day carry. BUT,...if you are dedicated to being a shootist,...and willing to put in the extra effort to master the beast,...yes, the 10mm is worth it.

The thing is, that's a BIG "if". How do you KNOW that you are just as competent with 10mm as .40? Have you ever shot against a shot timer? Or done drills with both cartridges? Back to back? People can easily say (especially for the point of debate) that they're equally competent with .40 and 10mm, but has this been fact checked?

From my perspective, more "capable" doesn't just mean better ballistics, it involves a variety of relevant factors. I'd say the easier to shoot weapon, with still sufficient ballistics, is the more capable weapon.

 

[crestoncowboy]

The thing is, that's a BIG "if". How do you KNOW that you are just as competent with 10mm as .40? Have you ever shot against a shot timer? Or done drills with both cartridges? Back to back? People can easily say (especially for the point of debate) that they're equally competent with .40 and 10mm, but has this been fact checked?

From my perspective, more "capable" doesn't just mean better ballistics, it involves a variety of relevant factors. I'd say the easier to shoot weapon, with still sufficient ballistics, is the more capable weapon.

Depends on the perspective. Ive seen a few sd shooting that were pretty long. I deer hunt with a 10 and I KNOW I can hit the vitals at 75-100 in one shot and I know the gun will kill at that. I do always ring my 100 yard steel with my carry 40 but id never bet much that I hit. I fully expect to, but I'm not shocked if I miss one or two in a mag.

At 100 yards the 10 is the more capable weapon. Maybe even in cold heavy coat weather it would be.

But I agree and I have shot against the timer for years. All things equal the 10 is slower BUT I don't think anyone is slower with a full size Glock 20 than a Subcompact Glock 26 or 27 when everyone thinks they need 9mm +p+p++. I'm barely slower with my 29 than my 22. I'm definitely slower with my 27 than my 20. And my 27s all have the extra pinky finger grip. Helps a bit IMO

I agree completely though a 26 vs a 27 the 27 is slower and a 27 vs a 29 the 29 is going to be a bit slower.

But again it's all guesswork. A 10mm loaded with weaker 40 level 10mm ammo is going to be FASTER to shoot because it's a far heavier gun than a 40 with some of the hotter ammo. I have range use 180 grain over unique 10mm ammo I goof off with that is very tame in a 20 or a 1911. I still doubt I ever switch from my Glock 27s.

I've said for 20 years if I could only have one handgun it may be a Glock 29. I can use it to hunt. I can use it well for SD. I can use it decently for ccw... its a great gun for versatility.

But if I'm given even just 2 guns the Glock 29 will never get a mention. Lol. Id likely have my 27 and a 44. Redhawk/nframe/anaconda/ DW... any of them . Its highly unlikely my 29 ever sees any use until I die. And a few of my buddies in the past 20 years bought a 29 because of my 10mm love and EVERY one sold them pretty quick. Lol


My typical range day. All 40s and a 10


One could do a lot worse than a pile of glock. (All 40s and 10s and a 22 for kicks)

 

[LookAtYou]

Maybe for a newb the 10mm is harder to shoot with more chance of flinching/missing but for the well practiced, like many members of this forum, this simply isn't true.

I don't own a 10mm but I have shot plenty of them. I don't make my gun choices on commonly recited misconceptions like many newbs are apt to. Your thesis is more relevant to gun rags which are aimed at selling stuff to the uninformed masses that don't know any better... it is a lot less pertinent to those of us on this forum that have been around guns for a good while and have learned to ignore such diatribe.

I disagree, 10mm isn't harder to shoot than .40S&W just for noobs. How do you know that you're just as competent (same shooting speed, accuracy/precision, etc.) with 10mm as .40? Have you taken the time to test yourself with a timer or complete certain drills, with both cartridges side by side? That's about the only way to factually and confidently be able to say "I can shoot the same with x and y". Other than that, things can get fuzzy.

 

[westernrover]

10mm: A larger and faster round, with similar bullet weight (sometimes heavier if 200gr+ ammo) compared to .40. In average ccw sized guns (say 4" barrel or less), the ballistics can be strikingly similar compared to .40, but generally more penetration and expansion. Also, more RECOIL, and potentially MUZZLE FLASH in general. This means harder to shoot, slower follow-up shots, more chance of flinching, higher risk of a complete miss, etc., compared to .40. Generally, increased risk of over penetration compared to .40. Also can make a slightly heavier ccw setup than a .40 setup, due to slightly heavier guns and ammo.This definitely packs a wallop, more than .40 generally can, but at a COST.

Example: Glock 29 (Standard mag capacity of 10 rounds/3.78" Barrel).

*Results from Glock 29/3.78" Barrel)*
Ammo: 180gr Buffalo Bore JHP @ 1269 FPS/644 Ft-Lbs Energy (5-Shot Avg). 18.36" Penetration/0.7" Expansion (5-shot avg).

View attachment 1171330

.40: Very similar to 10mm, but generally less power (ft-lbs energy), expansion (similar in a lot of cases), penetration (this is where 10mm has the most notable advantage over .40 in my opinion, possibly even to a fault, i.e.10mm edging a little too close for comfort into over penetration risk territory), and LESS RECOIL and LESS MUZZLE FLASH, in general. Likely to come in a lighter ccw package than 10mm due to gun and bullet weight.

Generally, it's easier to shoot, offers quicker follow up shots, less muzzle flash, basically makes it easier to achieve good shot placement, less risk of over penetration, and a very proven round. Let's not forget how capable of a round .40 is, with loads getting more expansion and penetration than the BEST 9mm loads. A 0.67" hole on the deeper side of FBI penetration standards (15"+)? Ask yourself, realistically, how much more do you really need?

Example (s): Glock 23 (Standard mag capacity of 13 rounds/4.02" Barrel).

Smith and Wesson M&P40c (Standard mag capacity of 10 rounds/3.5" Barrel).

Ammo:
*Results from M&P40c/3.5" Barrel*
180gr Winchester Defender Bonded JHP @ 979 FPS/383 Ft-Lbs Energy (5-shot avg). 17.02" Penetration/0.67" Expansion (5-shot avg).

View attachment 1171331


In conclusion, the main disadvantages of 10mm compared to .40, and why, in my opinion, 10mm is not better for the VAST majority of people for ccw/self-defense against humans, is....
- Higher chance of over penetration compared to .40. I guess this is why 10mm is highly routed for use against animals, but this goes away from the focus of this thread, which is humans.

- In general, more recoil, muzzle flash, and noise than .40. In an average ccw sized package, 10mm ammo self defense ammo seems downright obnoxious. And the more you lessen the power of a normal 10mm load, guess what cartridge it's becoming more and more like... If one can "handle" 10mm, especially in a ccw sized package, how much better a .40?

- More chance to completely MISS, compared to .40!

(In my opinion) When it comes to defending against humans, 10mm makes for an unnecessarily obnoxious ccw/self-defense platform when compared to the .40. Also, it seems to border the power/penetration limits for safe usage in ccw/self-defense situations, against other people, to unnecessary limits.

The 40 S&W is underpenetrating in those tests. 15 inches in Clear Ballistics gel does not meet the FBI standard of 12 inches in 10% ordnance gel. Clear gel has been shown to expand hollowpoints less and result in more penetration than 10% gel allows.

The conclusion that 10mm overpenetrates is flawed. Besides, the FBI has acknowledged that there are no meaningful risks from so-called over-penetration. Since most shots do not even hit the target, it's unreasonable to be concerned about hits that go all the way through and exit while the misses present much more danger.

* 9mm sells because it's convenient to carry, not because it has any merit in performance.
* 40 sold because the FBI and law enforcement approved and thereby promoted it for a period of time as regarded superior to 9mm.
* 10mm was conceived as a modern automatic cartridge intended to be superior to 45 ACP. It later became the basis of the FBI's misguided adoption of what became 40 S&W. More recently, it has found a niche in wilderness bear defense because it has a higher capacity and the plastic guns offer a lower package weight than steel revolvers with only five or six magnum cartridges.

As for what is best to carry for personal protection or self-defense against criminal threats, that involves considerations other than the cartridge. The 10mm has superior ballistics to 9 and 40 but it is a long cartridge for a double-stack grip and it has substantial recoil for lightweight polymer guns. It could function well and be easier to control in a steel revolver, but with a heavy carry weight and lower capacity.

 

[crestoncowboy]

I disagree, 10mm isn't harder to shoot than .40S&W just for noobs. How do you know that you're just as competent (same shooting speed, accuracy/precision, etc.) with 10mm as .40? Have you taken the time to test yourself with a timer or complete certain drills, with both cartridges side by side? That's about the only way to factually and confidently be able to say "I can shoot the same with x and y". Other than that, things can get fuzzy.

And remember he is shooting 135 GR in his 10mm too. Thats a 135 at 1400....so yeah in a 29 or 20 thats not going to be slow compared to a 40 critical defense which is 165@1200 in a lighter gun. Same for a 165 gold dot. Especially in a small gun like a 27 that has no 10mm counterpart. There is 40 ammo commercially available thats almost as fast as his 135@1400 so sure he could beat the timer with the same ammo in a 10 as a 40. The underwood 135 in 40 is actually just as fast as the corbon 10

Can I with my 200 GR at 1200.....no. nor my 180 at 1250

I don't recall ever shooting a 10mm with any ammo under the Hornady 155 xtp.

 

[LookAtYou]

Depends on the perspective. Ive seen a few sd shooting that were pretty long. I deer hunt with a 10 and I KNOW I can hit the vitals at 75-100 in one shot and I know the gun will kill at that. I do always ring my 100 yard steel with my carry 40 but id never bet much that I hit. I fully expect to, but I'm not shocked if I miss one or two in a mag.

At 100 yards the 10 is the more capable weapon. Maybe even in cold heavy coat weather it would be.

But I agree and I have shot against the timer for years. All things equal the 10 is slower BUT I don't think anyone is slower with a full size Glock 20 than a Subcompact Glock 26 or 27 when everyone thinks they need 9mm +p+p++. I'm barely slower with my 29 than my 22. I'm definitely slower with my 27 than my 20. And my 27s all have the extra pinky finger grip. Helps a bit IMO

I agree completely though a 26 vs a 27 the 27 is slower and a 27 vs a 29 the 29 is going to be a bit slower.

But again it's all guesswork. A 10mm loaded with weaker 40 level 10mm ammo is going to be FASTER to shoot because it's a far heavier gun than a 40 with some of the hotter ammo. I have range use 180 grain over unique 10mm ammo I goof off with that is very tame in a 20 or a 1911. I still doubt I ever switch from my Glock 27s.

I've said for 20 years if I could only have one handgun it may be a Glock 29. I can use it to hunt. I can use it well for SD. I can use it decently for ccw... its a great gun for versatility.

But if I'm given even just 2 guns the Glock 29 will never get a mention. Lol. Id likely have my 27 and a 44. Redhawk/nframe/anaconda/ DW... any of them . Its highly unlikely my 29 ever sees any use until I die. And a few of my buddies in the past 20 years bought a 29 because of my 10mm love and EVERY one sold them pretty quick. Lol
View attachment 1182047

My typical range day. All 40s and a 10

View attachment 1182049
One could do a lot worse than a pile of glock. (All 40s and 10s and a 22 for kicks)

Well, here's my perspective/criteria when trying to reasonably decide the best ccw for myself. In no particular order.

) Ability for weapon to be carried. Preferably all the time when outside of house. I think this is pretty straightforward, as what good is whatever weapon you have, no matter how good, if you don't wanna carry the thing half the time? 10mm doesn't shine in this category. Not over .40S&W.

) Ballistics. I wouldn't wanna carry a .25acp for SD, no matter how easy/quick it is to shoot, although it would definitely be able to be carried pretty much 100% of the time. My minimum for this category is .380 FMJ. For others, it's 9mm JHP. Others, the caliber must start with a "4". 10mm should win, BUT a lot of people mention reduced loadings for SD against people. The loadings that truly shows the power potential of 10mm seem to be used for hunting.

) Shootability. Precise/accurate rapid shots (I see the goal of a SD situation is to stop the threat(s) as quickly as possible. Which means not just necessarily shooting once. Recoil starts to show it's ugly effects when you let off multiple shots in quick succession. Not so much during slow, controlled, shots at the range. But then again, range shooting is often different from real life SD shootings, unless you make it a point to train realistically.

I'd say .40 wins out in this department as well.

) If any other relevant factors pop-up that aren't popping into my mind right now, I'll add them.

 

[LookAtYou]

The 40 S&W is underpenetrating in those tests. 15 inches in Clear Ballistics gel does not meet the FBI standard of 12 inches in 10% ordnance gel. Clear gel has been shown to expand hollowpoints less and result in more penetration than 10% gel allows.

The conclusion that 10mm overpenetrates is flawed. Besides, the FBI has acknowledged that there are no meaningful risks from so-called over-penetration. Since most shots do not even hit the target, it's unreasonable to be concerned about hits that go all the way through and exit while the misses present much more danger.

* 9mm sells because it's convenient to carry, not because it has any merit in performance.
* 40 sold because the FBI and law enforcement approved and thereby promoted it for a period of time as regarded superior to 9mm.
* 10mm was conceived as a modern automatic cartridge intended to be superior to 45 ACP. It later became the basis of the FBI's misguided adoption of what became 40 S&W. More recently, it has found a niche in wilderness bear defense because it has a higher capacity and the plastic guns offer a lower package weight than steel revolvers with only five or six magnum cartridges.

As for what is best to carry for personal protection or self-defense against criminal threats, that involves considerations other than the cartridge. The 10mm has superior ballistics to 9 and 40 but it is a long cartridge for a double-stack grip and it has substantial recoil for lightweight polymer guns. It could function well and be easier to control in a steel revolver, but with a heavy carry weight and lower capacity.

I strongly disagree with the .40 round under penetrating. First, the penetration averages (17.02" for .40 vs 18.36" for 10mm) are only 1.3" apart. I know clear gel gives different results than proper FBI specs, but I only referenced these tests as both the cartridges in my OP were both tested in clear gel. So it's still pretty useful for comparison purposes. Take a look at other tests of the Winchester Defender 180 grain Bonded JHP, and you'll see it's actually one of the deepest penetrating .40 rounds to date. Heavy for caliber rounds tend to penetrate the best.

Here are some links to other stats of the same .40S&W round

Best .40 S&W Ammo: Self Defense & Target Practice

Want the best .40 ammo possible...at the best prices? Read on for quick recommendations of self-defense and target ammo based on ballistics gel data.

www.pewpewtactical.com

(Listed as the #1 self-defense .40S&W round, 16.9" average penetration)

40 PDX1 180gr Winchester Bonded Ballistic gel test

Winchester 40 S&W PDX1 180gr Bonded jacketed hollow point, from their personal protection line. Shot out of a Sprinfield XD thru four layers of denim (per IW...

m.youtube.com

(17" penetration, non clear gel).

 

[crestoncowboy]

Well, here's my perspective/criteria when trying to reasonably decide the best ccw for myself. In no particular order.

) Ability for weapon to be carried. Preferably all the time when outside of house. I think this is pretty straightforward, as what good is whatever weapon you have, no matter how good, if you don't wanna carry the thing half the time? 10mm doesn't shine in this category. Not over .40S&W.

) Ballistics. I wouldn't wanna carry a .25acp for SD, no matter how easy/quick it is to shoot, although it would definitely be able to be carried pretty much 100% of the time. My minimum for this category is .380 FMJ. For others, it's 9mm JHP. Others, the caliber must start with a "4". 10mm should win, BUT a lot of people mention reduced loadings for SD against people. The loadings that truly shows the power potential of 10mm seem to be used for hunting.

) Shootability. Precise/accurate rapid shots (I see the goal of a SD situation is to stop the threat(s) as quickly as possible. Which means not just necessarily shooting once. Recoil starts to show it's ugly effects when you let off 5 shots on quick succession. Not so much during slow, controlled, shots at the range. But then again, range shooting is often different from real life SD shootings, unless you make it a point to train realistically.

I'd say .40 wins out in this department as well.

) If any other relevant factors pop-up that aren't popping into my mind right now, I'll add them.

I carry the 40 despite having several 10mm myself. We are agreeing for the most part. But your not looking at the other guys ammo choice. He is carrying a 10mm ammo that's 135 @ 1400 FPS. Id don't doubt that his 135@1400 FPS is FASTER to follow up in a heavy 20 or 29 than a 135@1300-1400 from a far lighter 27 or Subcompact 320 or whatever. Much less a 180 @ 1050-1150 from a 27.

 

[westernrover]

Convenience to carry
Ballistics
Shootability

pick two

 

[Mike in Western Oregon]

Heck, I love my Glock 29. KKM .40 barrel and it’s like carrying an overbuilt .357 and stoking with .38s. When I want more feedback, put in the 10 mm barrel and do that. I generally though, save shooting 10 mm out of a Glock 20 or Sig p220 for more comfort for 55 y/o working mans hands.
Sheesh, shoot what ya like. I like .40 and 10 mm in semis and .38 and .357 in wheelguns.
Ps- I know I can shoot .40 through my Glock 29 10 mm barrel. I just wanted the kkm barrel- accessories are cool!

 

[S.Crockett]

The 40 S&W is underpenetrating in those tests. 15 inches in Clear Ballistics gel does not meet the FBI standard of 12 inches in 10% ordnance gel. Clear gel has been shown to expand hollowpoints less and result in more penetration than 10% gel allows.

The conclusion that 10mm overpenetrates is flawed. Besides, the FBI has acknowledged that there are no meaningful risks from so-called over-penetration. Since most shots do not even hit the target, it's unreasonable to be concerned about hits that go all the way through and exit while the misses present much more danger.

Absolutely.

* 9mm sells because it's convenient to carry, not because it has any merit in performance.
* 40 sold because the FBI and law enforcement approved and thereby promoted it for a period of time as regarded superior to 9mm.
* 10mm was conceived as a modern automatic cartridge intended to be superior to 45 ACP. It later became the basis of the FBI's misguided adoption of what became 40 S&W. More recently, it has found a niche in wilderness bear defense because it has a higher capacity and the plastic guns offer a lower package weight than steel revolvers with only five or six magnum cartridges.

Again, absolutely.

As for what is best to carry for personal protection or self-defense against criminal threats, that involves considerations other than the cartridge. The 10mm has superior ballistics to 9 and 40 but it is a long cartridge for a double-stack grip and it has substantial recoil for lightweight polymer guns. It could function well and be easier to control in a steel revolver, but with a heavy carry weight and lower capacity.

Good points made and well-said. … The same points favoring the most-awesome 10mm having been made over the years to, mostly, deaf ears.

 

[MikeInOr]

I disagree, 10mm isn't harder to shoot than .40S&W just for noobs. How do you know that you're just as competent (same shooting speed, accuracy/precision, etc.) with 10mm as .40? Have you taken the time to test yourself with a timer or complete certain drills, with both cartridges side by side? That's about the only way to factually and confidently be able to say "I can shoot the same with x and y". Other than that, things can get fuzzy.

You stated "Also, more RECOIL, and potentially MUZZLE FLASH in general. This means harder to shoot, slower follow-up shots, more chance of flinching, higher risk of a complete miss, etc., compared to .40." where is your proof to back up this claim?

When a seasoned shooter spends considerable time shooting high powered handgun cartridges like 44 mag, 454 Casull, 50ae etc. shooting a 10mm does not have the same impact as it does for a noob that is cutting their teeth on 9mm. Many on this board are just as competent with a 10mm as a 40 S&W. Making blanket claims otherwise shows a juvenile perception of the shooting world.

Your thesis highlights your inexperience. I am not trying to make you feel bad, I was inexperienced and thought I knew everything about guns at one time too! When you figure out that you don't know as much as you think you do you will be ready to start learning. Personally, the more I learn the more I understand how little I really know.

 

[LookAtYou]

You stated "Also, more RECOIL, and potentially MUZZLE FLASH in general. This means harder to shoot, slower follow-up shots, more chance of flinching, higher risk of a complete miss, etc., compared to .40." where is your proof to back up this claim?

When a seasoned shooter spends considerable time shooting high powered handgun cartridges like 44 mag, 454 Casull, 50ae etc. shooting a 10mm does not have the same impact as it does for a noob that is cutting their teeth on 9mm. Many on this board are just as competent with a 10mm as a 40 S&W. Making blanket claims otherwise shows a juvenile perception of the shooting world.

Your thesis highlights your inexperience. I am not trying to make you feel bad, I was inexperienced and thought I knew everything about guns at one time too! When you figure out that you don't know as much as you think you do you will be ready to start learning. Personally, the more I learn the more I understand how little I really know.

My proof to back up the claim? Physics. Take, for example, the two loads in my OP. The 10mm has MUCH more muzzle energy (1.68x/the .40 load is 59% of the energy), due to heavier bullet weight AND higher velocity. If you shoot those two loads out of similar size and weight guns, isn't it obvious which one will be harder to shoot? Similar to comparing 9mm and .380. Are you really trying to question/argue if, on average, 10mm has more recoil than .40?

Also, you didn't answer my question I asked you first. How do you know that you shot 10mm just as well as .40? Have you ever tested this in a reliable way, i.e. a shot timer, or doing proven drills? Or are you just saying this? Please actually answer this time.

 

[LookAtYou]

The 40 S&W is underpenetrating in those tests. 15 inches in Clear Ballistics gel does not meet the FBI standard of 12 inches in 10% ordnance gel. Clear gel has been shown to expand hollowpoints less and result in more penetration than 10% gel allows.

The conclusion that 10mm overpenetrates is flawed. Besides, the FBI has acknowledged that there are no meaningful risks from so-called over-penetration. Since most shots do not even hit the target, it's unreasonable to be concerned about hits that go all the way through and exit while the misses present much more danger.

* 9mm sells because it's convenient to carry, not because it has any merit in performance.
* 40 sold because the FBI and law enforcement approved and thereby promoted it for a period of time as regarded superior to 9mm.
* 10mm was conceived as a modern automatic cartridge intended to be superior to 45 ACP. It later became the basis of the FBI's misguided adoption of what became 40 S&W. More recently, it has found a niche in wilderness bear defense because it has a higher capacity and the plastic guns offer a lower package weight than steel revolvers with only five or six magnum cartridges.

As for what is best to carry for personal protection or self-defense against criminal threats, that involves considerations other than the cartridge. The 10mm has superior ballistics to 9 and 40 but it is a long cartridge for a double-stack grip and it has substantial recoil for lightweight polymer guns. It could function well and be easier to control in a steel revolver, but with a heavy carry weight and lower capacity.

9mm has no merit in performance? Highest capacity? Easiest to shoot? Are these factors not relevant to a weapons overall performance? 9mm is extremely popular for a cluster of reasons. Not just it's convenice to carry. But this is kinda odd topic from the thread, so meh.