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).That easily qualifies as "attempting to imply the the performance of the 10mm is inferior."
I think it's clear that is not what the fuss is about...warriorsociologist said:what's to fuss about concerning the 10mm's likely performance?
It doesn't so long as we limit the 10mm strictly to "FBI-Lite" (180-grains at ~1000 fps).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?
there is nothing to indicate it [the 10mm] offers any advantage in effectiveness over the .40 S&W in an anti-personnel role.
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).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).
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.
There is no statement of opinion in that post. The parametrical differences are ballistically significant as stated--there can be no debate.there is nothing at all to suggest those differences are significant other than your opinion.
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.The bottom line remains the .40 S&W has a proven, documented record as an effective LE/anti-personnel calibre--the 10mm does not.
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.There is no statement of opinion in that post.
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).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.
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).Fact: as any of these factors increase, the overriding trend is that a bullet's stopping or killing power increases.
Everybody has pretty much accepted that conclusion.the stopping record of the .40 can be logically applied to a reduced 10mm round because their external ballistics are identical.
Pure speculation on your part when it comes LE/anti-personnel and totally unsupported by any actual performance record.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.
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."these improved terminal effects will most likely be manifested in increased penetration of a full-powered 10mm over the .40 or 10mm-lite.
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.
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.We also know that it creates a larger wound channel and deeper penetration.
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.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.
<snip> (something the 10mm has not done because it is not as well suited to that role as the .40 S&W). <snip> versus an unknown (the 10mm) and a lot of wishful thinking and largely unsupported assumptions.
You mean no bad guys have been shot by a LEO firing a 10mm pistol since the cartridge's introduction in 1983?