10 mm. advantages?

[Wolfwood]

sounds liek a nice cartridge.

anyone want to sell me on it?

is the extra millimeter worth the price difference in ammo cost?

why not the .45 instead? or the 9mm for that matter.

reading specs only does so much for me, im hoping to get some first hand knowledge from some of you folks.

 

[txinvestigator]

The 10mm, in full power loads, is quite an effective round. However, most loads you find are reduced to .40 pressures. No need for the size gun needed for 10mm when you can get the same perfirmance with the .40 sized guns. However, if you want the full powered loads, the 10mm is a great choice.

All of that said, with modern defensive ammo I would not be bothered carried anything of 9mm or larger.

For some trivia, the below was written by a friend of mine with the FBI who was with the Firearms Testing Unit before moving to anti-terrorism;

Regarding the 10mm program, the Bureau really started seriously looking into semi auto pistols right after the 1986 Miami shooting. The Bu wasn't really satisfied with the performance of the 9mm round and the .45cal was believed to be too much to handle for certain members for the Agent population. The S&W 1076 10mm pistol platform was developed and started hitting the field in the early 90's, however along with some production problems, the platform didn't sit well with Bu management and Agent alike and therefore only a few thousand (2500, comes to mind) were purchased from S&W.

Two great things came out of the 10mm program, however. The first being the extensive study into the field of wound/terminal ballistics. The exhaustive analysis of the projectile after it enters the body revealed just how much bullet caliber and shot placement plays on subject incapacitation. The results of these studies are still taught and used in training scenarios today. The second thing was the development of the widely used .40cal., which is really a 10mm short, developed by S&W. You see, the final 10mm round that the Bu used was downloaded to around 950 fps. This was done so that the entire agent population would be able to handle the weapon. S&W surmised that with less gun powder in the 10mm shell casing, the casing could be shorted and WALA, you have the S&W .40cal.
The Bu is currently issuing the Glock 22 and 23 (.40cal)

That is the Readers Digest Condensed version, but interesting nonetheless.

 

[Wolfwood]

good info.
ty

 

[M. Sage]

Here's how it compares in ballistic gelatin:

Remington 180gr JHP

You can find the other calibers you're looking for on there, too. Basically, you can get a bit more penetration (you can load 10mm auto up to almost .357 mag levels, IIRC), but with modern hollowpoints, 9mm, .40, .45 and 10mm are all going to have almost identical performance on target. If I was looking for something to carry for cougar and black bear defense, a 10mm loaded hot with hard cast lead would fit the bill just fine. But for use against people, it's not very different than using an easier to handle caliber that takes up less space.

 

[Jason]

I have one 10mm and have never shot it so I am afraid I am not much help here... I like having it because it is different...

Glock 29 is what I have and currently it lives with my parents so my Dad has a carry piece without spending his own $$$.

 

[Texas1911]

Basically, you can get a bit more penetration (you can load 10mm auto up to almost .357 mag levels, IIRC), but with modern hollowpoints, 9mm, .40, .45 and 10mm are all going to have almost identical performance on target.

I concur, and bear in mind that the hotter 10mm loads are going to take longer to get back onto target and require significantly better technique for fast follow-ups. In the Delta Elite or a full metal gun like the EAA Witness the recoil even with a full house load isn't that bad. In a Glock 20, 29, etc. the recoil is snappy. Very similar to a hot loaded .357 SIG.

 

[Adionik]

I'm eager to pick up a G29, but with the price and availability of the 10mm and it's cost...i'll stick with .45

 

[Renegade]

The only real negative is it requires a large frame gun. You can load a large range of bullet weights and velocities. However, to get maximum affect you need a longer BBL. I would avoid the shorter BBLS, as they do not work well with the hot loads. My favorite 10mm is a G20 with 6 inch hunting bbl.

 

[Texasjack]

The 10mm was effectively wiped out by it's shortened version, the .40 S&W. The history of the two cartridges is very interesting. Certainly the 10 mm has the potential for more power, but just how much power do you need?

The advantage of the .40/10mm over the .45 is that they are smaller diameter and make it easier to use a double-stack magazine. Where a 1911 holds 7 .45 rounds, a .40 pistol can hold 14 rounds.

 

[txinvestigator]

The 10mm was effectively wiped out by it's shortened version, the .40 S&W. The history of the two cartridges is very interesting. Certainly the 10 mm has the potential for more power, but just how much power do you need?

Only the reduced power loads. Full power 10mm loads have more energy than the .40 S&W. (they call it .40 Short & Weak for a reason, ya know}

The advantage of the .40/10mm over the .45 is that they are smaller diameter and make it easier to use a double-stack magazine. Where a 1911 holds 7 .45 rounds, a .40 pistol can hold 14 rounds.

While statistically that is insignificant, Kimber, and I believe several others, make double stack 1911s

Here are some ammo choices, All Corbon for comparison sake;
10mm, 180 Grain, 1300 FPS, 676 Ft lbs
.357 Mag, 180 Gr, 1200 FPS, 576 (this is a hunting load) figure less energy and more velocity for a standard 125 grain
.40 S&W, 160 Gr, 1075FPS, 411ftlbs
.45 ACP, 230 grain, 950 FPS, 451 ftlbs

but look at this

.41 Mag, 230 grain, 1350 fps, 850 ftlbs.

And why even a pistol caliber carbine is better than a handgun;
.30 carbine, 100 grain, 2025fps, 911ftlbs

 

[TimberWolf7.62]

As a conversation piece, a 10mm is great.

You want a double-stack in a caliber that starts with ".4", try a ParaOrdnance .45 (10, 12, 13, or 14 rounds depending on model) or an XD in .45 (10 or 13 rds).

 

[robocop10mm]

I have a .40, a 10mm and a .45. For normal everyday plain clothes work, .40. 31 rds on my person with only one spare mag. For uniform duty, 10mm. I carry 4 spares so that gives me 45 rds of hot 10's. I carry the Double Tap 180 grain Gold Dot @1300 fps. Plenty of energy for anything.

I just looked at their website, It seems they no longer stock the 180 Gold Dot load. I think the bullets have become scarce of late.

 

[Danton]

Here's how it compares in ballistic gelatin:

Remington 180gr JHP

You can find the other calibers you're looking for on there, too. Basically, you can get a bit more penetration (you can load 10mm auto up to almost .357
mag levels, IIRC), but with modern hollowpoints, 9mm, .40, .45 and 10mm are all going to have almost identical performance on target. If I was looking for something to carry for cougar and black bear defense, a 10mm loaded hot with hard cast lead would fit the bill just fine. But for use against people, it's not very different than using an easier to handle caliber that takes up less space.

Am I reading this correctly? A 9mm or a .40 cal have the same performance as the 10mm? As an example, Cor-Bon makes some of the hottest loads in most calibers (certainly the 9mm & .40), Double Taps are not significantly more powerful in those calibers:

Cor-Bon 9mm 115 grain +p: 1350 fps, 466 ft/pound
Cor-Bon .40 165 grain: 1150 fps, 485 ft/pound
Double Tap 10mm 165 grain: 1450 fps, 744 ft/pound

Identical performance? How is it that against four-legged predators, which are far stronger, tougher, and harder to kill than humans, the 10mm round is adequate, but when a much softer human target is concerned, the 9mm is just as effective? You lost me on that one.

I have nothing against 9mm or .40's. If that's what you can put on target effectively, God bless you. But after reading a LOT of cases on armed confrontation, abduction, home invasion, etc, many of which by drug-crazed assailants, it occurs to me that you'll get one very short amount of time to draw your weapon and get the first round off, hopefully two, and also hopefully near center of mass (but in a situation like that you may very well be happy hitting any part of the BG). If the lives of your family potentially hung on that one round, would you really prefer that round be a 9mm as opposed to a .45 or 10mm? The stats I cited, and many like it, are interesting and helpful, but real-world anecdotal evidence is a far better indicator, and every story I've read by LE, military, etc, who have been in gunfights, favor higher caliber and more powerful weapons.

I LOVE my Sig 226, and if I could handle it like the SEALs do, all the above is moot. But since I'm a once/twice a week range guy, I'm far better of with my G29, G30, or a 1911.

 

[Texas1911]

A single round out of any normal handgun is not going to put someone down without the following:

1) Them giving up.
2) Blood loss.
3) Central nervous damage.

The difference between a 9mm and a .45 in terms of wounding is so negligible it's funny to read people arguing about it. A single shot from a .223 contains twice the energy of a .45 yet they won't knock someone to the floor and immediately put them out of the fight without shot placement.

There's no such thing as a magic bullet, and proponents of the single bullet theory can't seem to buy this. Go ask any LEO, SEAL, SF, etc. what wins in a gun-fight. It's skill and mindset before equipment.

You see the same mentality in hunting. People think they need a .300 Win Mag to kill a 120 lb. deer, LOL. Fact is, they are focusing so hard on their equipment that they don't see the real reason why the animals keep running.

That's not going to stop me from owning a Delta Elite in 10mm though :P

 

[SIG_Fiend]

One thing we can all agree on is 10mm is cool. I do in fact need a Delta Elite 10mm, and I would totally conceal carry it.

 

[Wolfwood]

One thing we can all agree on is 10mm is cool. I do in fact need a Delta Elite 10mm, and I would totally conceal carry it.

the cool factor is the main selling point for me.

and with me sometimes that is the only selling point.

 

[M. Sage]

Am I reading this correctly? A 9mm or a .40 cal have the same performance as the 10mm? As an example, Cor-Bon makes some of the hottest loads in most calibers (certainly the 9mm & .40), Double Taps are not significantly more powerful in those calibers:

Cor-Bon 9mm 115 grain +p: 1350 fps, 466 ft/pound
Cor-Bon .40 165 grain: 1150 fps, 485 ft/pound
Double Tap 10mm 165 grain: 1450 fps, 744 ft/pound

Identical performance? How is it that against four-legged predators, which are far stronger, tougher, and harder to kill than humans, the 10mm round is adequate, but when a much softer human target is concerned, the 9mm is just as effective? You lost me on that one.

Because the only major on-target difference between handgun calibers is penetration. A .357 magnum isn't any more effective than a good .38 +P, it just has more energy left after it exits the bad guy. Handgun power levels are hardly worth measuring when you're talking major defensive calibers, because in a defensive situation there isn't enough difference to matter. And no major defensive caliber is going to make the kind of energy (more properly velocity) needed to do more than poke a hole through the bad guy. And once the power level get to the point that your choice can punch a hole through (and not just "into"), that's enough and more isn't going to help.

So let me be a little more precise. For defense against human aggressors, 10mm is equal in effectiveness (as well as such a thing can be measured) to 9mm, .40 and .45.

To answer the other part of your question, 10mm is better for larger critters because of the extra power giving you superior penetration. If you can't reach the good stuff, it's hardly worth pulling the trigger. Less powerful calibers are going to have trouble reaching so deep in heavier, thicker-skinned animals.

I have nothing against 9mm or .40's. If that's what you can put on target effectively, God bless you. But after reading a LOT of cases on armed confrontation, abduction, home invasion, etc, many of which by drug-crazed assailants, it occurs to me that you'll get one very short amount of time to draw your weapon and get the first round off, hopefully two, and also hopefully near center of mass (but in a situation like that you may very well be happy hitting any part of the BG). If the lives of your family potentially hung on that one round, would you really prefer that round be a 9mm as opposed to a .45 or 10mm? The stats I cited, and many like it, are interesting and helpful, but real-world anecdotal evidence is a far better indicator, and every story I've read by LE, military, etc, who have been in gunfights, favor higher caliber and more powerful weapons.

Anecdotal experience is actually pretty worthless. Anecdotes are "this one time..." I'll take properly collected statistics (which are "out of 1000 times,..."), even though those aren't too much of a help. More useful is knowing how things work. How handgun bullets act on target, the way they wound, the differences in wound profiles between them... There isn't a whole lot of difference between wound the wound profiles of everything from .38 special up to 10mm. Even .380 is right on the verge of what I'd consider a major player today with a wound profile that's often hard to distinguish from the others.

As far as everybody favoring heavier bullets and higher caliber weapons, I disagree. I know ex-military who will take an M16 or M4 in .223 on a movement to contact over a .30 cal battle rifle any day. They can carry more ammo, they can put more hits on target faster, and it's plenty effective on target. I also know that a lot of spec ops types who get to fill their holster with whatever they want happily choose 9mm pistols.

If I have one shot and have to make it count? I'd like to have a rifle, please. If I have a pistol to use that way, I'll take whatever I shoot best with at the moment. Right now I'm going to say that while my P220 is my go-to handgun because it fits me like a glove, I wouldn't feel any hesitation picking up my Rossi .38 that I shoot nearly as well. The caliber has nothing to do with my choice, it's entirely how well I handle the weapon in question.

Because I know the truth. I know that 10mm doesn't do a significantly higher amount of damage on target than any other typical defensive caliber.

I LOVE my Sig 226, and if I could handle it like the SEALs do, all the above is moot. But since I'm a once/twice a week range guy, I'm far better of with my G29, G30, or a 1911.

Why are you better off with them? Because you shoot them better? Because that's the main consideration in choosing a defensive pistol, not caliber.

After all this, I will say that I've heard that VLTOR is going to come out with a version of the Bren Ten... and I want one. It'd be a great all-around gun for self defense at home and backpacking in cat country.

 

[Renegade]

So let me be a little more precise. For defense against human aggressors, 10mm is equal in effectiveness (as well as such a thing can be measured) to 9mm, .40 and .45.

They are not "equal in effectiveness" within their own caliber due to the wide variety of loads & bullets that can be used, much less across other calibers.

ETA:

Here is a good thread, explaining why bigger is usually better:

http://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=19887

"As you increase bullet size and mass from 9 mm/357 Sig, to .40 S&W, to .45 ACP, more tissue is crushed, resulting in a larger permanent cavity. In addition, the larger bullets often offer better performance through intermediate barriers."

 

[Charlie]

I had a 10mm Glock 20 a couple of years ago but sold it to a friend (damn it!). It was a full size gun but it shot like a house on fire!! We were hittin' at least 7 out of 10 shots on an 8" steel gong at 100 yds. I liked it and it would work for winter carry (what's that around here.......2 months or so?) but where it would really shine is hunting with a semi-auto; preferrably the small central Tx whitetail, hogs, ets. And of course, I wished I had it back.

 

[M. Sage]

They are not "equal in effectiveness" within their own caliber due to the wide variety of loads & bullets that can be used, much less across other calibers.

ETA:

Here is a good thread, explaining why bigger is usually better:

Service Pistol Duty and Self-Defense Loads - M4Carbine.net Forums

"As you increase bullet size and mass from 9 mm/357 Sig, to .40 S&W, to .45 ACP, more tissue is crushed, resulting in a larger permanent cavity. In addition, the larger bullets often offer better performance through intermediate barriers."

As equal as can be measured. The increase in crushed tissue is really pretty minor between calibers.

If you read those posts, there is nothing said that disagrees with what I'm saying.

"For some, the incremental advantages of the larger calibers are offset by weapon platform characteristics. As is quite obvious from the photo above, NONE of the common service pistol calibers generate temporary cavities of sufficient magnitude to cause significant tissue damage."

The advantages are incremental. They're not big enough advantages that I believe they should really be called advantages.

Facts about common defensive calibers:

• Typically range in bullet diameter from .354" to .452"
• Do not produce enough velocity for significant temporary cavity.
• Rely entirely on crushed tissue along permanent cavity as a wounding mechanism.

There is less than .100" difference between the small and big ends of the scale. Hollowpoints don't really open that difference up much, if at all.

I've had that tenth of an inch make a difference in competition before, but it's not like you're looking to cut the ring on the A zone in a defensive shooting.