so the Winchester Silvertip 175gr hollow points have been my go to for defensive loads ever since I got into 10mm. One of the original loads for the 10 they were loaded to the upper end of the performance spectrum. Picked up 3 boxes at Sportsman’s tonight (another rant), get home and notice that it’s different packaging. Read the box and they’ve dropped the muzzle velocity from 1,290fps to 1,200fps. If I’d known I would probably switch over to one of the Underwood loads for defensive carry.

It’s 10mm, I want all of the flash, boom and destruction that it brings to stop a charging T-Rex, if I wanted to shoot the neighbor’s cat, I’d use a .40S&W.

Sometimes pushing a hollow point faster actually reduces penetration because it expands wider and more quickly. I've personally seen tests where the Federal HST 124gr went deeper than the +P loading of that same bullet (Luckygunner shows them with the same average penetration https://www.luckygunner.com/la...ballistic-tests/#9mm). Maybe Winchester did some further testing and discovered that 1200fps was the sweet spot for the Silvertip bullet.

Now if we're looking for a hard cast, non-expanding pill designed for the deepest penetration possible, I'll take the higher velocity all day long.

ETA: I just looked at the 10mm numbers, and Luckygunner's data actually shows the 10mm Silvertip penetrating 2" less than the 9mm HST. Real world velocity numbers don't appear to match even the lower advertised number on the box, either, and that's out of a full-size Glock 20. There's still going to be more energy delivery than a 9mm due to the heavier bullet, but it's not going to hit anything than a 9mm HST wouldn't hit. https://www.luckygunner.com/la...ballistic-gel-tests/

Lucky Gunner is also using a Glock 20 with a 4.6" barrel where a lot of 10mm ammo is chrono'd with a 5" barrel. I also couldn't find where they chrono the bullet (ie: muzzle vs 5 yards), but according to Winchester, at 5 yards the bullet should be traveling at 1185 fps. With Lucky Gunner getting 1143 fps through a shorter barrel, it's within the noise.

I wish Lucky Gunner would do a real comparison video of 9mm (various loads), 40, 10, and of course 357 Sig. Couldn't be a compilation video, as conditions would vary changing the gelatin and velocities.

quote:

Couldn't be a compilation video, as conditions would vary changing the gelatin and velocities.

Can't speak to LuckyGunner's protocol, but the tests I've seen with calibrated gel involved maintaining the gel blocks at a specified temperature in a cooler and checking calibration with a .177 bb fired over a chronograph to ensure consistency.

quote:

Originally posted by 92fstech:
the tests I've seen with calibrated gel involved maintaining the gel blocks at a specified temperature in a cooler and checking calibration with a .177 bb fired over a chronograph to ensure consistency.

That’s how they’re “supposed” to be conducted in accordance with (someone’s—FBI?) standard protocols. All that makes the testing difficult, and that’s why various amateurs use different media such as the Clear Ballistics gel. There’s nothing really wrong with using other media, but best comparisons will always use the same type. As I argued in another thread that’s been resurrected recently, however, gel tests by themselves don’t consider the issue of projectile power which I believe is an essential part of predicting ballistic effectiveness.

Regarding the original issue of reducing the velocity of factory loads, that’s another thing I’ve commented on before. I believe that because ballistic effectiveness, i.e., handgun “stopping” power, is of much less consideration and concern than it was some decades ago, that’s one reason for the trend. The second factor is the issue of “shootability,” i.e., control and comfort as affected by muzzle blast and recoil. At one time a man (yes, man) who confessed to not being able to shoot more powerful handgun cartridges because they were too much for him might not have been shunned, but ran the risk of being looked at in a somewhat different light than most of his peers.

One specific example of something most shooters who had the experience with that could be readily and acceptably identified as being unreasonable was shooting the full-power 357 Magnum loads from guns like S&W scandium J frame revolvers. And the result? Manufacturers introduced ammunition that was marked “357 Magnum,” but was loaded to much lower power levels.

Another earlier example was when the FBI admitted that full-power 10mm Auto ammo was too much for some of its agents. The misogynists gleefully cite that fact when ridiculing women law enforcement officers, but did all the manly men continue demanding and using real 10mm loads? Hint: If they had, we wouldn’t see companies doing things like reducing bullet weights and velocities. The trend toward lower-powered 10mm ammo is one reason why I stopped even thinking about getting a 10mm P320, and it’s something at least one YouTuber regularly ridicules ammunition manufacturers for.

I could cite other examples such as what I’ve observed about the decline (if not total fall) of cartridges like the 40 Smith & Wesson and 357 SIG. We’ve even seen the introduction of completely new cartridges featuring lighter bullets and power levels plus the resurgence of rounds like the 380 Auto that were hardly so much as recognized, much less approved by manly men who influenced generations of shooters at one time.

And does all that matter? With one exception, for anyone who isn’t a law enforcement officer or soldier, no it doesn’t. For defensive use against two-legged threats in non-LE civilian situations, virtually any gun and ammunition will be sufficient. But the exception? Protection against dangerous animals.

Although there are no doubt exceptions to this as well, it’s been accepted virtually forever since guns were first used against dangerous game that projectile power is the key factor in effective defense. The vast majority of gun owners today will never find themselves in a situation in which they have to use a handgun to protect themselves against a dangerous animal, and if they do, it will most likely be against an animal that isn’t really very big or aggressive. Therefore even if someone chooses a gun and ammo with defense against an animal somewhat in mind, will the fact that they picked a load that had less recoil and muzzle blast and therefore was more pleasant to shoot at the range ever matter in the slightest? The answer is obviously: No.

If, however, we’re thinking that there is a reasonable chance we might have to defend ourselves against a large dangerous animal, should we be concerned about projectile power and penetration? I certainly believe so, and I personally would select my ammunition accordingly.

But regarding specifics, the ME of a 175 grain bullet at 1200 fps is 560 ft-lb and at 1290 it’s 647 ft-lb, or the loss at the lower velocity is only about 13%. And without researching the matter further, I wouldn’t be impressed with either load for large animal protection, especially with expanding bullets. Either one would be far better than a sharp stick, but I must believe there are better options.

Winchester's original 1290fps specification was out of a 5.5 inch barrel, which tells you that they were fudging the numbers to begin with.

IIRC, the pistol they used for chronographing the 10mm Silvertip was a Peters Stahl 1911.

There have been claims for many years that Winchester had reduced the velocity of the 10mm Silvertip. It seems they have finally gotten around to admitting it in their specifications of the cartridge.

And, yes, it seems the point of the 10mm is maximum pressure, maximum velocity. I, too, have no interest in downloaded 10mm.

Ballistic disconnect between claimed and actual performance is as old as ammo itself.
Most revolver loads for example, will show velocities from a “vented test barrel” frequently 6+ inches long, which is a far cry from what one can expect out of the typical 4” packing gun.
In some cases velocities obtained out of snubs can be so far below advertised it is comical.
Typical claimed velocities for 148 grain wadcutters ( still the preferred carry round for snubs based on a huge amount of research and testing by revolver savvy enthusiasts) are typically around 750 on paper, but in some types of ammo can be in the low 600’s out of a snub!

Yes, claimed versus actual velocities is another issue that has existed since ammo manufacturers started trying to influence shooters to purchase their wares. I still remember when handgun ammo manufacturers started mentioning “vented” barrels that were shorter than the longest S&W models’ tubes. I’m convinced that the introduction of chronographs at prices and features that allowed them to be used outside of dedicated labs forced ammo makers to start admitting to more realistic values. But even to this day it’s not uncommon for claimed figures to not specify barrel lengths, and which makes it impossible to know what we’re going to actually get from our guns.

Anyone who’s serious about velocities and power numbers owes it to himself to have his own chronograph. The capabilities of the top tier consumer grade units are beyond anything imaginable when I started becoming interested in ballistics, and the low end units today may not be perfectly accurate, but will show the difference between a claimed 1290 fps and 1200 fps. The technology is readily available and if it’s important to know, there’s no reason to not take advantage of it.