.40 cal on the way out?

[agtman]

That the Agency opted to go with the unmentioned 10 Auto made me assume that capacity tipped the scales in favor of it vs the .45 Auto. But, the Delta Elite is a single stack 1911, so there couldn't be much, if any, capacity gain.

True, but understand that Hall's 8/9+1 Colt DE was just the most immediately available 10mm platform with which to start the FBI's testing, as against whatever S&W 9mm they'd been issuing, and in .45acp maybe an early Sig 220 or Smith 645.

Eventually, when the Bureau settled on the 10mm, Smith's model 1006 (a 5" DA/SA, 9+1 single-stack gun, w/ slide-mounted decock lever) became the first actual "sample" 10mm for the Bureau to review "hands-on" and to do further testing with.

After the FTU played with a batch of these 1006s for a while, they went back to Smith with a list of mods they wanted for improved portability for field agents. Those mods resulted in the 4.25" model 1076, with its Sig-style frame-mounted decock lever. In mid-1989, the 10mm 1076 was officially adopted in public announcements as the FBI's new semi-automatic pistol.

 

[Liamettocs]

Limnophile quoted someone who questioned the accuracy of the .40 S&W. I've heard this repeated from time to time, but have never seen it substantiated. Does anyone have any facts on the accuracy of the .40?

 

[kcub]

Mine have all been one ragged hole accurate. But then mine are a Sig X5 L1 and 3 HK's, a P2000SK, a USP and a P7M10.

In my experience .45s are usually all plenty accurate. 9mm, you have to go high end or HK to expect anything better than combat accurate.

 

[pblanc]

pblanc,

Have you seen the penetration tests of the Lehigh Defense Xtreme Penetrator rounds? The gel is heavily damaged in a cylindrical fashion all along the bullet path, but not to a radial degree seen in JHP stretch cavities early on along the bullet path. Is such damage likely enough to be enough to cause substantial damage, or is it just another form of stretch cavitation?

The only thing I have seen on this ammunition is the test of the .380 auto that ShootingTheBull410 (the "Ammo Quest" guy) did on youtube. He seemed impressed with it.

But it is pretty well established that visible damage to ballistic gellatin does not translate into meaningful damage in human tissue. So I am doubtful that this manufacturer has at this point in history come up with a previously undiscovered method of damaging human tissue through temporary cavitation just by cutting some grooves in the projectile.

Since people get upset these days by a bunch of guys shooting goats and pigs, and since people volunteering to get shot are hard to find, I think ballistic gel tests are a perfectly reasonable way of testing ammunition for penetration and expansion. But ballistic gel unlike human tissue, lacks collagen fibers to maintain its integrity, and lacks elastin fibers that allow it to stretch and recoil without fracturing.

There have been many attempts to "scientifically" predict the ability of handgun loads to cause immediate incapacitation. In the 1930s a General Julian Hatcher came up with a "relative stopping power index" based largely on kinetic energy. The US Army looked at "energy deposit". People have talked about cavitation and hydrostatic shock. One of the more recent attempts was the "Relative Incapacitation Index" developed by the the National Institute of Justice, no doubt at great expense to the US taxpayer, which was based largely on the volume of the temporary wound cavity.

The RII rated 9mm 115gr FMJ to be twice as effective as .45 cal ACP 230gr FMJ. You don't hear much about the RII these days because it turned out to be a complete flop since the temporary cavity has been found to play no part in incapacitation of a person receiving a gunshot wound.

I think this is a reasonable assessment of handgun wounding effectiveness from the FBI and I am sure many here have read it:

http://www.firearmstactical.com/pdf/fbi-hwfe.pdf

Here is an excerpt from page 6:

"Frequently, forensic pathologists cannot distinguish the wound track caused by a hollow point bullet (large temporary cavity) from that caused by a solid bullet (very small temporary cavity). There may be no physical difference in the wounds. If there is no fragmentation, remote damage due to temporary cavitation may be minor even with high velocity rifle projectiles

Even those who have espoused the significance of temporary cavity agree that it is not a factor in handgun wounds: In the case of low-velocity missiles, e.g., pistol bullets, the bullet produces a direct path of destruction with very little lateral extension within the surrounding tissues. Only a small
temporary cavity is produced. To cause significant injuries to a structure, a pistol bullet must strike that structure directly."

From what I have experienced in surgery and non-surgical management of handgun wounds this is the case. You find the entrance wound. You find the exit wound, or the projectile if there is no exit wound. You draw an imaginary straight line between the two. The damaged tissue is in a channel along that line that is limited in size to the maximal diameter of the projectile.

There are rare exceptions such as when a projectile ricochets off a bone. Even then, the projectile is usually found lodged in the bone, or in close proximity to it. Bones seem to be very good backstops for handgun projectiles.

 

[zombietactics]

... I'm going to go with Patrick's FBI report and give the nod to the bigger hole, given equal expansion. ...

I'd invite you to consider the following:

• Read the report carefully. He's careful to note that peripheral wounds are typically insufficient to cause rapid incapacitation.
• Rather, the bullet has to pass directly through a major structure.
• Urey notes "given penetration", not "equal expansion". This appears to imply identical penetration, which is never the case. It's almost always the case that apple-to-apples comparisons show greatest penetration for the standard-pressure 9mm rounds ... in some case by as much as 2 inches.
• In studied cases where a round has been said to "fail", it's always an issue of penetration, never a case of "not a big enough hole".
• The volume of the wound channel is not the significant factor, only the damage done to major structures.
• Urey gives a nod to the notion that there is an "edge" to a larger round ... but no quantification. That's not really much to hang one's hat on.
• Given that M.E. and forensic examiners cannot tell the difference in calibers from the wounds themselves, it strongly suggests that any such edge is more theoretical than actual, or so slight as to be insignificant.
• Understand that there is a lot of data since 1989 which validates the notion that "there really isn't a difference".

 

[Limnophile]

True, but understand that Hall's 8/9+1 Colt DE was just the most immediately available 10mm platform with which to start the FBI's testing, as against whatever S&W 9mm they'd been issuing, and in .45acp maybe an early Sig 220 or Smith 645.

Eventually, when the Bureau settled on the 10mm, Smith's model 1006 (a 5" DA/SA, 9+1 single-stack gun, w/ slide-mounted decock lever) became the first actual "sample" 10mm for the Bureau to review "hands-on" and to do further testing with.

After the FTU played with a batch of these 1006s for a while, they went back to Smith with a list of mods they wanted for improved portability for field agents. Those mods resulted in the 4.25" model 1076, with its Sig-style frame-mounted decock lever. In mid-1989, the 10mm 1076 was officially adopted in public announcements as the FBI's new semi-automatic pistol.

agtman,

Would this then be an accurate summary of why the FBI turned to the 10 Auto in the late '80s (in declining order of importance)?:

• Better penetration than 9 Luger and .45 Auto, and
• Slightly greater capacity than .45 Auto (a distant second).

Then, is it fair to say these are the reasons the 10 Auto failed?:

• Too much recoil,
• Grip too long,
• Gun too bulky, or
• Capacity inadequate.

Of the above four, which are valid reasons the Agency abandoned the 10, and what is the order of importance? The most often heard reason is recoil, but a soft loading of the cartridge would solve that (which was done, right?), so at least one other factor must have been more important. The .40 S&W uniquely (compared to 10 Auto) offered a shorter grip length and an increased capacity.

 

[Limnophile]

Limnophile quoted someone who questioned the accuracy of the .40 S&W. I've heard this repeated from time to time, but have never seen it substantiated. Does anyone have any facts on the accuracy of the .40?

I haven't seen any data. I just passed along the anecdote I've read. However, data should be available from departments where both 9 and .40 are carried, or where a department-wide switch from one caliber to the other occurred.

Another source of useful info should be the combat shooting games. Which caliber are the top performers using? What is their reasoning for the choice? How to average scores between different calibers compare?

 

[pblanc]

These articles might be of interest to those who are curious about how the FBI came to develop their ballistic gel test protocols and came to endorse the 10mm auto cartridge as a standard load:

http://www.thegunzone.com/miami-ammo.html

http://www.thegunzone.com/fbi-guns.html

 

[Limnophile]

Read the report carefully. He's careful to note that peripheral wounds are typically insufficient to cause rapid incapacitation.

Understood. One has to tickle the vitals to have a chance of destroying enough tissue highly infused with blood vessels to cause rapid bleeding. To tickle the vitals is a function of shot placement and penetration. The choice of cartridge can have a major effect on penetration (eg, no .25 Auto JHP is going to be a reliable penetrator), and can also, primarily via recoil, have some effect on shot placement, but at typical self-defense distances virtually all handgun cartridges are sufficiently accurate.

Rather, the bullet has to pass directly through a major structure.

Agreed. A peripheral hit, at best, can result in a psychological stop, but that is not enough to rely on.

Urey notes "given penetration", not "equal expansion". This appears to imply identical penetration, which is never the case. It's almost always the case that apple-to-apples comparisons show greatest penetration for the standard-pressure 9mm rounds ... in some case by as much as 2 inches.

Sorry -- I meant "equal penetration"; "equal expansion" makes no sense.

The state of handgun terminal ballistic science as summarized in Patrick's report can, in turn, be summarized as "penetration über alles." An oversimplification, but not by much. I subscribe to the concept.

However, Patrick's report does clearly give the nod to the bigger hole given adequate penetration, and advises not to rely on JHP expansion to achieve a bigger hole. In the late '80s JHP expansion was unreliable, especially in smaller calibers. Such unreliability can still be seen in, for example, .32 Auto JHPs, which tend not to penetrate sufficiently when they expand and often fail to expand, especially when shot through heavy denim. Today's JHPs tend to expand more reliably. I assume this is attributable to the science done by the IWBA and the FBI adopting (albeit with modification) the IWBA's science-based ammunition specifications. The specifications gave JHP engineers useful design goals. The advances have most notably benefitted 9 Luger, which is now capable of making a big hole while penetrating adequately. And, as a further benefit, the lower recoil produces better shot placement. Now .380 Auto is seeing benefits of enlightened JHP design.

Advances in JHP design have also benefitted larger calibers, which make even bigger holes; thus, recoil aside, giving them a theoretical edge.

In studied cases where a round has been said to "fail", it's always an issue of penetration, never a case of "not a big enough hole".

One would expect most round failures to be attributable to inadequate penetration if "penetration über alles" holds. An example of a possible failure attributable to a small hole would be a bad guy being drilled in the vitals, but surviving long enough afterwards to inflict harm upon his victim. Penetration is an objective metric and easy for a trauma surgeon or coroner to measure. I know of no objective way to assess time of survival as a function of volume of vital tissue destroyed, but it seems obvious that, everything else held constant, more vital tissue destroyed will result in bleeding out faster.

The volume of the wound channel is not the significant factor, only the damage done to major structures.

And the metric to assess damage done to major structures is volume of the wound channel through such structures, in in^3/in, as pblanc suggests. The length of vital tissue transited will vary from shot to shot, but volume/length metrics allow us to compare calibers for vital tissue damage potential (assuming, of course, adequate penetration in all cases).

Urey gives a nod to the notion that there is an "edge" to a larger round ... but no quantification. That's not really much to hang one's hat on.

Going back to pblanc's suggestion, volume of the wound channel per inch of vital tissue traversed seems a valid way to quantify potential between calibers. Of course, when the denominator is a standard 1 in, the volume/in metric simplifies to the cross-sectional area of a bullet for comparison purposes. This makes sense, because .45-caliber bullets across a variety of calibers have long been regarded as the gold standard of manstoppers on battlefields constrained by The Hague Convention (especially compared to .38-caliber bullets).

Given that M.E. and forensic examiners cannot tell the difference in calibers from the wounds themselves, it strongly suggests that any such edge is more theoretical than actual, or so slight as to be insignificant.

As I understand it, the primary reason trauma surgeons and MEs can't name the caliber based on a cursory examination is because of the elastic nature of human tissues. While wound channel volume can't be reliably measured in situ due to this elasticity, the diameter of a FMJ or expanded JHP can be objectively measured. The volume of vital tissue destroyed is more than theoretical if it can be objectively estimated by calculation.

Understand that there is a lot of data since 1989 which validates the notion that "there really isn't a difference".

I'm open to reading the data if you will supply links. As far as I know, adequate penetration is still, by far, the single most important characteristic in an effective handgun cartridge. A few years back one paper was published that claimed hydrostatic shock could be important. I think they monitored a goat or similar critter in or near the brain, then shot it in a rear leg. Just because a phenomenon can be measured doesn't mean that phenomenon is important. If I ever need to shoot in self defense I'm not going to aim for legs with the expectation of damaging the brain.

My three carry pistols are all 9 mm calibers -- 9 Browning, 9 Makarov, and 9 Luger. I don't feel undergunned with any. Because I realize adequate penetration is essential, my 9 Browning and 9 Makarov are loaded with FMJs right now, but it seems like there may be some reliable and adequate JHPs now in these calibers.

 

[Limnophile]

The only thing I have seen on this ammunition is the test of the .380 auto that ShootingTheBull410 (the "Ammo Quest" guy) did on youtube. He seemed impressed with it.

But it is pretty well established that visible damage to ballistic gellatin does not translate into meaningful damage in human tissue. So I am doubtful that this manufacturer has at this point in history come up with a previously undiscovered method of damaging human tissue through temporary cavitation just by cutting some grooves in the projectile.

That's the video I've seen, although Lehigh Defense makes the XP in other calibers. The stretch damage to the gel seemed to be harder and not radiate as far out as that seen in gel from JHPs, and the size of the stretch cylinder was fairly consistent along the entire bullet path as I recall.

Most YouTube handgun gel testers focus a lot of attention on stretch marks in gel. I'm usually tempted to fast forward to get to the meat, but the pattern of XP stretch marks is distinctly different.

Since people get upset these days by a bunch of guys shooting goats and pigs, and since people volunteering to get shot are hard to find, I think ballistic gel tests are a perfectly reasonable way of testing ammunition for penetration and expansion. But ballistic gel unlike human tissue, lacks collagen fibers to maintain its integrity, and lacks elastin fibers that allow it to stretch and recoil without fracturing.

Utah may soon have a venue for testing on people.

Thanks for the links on the post-Miami history.

 

[Dashunde]

Utah may soon have a venue for testing on people.

lol... so awesome.

 

[mavracer]

I haven't read the whole thread and have no desire to get into caliber wars but I believe the 40 is past it's peak of popularity, by no means is it going away.
But it seams gun guys just don't get that less or more doesn't mean all or none.
IE less accurate does not mean inaccurate

 

[ninjarealist]

I like .40. In my experience .40 ammunition has been more reliable than 9mm and .380 (negligible sample size though ). It's cheap and easy to find. Also .40 guns tend to be cheaper than 9mm guns and are on sale more often. I prefer 9mm or .380 for a carry gun (because I prefer mouse guns for carry and I don't want to shoot a .40 mouse gun) but .40 is my favorite round for just blasting away at the range with a full-size handgun, and for that reason it's also my nightstand gun. People call it snappy but I think it's just the right amount of recoil.

I hope it's here to stay because I'll be sad if the police stop using it and ammo prices skyrocket.

Honestly, while I get why some people want to have one chambering for all their hand guns, I just think it's too much fun to shoot all the different rounds. I also like small guns and some mouse guns are just too small for 9mm and even .380 (no I can't afford a Rohrbaugh). I own a .380, a .38 special, a 9mm, a .40, and I hope to own many other chamberings in the future.

I also hope none of these cartridges go away because when I look at some of the awesome cartridges that are relegated to handloading-only these days (such as the .44 special and the .41 magnum) it kind of makes me sad that the ammo for these guns will probably never be super available again.

I hope .40 doesn't go in that direction.

 

[Kreyzhorse]

The .40 will surely die just the like 9mm did when PDs originally moved away from it.

Oh wait.....

 

[Metalboy]

Oh wait.....

Well, I'm still waiting.
In the meantime I'm trying to figure out what's better than a nice .40 caliber handgun......
Hmmm I think I got it, 2 of them, or 34 of them.

Oh wait........

 

[agtman]

agtman,

Would this then be an accurate summary of why the FBI turned to the 10 Auto in the late '80s (in declining order of importance)?:

Better penetration than 9 Luger and .45 Auto, and
Slightly greater capacity than .45 Auto (a distant second).

From their testing of the 9mm, 10mm and .45acp (pursuant to their ballistics protocols - the most important of which was "penetration first, everything else second"), the FBI FTU concluded:

1) the 10mm was the superior penetrator;

2) the 10mm was the most accurate of the 3 cartridges;

3) only the 10mm offered an energy curve large enough to permit use of its lower end in the 1076 pistols and a higher/hotter end in tactical sub-guns or in custom 1911s used as entry pistols by their HRT teams. If you recall, HK made 10mm MP5s for the Bureau. The 10mm MP5s used double-stack mags, and back in the '90s I got to see and handle several of these weapons. Typically, they were carried and stored behind the back seat of Bureau SUVs.

4) the 9mm and .45 were tapped-out on bullet-designs, i.e., styles and especially weight, whereas the 10mm's potential for using various projectiles was just being tapped. In that era, exiting bullet-weights were 170gns, 180gns, 190gns & 200gns (again, circa 1989-1990).

5) depending on pistol and magazine design (i.e., double-stack v. single-stack), the 10mm would give you 1 or 2 more rounds over the .45, but less than the 9mm. The FTU heads preferred a single stack design, and while they liked the S&W 645 (the 45XX-series models weren't built yet), they also liked Sig-style ergonomics (e.g., the 220)

Then, is it fair to say these are the reasons the 10 Auto failed?:
Too much recoil,
Grip too long,
Gun too bulky, or
Capacity inadequate.

I wouldn't accept the premised that the 10mm "failed"; the Bureau simply concluded that training issues and weapon-size made the .40 a better choice for *most* of its non-shooter agents, as I mentioned in a post above. Many state & local agencies that had adopted the 10mm, like the Kentucky State Police, continued with it for many years after the FBI moved to the .40. Indeed, even after the FBI "officially" adopted to the .40, a huge number of senior agents, albeit dwindling as time passed with retirements, still carried the 1076 thru the '90s and into the early 2000s. I talked to a number of these guys over the years. Overwhelmingly, they accepted the opportunity to keep their 1076s upon retirement.

As far as the four reasons listed above:

1) "Recoil" had been addressed by the FTU's specifications for the so-called 10mm-Lite load (180gn @ 990fps). The shooters at the FTU liked and had shot some of the hotter 10mm ammunition that was available back then - not just Norma's loads; Hornady, Remington & Winchester were also marketing a hot 10mm load or two. But as practical firearms-trainers, they also knew that felt-recoil would affect the successful qualification of non-shooter agents, which back then included more & more women being hired by the Bureau as a consequence of court orders and settled discrimination lawsuits.

But there was a second 10mm load that Federal made for the Bureau, a 190gn bonded JHP @ 1050fps (actually, the first bonded slug designed for LE use), which most SAs who I knew back then actually loaded in their 1076s. This was the so-called 'X' load (XM1003A) and it had nothing to do with the X-Files or Agent Mulder. FYI, a friend (who had a 5" 1026) and I chrono-ed this load back about 1998-99, and it was doing just a tad under 1050fps from my 1076, and about 1090fps-1100fps from his 5" Smith. Very accurate too.

2) & 3) Grip too long/gun too bulky. As you know, the 45acp and 10mm share almost the same COAL (and if you've read Ron Carrillo's Bren Ten/10mm book, you know that's no coincidence). These cartridges simply necessitate a large-frame platform.

The COALs of the .40 & 9mm are close as well, and it's also no coincidence that the .40S&W's COAL is within a hair of the old 1970's .40G&A, the first experiential "10mm/.40" cartridge. In fact, the gun first used to test the .40G&A was a converted Browning 9mm HP, so the designers of the .40S&W already had a road map of sorts.

As noted earlier, the .40 cartridge allows one to take low-end 10mm "stopping power" and put it into a 9mm-size semiauto. So, yes, for "regular" field agents and other L.E. types who carry their sidearms way more than they ever shoot them (qual-time being the exception), it was a no-brainer that a 9mm-size auto would yield benefits in terms of handling and portability.

4) And while the "adequacy" of capacity was never an issue per se with the 10mm (notwithstanding the Miami '85 debacle, one FBI study put the *average* shots fired in agent-involved shootings at like 5-rds or less), it goes without saying that a double-stack design (e.g., S&W 4006s, G22s, G23s) gives you more bullets in the mag, which in a gunfight means having to reload less often.

Hope this helps ...

 

[Metalboy]

Hope this helps ...

Yes Sir. It helps. Thank you.

 

[CaptainO]

Agtman:

You are correct, sir! This is the way to tell the uninformed about the advantages held by the great 10mm Auto Cartridge.

If only the shooting public would come to realize that the 10mm was better than most LE Departments/Bureaus think it is, perhaps we could get the hot and mild loads that were once manufactured for the cartridge.

Scott

 

[Limnophile]

From their testing of the 9mm, 10mm and .45acp (pursuant to their ballistics protocols - the most important of which was "penetration first, everything else second"), the FBI FTU concluded:

1) the 10mm was the superior penetrator;

2) the 10mm was the most accurate of the 3 cartridges;

3) only the 10mm offered an energy curve large enough to permit use of its lower end in the 1076 pistols and a higher/hotter end in tactical sub-guns or in custom 1911s used as entry pistols by their HRT teams. If you recall, HK made 10mm MP5s for the Bureau. The 10mm MP5s used double-stack mags, and back in the '90s I got to see and handle several of these weapons. Typically, they were carried and stored behind the back seat of Bureau SUVs.

4) the 9mm and .45 were tapped-out on bullet-designs, i.e., styles and especially weight, whereas the 10mm's potential for using various projectiles was just being tapped. In that era, exiting bullet-weights were 170gns, 180gns, 190gns & 200gns (again, circa 1989-1990).

5) depending on pistol and magazine design (i.e., double-stack v. single-stack), the 10mm would give you 1 or 2 more rounds over the .45, but less than the 9mm. The FTU heads preferred a single stack design, and while they liked the S&W 645 (the 45XX-series models weren't built yet), they also liked Sig-style ergonomics (e.g., the 220)

Superior penetration sounds like a valid reason to opt for the 10 Auto.

I find it difficult to believe, in the hand, that 10 Auto could be all that much more accurate than 9 Luger or .45 Auto. If that were the case wouldn't 10 Auto guns be ruling the bullseye circuit?

I don't see ammo compatability between handgun and MP5 being a major selling point. Especially if you are issued an SUV to drive around in you have plenty of room to stash as much extra ammo as you want -- handgun, rifle, and shotgun.

I can see an advantage that large case capacity offers. One can load certain magazines with mild loads for use against soft targets, and others with hot loads for use when deep penetration is desired. All while using the same weapon. Of course, one can obtain deep penetration in any service caliber by simply carrying a magazine of hardcast +Ps.

Between 9 Luger and .45 Auto I don't see a dearth of bullet design options. The handgun terminal ballistics testing that the FBI took the lead on after Miami has given bullet designers great performance specification goals, which has resulted in improvements in all service calibers (and now in some backup calibers).

I see a benefit to a large capacity magazine, but imagine low-cap mags in the hands of a trained shooter who habitually carries a number of readily accessible spares do not hamper such a person.

One writer in a link that pblanc provided claims the decision to go with the 10 Auto was a political compromise, as the 9 Luger (high capacity) and .45 Auto (bigger holes) factions were at each others' throats. He also mentioned that Patrick was a member of the bigger holes faction, which makes sense from reading his report. Given my dealings with government I can believe the political compromise story.

I wouldn't accept the premised that the 10mm "failed"; the Bureau simply concluded that training issues and weapon-size made the .40 a better choice for *most* of its non-shooter agents, as I mentioned in a post above. Many state & local agencies that had adopted the 10mm, like the Kentucky State Police, continued with it for many years after the FBI moved to the .40. Indeed, even after the FBI "officially" adopted to the .40, a huge number of senior agents, albeit dwindling as time passed with retirements, still carried the 1076 thru the '90s and into the early 2000s. I talked to a number of these guys over the years. Overwhelmingly, they accepted the opportunity to keep their 1076s upon retirement.

As far as the four reasons listed above:

1) "Recoil" had been addressed by the FTU's specifications for the so-called 10mm-Lite load (180gn @ 990fps). The shooters at the FTU liked and had shot some of the hotter 10mm ammunition that was available back then - not just Norma's loads; Hornady, Remington & Winchester were also marketing a hot 10mm load or two. But as practical firearms-trainers, they also knew that felt-recoil would affect the successful qualification of non-shooter agents, which back then included more & more women being hired by the Bureau as a consequence of court orders and settled discrimination lawsuits.

But there was a second 10mm load that Federal made for the Bureau, a 190gn bonded JHP @ 1050fps (actually, the first bonded slug designed for LE use), which most SAs who I knew back then actually loaded in their 1076s. This was the so-called 'X' load (XM1003A) and it had nothing to do with the X-Files or Agent Mulder. FYI, a friend (who had a 5" 1026) and I chrono-ed this load back about 1998-99, and it was doing just a tad under 1050fps from my 1076, and about 1090fps-1100fps from his 5" Smith. Very accurate too.

2) & 3) Grip too long/gun too bulky. As you know, the 45acp and 10mm share almost the same COAL (and if you've read Ron Carrillo's Bren Ten/10mm book, you know that's no coincidence). These cartridges simply necessitate a large-frame platform.

The COALs of the .40 & 9mm are close as well, and it's also no coincidence that the .40S&W's COAL is within a hair of the old 1970's .40G&A, the first experiential "10mm/.40" cartridge. In fact, the gun first used to test the .40G&A was a converted Browning 9mm HP, so the designers of the .40S&W already had a road map of sorts.

As noted earlier, the .40 cartridge allows one to take low-end 10mm "stopping power" and put it into a 9mm-size semiauto. So, yes, for "regular" field agents and other L.E. types who carry their sidearms way more than they ever shoot them (qual-time being the exception), it was a no-brainer that a 9mm-size auto would yield benefits in terms of handling and portability.

4) And while the "adequacy" of capacity was never an issue per se with the 10mm (notwithstanding the Miami '85 debacle, one FBI study put the *average* shots fired in agent-involved shootings at like 5-rds or less), it goes without saying that a double-stack design (e.g., S&W 4006s, G22s, G23s) gives you more bullets in the mag, which in a gunfight means having to reload less often.

Hope this helps ...

Given that the FBI gave a big nod to the 10 Auto a quarter century ago, the lack of pistols chambered for the round, the lack of such pistols being carried by LEOs and civilians, the lack of interest from the military, and the absence of ammo on gunshop shelves all point to failure in my mind.

I agree that making mild loads available seems like an effective mitigation of the recoil concern, while making hot loads available to those who need them.

Grip size is an important issue, as evidenced by the title of the US Army's upcoming Modular Handgun competition. I get the impression, based on models apparently designed for submittal, that tailored grips will be the norm in the not-too-distant future. Frames that are smaller are easy to make beefy, while it's tough to make a large frame smaller. That should work in favor of 9 Luger and .40 S&W.

As to capacity, while I acknowledged above that it shouldn't be a big issue in a semiauto pistol for a well-trained and prepared user, I must also admit that it is a big factor in my choice of a pistol. I like double-stack magazines, but I won't put myself in the category of well-trained or well-prepared. More often than not I leave home with no spare mag, so capacity is very important. For the first time I am considering a single-stack pistol -- for easy pocket carry.

I do appreciate your contributions on the subject of the history of the 10 Auto. I don't know much about it, primarily because, when I bought my carry guns three years ago, 10 Auto wasn't on the radar.

 

[BlueTrain]

I could also say that 10mm auto hasn't been on my radar either. But there's more to these cartridges than police use.

Once upon a time, the .38 Super was considered a hot cartridge. It was thought to be better in some ways than a .45 auto. It was of course always chambered in pistols that were also available in the .45, too. It was advertised as a sportsman's handgun, although the .357 sort of had the same niche, too, and the first hot-loaded .38 specials (the .38/44) was aimed at that same market. There was even a model called the Outdoorsman.

I'd say the 10mm auto might be a step up from the .38 Super, which was never a really common caliber. But it never went away. In some ways the .357 Sig is a little similar, although I've done no paper comparison of the cartridges and haven't fired either one. But I've owned two .38 Supers, which I thought were perfect for what they were advertised for. It's a real mystery to me why I don't own one now, either. In any case, a .357 revolver works pretty much just as well if you don't care for the .44 magnum, neither of which have gone away, either. Here we are talking about a relatively new auto pistol cartridge without even bringing up the question of why anyone would still have a revolver in this day and age.