10mm for self defense

Status
Not open for further replies.
To be fair, no one is really arguing the FBI switch to 9mm is because 9mm is better.

It was pointed out to someone saying they carry 10mm because of the FBI that this information is for 30 years ago.

Kinda no real reason to fight out why the FBI went to 9mm.
 
^that. When I brought up the switch it was simply to point out that the same organization that lead to the development, we can argue how much, of the 10mm has now gone back to the 9mm. At no point did I say, “That is because the 9mm is superior ballistically”.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
I read Jim Cirillo's book last week. Has me reevaluating a lot of things. He was in a bunch of gunfights in New York City, he killed a lot of men, and the surprising thing I took away from his book is that you really, really want a powerful pistol.

He shot a man in the head, which should have ended the fight, but the criminal kept going. The bullet had glanced off his skull. In another fight, he and another cop shot a man several times in the face and assumed he was dead. Shortly thereafter, the corpse asked them to help him up. He wasn't even seriously wounded. The bullets traveled around his ox-like skull and ended up in the skin on the back of his head. Amazing.

Cirillo spent years trying to come up with a really good penetrator.

I think 10mm 180-grain Gold Dots moving at over 1200 fps are probably very good choices. I'm also starting to think Lehigh Xtreme Defense rounds are something to consider very strongly.
 
Out of curiosity, what firearm chambered in what cartridge failed to penetrate the skull in both of the aforementioned scenarios?

I ask because I seriously doubt that it was a modern duty cartridge. I presume it was either a .32 or one of those extremely politically correct .38 Special squib loads that certain police were being issued at one point in time.
 
I haven't had a chance to read Cirillo's book, but based on the timeframe in which he was in the NYPD, I'd say a Standard Pressure .38 Special 158 gr LRN fired from a 4" service revolver would be a likely candidate as these were standard issue for NYPD for decades. IIRC the old 200 gr LRN .38 Special "Super Police" load was developed at least in part as an attempt to address such failings.
 
I haven't had a chance to read Cirillo's book, but based on the timeframe in which he was in the NYPD, I'd say a Standard Pressure .38 Special 158 gr LRN fired from a 4" service revolver would be a likely candidate as these were standard issue for NYPD for decades. IIRC the old 200 gr LRN .38 Special "Super Police" load was developed at least in part as an attempt to address such failings.
Click to expand...

A retired cop's EDC choice very often reflects what he's learned from hard experience.

In his post-retirement years, Cirillo carried a 10mm Glock 29, among other handguns. :cool:
 
Hits count. Shot placement count. Caliber is secondary to those. I like the 10mm. But being in the country I'm more worried about bear and cat here.
 
4V50 Gary: * * *
I like the 10mm. But being in the country I'm more worried about bear and cat here.
Click to expand...

You do understand, "being in the country" where there's bear and mountain lion afoot, you are in 10mm land. ;)
 
4V50 Gary said:
Hits count. Shot placement count. Caliber is secondary to those. I like the 10mm. But being in the country I'm more worried about bear and cat here.
Click to expand...
This. The title of this thread is, "10mm for Self Defense." What it leaves as an open question is 'Self defense against what?' There is a huge difference between a wino with a knife and an angry bear. There is a different set of circumstances being in a city vs being in the wilderness and the breath of 'self defense' is different in those different environments.

I carry a G23 normally as a CCW in my everyday thing as it's powerful enough for city use and the smaller handle than my 10 is easier to conceal. Not so in the country where I carry my G20 longslide because I want the power to defend against 4 legged threats. Woods walking in the Rockies, a 9mm, 40s&w, or even 45acp is insufficient to protect effectively against dangerous threats.

However, I get that the 10mm isn't for everyone. It's bigger grip is hard to deal with if you don't have large hands. It only makes sense if you're loaded with full power loads that many don't feel comfortable with. It's likely more than needed for a 2 legged threat as the 40s&w is plenty. So, for most, it could be considered overkill.

In short, you need to have a 'need' for more than a 40 to 'need' a 10mm. Those of us who carry one have the 'need' where the threat can include dangerous 4 legged threats. We have the ammo to take advantage of the 10mm's extra power and therefore make it worth while to carry. Hopefully, we all have the practice to employ it effectively; I know I do.
 
I agree, it was probably 38 Special 158 grain lead roundnose. I personally covered a shooting in which a female Military Policeman, carrying a four inch (could have been 5 inch)S&W Model 10, using 38 Special 130 grain FMJ (military ball) shot a man in the hip. The bullet traversed right to left, went through the right side of the pelvic bone, crossed the body and stopped against the pelvis/ left hip joint. She fired from a distance of 5 - 6 feet, sitting on the ground. (She had been knocked down) The guy went down instantly and was in a lot of pain.
 
In short, you need to have a 'need' for more than a 40 to 'need' a 10mm. Those of us who carry one have the 'need' where the threat can include dangerous 4 legged threats. We have the ammo to take advantage of the 10mm's extra power and therefore make it worth while to carry.
Click to expand...

Although in the current times of riots, 15+rounds per mag of 10mm is good medicine.
You may need to shoot through a bad guy into more bad guys.

To put it more plainly, I don't plan on being another Reginald Denny.
This truck driver ain't gonna play that game.
2 10mm's, all the spare mags, my two favorite knives, and body armour.
Would prefer that it all sits unused, but am prepped for the worst in my semi.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dIdAlTpg-m4
 
Last edited:
Although in the current times of riots, 15+rounds per mag of 10mm is good medicine.
You may need to shoot through a bad guy into more bad guys.
Click to expand...
If you start shooting into crowds, you will either be going to prison or you will be getting beaten to death depending on who gets to you first. Or you might get beaten badly and then go to prison.

Small arms are not going to extricate you from a mob situation without getting you into a lot of trouble. You might get some deterrent value, but that's not going to be a function of 1mm difference in the caliber you choose.

Shooting into a crowd is almost never going to be legal because there's no ability to be discriminating about who will be shot. Even if you're aiming at one intended target whose actions might have justified deadly force, those behind and around are still in jeopardy.

The justification for deadly force doesn't change in a riot. You still need to be able to justify, on an individual basis, every person you put into deadly jeopardy. I can't see how that could be done if one fires using a crowd for a backstop.

Even pointing a gun at a crowd can result in charges being brought against you, depending on the circumstances, as this man found out.

https://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local/upland-rifle-protesters-arrest/2374054/

If you're worried about riots, stay away from them. Avoidance is just about the only reasonable response for dealing with riots/crowds.

Furthermore, if things really do get so bad that you've decided that you don't care about the wellbeing of anyone in the crowd or about going to prison, you'd have to be crazy to get out of a semi (which is a far more deadly weapon and much better protection than anything a single person could carry) to engage with a handgun.
 
I agree with John. In recent weeks I’ve seen many people extolling the virtues of carrying in the midst of a riot. I don’t believe many people comprehend the difficulty numbers can impose or the fact that showing a firearm may well not lead to compliance, and once displayed can escalate a situation. I witnessed this first hand in a few force on force scenarios. Understand that using a firearm against a mob is like the Tueller drill in nightmare form. That’s not even getting into the legal complications. If you can get to a vehicle then you already have two impressive weapons, mobility and mass. Use them to your advantage as they’re likely much more defensible both in practice and with public opinion.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
And be extremely careful where you get your "riot" worries.

If you didn't see, Fox has been busted for showing day 1 footage everyday since this all began. Yesterday Seattle Times caught Fox superimposing United the Right right wing armed men into Seattle pictures.

We went to the SLC protest. Perfectly fine and safe. Only armed people in SLC have been Boogaloo right wing groups--documented by SLC PD.

Yet here we are. Ammo and guns totally gone from gun.deals
 
I would assume that should someone find themselves in a situation in which an angry mob of rioters warranted the discharge of a firearm their immediate concern would most likely be survival or in an absolute worst case scenario, the decision to go down fighting and take as many thugs down with them as possible in the process.

Honestly, why is it that when discussing Self-Defense, certain folks seem to jump to the conclusion that anyone who mentions the possibility of ever having to actually shoot somebody that they're some trigger-happy psychopath who just goes around looking for excuses to gun somebody down?

Seriously, I'm going to be bold here and presume that Big Shrek wasn't using the term "riots" as a euphemism for a non-violent protest but as an actual riot with a crazy, violent mob of people with anything but good intentions who'd just as soon cave your head in.
 
Forte S+W said:
Honestly, why is it that when discussing Self-Defense, certain folks seem to jump to the conclusion that anyone who mentions the possibility of ever having to actually shoot somebody that they're some trigger-happy psychopath who just goes around looking for excuses to gun somebody down?
Click to expand...

Wow. It’s amazing to me that you got that from the responses above. What I read are responses regarding the legal implications and practical limitations of using a handgun to defend yourself against a mob when already in control of a large motor vehicle. The previous is more about tactics than judging someone’s personal motivations.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
Again I say, the legal implications would take a backseat to survival in a life or death situation such as suddenly getting caught up in mob violence.

I think he's simply thinking of the more immediate and quite possibly more dire threat of a violent mob than a courtroom they'd most likely be too dead to ever have to worry about in such a situation.

Seriously, if the situation has gotten bad enough to merit firing into a crowd of people, then I can only conclude that said crowd is hostile, that the situation has escalated beyond control, and that whomever is facing said homicidal crowd is greatly outnumbered, is most likely aware that they won't be walking away from the situation, and has simply made the decision to go down fighting, taking as many hostiles down with them as possible.

Lastly, let's just adress the elephant in the room here... The riots he's referring to a racially motivated, ergo the likelihood of racially motivated violence is high. If your skin is the wrong color and you should end up in the wrong place at the wrong time when everyone is all worked up, then you could get caught in the middle of something ugly or become a target.

Should anyone prepare specifically for such a situation by selecting a cartridge/bullet with greater penetration for the express purpose/intent to shoot into a crowd of people? Heck no, that's premeditated murder. You'd be better served preparing for the situation by avoiding any areas in which protests are taking place. I'm merely following his line of reasoning.
 
It’s not just the legal implications (though I don’t see anyone being so rigid as to say there’s no time someone could do as you say, just that there are implications of doing so and it’s worth bringing those up). A car has real world advantages over a firearm in the example provided. You’re driving a semi truck. It can both move and push people aside as it make its way through a crowd. That’s likely a better idea than making a stand in place. Making a dramatic last man stand is less useful than actually surviving.

As for racially motivated violence, as of yet I haven’t seen people being strung up just for being one color or the other. I have seen wanton destruction of property and people defending their property being hurt, but in general there aren’t roving gangs grabbing people just because of race. In most times in history when that has happened it’s been whites doing that to blacks, not the other way around. Can it happen both ways? Sure. But I think it’s worth noting what is happening on the whole as opposed to what can happen.

And again, none of the response I’ve seen have come close to calling the poster a trigger happy psychopath. Discussing the legal and tactical implications of decisions isn’t a judgement of a person’s character.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top