Civil discussion about 10mm, .40 cal, .357 please
- Thread starter leadcounsel
- Start date
- Status
That didn't imply or attempt to imply anything, John. That was simply a statement of fact: the 10mm simply does not have a record of being effective (or ineffective) as a LE/anti-personnel calibre. We can look at the .40 S&W and truthfully say it has proven effective in a LE/anti-personnel role--we cannot do that for the 10mm (because the 10mm is largely DOA as a LE calibre).
warriorsociologist
Member
What is the difference between a "10mm lite" and the .40S&W round developed to mimic it? If the .40 round works, why not the 10mm?
jc,
If the two rounds were similar in popularity then the statement would be meaningful in the context you claim you intend it. Given the HUGE disparity in popularity, the statement can only be either meaningless or an attempt to disparage the effectiveness of the round by exploiting its relative lack of popularity.
I gave you the benefit of the doubt and assumed you were not making a meaningless comment.
Here's the deal.
You started out claiming that the 10mm had no performance advantage over the .40S&W.
Now you're making a point of the lack of service record of the 10mm.
But the 10mm as loaded by the FBI is identical to the .40S&W.
Therefore it is absolute folly to make any statements impugning the 10mm based on its relative lack of service when compared to the .40S&W. If we're going to try to cling to even a tiny shred of logic, we have to admit that the fact that the two rounds (FBI "10mm Light" and .40S&W) are ballistically identical DRIVES us to the conclusion that any performance record of the .40 S&W APPLIES EQUALLY to the "light" 10mm in the FBI loading.
So, let's try again.
If they're equal and one can be downloaded to ballistically mirror the other using identical bullets, tell me again how the service record of one round vs the other has any significance other than as a sidewise dig at the less popular round?
If the two rounds were similar in popularity then the statement would be meaningful in the context you claim you intend it. Given the HUGE disparity in popularity, the statement can only be either meaningless or an attempt to disparage the effectiveness of the round by exploiting its relative lack of popularity.
I gave you the benefit of the doubt and assumed you were not making a meaningless comment.
Here's the deal.
You started out claiming that the 10mm had no performance advantage over the .40S&W.
Now you're making a point of the lack of service record of the 10mm.
But the 10mm as loaded by the FBI is identical to the .40S&W.
Therefore it is absolute folly to make any statements impugning the 10mm based on its relative lack of service when compared to the .40S&W. If we're going to try to cling to even a tiny shred of logic, we have to admit that the fact that the two rounds (FBI "10mm Light" and .40S&W) are ballistically identical DRIVES us to the conclusion that any performance record of the .40 S&W APPLIES EQUALLY to the "light" 10mm in the FBI loading.
So, let's try again.
If they're equal and one can be downloaded to ballistically mirror the other using identical bullets, tell me again how the service record of one round vs the other has any significance other than as a sidewise dig at the less popular round?
WS -
Nothing really--except the .40 S&W fits into a smaller, lighter, easier to carry weapon. In fact, the 10mm Federal Hydra-Shok just about falls into that class.
John -
It wasn't meaningless. It was a simple statement of fact--and a point to be considered. One might, as WS suggests, safely assume (but still assume) that the Federal 180-grain 10mm Hydra-Shok will perform roughly like the Federal 180-grain .40 S&W Hydra-Shok because they are so close (within 50 fps), but that does not necessarily hold true across the board. The bottom line remains, the 10mm lacks any meaningful record as a LE/anti-personnel round (and that's particularly true for any vaunted boutique rounds that are so popular today).
Nothing really--except the .40 S&W fits into a smaller, lighter, easier to carry weapon. In fact, the 10mm Federal Hydra-Shok just about falls into that class.
John -
It wasn't meaningless. It was a simple statement of fact--and a point to be considered. One might, as WS suggests, safely assume (but still assume) that the Federal 180-grain 10mm Hydra-Shok will perform roughly like the Federal 180-grain .40 S&W Hydra-Shok because they are so close (within 50 fps), but that does not necessarily hold true across the board. The bottom line remains, the 10mm lacks any meaningful record as a LE/anti-personnel round (and that's particularly true for any vaunted boutique rounds that are so popular today).
warriorsociologist
Member
OK, so can't we "borrow" some of the vast and impressive .40 data to show what the 10mm may have performed like "for real" if it had not met the missfortune of a large influx of small handed/statured FBI agents? If the "lite 10mm" loads are the "mold" from which a well-respected & proven .40 S&W "clone" load was designed, what's to fuss about concerning the 10mm's likely performance?
John -
WS -
Nothing at all so long as we stick to 180-grain JHPs ~1000 fps. Now, if you want to talk about 180-grain JHPs (designed to function optimally at ~1000 fps), that's another story. The 10mm loaded with 180-grain, current generation, premium JHPs at ~1000 fps is probably every bit as good as good as a .40 S&W loaded with 180-grain, current generation, premium JHPs at ~1000 fps--but that pretty well leaves all other bullet weights and velocities.
Of course, that brings us all right back where we started (and a statement on which we all agree):
It doesn't so long as we limit the 10mm strictly to "FBI-Lite" (180-grains at ~1000 fps).
WS -
Nothing at all so long as we stick to 180-grain JHPs ~1000 fps. Now, if you want to talk about 180-grain JHPs (designed to function optimally at ~1000 fps), that's another story. The 10mm loaded with 180-grain, current generation, premium JHPs at ~1000 fps is probably every bit as good as good as a .40 S&W loaded with 180-grain, current generation, premium JHPs at ~1000 fps--but that pretty well leaves all other bullet weights and velocities.
Of course, that brings us all right back where we started (and a statement on which we all agree):
Ah yes, we are back to that aren't we...
So, here was my reply to that, which was answered by an attempt to imply that the difference in the service record of the 10mm and the .40S&W was somehow significant in terms of the utility of the 10mm for anti-personnel use. Since that objection has now been dealt with, let's try it again.
The statement about anti-personnel effectiveness does not in any way cast a shadow on the universally accepted ballistic superiority of the 10mm over the 40 S&W, but merely exploits a factoid. Namely, that there is not and has never been any universally agreed upon definition of, nor method to simply measure what clearly gives one caliber an advantage in an anti-personnel role over another caliber in the same general class.
On the other hand, there is certainly no question at all that the 10mm can be loaded to demonstrate a clear and significant advantage in ballistic performance over the .40 S&W in any MEASURABLE parameter excepting bullet diameter. Parameters such as momentum, power factor, kinetic energy, velocity, trajectory, the ability to handle heavier bullets, etc.
So, here was my reply to that, which was answered by an attempt to imply that the difference in the service record of the 10mm and the .40S&W was somehow significant in terms of the utility of the 10mm for anti-personnel use. Since that objection has now been dealt with, let's try it again.
The statement about anti-personnel effectiveness does not in any way cast a shadow on the universally accepted ballistic superiority of the 10mm over the 40 S&W, but merely exploits a factoid. Namely, that there is not and has never been any universally agreed upon definition of, nor method to simply measure what clearly gives one caliber an advantage in an anti-personnel role over another caliber in the same general class.
On the other hand, there is certainly no question at all that the 10mm can be loaded to demonstrate a clear and significant advantage in ballistic performance over the .40 S&W in any MEASURABLE parameter excepting bullet diameter. Parameters such as momentum, power factor, kinetic energy, velocity, trajectory, the ability to handle heavier bullets, etc.
Pretty much--and there is nothing at all to suggest those differences are significant other than your opinion. As you have stated at a couple of times in this thread, there's really nothing at all support any assumption that any of them, singularly or in concert, result in any advantage in effectiveness in a LE/anti-personnel role (and in fact, some contributed directly to the 10mm very short life in a LE/anti-personnel role).
The bottom line remains the .40 S&W has a proven, documented record as an effective LE/anti-personnel calibre--the 10mm does not. A page later, we're still at (and will remain at) there is nothing to indicate the 10mm offers any advantage in effectiveness over the .40 S&W in a LE/anti-personnel role.
warriorsociologist
Member
The same critique you made about him could be applied to your judgement of "nothing at all..." etc. What's your point?
Jc2, the problem that is beginning to occur here again has actually less to do with what you write, but rather it concerns the arrogance with which you present your side of things. You may not intend it this way (though, I believe you do), but it's what I and many others here perceive about you. You seem to like to find every thread that mentions "10mm" or ".357" and then proceed to nit-pick others more than offering anything new. This is what got the last thread closed down. You have said your piece on this many times. Here, let me say it again for you:
OK then. That's your opinion. Many here simply dissagree with you. Please move on. I don't want this thread to dissintegrate like the one before it, but I fear that it is heading there...
There is no statement of opinion in that post. The parametrical differences are ballistically significant as stated--there can be no debate.
Which is a meaningless statement, bordering on ludicrous, given the potential of the 10mm to be downloaded to PRECISELY duplicate ANY and ALL past, present and future .40 S&W loadings.
Here is your "argument" in a nutshell.
Given the lack of an absolutely conclusive measure of anti-personnel performance, and the lack of popularity of the 10mm round, it is not possible to say for certain that the 10mm's obvious and significant numerical ballistic superiority over the .40S&W, in virtually every regard, translates into similarly superior anti-personnel performance.
Ok, your last four posts on the thread have been pretty much carbon copies of each other so I'm guessing you're out of things to say. I'm also guessing that won't stop you. So say it again--I'll let you have the last word this time.
Yes, there are differences in velocity, energy, etc. between the .40 S&W and 10mm, but there is nothing suggest the difference between the two is significant in terms of effectiveness in a LE/anti-personnel role. In your opinion, the difference in velocity, the difference in energy, etc. might be signficant, but it is nothing more than an opinion.
When the 10mm precisely duplicates "ANY and ALL past, present and future .40 S&W loadings," then, and only then, can you reasonably extrapolate the the .40 S&W's historical effectiveness data do those particular loads that duplicate .40 S&W's load. If you change any of the variables (for example, velocity), then you can no longer reasonably extrapolate the data. In other words, your argument only holds true for 10mm loads that mirror precisely .40 S&W (which pretty well eliminates some of the more popular loads like the Texas Ammo, Buffalo Bore, Double Tap and even the Winchester Silvertip loads).
Plain Old Bill
Member
Maybe they're the same...
All second place to the 45 ACP!!!
Yeah, I know...here come the flames!
All second place to the 45 ACP!!!
Yeah, I know...here come the flames! 
Did anybdy cathc this tidbit from the firearmstactical.com pdf on the weapon trials leading to the adoption of the 10mm by the FBI (see image of text)?
An agent could buy & carry their own Sig or S&W in 9mm or .45ACP in addition to the issue S&W1076 10mm.
Beats the heck out of making everyone use the same hunk of tupperware.
An agent could buy & carry their own Sig or S&W in 9mm or .45ACP in addition to the issue S&W1076 10mm.
Beats the heck out of making everyone use the same hunk of tupperware.
Attachments
warriorsociologist
Member
Jc2, the differences in velocity that John mentions are not statistically significant - FWIW.
warriorsociologist
Member
Wrong topic Mr. Bill (see title) - but since you brought it up, read item 2 under "Reasons for adopting the 10mm" in the paper I linked in my post at the top of page 2.
I'd be happy with a .45 too, but to me, the 10mm provides more capacity without sacrifice.
The original author wanted a "civil discussion" on the merits of 3 calibers. Please all...if you post here just to stir up trouble, please don't (Mr. Bill, I know your's was only in jest - no worries). If you read the entire post and then find a "hole" in the information that needs to be "filled", then by all means do so. To those who have a habit of doing so, please don't continue to make "trouble for trouble's sake" here... For those who would rather not waste anymore time with those who choose to not walk "the high road", there is an "ignore list" that works quite well. I added my first 2 names to it ever, in the 3+ years I have been here, today.
Last edited:
"A moderate, 190-grain Federal JHP, load was initially adopted."
Incorrect. Source, please?
As SA Hall states here:
http://www.firearmstactical.com/pdf/fbi_10mm_notes.pdf
and here:
http://www.textfiles.com/politics/GUNS/10mmpist.txt ...
... the first 10mm load created by the FBI was the 180gn "FBI Lite" load, a Sierra JHP @ 980fps. This is the duty ammo that Federal first produced and what the agents received for their 1076s. Federal's 190gn 10mm bonded JHP (designated "XM1003A") came later. From various chronograph sources, this load was spec-ed @ 1050fps/465fpe from the 4.25" tube of a S&W 1076.
Interestingly, as Hall states in his article, the then "commercially available" 10mm ammo (i.e., specifically, Norma's 170gn 10mm JHP @ 1300fps/638fpe) created unacceptable "heavy recoil and muzzle blast" - despite "the otherwise excellent performance of the round," i.e., the FTU testers liked the ballistic performance, penetration and "stopping power" attributes of the "full-power" Norma 170gn JHP, but given who would have to qualify with this load, other considerations took priority.
Hot Norma-level 10mm ammo, still fairly accessible in the late '80s, rendered qualification difficult for the general run of nonshooter "Mulder & Scully-type" agents, though not for the FBI's experienced shooters, virtually all of whom were men. At least as late as 1986, the Bureau was still mired in a gender discrimination lawsuit in federal court brought by female agents that had challenged, among other things, the Bureau's alleged "sexist firearms training." So creating a dumbed-down version (velocity-wise) of the newly adopted 10mm AUTO, with which everyone could qualify, was, ... ah ... clearly a practical imperative. 
For those really interested in some "hidden history" involving the 10mm 1076 pistols themselves, provided for us by a now-retired agent (someone in a position to know the facts - and it's not that difficult to figure out who he was), you might check out the following link. It clears up a lot of errornet misstatements:
http://home.earthlink.net/~gnappi/history.htm
By the way, I for one am glad to see that no one's yet mentioned Double Tap 10mm ammo - or suggested how great it really is, or posted velocity, energy, penetration or expansion numbers for DT 10mm loads, as this would only aggravate jc2.
That would then lead to a series of posts between jc2 and others et. al, in which all manner of inane points get argued into a kind of reductio ad quibbling. (Okay, strictly speaking, that's not real Latin ).
That, in turn, would prompt Johnny Guest to come flying in here (as with previous umpteen "10mm threads"), declare the party over, and lock it down faster than a Katrina refugee can spend a wad of FEMA money.
Incorrect. Source, please?
As SA Hall states here:
http://www.firearmstactical.com/pdf/fbi_10mm_notes.pdf
and here:
http://www.textfiles.com/politics/GUNS/10mmpist.txt ...
... the first 10mm load created by the FBI was the 180gn "FBI Lite" load, a Sierra JHP @ 980fps. This is the duty ammo that Federal first produced and what the agents received for their 1076s. Federal's 190gn 10mm bonded JHP (designated "XM1003A") came later. From various chronograph sources, this load was spec-ed @ 1050fps/465fpe from the 4.25" tube of a S&W 1076.
Interestingly, as Hall states in his article, the then "commercially available" 10mm ammo (i.e., specifically, Norma's 170gn 10mm JHP @ 1300fps/638fpe) created unacceptable "heavy recoil and muzzle blast" - despite "the otherwise excellent performance of the round," i.e., the FTU testers liked the ballistic performance, penetration and "stopping power" attributes of the "full-power" Norma 170gn JHP, but given who would have to qualify with this load, other considerations took priority.
Hot Norma-level 10mm ammo, still fairly accessible in the late '80s, rendered qualification difficult for the general run of nonshooter "Mulder & Scully-type" agents, though not for the FBI's experienced shooters, virtually all of whom were men. At least as late as 1986, the Bureau was still mired in a gender discrimination lawsuit in federal court brought by female agents that had challenged, among other things, the Bureau's alleged "sexist firearms training."
So creating a dumbed-down version (velocity-wise) of the newly adopted 10mm AUTO, with which everyone could qualify, was, ... ah ... clearly a practical imperative. For those really interested in some "hidden history" involving the 10mm 1076 pistols themselves, provided for us by a now-retired agent (someone in a position to know the facts - and it's not that difficult to figure out who he was), you might check out the following link. It clears up a lot of errornet misstatements:
http://home.earthlink.net/~gnappi/history.htm
By the way, I for one am glad to see that no one's yet mentioned Double Tap 10mm ammo - or suggested how great it really is, or posted velocity, energy, penetration or expansion numbers for DT 10mm loads, as this would only aggravate jc2.
That would then lead to a series of posts between jc2 and others et. al, in which all manner of inane points get argued into a kind of reductio ad quibbling. (Okay, strictly speaking, that's not real Latin
). That, in turn, would prompt Johnny Guest to come flying in here (as with previous umpteen "10mm threads"), declare the party over, and lock it down faster than a Katrina refugee can spend a wad of FEMA money.
Last edited:
stiletto raggio
Member
A logical explanation
Fact: among the many factors of terminal ballistics are bullet weight, diameter and velocity.
Fact: as any of these factors increase, the overriding trend is that a bullet's stopping or killing power increases.
Fact: a moderate increase in velocity will, given identical bullets, generally produce increased penetration.
Fact: the .40 has an excellent record in documented police and civilian shootings.
Fact: the 10mm, in it's reduced loads, produce velocities equivalent to the .40 when loaded with identical bullets.
Fact: the 10mm, in it's full power loading, produces higher velocity than the .40 with the same weight and type of bullet.
Based on these facts, it can reasonable be determined that:
Conclusion one: the stopping record of the .40 can be logically applied to a reduced 10mm round because their external ballistics are identical.
Conclusion two: the full-power 10mm load will perform at least as well as its reduced-power counterparts but will most likely have increased performance as measured in terms of internal (terminal) ballistics.
Conclusion three: these improved terminal effects will most likely be manifested in increased penetration of a full-powered 10mm over the .40 or 10mm-lite.
To break briefly from the topic, if I offered you the choice of two envelopes, (A) which contains a single $100 bill and nothing else or (B) which will contain at least $100, which would you choose? The rational person would choose (B). They could be equal, but one has the potential to be greater.
Taking that as an example, a rational person would, all things being equal, choose a round that has at least as much power as the other round in question.
Now, there are other factors in whether you choose a .40 or a 10mm, such as ammo cost and availability, recoil, weapon size and availability, muzzle blast, etc, but these factors can only be considered subjectively based on the values and priorities of the shooter in question. Thus, you may rationally argue against all other qualities of a 10mm weapon, but its ballistic capabilities relative to the .40 are beyond reproach.
It shouldn't take a philosophy major to figure this out.
Fact: among the many factors of terminal ballistics are bullet weight, diameter and velocity.
Fact: as any of these factors increase, the overriding trend is that a bullet's stopping or killing power increases.
Fact: a moderate increase in velocity will, given identical bullets, generally produce increased penetration.
Fact: the .40 has an excellent record in documented police and civilian shootings.
Fact: the 10mm, in it's reduced loads, produce velocities equivalent to the .40 when loaded with identical bullets.
Fact: the 10mm, in it's full power loading, produces higher velocity than the .40 with the same weight and type of bullet.
Based on these facts, it can reasonable be determined that:
Conclusion one: the stopping record of the .40 can be logically applied to a reduced 10mm round because their external ballistics are identical.
Conclusion two: the full-power 10mm load will perform at least as well as its reduced-power counterparts but will most likely have increased performance as measured in terms of internal (terminal) ballistics.
Conclusion three: these improved terminal effects will most likely be manifested in increased penetration of a full-powered 10mm over the .40 or 10mm-lite.
To break briefly from the topic, if I offered you the choice of two envelopes, (A) which contains a single $100 bill and nothing else or (B) which will contain at least $100, which would you choose? The rational person would choose (B). They could be equal, but one has the potential to be greater.
Taking that as an example, a rational person would, all things being equal, choose a round that has at least as much power as the other round in question.
Now, there are other factors in whether you choose a .40 or a 10mm, such as ammo cost and availability, recoil, weapon size and availability, muzzle blast, etc, but these factors can only be considered subjectively based on the values and priorities of the shooter in question. Thus, you may rationally argue against all other qualities of a 10mm weapon, but its ballistic capabilities relative to the .40 are beyond reproach.
It shouldn't take a philosophy major to figure this out.
If it were only that simple!
The bottom line remains the .40 S&W with middle to heavy weight bullets (165-grains/~1150 fps to 180-grains/~1000 fps) has proven to be very effective in a LE/anti-personnel role. We can probably safely extrapolate the .40 SW to the 10mm loaded with the same bullets at the same velocity. We cannot reasonably assume increasing the velocity (particularly if using bullets optimized for .40 S&W velocities) maintains or increases effectiveness--in fact, it is just as likely the exact opposite may result.
The 10mm is fun a calibre. It is a general purpose round in that with the right loads (for example, the 175-grain Silvertip) it makes an acceptable LE/defence weapon, and it can also be decent hunting round for smaller medium game, but there are better calibres for a strictly LE/anti-personnel role, and there are most certainly better calibres for hunting (though not available in an autoloader).
Not necessarily. For example, the light to middle weight .357 Magnums (which is a ballistic twin to the 10mm) have proven more effective in a LE/anti-personnel role than the super-fast heavy weight bullets (for example, the 170/180-grain bullets at 1400 fps).
Everybody has pretty much accepted that conclusion.
Pure speculation on your part when it comes LE/anti-personnel and totally unsupported by any actual performance record.
Ahhh, if were that simple when it comes to LE/anti-personnel roles, we could just chuck all our JHPs and go with FMJs for increased penetrtion and "improved terminal effects."
The bottom line remains the .40 S&W with middle to heavy weight bullets (165-grains/~1150 fps to 180-grains/~1000 fps) has proven to be very effective in a LE/anti-personnel role. We can probably safely extrapolate the .40 SW to the 10mm loaded with the same bullets at the same velocity. We cannot reasonably assume increasing the velocity (particularly if using bullets optimized for .40 S&W velocities) maintains or increases effectiveness--in fact, it is just as likely the exact opposite may result.
The 10mm is fun a calibre. It is a general purpose round in that with the right loads (for example, the 175-grain Silvertip) it makes an acceptable LE/defence weapon, and it can also be decent hunting round for smaller medium game, but there are better calibres for a strictly LE/anti-personnel role, and there are most certainly better calibres for hunting (though not available in an autoloader).
leadcounsel
member
+1
And:
Stopping and killing power derives from a variety of factors including kinetic energy dump into the creature, speed of the bullet, size of the bullet, shot placement, wound depth, wound channel and disrupting organs and breaking bones.
Now, we know that the 10mm full power is faster and hits harder with more energy than the .40 caliber. We also know that it creates a larger wound channel and deeper penetration. This extra energy is then dumped into the bad guy. And, the added penetration may reach a bone or an organ that the .40 was unable too, or it may have the energy to break the bone that the .40 could not break.
Is this significant? Well, of the two options I'd rather shoot the bad guy with a bullet that creates a larger hole. It's not for ME to decide if that extra energy dump is significant, it's for the bad guy to decide.
Also, the added damage this bullet causes allows for slightly less accurate shot placement.
And, the added penetration of the 10mm is likely better than the .40 due to the extra energy. Say the bad guy is wearing body armor, partially concealed behind a wall, car door, windshield, etc. That added velocity and energy may reach and injure the bad guy where a .40 might fail.
Just a few thoughts on my end.
Barriers.
We don't know the 10mm "creates a larger wound channel." That depends more on how the bullet performs than velocity or energy. We cannot even really say the 10mm results in deeper penetration (particularly with expanding bullets)--that really depends more on how the bullet performs than anything else. And, at some point, you reach a point of diminishing returns with penetration (at least when it comes to a LE/anit-personnel role--hunting is another matter). Even the most most deep-penetration fanatic generally acknowledges that anything over 18 inches is meaningless.
May (or may not) is the operative word--again, probably more important in the hunting field than in LE/anti-personnel since the .40 S&W has already proven to be effective in that role (something the 10mm has not done because it is not as well suited to that role as the .40 S&W). It really boils down a whole lot of "mays," "mights," and "assumes"--unfortunately totally without historical performance record in actual use. We do, thanks to its wide-spread LE use--have pretty good idea of how the .40 S&W performs. It's more a case of a known (the .40 S&W) with a proven record of effectiveness as a LE/anti-personnel round versus an unknown (the 10mm) and a lot of wishful thinking and largely unsupported assumptions.
Guns_and_Labs
Member
The former is an personal conclusion. OK, not everyone agrees with you (and the .40 S&W got the same criticisms when it supplanted the .357 as the "manstopper"). There are quite a few LEO's that don't like the .40S&W.
The latter is an unfortunate dismissal of observations and reasoning that you don't happen to agree with. Personally I find animal studies at least as informative as ballistic lab studies, and field records are notoriously unscientific.
And neither is paying attention to the original thread subject.
I believe we started with, "wants to buy a new and different gun", and "may use it when camping and hiking", among other things. At least that's what got my attention. From that standpoint, the .357Mag might be a good move with big loads, and the 10MM is a great choice, IMHO. The .40S&W doesn't have a very good critter record, based on anecdotal evidence from FS & BLM Rangers and Animal Control Officers and watching a couple of cops try to hunt pigs with their service .40's. I don't know about the .357SIG.
The original post didn't ask about other calibers, but I wouldn't dismiss the .44Mag, in, for example, an S&W 629 Mountain Gun or the nasty little 329. Magnum loads for the woods, .44 Special defensive loads for the town... it has a lot going for it. It's just not concealable (for me).
"...totally without historical performance record in actual use."
Seriously? You're making this up, right?
You mean no bad guys have been shot by a LEO firing a 10mm pistol since the cartridge's introduction in 1983?
You mean police departments or LE agencies that issue or once issued a 10mm duty pistol, or that have allowed one to be carried by their officers/agents upon qualification, have never made and kept shooting records that carefully document the "performance record [of the gun and the ammo] in actual use"?
Do you understand the detailed paper trail created by an officer-involved shooting? Among other things, such paperwork documents things like number of rounds fired at the suspect, where he was struck, bullet performance indicia (mushrooming vs fragmentation, etc) and contains either the autopsy report itself or autopsy data pertinent to ballistic issues (e.g., bullet trajectory, depth of penetration, etc).
Backing up a bit, earlier in this thread there were numbers thrown around about how long the 10mm S&W 1076 was "issued" by the Bureau. Someone claimed it was 2 years, someone 5 years.
Actually, once the 1076s were issued in 1990, and even after they were re-issued to field agents once Smith fixed a Bureau-induced problem with the trigger units, the guns remained in service with senior field agents in significant numbers through the end of the 1990s, dwindling after 2001. The point here is that FBI shootings with the 10mm occurred in the field during this period, so there exists an actual, documented, "historical performance record" of how the FBI's 1076s and the issued 10mm ammo worked on the street (both the 180gn & 190gn loads).
The real issue is getting access to official records containing that shooting data involving the FBI's 10mm duty ammo, which it currently retains. Apparently, as I am told, the Ballistic Research Facility at Quantico, which has them, won't release them publically, but may do so to police departments or LEAs.
But there are also state and local police departments that complied shooting data involving their 10mm guns and ammo during the time this caliber was issued to their officers. (For the ambitious, and others who happen to have a lot of free time, these police records might be more easily accessed under a state's public-records law if it's got enough teeth in it, than by going the FOIA route against the Bureau).
Anyway, the link for the list of Depts and LEAs that used a 10mm has been posted before, but it's always nice to post it again whenever some know-it-all claims there's no actual "historical performance record," as if no department or agency ever issued or allowed a 10mm gun into police service. If a police-issued 10mm gun was ever fired, there'll be detailed documentation. This list is incomplete, as some departments that issued a 10mm aren't on it. Here's the link:
http://home.earthlink.net/~gnappi/10user.htm
For example, there's the Virginia State Police (not on the list) which, IIRC, once issued the S&W 1026. They used these guns for years and had a number of shootings during that period. There's a track record to be examined there. It exists, but again the question is accessing it.
The Kentucky State Police (KSP) not only issued the 10mm 1076 for over 12 years, but they switched their 10mm duty load several times during that period, moving away from the "FBI-Lite" ammo to the Winchester STHPs for a while. After that, they went to Georgia Arms' 180gn 10mm Gold Dot HP (@ 1150fps). GA loaded this ammo in nickel cases with the headstamp marked "KSP." The KSP likewise made and kept shooting records during these years documenting, among other things, the performance of their issued 10mm duty load during officer-involved shootings.
The fact that you might not have seen any of this data written up in, e.g., the pages of American Handgunner is not, as they say, "evidence of absence."
Seriously? You're making this up, right? You mean no bad guys have been shot by a LEO firing a 10mm pistol since the cartridge's introduction in 1983?
You mean police departments or LE agencies that issue or once issued a 10mm duty pistol, or that have allowed one to be carried by their officers/agents upon qualification, have never made and kept shooting records that carefully document the "performance record [of the gun and the ammo] in actual use"?
Do you understand the detailed paper trail created by an officer-involved shooting? Among other things, such paperwork documents things like number of rounds fired at the suspect, where he was struck, bullet performance indicia (mushrooming vs fragmentation, etc) and contains either the autopsy report itself or autopsy data pertinent to ballistic issues (e.g., bullet trajectory, depth of penetration, etc).
Backing up a bit, earlier in this thread there were numbers thrown around about how long the 10mm S&W 1076 was "issued" by the Bureau. Someone claimed it was 2 years, someone 5 years.
Actually, once the 1076s were issued in 1990, and even after they were re-issued to field agents once Smith fixed a Bureau-induced problem with the trigger units, the guns remained in service with senior field agents in significant numbers through the end of the 1990s, dwindling after 2001. The point here is that FBI shootings with the 10mm occurred in the field during this period, so there exists an actual, documented, "historical performance record" of how the FBI's 1076s and the issued 10mm ammo worked on the street (both the 180gn & 190gn loads).
The real issue is getting access to official records containing that shooting data involving the FBI's 10mm duty ammo, which it currently retains. Apparently, as I am told, the Ballistic Research Facility at Quantico, which has them, won't release them publically, but may do so to police departments or LEAs.
But there are also state and local police departments that complied shooting data involving their 10mm guns and ammo during the time this caliber was issued to their officers. (For the ambitious, and others who happen to have a lot of free time, these police records might be more easily accessed under a state's public-records law if it's got enough teeth in it, than by going the FOIA route against the Bureau).
Anyway, the link for the list of Depts and LEAs that used a 10mm has been posted before, but it's always nice to post it again whenever some know-it-all claims there's no actual "historical performance record," as if no department or agency ever issued or allowed a 10mm gun into police service. If a police-issued 10mm gun was ever fired, there'll be detailed documentation. This list is incomplete, as some departments that issued a 10mm aren't on it. Here's the link:
http://home.earthlink.net/~gnappi/10user.htm
For example, there's the Virginia State Police (not on the list) which, IIRC, once issued the S&W 1026. They used these guns for years and had a number of shootings during that period. There's a track record to be examined there. It exists, but again the question is accessing it.
The Kentucky State Police (KSP) not only issued the 10mm 1076 for over 12 years, but they switched their 10mm duty load several times during that period, moving away from the "FBI-Lite" ammo to the Winchester STHPs for a while. After that, they went to Georgia Arms' 180gn 10mm Gold Dot HP (@ 1150fps). GA loaded this ammo in nickel cases with the headstamp marked "KSP." The KSP likewise made and kept shooting records during these years documenting, among other things, the performance of their issued 10mm duty load during officer-involved shootings.
The fact that you might not have seen any of this data written up in, e.g., the pages of American Handgunner is not, as they say, "evidence of absence."
Guns_and_Labs
Member
Sonny Crockett in Miami shot LOTS of bad guys with his Bren Ten. One shot stops, usually. Does that count?
- Status
