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.