Why 10mm in a revolver?

wild cat mccane said:
I have wanted to buy a 610 multiple times.

But then I realize the 686 Plus is better in every way. The L frame has no concerns. No need for an N frame 357 unless you want the R8. So N frame 610 with 1 less chamber. The 357 experience is more of an experience than the 10mm-fun factor of loading and report.

If I liked 10mm auto, I might have an interest it in it...but still the 686 Plus at 7 round cylinder?

You are wanting a 10mm revolver to like them. Otherwise, yes. There really isn't a point.

The only benefit I can think where it shows up is 40 is the cheapest of 38/357/10mm. Heck, you can shoot 40 HST for cheaper than most 38/357/10mm. But...I think if you want a 357 or 10mm, you're probably not after the 38/40 shooting experience. You're probably a high level revolver aficionado to love the 10mm revolver.

I would wager that sales of the 10mm 610 and GP100 are low. I do bet people who have them like them a lot.
Click to expand...
I suspect that you really need a six-inch barrel if you want to eke the best out of the .357 Magnum.

So I choose to stick with the old .45 ACP in a small (but fairly heavy Glock--the 30) for real serious work.

I'm satisfied with the Glock 19 in 9mm for most carry, though.

I have zero anxiety about my choices.

In fact........I'm sure I've found the best solution.

:)
 
Oh. I am 100% on 9mm HST being all anyone needs. The days of needing high FPS for a JHP to perform are long gone when HST came out over 20 years ago.

The 150gr HST under 900fps in a S&W M&P compact 3.5" barrel bests most 357 and 10mm performances on lucky gunner. I stock pile that and have a few cases of the discontinued 147gr +P HST.

Performance means nothing to me for a revolver. I shoot my 686s for fun. 10mm in a revolver is just extra work, to me. For me only, big revolvers like the L/N frames are all experience and nothing else. That extra work of one less chamber and moon clips when 357 does it all better has always hit right when I'm about to buy a 4" 610.
 
50% of my shooting is 38sp HBWCs in M14 and M52 S&Ws. Other 50% is is 44sp & 45acp and 45Colt. I don’t count 9mm and 22s because although I shot them a good bit I don’t load for 9mm and certainly not 22 rf.
If I wanted a 10mm revolver would have kept a model 57. I wasn’t shooting them at all so offed all my 57s and am in process of offing a 29s, 28s and 27s. Don’t need mags any more.
 
You're not everybody, which means the majority of people likely can.
Click to expand...

No, it just means I'm not everybody. :D

My point of view is personal, what matters to me is what I can, and can't do. I didn't say the majority of people can't shoot 40 HST for cheaper than most 38/357/10mm, I said I can't.
 
I'd love to have a Mid-frame Blackhawk with .40S&W and 10mm cylinders.
Click to expand...

For single-action 10mm revolvers, that is the key- a dedicated 10mm cylinder. Yes, you can't fire .40S&W through it. Just like you can't fire .45acp from the .45LC cylinder in Ruger Blackhawks. You have to swap cylinders. I don't care for 10mm or .40S&W, but I would also love to see a Blackhawk Convertible in both these calibers for those who love them.

I say- if you LIKE 10mm and want a revolver to fire it from- get one! If you don't like 10mm don't get a firearm in it. It just seems that the only 10mm revolvers right now are moon-clipped.

However, the main reason for this is not the groove on the brass. Or that 'revolver rounds' don't have a groove for moonclips. Revolver rounds do not NEED moonclips.

The reason for moonclips was not speed of loading. It was speed of unloading. If a S&W Model 25 had a .45acp cylinder that headspaced on the case mouth and didn't use moon clips, you would need a rod to press out each shell as the extractor wouldn't have any material to grab and pull the empty shell with.
Moonclips were designed to eject rounds, not load them. The speed advantage in sticking 6 rounds in at once was more of an afterthought. It wasn't the REASON for using semi-auto ammo in revolvers.

The first to do this was the US Army 1917 revolver [whether S&W or Colt]. It was converted to .45acp by the use of moon clips for the above reason- not enough rim for the ejector to catch on. The ejector instead catches on the moon clip. And they made 6, 3 and 2 round moon clips, so that you could eject the two you used [or three] and reload those without having to all 6 while leaving 2,3 or 4 live rounds in the now ejected moon clip.

This revolver was developed as they couldn't produce enough 1911 handguns during WWI and needed to convert the large frame revolvers to the same task.

There IS a .45ACP Rimmed shell for use in revolvers, as this has the same 'head' as a .45long Colt shell, so the ejector grabs it and there is no need for moon clips. For that ammo I would imagine a .45lc speed loader would work just fine for rapid reloads.

The above is about why moon clips were developed during WWI and their continued reason for existence in revolvers [ejection of rounds with no flanged head on casing].



As for the 'why would you want a 10mm revolver' question- the answer is simple: BECAUSE...


Personally, I have no interest in .40S&W or 10mm revolvers. I respect their role in semi-autos, but they are my least enjoyable round to fire. I prefer HOT! Buffalo Bore .44mag ammo [producing 1500 ft/lbs of muzzle energy from 7" Redhawk] to either .40 or 10mm. That said, I really prefer 'typical' .44mag loads [800-1200 ft/lbs of energy] or mid-to-hot .357 loads [520-760ft/lbs of energy from 5" barrels] to ANY .40S&W or 10mm load.

Yet, for those who have 10mm or .40S&W, I can see the attraction of a revolver to add to their collection and use the same ammo as their [glock, etc].

After all, I am doing that with 9mm and .45acp [but in SA revolvers].

To the point about saving money- in my neighborhood there is no significant difference in price between 10mm and .357mag. In fact, Buffalo Bore's hottest heavy outdoorsman load for 10mm and .357mag has the .357mag about $2 cheaper per 20 rounds, and about 82 ft/lbs more energy. Yes, the 10mm was 220gr and the 357 was 180gr, but in 5" barrels they tested, the 10mm [from 1911] wasn't as powerful.

If you prefer to say 5" 1911 equals 4" revolver, then the power of the .357 is about 50 ft/lbs more than the 10mm.

So, the hottest loads I trust and am likely to use has the 10mm weaker than the .357, for slightly more money.

If it isn't power but cost savings that you want to use to justify the use of a semi-auto caliber ammo in a revolver, I'd go to 9mm, as that is cheaper than .40, 10mm, .38special or .357mag around here. Yes, it is weaker, but if the argument is about money saved then the weaker power isn't an issue.

just my thoughts as my cat bugs me for attention.
 
The only 10mm I have a practical use is Federal Syntech 200 Grain Hard Cast.

My Generation 4 Glock 10mms, despite having gone back to Glock, never ran right with that ammo, feed issues often.

All my Generation 5 10mm models, however have had no issues.

I'd consider a revolver purely to solve Hardcast feed issues.
 
jmstr wrote;
"There IS a .45ACP Rimmed shell for use in revolvers, as this has the same 'head' as a .45long Colt shell, so the ejector grabs it and there is no need for moon clips. For that ammo I would imagine a .45lc speed loader would work just fine for rapid reloads."

"The first to do this was the US Army 1917 revolver [whether S&W or Colt]. It was converted to .45acp by the use of moon clips for the above reason- not enough rim for the ejector to catch on. The ejector instead catches on the moon clip. And they made 6, 3 and 2 round moon clips, so that you could eject the two you used [or three] and reload those without having to all 6 while leaving 2,3 or 4 live rounds in the now ejected moon clip."

45 AR has a rim 0.0827 in (2.10 mm) while the 45 Colt rim is .060 in (1.5 mm).
Good luck getting those to fit in a 45 Colt speed loader.

I believe only HALF MOON clips were available until sometime after WWI.
Also no mater what type you are using ( 2, 3 or 6 round clips ), all 6 are going to eject at the same time.
 
The first to do this was the US Army 1917 revolver [whether S&W or Colt]. It was converted to .45acp by the use of moon clips for the above reason- not enough rim for the ejector to catch on. The ejector instead catches on the moon clip. And they made 6, 3 and 2 round moon clips, so that you could eject the two you used [or three] and reload those without having to all 6 while leaving 2,3 or 4 live rounds in the now ejected moon clip.
Click to expand...

S&W introduced the 3round "half moon" clips with the 1917 revolver. The full moon and the 2rnd (baby moon?) clips didn't come about until decades later, and the full moon clips were "on the market" but not a commonly stocked item in gunshops in the early 80s.

This revolver was developed as they couldn't produce enough 1911 handguns during WWI and needed to convert the large frame revolvers to the same task.
Click to expand...

I think "convert" is a poor choice of word, as the guns were not converted from any existing gun, but new made using both company's large DA frames, by installing a .45 barrel and cylinder.

There IS a .45ACP Rimmed shell for use in revolvers, as this has the same 'head' as a .45long Colt shell, so the ejector grabs it and there is no need for moon clips. For that ammo I would imagine a .45lc speed loader would work just fine for rapid reloads.
Click to expand...

This is not quite correct. And a .45 Colt speedloader probably won't work.

The Peters Cartridge Company introduced the .45 AutoRim (.45AR) in 1920 to provide a factory round that could be fired in the 1917 revolvers without using the half moon clips.

It does not have the same "head" as the .45 Colt case. It has the same body as the .45ACP (which is smaller than the .45 Colt case, and it has a larger diameter and much thicker rim (about 1/3 thicker) than the .45 Colt case.

Because the case was made with a very thick rim, to fill the space in the gun used by the clipped ACP rounds, the .45AR will not work in any gun not cut to use clipped ACP rounds. The .45AR will not work in SA revolvers chambered for the .45ACP.

Getting back to the 10mm in revolvers, unless you already have other guns in 10mm (pistols or carbines) I don't see the point. "its neat, and I want one" IS a valid reason to get one, but not a practical reason, such as commonality of ammo with other guns you already have.

Since I have the round covered from above and below, I don't have much interest in the 10mm round (or the .40S&W) but if I were, I'd go with an SA revolver, or even a Contender over a DA revolver, but, that's just me.

If you want one, get one and celebrate diversity!! :D
 
Personally, I got a 10 mm revolver (GP100, 3" bbl) primarily as a backup to my every day carry 10 mm semi-auto in order to have commonality of ammunition. I am shooting 10 mm 180 gr Gold Dots @ 1200 ft/s from the GP100, compact but potent. I especially like the full-moon clips which I find load and unload very quickly and easily. While I have 357 Mag revolvers, I was never able to get a particularly rapid unload and re-load with speed loaders.
 
The only 10mm I have a practical use is Federal Syntech 200 Grain Hard Cast.My Generation 4 Glock 10mms, despite having gone back to Glock, never ran right with that ammo, feed issues often. All my Generation 5 10mm models, however have had no issues. I'd consider a revolver purely to solve Hardcast feed issues.
Click to expand...
Ah dude, are you talking about this Federal 10mm Syntech ammo? It’s 200grn but the TSJ projectile isn’t technically “hardcast.”

https://www.midwayusa.com/product/1022394580?pid=816456
 
GFlory said:
Personally, I got a 10 mm revolver (GP100, 3" bbl) primarily as a backup to my every day carry 10 mm semi-auto in order to have commonality of ammunition. I am shooting 10 mm 180 gr Gold Dots @ 1200 ft/s from the GP100, compact but potent. I especially like the full-moon clips which I find load and unload very quickly and easily. While I have 357 Mag revolvers, I was never able to get a particularly rapid unload and re-load with speed loaders.
Click to expand...
Hmmm, I could get behind this.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top