Civil discussion about 10mm, .40 cal, .357 please

[jc2]

I don't really think so (Buffalo Ammunition):

.357 Magnum 4 inch S&W L frame Mountain Gun

180 gr. Hard cast LFN -1375 fps/756 fpe
170 gr. JHC -1411 fps/750 fps
158 gr. Speer Uni Core -1485 fps/774 fpe​

.41 Magnum 4 inch S&W N frame Mountain Gun

265 gr. LWN-GC - 1310 fps/1010 fpe
230 gr. SWC - 1370 fps/959 fpe
170 gr. JHP- 1551 fps/908​

10mm 5 inch 1911-type

200 gr. FMJ-FN - 1200 fps/639 fpe
180 gr. Speer Uni Core - 1350 fps/728 fpe​

It's pretty clear the .357 Magnum has a slight (but not signficant) energy (and sectional density) advantage over 10mm, but for all practical purposes they are ballistic twins. Double Tap loads their 10mm slightly hotter and their .357 Magnum slightly milder, but they are are still in the same range. When you compare the hottest 10mm loads to the hottest .357 Magnum loads, there's not enough difference to make a difference. The major difference is .357 Magnum is normally found in revolvers and 10mm is normally found in autoloaders.

When you compare the .357 Magnum and 10mm to the .41 Magnum, the .41 Magnum has the clear advantage over both of them outstripping the 10mm by almost 60% with heavier bullets.

It's pretty clear when we look at these numbers (and remember the .357 Magnum was not designed as defence cartridge as pocketable two-inch but as a hunting cartridge for a large frame revolver) the .357 Magnum and 10mm belong in one family while the .41 Magnum is in a totally different league.

All that being said, and FTR, if I had to choose between a two-inch Rossi (of all things) in .357 Magnum and a G27 in .40 S&W, I'd pick the G27 in .40 S&W because it is better suited in that role.

 

[JohnKSa]

You'd think I'd totally ignored the 215-grain bullet based on John's creative use of cut and paste (quoting only the first half half of one sentence

The quote is from your post directly above mine. Do you really think that not quoting the entire paragraph constitutes some sort of attempt to mislead?

If you knew that the 10mm would handle 215gr bullets then why make the comment that "the .357 Magnum and 10mm both handle bullets up to 200-grains"? The clause "up to" is a limiting clause and implies "up to and no higher". My whole post was in large part about your inability to be consistent and your attempt to argue both sides of the argument--this was a classic example.

So let me get this straight: YOU make an incorrect statement and then follow it up immediately with a comment that indicates you KNEW it was incorrect when you made it--and then when I point it out the original error, that's showing that I've got a problem. Wow...

As far as your second objection, it's identical to the first. In a SINGLE paragraph you started by arguing that sectional density and velocity favor the .357Mag, then end it by saying that the advantage PROBABLY isn't significant, then tack on a statement indicating that the advantage might be significant after all (that you now say is an attempt at humor).

Trying to argue both sides of the argument at once in an attempt to make sure that a person can't answer you for taking either position is pure craziness. If you think the .357Mag is superior to the 10mm then say so and defend your premise. Saying it's superior and then saying it's not and then that it is again makes it hard to argue against you, but only because it's hard to get hold of a spinning top. And it's a PERFECT EXAMPLE OF YOUR AMAZING INCONSISTENCY in the way you try to argue your points.

Here are some very basic principles of debate:

• YOU CAN'T HAVE BOTH SIDES OF THE SAME ISSUE AND STILL BE RIGHT!
• YOU CAN'T CONTRADICT YOURSELF TWICE IN A SINGLE PARAGRAPH WHILE MAINTAINING THAT YOUR POSITION IS CORRECT!
• YOU CAN'T USE THE SAME ARGUMENT BOTH FOR AND AGAINST A SINGLE PREMISE.

You've employed these techniques frequently because it confuses the issue and because when you are called on one argument, you can merely bring up a place where you argued the opposite to "prove" that the person debating you is confused.

A CLEAR example is in the post immediately above this one. After ranting in one post that you believe the .357Mag and the 10mm are not significantly different and berating me for saying that you favor the .357Mag, you posted again--this time with some data favoring the .357Magnum over the 10mm . And then you tacked on this "winding" sentence:

It's pretty clear the .357 Magnum has a slight (but not signficant) energy (and sectional density) advantage over 10mm, but for all practical purposes they are ballistic twins.

In a SINGLE sentence you say that the 357 has two advantages but that at least one is not significant and then end up by saying that they're twins.

If they're twins, how many times do you need to say it to prove it?

And if you're really trying to convey they're identical, then why do you need to keep quoting loading data that you claim shows that the .357Mag has an advantage? It just doesn't make sense, except that it allows you to keep trying to "prove" the superiority of the .357Mag while also trying to deflect criticism by saying repeatedly that you think the superiority "isn't significant."

If they're twins then say so and be done with it.

If you think that the .357Mag is superior and you need to argue and post data to prove the point then why keep saying over and over that they're twins and the advantages are not significant.

You've spent a large amount of time posting contradictory arguments, arguing both sides of the same issue and using the same arguments for and against the same premise. You can't blame people for finding these inconsistencies and quoting them back to you.

You're like someone passionately arguing that the world is flat, but ending every statement by saying that it might be round. Then when anyone tries to answer your "world is flat" arguments you get irate and try to counter by pointing out that you ALREADY said it might be round. Sure, it's hard to lose if you take both sides of the argument, but it's not productive unless your only goal is debate for debate's sake.

Again, the MOST significant aspects of your post are the things you chose not to address. And you can rest assured in knowing I'm not the only one who sees what you're avoiding.

 

[P95Carry]

Watching this is like watching folks try to go down the up escalator

There has been some most interesting input but seems part of the latest battle of words is not resolving some basic differences of opinion and argument techniques.

I hope things stay civil but detect some frustrations!! It may soon be time to let this thread rest!

 

[jc2]

John, it is entirely possible for slight differences not to be significant. When you compare the hottest .357 Magnum loads (Buffalo Bore) with the hottest 10mm loads (Double Tap), the .357 generally has a slight advantage in ME over the 10mm, but that difference is so small as not to be signfiicant.

A 180-grain 10mm load has a ME 728 fpe, and a 180-grain .357 Magnum load has a ME 756 fpe--the .357 Magnum clearly as a slight advantage in ME over 10mm, but that advantage (28 fpe) is not significant. It's not a contradictin, and it's not rocket science, John. Even though there are some minor differences in ME, those differences are not signficant.

There is absolutely no contradiction in the stating the .357 Magnum has a slight ME advantage over the 10mm and describing that slight ME advantage as not significant. For all practical purposes (despite some slight ME differences that generally favour the .357 Magnum), the 10mm is the autoloader equivalent of the .357 Magnum. They are ballistic twins.

 

[JohnKSa]

P95,

Rather than simply locking the thread, I recommend you deal quickly and effectively with the person or persons who are the cause of any unpleasantness that may arise, delete any posts inconsistent with the THR philosophy and then let the thread continue.

I support the new forum rules 100% and have voiced the level of my endorsement of the new strategy HERE.

it is entirely possible for slight differences not to be significant.

Not only do I agree, I kind of think it goes without saying.

...the 10mm is the autoloader equivalent of the .357 Magnum. They are ballistic twins.

And there you have it folks!

The .357Mag and the 10mm are ballistically identical for practical purposes.

Whew!

That's half of the original question answered.

Now that we all agree that the .357Mag and the 10mm are twins for practical purposes, we just need to figure out how the ballistically identical performance of these two cartridges relates to that of the .40S&W.

jc,

Since you have stated repeatedly and in no uncertain terms that the 10mm and the .357Mag are "for all practical purposes equivalent", (also berated me and others for suggesting you believe anything other than this--and spent your entire last post affirming their equivalence) we don't even have to bring the 10mm into this part of the comparison.

So would you say that the .357Mag is superior to the .40S&W?

 

[jc2]

The .357Mag and the 10mm are ballistically identical for practical purposes.

Whew!

That's half of the original question answered.

John, I've been saying that for years (and more than once in this thread). Where have you been? It's not like it's anything new.

So would you say that the .357Mag is superior to the .40S&W?

If that was your question, why didn't you ask it four days ago? The answer the same as it is for the 10mm: the .40 S&W (and other service calibres) are better suited for LE/defence than the .357 Magnum (matter of fact, I've already said words to that effect in this thread).

Just like the 10mm, the .357 Magnum is great general purpose calibre. Just like the 10mm, the .357 Magnum is suitable for defence and hunting (at least up to smaller medium game). Just like the 10mm, there are better calibres for a dedicated LE/defence role, and there are better calibres for a dedicated hunting role. John, it's not rocket science. The 10mm is the autoloader equivalent of the .357 Magnum.

It's just like I've said numerous times, John. I have (and like) 10mm handguns. I consider them interchanable with my .357 Magnum handguns; I just lean toward revolvers (at least for the present--it hasn't always been that way).

 

[warriorsociologist]

Here we go again....'wish I had just kept on ignoring you...

John, it is entirely possible for slight differences not to be significant. When you compare the hottest .357 Magnum loads (Buffalo Bore) with the hottest 10mm loads (Double Tap), the .357 generally has a slight advantage in ME over the 10mm, but that difference is so small as not to be signfiicant.

JC2, this is flat wrong and you know it. As I (and others) have said many times, one needs only to fire both of these rounds from the same platform/barrel length (either 4" revolvers or 6" revolves would do just fine) and then look at the numbers again. What's so hard about this to understand? I just can't believe that you sincerely can't understand this so I/we are left with the only conclusion we can come to - that you are just trying (and succeeding) to stir up trouble. In the future, I sincerely hope that when you see "Civil discussion wanted" at the beginning of a thread that you think long and hard about "just passing it by".

 

[jc2]

JC2, this is flat wrong and you know it.

Nope, it's not.

The .357 Magnum is typically used in the four to six inch revolvers.

The 10mm is typically used in autoloaders.

It makes far better real-world sense to compare them based on the platform in which are typically used.

There's absolutely nothing "hard about this to understand."

 

[warriorsociologist]

Nope, it's not.

The .357 Magnum is typically used in the four to six inch revolvers.

The 10mm is typically used in autoloaders.

It makes far better real-world sense to compare them based on the platform in which are typically used.

There's absolutely nothing "hard about this to understand."

wow....sad...just sad. So much for the high (or reasonable) road.

Ok, then save that kind of post for a "revolver vs. auto" thread. (though if you want to play that game, It's still more reasonable to conclude that a handgun with 15+1 rounds on tap vs. one with 6-7 rounds on tap is "higher performance" so long as the ammo used in both were "ballistic twins" (your words, not mine). That said, I still like revolvers...go figure...which brings me to my next point:

Here we are (supposed to be) talking about ammunition (take a look at the title again). 10mm/.40 gets used in revolvers too. I own two of them...and use 10mm (in a revolver btw) over my .357 for hunting because of the better performance I get from the 10mm. Back then, I reasoned that I could get better performance than my .357 (by moving up to a 10mm wheelgun for hunting) without having to buy new reloading dies (for a .41 mag, which I considered) since I already owned .40/10mm dies (I owned S&W 10mm autos before I got my first 10mm revolver) and the lower-end .41 loads I could duplicate with my 10mm were still "plenty enough gun" for whitetails. If you want to compare two rounds, you should control for as many other variables as possible - otherwise you contaminate your results. It just doesn't get any simpler than this. It seems by your logic, we should all conclude that a 2.0L 4-cylinder engine is "higher performance" than a 6.0L V8 engine since it can push a little encono-box car to a quicker 0-60 than a full-size SUV....afterall, there are lots of little 4-bangers and big SUV's on the road...right?...so, we need not talk about those pesky v8 powered sporty cars...

At the very least, this thread is evidence of your bias and unwillingness to see reason. I hope this is top on peoples' lists for "read this link first" posts when others later come up with a "10mm vs ..." question again.

 

[P95Carry]

John - to deal with ''the persons'' presupposes I would have to ''take sides'' - and the perceptions regarding who is more to blame for any ''inconsistencies'' can vary according to perspective.

I am purely ''on the outside looking in'' - and do not have time for tedious pruning and filtering, based only on my judgements, which well may not be in agreement with others.

As I said earlier - I see much useful info - in fact in some ways enough to deal with the question but as well I observe "combatants'' still thowing brickbats and not really resolving things.

That is where I have a problem and because I am unwilling to take sides am tempted to see closure eventually - we have stuff that gets ''beaten to death'' - IMO this is one of those matters.

It is I admit an easier option - but I have things to do and a life to lead

 

[Zen21Tao]

Size Comparison

My primary IWB carry guns are my Sig P239 in .40 and my Glock 29 10mm. The size difference in the two really isn't that noticable. On the other hand, the double stack 10mm is noticably more think than the single stack .40. However, I find the minor comfort difference worth the tradeoff to have 10+1 10mm rounds instead of 7+1 .40 rounds. Also, the Glock 29 will take the 15 round G20 magazines too if you want to carry a couple of them seperately.

 

[jc2]

wow....sad...just sad. So much for the high (or reasonable) road.

So, the only "reasonable" or "high road" is to see it your way? That is sad.

Sure, you can find .357 Magnum autoloaders, and yes, you can find 10mm revolvers (none in current production)--BUT the most common platform for the .357 Magnum is a revolver, and the most common platform for the 10mm is an autoloader. It makes very good sense to compare .357 Magnum performance in a revolver to 10mm performance in an autoloader, because in the real-world, that's how they are most commonly used.

If you like to use the 10mm to hunt deer with fine. I've done it too. There's really not enough difference between the .357 Magnum and the 10mm to make a difference (or that the deer would even notice).

Here we are (supposed to be) talking about ammunition

So why are you whining about a "handgun with 15+1 rounds on tap?"

 

[lbmii]

Let us use real world ammo (not Buffalo, and not handloads) fired in real world handguns of similar size and bulk. The 40 S&W and the 357 mag are very similar.

My 5.3 inch Glock 35 throws a Speer 155 grain bullet an average of 1245 fps and a 155 grain Winchester bullet at an average of 1255 fps. I suspect that a typical 357 revolver of about the same overall size and bulk of my Glock 35 will do just about the same with a 158 grain bullet from a regular major brand name of ammo.

I do not have a duty size 357 revolver similar in size to my Glock 35 so I can not prove my above statement but I suspect I am pretty safe in assuming little difference from a duty size 357 and my Glock 35.

I do have a Glock 27 and a Rossi 2 inch 357 and as you can see in my previous post that the two handguns are similar in size.

My Glock 27 throws a 155 grain Winchester bullet an average of 1151 fps and my Rossi throws a Federal 158 grain bullet an average of 1022 fps.

There are ammo manurfacture's numbers and there are handloaders numbers and then there are my numbers with normal rounds with normal handguns. If you go with my numbers, the 40 S&W throws a 155 grain bullet at velocities that are at or above the velocities a similar size 357 mag will throw a 158 grain bullet.

I stand by my contention that one is better to associate the 357 with the 40 S&W and the 10 mm with the 41 Mag.

 

[lbmii]

Zen21Tao,

How is that Glock 29 in recoil? Have you ever put the hotter 10mm rounds through it?

My Glock 27 is a bear with the hotter 165 grain rounds so I bet your 29 with hot rounds are something.

 

[warriorsociologist]

...like kicking a dead horse... what's the use...



Jc2, I'm done with your for now. I don't want to see this thread closed. I have no idea how old you are, but I have seen enough to ascertain how "mature" I think you are. You claim to be old enough to have been shooting & hunting with handguns for some time, so perhaps that's why seeing what you have been posting really gets to me. You're not fooling anyone & I guess if I knew you were just a "wet-behind-the-ears" young buck I could forgive and forget a little easier. Maybe in a few more years we'll have to "sit down" online and have this chat again. Until then, I'll let your's and my posts speak for themselves.

Again, Mr. Moderator...I'm done here. John & others - have "fun" fighting "the good fight". I sincerely do hope everyone actually interested in getting something more than a misguided ego-trip out of this thread takes the time to gleen the worthwile info from it and &%$#pile the rest as they see fit. I'm tired of being lured done to this ditch...back to the 'road for me.

SO, JC2, if your goal was to get rid of me from this thread & have the last word - well have at it 'sport.... I just wish your goal would have been to contribute something worthwhile to this discourse. I guess it's just as well since have already wrote what I have to say on the subject of this thread anyway. It's a shame that every "10mm thread" has to come to this.

- WS out.

 

[jc2]

lbmii -

Buffalo Bore (and Double Tap) are very much "real world" ammunition (at least if shoot the .357 Magnum, 10mm or .41 Magnum). The big three are notorious for downloading .357 Magnum (and 10mm) ammo. For example, Federal's one 10mm load (P10HS1G) throws a 180-grain JHP at 1030 fps (five-inch barrel), but Federal also has a .40 S&W load (P40HST1) that throws a 180-grain JHP at 1030 fps (four-inch barrel)--the identical MV from a shorter barrel. If you want to base comparison strictly on what the "big three" loads, you better be prepared to associate the 10mm with the .40 S&W (NOT the .41 Magnum--it's no where even close on the upper end).

Having a G29, the recoil is not bad (and it does carry pretty well IWB, but it is wide). It's more of a G19/G23 size weapon than a G27 size.

 

[JohnKSa]

If that was your question, why didn't you ask it four days ago?

Well, it wasn't exactly my question, but it was asked at the beginning of the thread--by the originator.

For example, Federal's one 10mm load (P10HS1G) throws a 180-grain JHP at 1030 fps (five-inch barrel), but Federal also has a .40 S&W load (P40HST1) that throws a 180-grain JHP at 1030 fps (four-inch barrel)--the identical MV from a shorter barrel.

But jc, wouldn't this qualify as comparing hot loads to mild loads? Something you clearly spoke against on a thread two days ago?

My Glock 27 throws a 155 grain Winchester bullet an average of 1151 fps and my Rossi throws a Federal 158 grain bullet an average of 1022 fps.

Now this sounds like a more reasonable comparison. Revolver to auto as you said should be done a couple of posts ago, in similarly sized guns as you said is a fair way to compare, and also using hot loads in both guns... In fact, you suggested exactly such a comparison down to the brands, barrel lengths and models.

His results would seem to admirably support the comment you just made indicating you believed that the .40S&W was a better cartridge than the .357Magnum for self-defense use. Just to clarify--are you arguing against lbmii's assertion?

warriorsociologist,

IMO, it's the duty of all forum members to ensure that this board is a good source of information rather than just a soapbox for the vocal (but perhaps misinformed). jc2 has said many times on this board (and others) that his goal is to inform, so his goals are surely similar to yours and mine. Therefore I'm sure that he joins with me in asking you to continue posting on this thread as long as you have useful and pertinent information to contribute.

 

[Zen21Tao]

Zen21Tao,

How is that Glock 29 in recoil? Have you ever put the hotter 10mm rounds through it?

My Glock 27 is a bear with the hotter 165 grain rounds so I bet your 29 with hot rounds are something.

It is about the same as a similar sized .45 - just a stiff push. I haven't put the hottest rounds through it yet but I don't think it would be that bad. I have a tiny AMT backup .45 that has quite a sharp recoil and I shoot a S&W 500 pretty regularly. The secret to controling recoil is practice, practice and more practice.

 

[jc2]

Well, it wasn't exactly my question, but it was asked at the beginning of the thread--by the originator.

Nope, John, it was clearly your question (see your post 105). The originator asked at the beginning of the thread:

Can somebody please convince me that the 10mm or the .357 is worth the added cost of getting new guns and buying more expensive ammo.... or, can I convert my .40 pistols (Glock, Springfield XDs) to 10mm or .357

Since he's talking about converting .40 S&W pistols (Glock and Springfield XDs) "to 10mm or .357," he was asking about the 357 SIG not the .357 Magnum. Surely, you didn't assume he meant to convert .40 S&W Glocks and XDs to .357 Magnum, John.

But jc, wouldn't this qualify as comparing hot loads to mild loads? Something you clearly spoke against on a thread two days ago?

Yep--and it was intended to show the folly of doing so.

His results would seem to admirably support the comment you just made indicating you believed that the .40S&W was a better cartridge than the .357Magnum for self-defense use. Just to clarify--are you arguing against lbmii's assertion?

Nope--you missed by my reply to him:

It's pretty clear when we look at these numbers (and remember the .357 Magnum was not designed as defence cartridge as pocketable two-inch but as a hunting cartridge for a large frame revolver) the .357 Magnum and 10mm belong in one family while the .41 Magnum is in a totally different league.

All that being said, and FTR, if I had to choose between a two-inch Rossi (of all things) in .357 Magnum and a G27 in .40 S&W, I'd pick the G27 in .40 S&W because it is better suited in that role.

 

[jeepmor]

this always happens

Anytime someone mentions the 357 and the 10mm in the same thread you guys always start pissing and moaning like school kids...


....recess is over, back to class.

 

[leadcounsel]

Thanks to all who have contributed... although it wasn't as CIVIL as I had hoped.

I don't know why this is such an emotional topic for some of you!


I think I've concluded the following from the information posted:

1) That the .357 Magnum and 10mm are ballistically equivalent loads with capabilities about 20% greater in velocity and energy than the .40 and .357Sig, the latter traveling faster with the former hitting harder;

2) I think it states the obvious to say that the .357 Mag/10mm are better suited for hunting rounds because they are fastest and hit hardest of the rounds under scrutiny;

3) It stands to reason that in ANY and ALL scenarios, a round that is better suited to take game is BETTER for self defense than a smaller/slower round. To extrapolate and take the analogy to the next level, if all things were EQUAL (e.g. shot placement, distance, barriers, etc.), a .308 would be more effective than a .22 in self defense; a .44 Mag would be better than a .32. I cannot be convinced that a 10mm traveling 20% faster with 20% more energy than the .40 caliber is going to be LESS effective than the .40 caliber. It is illogical. If it hits harder and faster, then it will be more effective, period. I don't need "real world" cadavers to tell me this because it is an absolute. If a bullet traveling at 1000fps will penetrate 10 inches, break a bone, or penetrate a car door and damage an assailant then the same size yet faster bullet CAN ONLY penetrate as deep or deeper, break a bone as bad or worse, or punch through the car door and hit harder. To state otherwise is illogical. It's all about energy transfer, no???

4) Penetration: Further, the 10mm is more effective at penetrating barriers such as thick clothing, car doors, wood, bones, etc than the .40. Not only is this LOGICAL (because the bullets are the same size, but the 10mm is traveling significantly faster) but this has been tested. If I'm shooting at a badguy who is concealed, I want my bullets to hit him hard. If I'm shooting from the side, I want the bullet to break his arm bone and continue into his lungs and heart, etc.

5) Versatility: Seems that the 10mm Glock which I have my eye on is going to be very versatile b/c I plan on getting a .40 spare barrel. I am still a fan of the .40, but want the versatiliy of lower cost shooting too.

I'm excited to try this "new" 10mm caliber on for size as it seems to have a verocious following!

Again, thanks for all of the contributions.

 

[P95Carry]

Again, thanks for all of the contributions.

Like it or not folks, with that last comment from leadcouncel I feel we are truly done.

I do not want to see a continuation of cross-purpose arguments which inevitably seem to lead toward some degree or other of character assassination.