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

[jc2]

You mean no bad guys have been shot by a LEO firing a 10mm pistol since the cartridge's introduction in 1983?

Nope, I mean the 10mm with currently available loads doesn't have an established record of successful performance in a LE/anti-personnel role. We know the with current loads the .40 S&W performs effectively in a LE/anti-personnel role. The 10mm does not have enough of a record for us to determine how effectively (or ineffectively) it will perform in a LE/anti-personnel role (with the sole exception of possibly the 175-grain Silvertip which is probably its best current LE/anti-personnel load).

BTW, hasn't the Kentuck State Police pretty followed the lead of the rest of US law enforcement and adopted the .40 S&W? I know they dropped the 10mm several years ago.

 

[Soybomb]

jc2, did you get my PM about the poor performance of the doubletap loads you cited in another thread? I'd still love to read more about it.

 

[stiletto raggio]

You can't smoke a quitter and you can't convince the irrational.

Say you have a car with a ten gallon fuel tank. I modify that same car to give it a fifteen gallon fuel tank, making no other modifications. By the logic presented by some on this board, it is unreasonable to assume that the modified car will go further before needing to refuel.

By this logic, then, a charge of C4 that is powerful enough to blow a safe door off it's hinges may fail to do so if the charge is doubled. Two candy bars may not have double the total calories that one identical candy bar has. Sure, we don't know that it will be the case, but reasonable assumptions and derivations are the basis of functional human existence.

You are bringing up what is known as the "problem of induction." All of science--indeed, all of human civilization--is based on assumptions about the nature of the universe. Do you have proof that gravity will continue to function in tomorrow? In an hour? Thirty seconds? No, but you act as though you can make that assumption because to not do so would be irrational given the trend set forth through all of recorded history. Gravity has always worked, so we assume it will in all circumstances. That said, all science does is support or undermine the legitimacy of a hypothesis. Science does not prove things in a real sense.

Let's say the 10mm round never existed and we were building it from the ground up as round based on an extended .40 case. If you put the same powder behind the same .40 bullet, would you not think it reasonable to assume, before a single round was ever manufactured, that this would duplicate the performance of the "mother" .40 cartridge? We are talking about the laws of physics here. I would hope that nobody on this board thinks we should discount every assumption we make about the world outside our own heads simply because we can't prove that our assumptions will continue to be valid.

You can play word games all you want, but logic makes you out to be either a sophist, a fool, or both. After all, I can't prove that getting shot with a .40 won't turn me into a unicorn unless I try it and document it, right?

 

[warriorsociologist]

After all, I can't prove that getting shot with a .40 won't turn me into a unicorn unless I try it and document it, right?

LOL. Be careful... you never know...


You know folks, life is better now that I have added a certain someone to my ignore list (especially seeing as though I actually have better things to do with my free time than argue with those that seem to begin with their minds irreversibly made up already).

My suggestion to all who have witnessed what's happening to this thread occur before...time and time again...is to just keep a file of links to the many threads that have ended up where this one is heading so that you can post them every time someone comes along with another legitimate question about either .40, 10mm, or .357 caliber ammunition or handguns. Then we won't have to revisit this nonsense and the new poster can see what evidence and judgment each contributor has brought to the table over the last few years. I am sure anyone armed with that knowledge will not have any trouble understanding how to value the contributions of everyone here.

Of course, I am sure that a certain someone will be hard-pressed not to point out that I am "assuming" *gasp* that a reasonable person will come to the same conclusions that most of us here have come to...but truthfully, I'm more than happy to make the bet that "said reasonable person" will do just that.




So, in the spirit of getting this thread back on topic, I am reposting my initial response:

Leadcounsel,

If you have small hands, you'll want to stick with the .40 or consider a single stack 10mm (1911 or a now discontinued S&W 10xx series - though they will be heavier) if you want to move to a 10mm. One of the things you do want to do before racking your brain about this is to try to find & test fire a few 10mm handguns. The grip on a 10mm / .45 caliber Glock is significantly larger than a 9mm/.40/.357sig Glock. Most men with medium to large hands will have little trouble with the larger grip frame, but it will probably take some getting used to vs. the smaller glock frames.

FWIW, I can "grip" the 10mm G20 just fine, but I rarely carry it unless I am hiking, hunting, or in heavy clothes. It is more of an "everything gun" only if you want to include some short-range med game hunting/critter defense in your repertoire (though I prefer to hunt with a wheelgun if using 10mm FWIW & you will want to check your local min. barrel length laws carefully before hand either way). Anyway, it sounds like you will continue to be well served by a .40 or even a 9mm for EDC. Think of the .40 as a "10mm special" if you will - it still works just fine & there are lots of effective .40 cal factory loads out there. Most of the time, you don't "need" the extra "flash & bang / shock & awe" of a "magnum" round as "standard" rounds will often do just fine for most purposes. As much of a 10mm fan I am, my EDC actually rotates between a S&W 642 (.38 spec.) and a Glock 19 (9mm) 90% of the time. The way I figure it, I have 3 size categories of CCW pieces that I match with anticipated conditions & my clothing for that day. The j-frame is my pocket-carry "always gun", the G19 is taken when I have a sport coat/suit/sweater/etc. on, and the G20 gets the nod when I am less concerned about comfort and want to have "a little something extra" on tap if needed (hell, it's still smaller than the M9 I have to conceal in the military). YMMV.

Anyway, back to your original question. To me, it sounds like you are looking to possible sell off what you have and move to a .357 sig or 10mm....so my suggestion is "don't do it" and stick with what you have unless you think you might want to drop in a 6" barrel in a 10mm someday and hunt with it. P.S. If you really want a fast bottle-necked cartridge & are willing to pay for it in ammo costs, get a 10mm and then buy a 6" 9x25 Dillon conversion barrel (think .40 vs. 10mm = .357sig vs. 9x23...and then 9x25 - roughly speaking.). Whatever you choose, go and test fire a few of these before you make your call.

Good luck.

 

[leadcounsel]

We don't need to demonstrate the killing power of the 10mm. I'll do it with another example, smaller than 10mm.

We take an 8mm rifle bullet, or a 7.62x39, or a 7mm. They are all smaller in diameter than the .40 pistol bullet, but has signifcantly more powder.

The increase in powder give the bullet more speed and energy transfer/dump into a human. It creates a massive wound channel and destruction of bones and organs because of this incease in speed.

It is WELL documented that rifle bullets are significantly more potent against humans than ANY handgun rounds.

Therefore, the idea that the 10mm handgun cartridge, being the same diameter but FASTER due to MORE POWDER, delivering MORE Energy to the human target and will cause a greater wound channel and destruction and stopping power, is the ONLY conclusion one can come to.

 

[stiletto raggio]

Rather, the only justifiable, rational conclusion.

To some people, the world will always be flat.

 

[cookekdjr]

We don't need to demonstrate the killing power of the 10mm. I'll do it with another example, smaller than 10mm.

We take an 8mm rifle bullet, or a 7.62x39, or a 7mm. They are all smaller in diameter than the .40 pistol bullet, but has signifcantly more powder.

The increase in powder give the bullet more speed and energy transfer/dump into a human. It creates a massive wound channel and destruction of bones and organs because of this incease in speed.

It is WELL documented that rifle bullets are significantly more potent against humans than ANY handgun rounds.

Therefore, the idea that the 10mm handgun cartridge, being the same diameter but FASTER due to MORE POWDER, delivering MORE Energy to the human target and will cause a greater wound channel and destruction and stopping power, is the ONLY conclusion one can come to.

Here's the thing: The .40 doesn't need anymore power or penetration. As a general rule, folks shot with this round end up dead or disabled. This round does perfectly what it was designed to do. When it hits bone, it shatters it. It makes a pretty big hole. When it hits a bad guy, he goes down. There is absolutely nothing lacking in the round from a power standpoint.
I believe adding more power to the .40 S&W is useless. Mind you, I've never shot a 10mm, so maybe I'm wrong. But the increased recoil could hinder accuracy and rate of fire. In exchange for what? Extra power that's un-necessary.
If you have a 10mm gun, and can shoot it fast and accurately, then more power to you (so to speak). I'm happy for you, you have the perfect hand cannon.
But I bet most people would fare better with the .40 S&W. By way of illustration: I prefer .40/.357/.45 over 9mm. By far. I wanted a reliable lightweight hi-cap polymer pistol. I found a good deal on used Glocks. . I was going to buy one in .40. I found that I could not shoot the .40 cal models accurately. Something about the way they sat in my hand prevented me from controlling recoil like I'd want. I just wasn't accurate enough in rapid fire. Because of that, I settled on a Glock 19. Why? Because even with +p+ ammo I could empty the clip (ok, "magazine") as fast as I could pull the trigger, and still hit what I was aiming for. So, I pick the 9mm loads I trust, and stick with 9mm even though I know .40 has more power.
Here's the difference with .40 and 10mm: .40 already has all the power you need from the beginning. Unless you are going to bear country, the added power is useless.
Like I said, I've never been exposed to 10mm performance, but I already know the .40 has all anybody needs in a defensive handgun.
-David

 

[jc2]

When discussing performance as a LE/anti-personal round, increasing MV/ME does not necessarily result in an increase in effectiveness of a handgun round (at least at currently achievable handgun MVs/MEs)

For example, increasing .40 calibre FMJ from ~1000 fps to ~1300 fps (~300 fps) would not increase the the bullet's effectiveness in a LE/anti-personnel role--basically, you will end up with a .40 calibre hole in and .40 calibre hole. By increasing the MV ~300, you will necessarily lose a little shootability, however. The only justifiable, rational conclusion is adding ~300 fps to the MV does not necessarily increase the effectiveness of a bullet in LE/anti-personnel role.

Another example (though a little a more hypthetical) would be a .36 calibre 125-grain SJHP at ~1450 fps MV that has proven an effective, albeit hard to shoot, LE/anti-personnel round. It routinely penetrates a rather shallow ~11-12 inches and fragments. If you increase that bullet's MV to ~1750 fps, chances are very good that you will decrease the bullet's already rather shallow penetration and increase its fragmentation resulting a less effective LE/anti-personnel round (and a significant decrease in controllability).

Another corresponding example would a 180-grain JHP that routinely delivers "textbook" expansion and penetration at ~1000 fps for LE/anti-personnel use (just like the engineers designed to do at ~1000 fps). Increase the MV ~300 fps, and you end up with a bullet folds back on itself within the first two-inches of penetration and becomes a little more than a .40 calibre ball round (with the penetration to match).

The only justifiable, rational conclusion is increasing MV does not always increase a bullet's effectiveness in a LE/anti-personnel role. Bullet effectiveness--especially when it comes to LE/anti-personnel use--is not necessarily a linear equation (as the MV increases the effectiveness increases)--there are a lot more variables at work than just MV and ME (including some not directly related to bullet performance like controllability).

 

[Soybomb]

Another corresponding example would a 180-grain JHP that routinely delivers "textbook" expansion and penetration at ~1000 fps for LE/anti-personnel use (just like the engineers designed to do at ~1000 fps). Increase the MV ~300 fps, and you end up with a bullet folds back on itself and becomes a little more than a .40 calibre FMJ round (with the penetration to match).

Sounds good except the documentation for this round doesn't show that happening. In fact with some bullets you get greater expansion, up to nearly an inch. Perhaps the engineers got the best expansion they could at 1000fps but theres more left if you can put more energy behind it. Either way I'll take proof over speculation in this case.

 

[jc2]

I was documenting the performance any particular load. It was just a hypothetical example.

If you are referring to the 180-grain Double Tap Gold Dot load and DT's "documentation," you need to remember that those results have not been duplicated by an independent, reputable, experienced, professionl ballistics lab or tester. They are figures provided by an amateur (at least when it comes to ballistics testing) whose primary purpose is to sell you his ammunition. Basically, his figures are a long, long ways from "proof."

At least one of the those reputable, professional, independent labs (you know, the ones LEAs actually pay to test ammo--NOT the ones trying to sell their own products) has openly questioned those results (and his methodology--ballistic testing is a more complicated than mixing up some Vyse and shooting it).

At least one other reputable poster (who happens to be 10mm fan) has posted pictures of that round he extracted from feral dogs which he had shot. His experience and pictures show a round that folds backs on itself and penetrates like ball. Despite DT's rather feeble first attempt at ballistic testing (and/or marketing their product) in actual use, the DT 180-grain Gold Dot actually performs very much like my hypothetical example.

DT's expansion and penetration figures aren't worth the bandwith they take-up. They are totally unverified by any form independent third party testing, and they bear no resemblance to what is happening in actual use. THERE is a reason why an actual historicial performance record is important.

 

[stiletto raggio]

If you have issues with DT, I suggest talking to Mike McNett. He is tremendously experienced with the 10mm, reloading it and, recently, producing it on a very large scale. The man has an excellent reputation and has helped a lot of people do what is best for them even though it undermines his sales. He continues to be a source of expert information of reloading the 10mm to full potential even though he now has a vested interest in convincing people to buy his ammo.

As for overexpansion, you are correct. The same .40 bullet may not perfrom well at increased velocities due to weakness in bullet construction. A bullet must be designed to perform within a certain range of velocities. However, numerous companies (say Hornady) have created bullets that are almost identical excpet for small aspects of their designs that are modified depending on the velocity it is intended for. For example, Hornady makes a 250 grain XTP for standard .45 Colt velocities and another 250 grain XTP for "magnum" level velocities. Saying that the bullet loaded in a .40 can't just be pulled, set in a 10mm case and be expected to perform well is quite rational, but only an amateur would attempt such a thing, not an experienced reloader or commercial premium ammo company.

 

[jc2]

I don't have an issue with Mike McNett or Double Tap (and I didn't introduce DT into the discussion), but DT's advertised test results need to be verified by at least one independent, professional ballistics lab/tester before they can be considered "documentation." I am not the only one who has questioned DT posted test results. They have been openly questioned by at least one qualified professional with credentials and experience in ballistic testing.

The very reasons you stated in your second paragraph is why I have insisted for the need of corresponding (and hopefully correlating) historical performance records. What little actual use penetration and expansion data I have found for DT's 180-grain Gold Dot (and that from hunting, not LE/anti-personnel, use) is very much at odds with the data which DT has published on their website.

The bottom line is DT sells velocity first and foremost. Even if the load in question performed better and more consistently (in terms of penetration and expansion) at 1200 fps, it would still be loaded to 1300 fps because, unfortunately, velocity sells (and especially when it comes to the 10mm).

I'll admit it's a matter of personal choice--YMMV--BUT before I bet life and limb on any load, regardless of calibre, I want to see two things: testing by an independent, professional third party and some sort actual performance data (because, while there is generally good correlation between the test results achieved by professional, experienced labs and actual results achieved in LE use, some loads that have performed well on the street have fared miserably in the lab, and some loads that have performed well in ballistic testing have been less than stellar on the street).

I wouldn't want to see this turned into a Double Tap thread (and I'm sure the moderators wouldn't either). We've already strayed to the very far edge of being on-topic as is. If somebody really wants to discuss DT, it would probably be to start a new thread (in the Autoloader Forum).

 

[warriorsociologist]

jc2, I couldn't resist looking at a few of your posts today - mostly because I could see them quoted in others' posts. I have to say that it does appear that you do have “chip” on your shoulder against Mike at Doubletap and based on that, we should take what you have to say here with a large grain of salt according to your very own logic. Many of us became 10mm fans because of the round's convincing performance...we are not simply cheerleaders for it because we were "born 10mm fans." It took me a long while to switch my primary hunting caliber from .357 to 10mm. I will sometime carry a 6” 686, but usually I take a 6.5” 610 or my 6” barrel equipped Glock 20 now (variety is “the spice…” right?) (and, in case anyone cares, soon, I'll probably be making the switch again to .45 Colt, though that will be due to nostalgia more than anything the 10mm lacks ). Anyway, I agree that Doubletap has “tapped” into the “velocity is king” market and that some of their lighter Gold dot loads don’t seem to hold up well at high velocities in tests on deer, wild dogs, and hogs. That said, McNett has done the shooting community a tremendous service in offering a range of very good 10mm rounds – esp. the 165gr GSHP and the 180 through 200+ grain XTP and WFN loads (I think there is a 180gr GSHP too).

Jc2, I have watched you for well over a year now on these forums. I appreciate the “mellowing” that has occurred in your last few posts but date, you seem to go out of your way to harass anyone who dares to post any 10mm performance data. In particular, you suggest that data from Mike McNett (owner of doubletap ammo & as such he has a vested interest in posting only "the good stuff") is not to be trusted.... Sure, it is reasonable to use caution when someone talks about anything they have a vested interest in...but again, to date, you have offered no evidence of your own that he has ever deliberately misled anyone. What you have done is demonstrated and long history of bias against anything 10mm - especially if it has "Doubletap" written on it – seemingly based on the fact that you seem to ignore any of the positive corroborating evidence posted over the last few years that supports Mike’s performance claims (like the dozens, if not hundreds of individuals who have chronoed the rounds themselves or posted hunting threads here and elsewhere). Instead, you pick and choose to reprint only the parts of posts that fit your already established opinions. So, by the very same logic you seem to be so determined to acknowledge anything positive about the 10mm’s performance, is it any wonder why few find your position on the 10mm very credible? You have become the very caricature of a "10mm is bad" salesman...someone who one should never expect to listen to others’ evidence and reasonable arguments because they are already invested in selling their own story.

So far jc2, in my opinion, you have in fact made two worthwhile points, and one was echoed by cookekdjr (the first is that velocity is not an end all/be all…but remember that this point cuts both ways…don’t say this and then use velocity alone to defend the .357mag). I completely agree that the ".40 is (more than) just fine." It works. It works because it was designed to mimic the “FBI lite” 10mm round. It was also designed before we had some of the bullets that we do now – bullets like Hornady’s 200gr. XTP that can take advantage of the 10mm’s extra velocity without failing (the “evidence of this comes in the forms of the MANY hunting threads that have documented this. Also, FWIW, Hornady makes an excellent SD round with the XTP).

So, let me further say that if someone is not a seasoned shooter or used to shooting warm/hot .45 auto, a reloader, or thinks he/she may someday hunt with an autoloader, I would steer them to a .40 (or maybe even a 9mm) over a 10mm. The 10mm comes into its own when you want to move beyond "normal" autoloader duty. Most people I have met at the range do find my Glock 19 (same side grip at the .40 cal Glock 23) easier to grip & hold than my Glock 20. They also generally shoot it noticeable better. I do think its shorter length allows the .40 to fit into a platform that fits most people's hands and experience levels better than a 10mm or .45 auto – not surprising since this is what it was designed to do. That said, these comments are generally about the .10mm vs. the .40 S&W pistol platforms only...not the cartridge itself. Since the .40 is a great performer in its own right, I feel confident in issuing "get what fits your hand - they're all good" recommendations because for the most part, they are all (modern 9mm, .357sig, .40, 10mm, .45…) "good enough" for LEO/SD use.

I guess one could look at the many people that pocket-carry alloy .38 spec j-frames instead of .357 magnum alloy j-frames for an analogy. Many people, myself included, consider the advancements in bullet design and purposeful “snubbie loadings” like Speer's 135gr +p "short barrel" .38 spec. round sufficient to enable us to opt for these more controllable rounds over their magnum counterparts when choosing something for such a light & small package. To me, the added recoil, wear and tear, and muzzle flash of a .357 magnum fed alloy j-frame is not worth it when there are such well-made .38 spec. loads available.

The same could be said of the .40 S&W - again, it was designed with this very idea in mind. The .40 is to the 10mm what the .38 Special is to the .357 magnum…sort of (though the .40 came after the 10mm, rather than the other way around). It was born from the realization that the 10mm didn’t need to be loaded to its full potential in order for it to produce extremely effective results. For those who to like the 10mm, it can be loaded hot for hunting or we can buy and or duplicate (by reloading) the current excellent .40 S&W LEO/FBI rounds. For me, since I have no trouble with the larger grip on my 10mm autos (several S&W 10xx series pistols and 2 Glocks), and since I reload, and since I do want the option of hunting with it, I chose the 10mm over the .40 a dozen or more years ago. YMMV.

 

[jc2]

Sure, it is reasonable to use caution when someone talks about anything they have a vested interest in...but again, to date, you have offered no evidence of your own that he has ever deliberately misled anyone.

I have never even suggested that Mike McNett or Double Tap has deliberately misled anyone so it's kind of foolish to ask for evidence that he as done so. The points I have ever made concerning DT's Gold Dot loads are:

1. The DT published penetration/expansion figures need to be verified by an independent, professional third party.

2. DT's published results have been openly questioned by at least one independent, professional tester (who is very familiar with Gold Dot performance).

3. Ballistic testing is not a job for amateurs--particularly amateurs trying to sell a product.

4. The DT loads lack any real world performance history in a LE/defence role.

5. What little evidence I've seen in the form of photographs and discussion (from a source I trust, BTW) indicates that DT's loads perform considerably differently in actual use (hunting--not LE/defence) than they do in DT's published gelatin test data.

6. There are sufficient legitimate questions about DT's actual performance that I won't risk it (or recommend it) when life and limb are at stake.

What you have done is demonstrated and long history of bias against anything 10mm

Nope, I've just said some things about the 10mm with which you (and a few other very vocal posters) disagree. I have 10mm handguns which I like very much and carry when I choose to carry a large (versus a pocketable) autoloader. In fact, the .357 Magnum replaced the 10mm as my carry gun because I prefer a revolver to a wheelgun where I'm at right now (and that means a relocation or change in job could conceivably put a 10mm back on my hip). The fact that I like the 10mm doesn't mean I have to put on blinders and toe the party line.

For a general purpose autoloader, it's hard to beat a S&W 10xx stoked with Silvertips (carried one for years), but when it comes to (1) specialized LE/defence handguns/calibres (and FWIW, I don't own nor want a .40 S&W) or (2) to specialized hunting handguns/calibres, there are better choices available than the 10mm (which is often misinterpretted--as it was by you--to mean I have a bias against the 10mm). Maybe, just maybe, what really needs to change is that you (and a few others) should be more willing to discuss the 10mm (and less quick to defend it).

 

[JohnKSa]

Sorry, folks. I know I said I wouldn't post on this thread again, but this is too much.

I have never even suggested that Mike McNett or Double Tap has deliberately misled anyone...

That's not true.

You have repeatedly said that his numbers are questionable due to his lack of expertise in terminal ballistics testing. Here's an example

...the penetration and expansion "data" Mike McNett provides for his loads (Double Tap) is at best highly questionable

One could argue that saying "at best" is, in and of itself an implication that they are not just questionable but deliberately misleading. Quoting the word 'data' could be seen as an implication that his numbers are not even measurements but are made up.

HOWEVER, it's not necessary to debate those points because you go a step further on another thread and imply that he used his influence in a deliberate attempt to squelch public inquiries regarding his testing data.

The Gold Dot figures McNett published in the thread you describe as a "General DT Info Article" need to be taken with a very large grain of salt... There have been some posts questioning/discussing Mike's "results" on Glock Talk ... but they have all disappeared. It probably has something to do with Mike being a moderator and a major contributor to Glock Talk.

Your implication that he had the posts deleted is also an implication that he has something to gain by squelching questions about his testing results. Something that would not be true if he believed them to be correct.

The fact that I like the 10mm...

I think that you're severely underestimating the intelligence of THR members.

Your main points on this thread have been that the velocity and energy advantages of the 10mm over the .40 do not imply superior performance.

At the same time, you have been arguing on ANOTHER thread that the velocity and energy advantages of the .357Magnum over the 10mm do, in fact, imply superior performance. As do the velocity and energy advantages of the .41 Magnum over the 10mm.

On this thread, energy and velocity advantages are meaningless and therefore 10mm is therefore no better than the 40.
On the other thread, energy and velocity advantages are good and therefore the .357 is better than the 10mm. And the same argument is used to show that the .41Magnum is also better than the 10mm.

On this thread, the limited usage of the 10mm as an LE/anti-personnel caliber is a definite negative worth many repetitions and therefore the .40 is more desirable than the 10mm.
On the other thread, the limited usage of the .41Magnum as an LE/anti-personnel caliber isn't even worth so much as a mention and therefore your assessment of the .41Mag as "much better than the 10mm" is in no danger.

The only thing these blatantly contradictory premises have in common is that in all cases, the 10mm comes out on the short end of the stick if the reader takes your word for it.

Do you have an explanation for why you would simultaneously argue contradictory premises that disparage a caliber you like?

Here, I'll give you a start based on a summary of your comments from both threads.

The 10mm is:

• Too fast (possibly causing bullet failure), too slow (not as good as .357Magnum)
• Too energetic (to justify the effective performance it provides), not energetic enough (to be as good as the .357Magnum)
• It's not as good as calibers with less energy (like the .45ACP, .40 S&W) that have voluminous service records, and also not as good as calibers with equally sketchy service records but with more energy (like the .41 Magnum).
• It can't handle heavy enough bullets (like the .41 Magnum can), but it's not as good as calibers (like the .40S&W) that can't handle bullets as heavy as it can.
• It's not as good as smaller more portable firearms (like the .40) and also not as good as larger more bulky firearms (like the .41 Mag.)
• It's the ballistic twin of the .357Magnum, and at the same time it's not as powerful as the .357Magnum.
• It compares favorably to some .41Magnum loadings, but it's misleading for anyone but you to say so.

 

[jc2]

Well, it had been a fairly civil discussion for a while.

 

[Deer Hunter]

"Well, it had been a fairly civil discussion for a while. "

Until your logic was ripped a new one.

As for my imput, all I can do is chime in on what others have already stated. The 10mm has the ballistics of a .357, but with heavier bullets, larger caliber, and availible in high-capacity automatic handguns. THe .40 S&W is a nice round, but no matter how you dice it, it will never be as strong as the 10mm. It will still take a man down, but the 10mm will do it just as well or better. The 10mm has a lot going for it. For me, I believe that the issue lies in one simple fact: People hunt with the 10mm, not the .40 S&W.

I've seen rather large white-tails taken down with the 10mm. The same deer shot with a .40S&W would require much tracking, something I detest.

 

[jc2]

Until your logic was ripped a new one.

Nope, until he popped in with a bunch of half-truths, distortions, misrepresentations and quotes pulled way out of context.

The 10mm has the ballistics of a .357, but with heavier bullets, larger caliber, and availible in high-capacity automatic handguns.

Yep, there never has been any doubt that the 10mm can be had in a capacity high autoloader while the .357 Magnum is generally available in six-shot revolvers. That's why I usually describe the 10mm is the autoloader equivalent of the .357 Magnum.

Yep, there never has been any doubt the 10mm is a whopping four one hundreths bigger in diameter than the .357 Magnum if you really want to get excited about four one hundreths of an inch more power to you.

As for heavier bullets, the .357 Magnum and 10mm both handle bullets up to 200-grains (and I personnally wouldn't go over 200-grains in either of them). Since you mentioned hunting, we should note that a 180-grain .357 Magnum bullet has a greater sectional density than the 200 grain or even the 215-grain 10mm. That extra sectional density will give you better penetration (which is generally what you're looking for in a heavy hunting round).

Frankly, if you want to go over 200-grains, you're much better off with a .41 or .44 Magnum than with a .357 Magnum or 10mm.

THe .40 S&W is a nice round, but no matter how you dice it, it will never be as strong as the 10mm.

Nope, and nobody said it was. What was said, however, that the .40 S&W is a better choice as specialized LE/defence calibre for a number of reasons.

The 10mm has a lot going for it. For me, I believe that the issue lies in one simple fact: People hunt with the 10mm, not the .40 S&W.

Yep, the 10mm does have lot going for it. In fact, I have two, and if I ever feel compelled to go back to carrying an autoloader again, my 1076 will probably go back on my hip. If somebody is buying handgun primarily for hunting and absolutely insists they want an autoloader, I recommend a 10mm (though there are certainly better choices available for hunting than the 10mm or the .357 Magnum).

I have done a lot of deer hunting, and I while I wouldn't recommend the .40 S&W for the role (it is far better suited for a LE/defence role), if you watch your range and shot placement, and pick your shot, you shouldn't have a tracking problem--now if someone were to get a bad case buck fever and just go out there and blast away, they might need a 10mm and all 16 rounds in a high capacity autoloader (and still have tracking problem). Frankly, I've never needed more than one round of my six (and haven't had any nasty tracking jobs).

 

[lbmii]

One should consider the barrel length that one will be using when choosing a round. Some rounds do better in short barrels than others. Notice below the 40 S&W Glock 27 verses a two inch barrel 357 MAG. If you measure the revolver the same way as you measure the auto; the 2" revolver barrel plus the cylinder measures 3 5/8 inches. The Glock 27 has a 3 1/2 inch barrel. As you can see from the photo below the two pistols are very similar in size.

From my own average velocity readings:

My Glock 27:

155 Speer GDHP................1106 fps / 421 energy 76 momentum
155 Win Ranger T..............1151 fps / 456 energy 79 momentum
165 Win Ranger T..............1093 fps / 438 energy 80 momentum
180 Win Ranger T...............896 fps / 321 energy 72 momentum
180 Rem HP.......................947 fps / 358 energy 76 momentum

My Rossi 357 MAG:

158 PMC SJSP.................... 968 fps / 329 energy 68 momentum
158 Federal SJSP................1022 fps / 366 energy 72 momentum
125 Federal SJHP................1145 fps / 364 energy 64 momentum

The 357 Mag and the 40 S&W are similar. The 357 will really come to life and out power the 40 in longer barrels but the 40 out powers the 357 in shorter barrels. Also the 40 does have the advantage of having a wider bullet.

My carry load for the Glock 27 is the mild Winchester 180 grain Ranger T.

My carry load for the Rossi is the Federal 125 SJHP 357 MAG.

I also have a 5 1/3" barrel Glock 35. My carry load is the Speer Gold Dot 155 grain that does 1245 fps / 533 energy 86 momentum.

 

[critrxdoc]

Dude, why are you even trying to justify yourself. There is nothing that you can possibly say to dig yourself out of what was just discussed by Johnksa. Just Find a new userid.

 

[jc2]

What John discussed was a stawman he built with misquotes, half-truths, distortions and misrepresentations. It's a better example of a gross prevarication than a discussion.

Too fast (possibly causing bullet failure), too slow (not as good as .357Magnum)

Any calibre can push a bullet beyond its design parameters and possibly cause a bullet failure. Most shooters understand that (and realize its not limited to the 10mm). As for the "too slow" and "not as good as the .357 Magnum," that's just John making stuff up. I have always described the .357 Magnum and 10mm as "ballistic twins"--the 10mm is nothing more or less than the autoloader equivalent of .357 Magnum.

Too energetic (to justify the effective performance it provides), not energetic enough (to be as good as the .357Magnum)

I don't know really know where he gets this from. With full-power loads both the 10mm and .357 Magnum can be a little hard to control for the casual shooter (including many LEOs). The .357 Magnum and the 10mm pretty match each other across the board (in fact, the 10mm is the autoloader equivalent of the .357 Magnum) so "not energetic enough to be as good as the .357 Magnum" is just more of John's fabrications.

It's not as good as calibers with less energy (like the .45ACP, .40 S&W) that have voluminous service records, and also not as good as calibers with equally sketchy service records but with more energy (like the .41 Magnum).

The 10mm is not as well suited ("good" if you will) in a LE/defence role as some of the service calibres. I don't ever recall recall recommending the .41 Magnum for LE/defence use so this is probably just another example of John's "creativity" at work here.

It can't handle heavy enough bullets (like the .41 Magnum can), but it's not as good as calibers (like the .40S&W) that can't handle bullets as heavy as it can.

The 10mm cannot handle as heavy of bullets as the .41 Magnum can. It's not rocket science, but rather common knowledge among knowledgable shooters (even though it's evidently news to John). Yes, the .40 S&W is probably better in an LE/defence role than the 10mm (but then you don't normally use a 10mm 215-gain gas-checked lead bullets--the only heavier bullet commercially loaded for the 10mm--in a LE/defence role).

It's not as good as smaller more portable firearms (like the .40) and also not as good as larger more bulky firearms (like the .41 Mag.)

The fact that calibres like the .40 S&W are available smaller, more portable arms is one of the reasons they are better suited for LE/defence than the 10mm (LEAs have definitely "voted with their feet" on that one). Calibres like the .41 Magnum and .44 Magnum are better suited for hunting than the 10mm (and since the 10mm has been available in the same sized weapon, I have no idea what planet from which John got "larger and more bulky"). What I have actually said many times is the 10mm is a good general purpose round (suitable for defence and hunting), but there are better calibres for specialized LE/defence use, and there are much better calibres for hunting. Most knowledgable shooters do not put the 10mm (~700 fpe) in the same class as the .41 Magnum (~1000-1100 fpe) or the .44 Magnum (~1200-1250 fpe) when it comes to hunting. Again, no rocket science here.

It's the ballistic twin of the .357Magnum, and at the same time it's not as powerful as the .357Magnum.

It is the ballistic twin of the .357 Magnum--nothing more or less. The "not as powerful as the .357 Magnum" is just another example of John's lack of familiarity with honesty.

It compares favorably to some .41Magnum loadings, but it's misleading for anyone but you to say so.

Of course, hot 10mm loads compare favourably to some powder puff .41 Magnum from the big three . . . and it is very misleading when you do not explain you are comparing the hottest to 10mm loads to the mildest .41 Magnum loads. For example, I could point out that some 9x19 loads (at 441 fpe) compare "favorably" to some 10mm loads (425 fpe), but it would intellectually dishonest (a concept with which John is very familiar) not to point out that I am probably comparing one of the hottest 9x19 available to one of the mildest 10mm loads available (and I'm sure most of you would be justifiably offended if tried even though John thinks it's an acceptable practice).

 

[JohnKSa]

...until he popped in with a bunch of half-truths, distortions, misrepresentations...

You know, as I was punching the quote button I was thinking EXACTLY the same thing! ...But I really didn't expect you to confess so readily!

As for heavier bullets, the .357 Magnum and 10mm both handle bullets up to 200-grains

Of course you know (since I quoted from the DT website to you yesterday) that the 10mm will handle bullets up to 215grains, and based on DT's numbers will even shoot that bullet faster than their .357Mag loading of a similar 200gr bullet.

10mm DT 215gr WFNGC Hardcast 1225fps/ 717 ft./lbs. - Glock 20
357Mag DT 200gr WFNGC Hardcast 1200fps / 640 ft/lbs. - 4" Ruger GP-100

What John discussed was a stawman he built with misquotes, half-truths, distortions and misrepresentations.

I posted links and used ONLY information from this forum. Everything I posted can be readily verified by any member of this forum.

I have always described the .357 Magnum and 10mm as "ballistic twins"...The "not as powerful as the .357 Magnum" is just another example of John's lack of familiarity with honesty.

Always? You mean that if I can find an example of you arguing that the .357Mag is better than the 10mm you'll apologize for calling me a liar? Then what about two days ago when you posted this:

Actually, "hot" 10mm loads out of Glock 20 barely reach the same energy levels of "hot" factory loads loads out of a four-inch 686.

That was the post where you compared a 200 gr bullet 10mm loading to a 180gr bullet .357Mag loading and since that obviously wasn't lopsided enough, you inflated the energy number for the .357Mag loading...

Then there was this post yesterday:

not only does the .357 Magnum deliver more muzzle energy 180-grains than Double Tap does at 180, 200, and 215 grains, it also delivers more sectional density. In other words, you can reasonably expect the Buffalo Bore 180-grain .357 Magnum load to outperform Double Tap's 180-grain, 200-grain and 215-grain loads in the field due its superior ballistics ...To call the 10mm the ballistic twin of the .357 Magnum might be a little being over generous to the 10mm.

The real kicker is that while you were using energy to prove that the .357Mag would "outperform" the 10mm, you were arguing on this thread that the 10mm's energy advantage over the .40S&W was meaningless.

I don't ever recall recall recommending the .41 Magnum for LE/defence use

Good! 'Cause I don't recall saying you did.

I'm not going to go through your post line by line because you're clearly missing the point. Yes, many of the statements you made were correct. The problem is that you are impressively inconsistent in the way you apply them.

For example: If handling heavier bullets makes the .41Mag better than the 10mm (a true statement) then logically handling heavier bullets makes the 10mm better than the .40S&W. But you argue that in the latter case it's meaningless while simultaneously maintaining that it's a significant advantage in the former.

it is very misleading when you do not explain you are comparing the hottest to 10mm loads to the mildest .41 Magnum loads.

You must be referring to this post...

I'll quote it here and see if anyone thinks it's misleading.

"interesting that the 180gr and 215gr loadings from Double-Tap exceed the energy figures for the 180gr and 210gr .41Magnum loadings offered by Federal (respectively). It's only the super-heavyweight 250gr Castcore from Federal's .41 Mag offerings that finally pulls away from the 10mm. Of course there are much heavier loadings for the .41Mag out there, but clearly the 10mm can reach and even exceed the performance level of some common .41Mag factory loads."​

I compared Federal's ENTIRE .41Mag line to the 10mm. I pointed out that the 250gr load outperformed the 10mm. I then went a step farther and noted that there are "much heavier loadings for the .41Mag out there".

Then, I was VERY careful to qualify my comparison as being between the 10mm and "SOME COMMON FACTORY" loads.

• I didn't cherry pick loads from the Federal line. I used them all.
• I was objective enough to note the loading that outperformed the 10.
• I was careful to point out that there were "much heavier loadings out there"
• I made it clear that the comparison was only the 10mm vs SOME COMMON factory loadings, not a sweeping comparison of the two cartridges.

I find it ludicrous that you can even so much as imply that this was a misleading comparison. Honestly, you would do well to hold yourself to the same standards of objectivity, clarity and attention to accuracy.

BTW, your post is MOST notable for what you chose NOT to respond to. I'll let you figure that one out on your own.

 

[NordicG3K]

Must not post... Must not, must not get sucked in... Resist... Must resist...

Oh well, that lasted about 30 seconds...

In my opinion, if you don't mind a few less rounds in the mag and a slightly bigger gun (on average) then there's no reason not to opt for the 10mm over the .40 S&W. With light loads the 10mm duplicates the performance of the .40 S&W. When loaded with identical bullets to identical velocities there is no argument because there is no difference. The reason the 10mm Auto is a superior choice today is the exact same reason the F.B.I. chose the cartridge in the first place over a decade ago, and can be summed up in one word--- "potential."

During the original F.B.I. testing the two .45 loads actually performed better than the 10mm test load. Only marginally better, but still better. Then why did the F.B.I. go with the 10mm? The reason is simple. The .45 loads tested were maximum performance for the .45 at that time, while the 10mm load was at the low end of its performance spectrum. By going with the 10mm agents could pack a load that was basically equal to the .45 (which was what the F.B.I. really wanted in the first place), but could dramatically upgrade the power of their duty guns by simply slapping in a mag of full-power ammo.

This is why I prefer the 10mm to all other cartridges when selecting a carry gun. If I'm going to be walking around town I can load up with Federal 190gn JHPs and feel completely comfortable with my gun/load combo. Should I decided to head out to the woods all I have to do is grab a couple mags of Silvertips or Doubletaps and I'm ready for just about any four-legged critter I might encounter in my neck of the woods.

I am not a ballistician, nor do I play one on T.V. (or the internet for that matter). This is just what makes sense to me and I see no need to change what works.

 

[jc2]

The JohnKSa Technique

Fortunately, John has provided us with some very good examples "JohnKSa Technique":

What John quoted to build a strawman:

Originally Posted by jc2 (cut and paste by JohnKSa)
As for heavier bullets, the .357 Magnum and 10mm both handle bullets up to 200-grains

Then uses that quote as strawman:

Originally Posted by JohnKSa
Of course you know (since I quoted from the DT website to you yesterday) that the 10mm will handle bullets up to 215grains, and based on DT's numbers will even shoot that bullet faster than their .357Mag loading of a similar 200gr bullet.

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). Now, for what was really said before JohnKSa got creative:

As posted before the application of "JohnKSa Technique":
As for heavier bullets, the .357 Magnum and 10mm both handle bullets up to 200-grains (and I personnally wouldn't go over 200-grains in either of them). Since you mentioned hunting, we should note that a 180-grain .357 Magnum bullet has a greater sectional density than the 200 grain or even the 215-grain 10mm. That extra sectional density will give you better penetration (which is generally what you're looking for in a heavy hunting round).

Now, another example of the "JohnKSa Technique":

Originally Posted by jc2 (cut and paste by JohnKSa)
not only does the .357 Magnum deliver more muzzle energy 180-grains than Double Tap does at 180, 200, and 215 grains, it also delivers more sectional density. In other words, you can reasonably expect the Buffalo Bore 180-grain .357 Magnum load to outperform Double Tap's 180-grain, 200-grain and 215-grain loads in the field due its superior ballistics ...To call the 10mm the ballistic twin of the .357 Magnum might be a little being over generous to the 10mm.

Now, for the original before application of the "JohnKSa Technique" (emphasis added):

As posted before the application of "JohnKSa Technique":
So, if you really want to compare hot loads mild loads, the .357 Magnum clearly blows the 10mm out of water.

It's interesting to note when you start comparing sectional densities (which is actually more important than bullet weights when it comes to penetration in hunting), the 180-grain .357 Magnum bullet has a greater sectional density than either the 200-grain or 215-grain bullet. So, not only does the .357 Magnum deliver more muzzle energy 180-grains than Double Tap does at 180, 200, and 215 grains, it also delivers more sectional density. In other words, you can reasonably expect the Buffalo Bore 180-grain .357 Magnum load to outperform Double Tap's 180-grain, 200-grain and 215-grain loads in the field due its superior ballistics (though, to be technical the differences--which does favour the .357 Magnum--probably really aren't significant). To call the 10mm the ballistic twin of the .357 Magnum might be a little being over generous to the 10mm.

Hey, John, let's not hi-jack this thread into another .357 Magnum-10mm argument. We both know that in any reasonable comparison of hot 10mm loads to hot .357 Magnum loads there's not enough difference to make difference. The only question really is do you want to get there in an autoloader or a revolver.

(1) John chose to leave out the context in which the remark was which was clearly tongue-in-cheek. (2) John didn't include the "smilies" which indicated a humorous, less than serious response. (3) Then he also chose to cut the serious closing statement: "We both know that in any reasonable comparison of hot 10mm loads to hot .357 Magnum loads there's not enough difference to make difference. The only question really is do you want to get there in an autoloader or a revolver."

 

[lbmii]

I think it might be better to place the 40 S&W and the 357 Mag together and the 10 mm and the 41 mag together.

Note my velocity readings in my above posts.