Questions about 10mm round

there's nothing the 10mm can do out of a pistol that 9mm, 40, or 45 defense loads cant do.
Click to expand...

Wow...

I agree with you if you're talking about using "factory" ammo, from Federal or any of the major brands. There's very little difference between this factory 10mm ammo and 40S&W.

However, if you go to a premium ammo (I use Underwood) you start to see the difference. Where the Federal 10mm ammo only delivers 424 lb/ft at the muzzle, Underwood delivers between 592 and 775, depending on bullet weight.

I carry a Glock 20SF in the woods. Loaded with these heavier loads, I feel it is the best all-around protection for me. I get 16 rounds of hard-hitting 10mm.

I don't use a 10mm for concealed carry, but for protection in the wilderness of the lower 48, I think it's a great option.
 
ghalleen said:
[...]
I don't use a 10mm for concealed carry, but for protection in the wilderness of the lower 48, I think it's a great option.
[...]
Click to expand...

I DO use my 10mm for concealed-carry (at least when I'm not conceal-carrying my .44mag S&W69 ... that's what's been getting the duty for the last month or so). I don't subscribe to the common view that the more powerful rounds (above .40S&W and .45acp) are "overkill" for self defense against two-legged predators. I think a drugged-up 250lb bad guy may well be harder to stop than a feral hog, mountain lion, or perhaps even a black bear. And I've seen the difference in what the full-power 10mm rounds do to ballistic gelatin, compared to the lessor handgun rounds. I just know that, if a bad guy is ever closing rapidly on me, obviously hoping to do me great harm, I'm not going to be wishing that I had a less-powerful round ... I'll be wanting the most powerful round that I can arrange to bring to that situation.
 
Thanks for all the good replies folks! Very much appreciated. I learned loooong ago to carry, and shoot what I want and like, so it's now going to be a 10mm with the 1911 platform. I have been swapping out my pistols for 1911's for the past few years...looks like the 20sf is getting traded out now.
I love all the info that you TFL'ers have...I've been a member for years and can always count on getting empirical data as well as first hand use knowledge.
 
If I was hiking or camping in bear or mountain lion country, a 10mm would be with me if I wanted to stay with an auto.
 
If I got to choose what pistol to carry as an LEO in a rural location, I think I'd be going with a 1911 in 10mm. I typically carry a 10mm or a .41 Magnum handgun when I am hunting.
 
If you wanted 10mm for fun, cool. But as a defense round, there's nothing the 10mm can do out of a pistol that 9mm, 40, or 45 defense loads cant do.
Click to expand...

I'd choose a 10mm over any of those if I'm hiking in the back country. While not ideal(I'd rather have a 44 mag as a backup to bear spray if I'm using a handgun), it's better than any of those you listed.

Vs two legged threats? You're right. Any of those calibers will work fine. Vs four legged threats I want the biggest available.
 
If I was hiking or camping in bear or mountain lion country, a 10mm would be with me if I wanted to stay with an auto.
Click to expand...

That's exactly why I bought the 20SF. I'd had a close encounter with a bear, carrying a smaller handgun. Luckily I didn't have to fire, because it felt too small, when looking at the size of the bear. I'd originally planned on picking up a 2-1/2 or 4-inch .44magnum revolver, but when I started thinking about the 10mm, and started researching the performance capable with premium rounds, I realized that 16 rounds of 10mm was probably better than 6 of 44 magnum. It's certainly easier to handle.

In the long run, I ended up also picking up a couple short-barreled 44s, as well, but still prefer carrying the 20SF when hiking or playing in the woods.
 
I'm with you; I'm sure I could put nine rounds of 10mm on a target faster than I could four rounds from a .44, or .454, or whatever people recommend as a minimum bear defense gun.
And if things got really dire, I could put seventeen rounds of 10mm on anything faster than I could fire seven accurate rounds from any revolver. I don't even want to think about trying to reload a revolver when I'm being chased by a bear!
 
RickB said:
I'm with you; I'm sure I could put nine rounds of 10mm on a target faster than I could four rounds from a .44 [...]
Click to expand...

Presumably, that implies that you COULD put THREE rounds of .44mag on target at least as quick as 9 rounds of 10mm. I THINK there are situations where those three rounds of .44mag MIGHT have a better chance of stopping the threat than the 9 rounds of 10mm. That's debatable, of course, but I think that might be the essence of why I have been recently feeling more "protected" while conceal-carrying my .44mag than while conceal-carrying my 10mm 1911 ... I've been feeling that way ever since I had my close-up, eye-to-eye encounter with a big mama black bear and her two cubs (while carrying my 10mm 1911) ... my 10mm 1911 just didn't feel as big to me at that instant as it always had before.

Addendum: My recent preference for the .44mag might also be at least partially due to the fact that I think the probability of a "failure to fire" or a "jam" is much lower for my .44mag revolver than for my 10mm 1911 ... I might only get one or two 10mm rounds on target before my gun jams ... not the intended 9 rounds.
 
Last edited:
What will you do when the cylinder binds up on the revolver?

The myth that revolvers never jam is hyperbole.

Also, I originally got the Ruger Alaskan 44mag as my north woods gun for bear defense. After doing some research, i discovered that the 44mag was significantly LESS powerful from the 2 1/2" barrel of the Alaskan than the 10mm form my G20. So shot for shot, the 10mm was putting out more energy, and I had 16rds instead of 6.
 
Addendum: My recent preference for the .44mag might also be at least partially due to the fact that I think the probability of a "failure to fire" or a "jam" is much lower for my .44mag revolver than for my 10mm 1911 ... I might only get one or two 10mm rounds on target before my gun jams ... not the intended 9 rounds.
Click to expand...

That would be WAY down on my prioritized list of concerns.
Maybe one of your .44 Mag rounds has a backwards primer? Maybe you'll short-stroke the DA trigger? Maybe a bullet will jump the crimp and tie-up the gun after one shot? Maybe the muzzle blast will scare the bear to death? :):D
 
I used to have a Bren Ten. Nice gun, expensive to shoot.

For bears I'd rather tote a 45 Super with 300 grain heeled bullets. Those puppies penetrate.
 
Topthis, I admit to being a bit of a fan of the 10MM and have been reloading and shooting it in various platforms since dies first became available. Had Bren Ten, Glock, Kimber, Colt, several S&W autos and revolvers, and a Ruger Blackhawk 38-40/10MM convertible. I've done considerable chronographing with this caliber. I had multiple S&W 4 1/4" and 5" autos. A cursory review of just a few of my notes indicates that the difference beween my 4 1/4" and 5" autos averaged ~45 fps. This ranged between 23 fps and 78 fps in the loads I looked at. The 5" S&W revolvers averaged at least that much more velocity than the 5" auto. Perhaps counterintuitive due to the revolvers' barrel/cylinder gap, but that's what the chrono showed time after time.

BTW, I'm a 1911 guy, but I don't believe it's the best platform for the 10MM. The slide is really a bit light for the caliber, IMHO. I'm not a big Glock fan, but I think the Glocks and S&Ws with their heavier slides handle the "real" 10MM ammo better than the 1911 without resorting to heavy recoil springs, buffers,etc to keep shooter and gun from getting beat up. I suspect my position on 10MM 1911 type pistols may be in the minority....ymmv
 
jmr40 said:
I get 1300 fps with 200 gr DoubleTap ammo from my G-20. With less felt recoil than 45 ACP from my 1911's.

Just for reference my 3" 44 mag revolver is 3/4 lb heavier, 1" longer and only manages 1150 fps with 240 gr ammo from the snub barrel. That is the point.
Click to expand...

I do get why sometimes folks compare the 10mm to the .44 Mag and true enough there are platform advantages I believe with the semi auto over the revolver. But having shot and loaded a lot of 10mm, I don't think I would ever say a G20 with a 200gr at 1300 fps (a true 1300, not a claimed 1300) definitely has less recoil than a heavy 1911 shooting .45 ACP. Also shot for shot the 10mm doesn't stack up too favorably to big bore revolvers.

Plus, looking at Gunblast's articles on the 2.75" Redhawk .44 and the Bisley 3.75" .44, the latter shows a 200gr at nearly 1500 fps and a 270gr doing almost 1400 fps. Granted, off the shelf 240gr .44 Mag isn't very warm and honestly probably does do around 1150 from a short barrel, but it's best to compare warm loads to warm loads otherwise someone not knowing any better might start to think the 10mm is more than it really is.

As a defensive round against human threats, probably true enough. But some of us want a handgun that is capable of handling threats larger and tougher than humans. The 10mm (properly loaded) is capable of true magnum revolver ballistics from a smaller more compact package with nearly 3X the ammo capacity. At least with the Glock.
Click to expand...

The closest to magnum revolver ballistics the 10mm gets is the .357 Magnum, it's like a .40 caliber .357 Mag. I think the 10mm is a good choice maybe even the best choice for those who don't handload yet want decent performance.

I'll admit to scratching my head over the statements that the 10mm is somehow a much better option for threats that are larger and tougher than humans. Loaded warmly I do know that a 10mm can put out good numbers, but the main issue I have is that it's not only the 10mm that churns out good numbers when "properly loaded" and that in turn, it's not so much superior as to have a clear cut advantage even against four legged threats. I'll throw in few simple examples.

I know it doesn't satisfy the velocity crowd, but a 250/255g hardcast bullet will leave a 4.5-5" .45 at nearly 1000 fps. It's not going to have the "energy" of a 200gr 10mm doing 1300 fps, but it's still going to cut a hole through any animal the 10mm would, so in my book I don't see the clear advantage. I'm not an energy fanatic, it's simply a number that doesn't tell the whole story.

From a bone stock Glock 35 a 180gr JHP can be driven to 1275 fps, which isn't far off what you'll get with a warm 180gr 10mm from a G20, which according to my load notes the highest I got with a totally stock G20 was 1340 ish with a 180gr JHP. My issue is this, let's take a 180gr JHP at say 1350 fps for the heck of it to appease the 10mm diehards, what will that load absolutely kill that the same bullet at 1275 fps won't? What monumental, notable difference does ~75 fps make? 100 fps? Keep in mind that 180gr bullet is likely designed for slower velocities than even 1275 fps, even 1200 fps.

I think really there's a lot of overlap between the cartridges and I cannot foresee any circumstance where the 10mm (loaded warm) is so much superior to .40 or .45 (also loaded warm) to make any difference at all. I mean sure it maybe looks a little better on paper and maybe the somewhat higher energy figures makes people feel better, but to me it doesn't make sense to admit that the 10mm probably isn't much if any better against two legged threats but that somehow it's far better against four legged ones. If penetration is needed, all of them with heavy for caliber bullets penetrate deep enough to not really make any difference at all.
 
My Glock 29 launches the Winchester 175 grain 10mm Silvertip at 1250 fps. The Cor-Bon 180 grain BCSP comes out at about the same velocity. That bullet also penetrates my Fackler box to the same distance as a 300 grain Hornady .44 Magnum XTP when fired from a 6.5-inch barrel and it expands to a bit over ,50 caliber.

I carry a mag full of that on my woods walks (black bear, mountain lions in my area) and then shift to the Silvertip when I go to town.

The 10mm borders on .41 Magnum power, and it's a lot more controllable than many people think. It's a good load.

Federal just introduced a 180 grain 10mm based upon the Bear Claw design. I haven't penetration tested it, but from my G29 it will hit a 8x10 metal plate every time from my back porch, and a laser measured 41 yards.

The 10mm has uses.
 
But having shot and loaded a lot of 10mm, I don't think I would ever say a G20 with a 200gr at 1300 fps (a true 1300, not a claimed 1300) definitely has less recoil than a heavy 1911 shooting .45 ACP.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I've shot "major power", 200grs @ 850fps loads through both .45 and 10mm 1911s, and through a G20, and didn't notice much difference in recoil.
To say you get less (felt) recoil from an overloaded G20, than with full-power ammo through a .45 1911 is a bit of a stretch.
There is clearly considerably more recoil energy in the 10mm load, and I don't think the flexi frame of the Glock is going to do enough to attenuate it, compared to .45 hardball.
 
Ruger45, I agree, the 10MM is better compared to .357 than the .41 and .44mags. I have owned and reloaded for .41 and .44, along with the 10MM. Much as I enjoy the 10, "it ain't no .41 or .44".

BTW, I reloaded for the .40 too. It did well from my Glock 35, but about the best I ever saw was ~1100 fps with a 180 from the 5.3" barrel. That 180 @ 1275 with the .40 is very impressive to say the least.
I've run into younger shooters that seemed to think that 10MM and .40 S&W were the same cartridge. I'd have to say, that for shooters using just factory ammo, they might as well be the same cartridge. Since the incredible successs of the .40S&W, and the FBI's deciding that 180 at ~1000fps is just fine, most 10mm factory ammo seems to have gravitated downward to display ballistics closer to .40 S&W. Buffalo Bore, Doubletap, etc, produce factory 10MM ammo loaded to ballistics closer to what the 10MM is safely capable of...ymmv.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top