Does anyone ever watch the Paul Harrell channel on YouTube? He does some interesting stuff and has a pretty impressive resume.

Regardless, he just posted this 10 vs 40 video and the results shocked me a bit.

Essentially, there was no "power" difference between the two rounds ... with some types of ammo (including Federal JHP rounds).

LINK TO VIDEO



^ Velocities out of Glock 20 and Glock 22 - both 180 grain (screenshot from video)

10mm can be loaded hot and it's available commercially from a few boutique loaders that do so, but generally it's not that significantly different from .40, which already runs at maximum pressure all the time.

In the grand scale of things, 10mm, despite it's reputation, offers a little more than the standard service chamberings, but not a lot.

Loaded hot, the 10mm is an autoloader equivalent to a lower-end .41 magnum.

I've not been smitten by the perceived power advantages of the 10mm, often mentioned for 'woods carry'. With the popularity of the 40, that's enough for me.

I did chrony some 40 s&w rounds out of my 16" barreled CX-4. I don't have the data here, but a fair increase in velocity.

When I need to get serious I take one of my Ruger 45 Colts with stout hardcast reloads. The rest of the time a 40 does me fine for woods carry.

Then we can get into various bullet types to get the most out of whatever one's choice is. I recently talked to a Midwest bear guide who helped track a wounded black bear. His Glock 22 in 40 finished the job with a 20 yard shot to the neck.

quote:

Originally posted by Copefree:
...this 10 vs 40 video and the results shocked me a bit.

Essentially, there was no "power" difference between the two rounds ... with some types of ammo

Old news. Anyone who has shot both 10 and .40 ammo side by side sometime within the last 20 years has felt this.

IMO a number of people who own 10mm pistols don't want to shoot ammo much powerful than normal .40 ammo. The manufacturers provide soft 10mm loads to cater to this crowd.

Go NUCLEAR or shoot .40

quote:

Originally posted by Copefree:
Essentially, there was no "power" difference between the two rounds ... with some types of ammo (including Federal JHP rounds).

Blasphemer! Heretic!

Everybody knows the .40 S&W is a mere pimple on the ass of the 10mm, the latter of which produces the fastest of speeding bullets, is more powerful than a locomotive and can level tall buildings in a single shot, the former of which is no more effective than that Eurotrash nancy-boy little 9mm toy round.

Take your foul lies elsewhere, unbeliever!

Btw: Your "summary" is a bit misleading. His bottom-line message is "If you're not buying the right ammo, you're paying for 10mm, but getting no more than .40 S&W performance."

quote:

Originally posted by fritz:
The manufacturers provide soft 10mm loads to cater to this crowd.

Exactly what happened with the 357 S&W “Magnum” after the introduction of small, lightweight revolvers chambered for that cartridge: It’s now possible to find versions that are not nearly as powerful as typical loads of the 1960-1980s, not to mention the original rounds that were intended for use only in S&W N-frame revolvers. The latter were never as powerful as what was claimed by the manufacturers at the time, but they were not something any sane person would want to fire from a scandium alloy J-frame.

And all that’s not new. During the 1970s at least one company (Remington, IIRC) offered a reduced power load for the 44 Remington Magnum. I never became completely familiar with it, but as I remember it was equivalent to a warmish 44 Special in 44 Magnum cases. Plus of course the same thing happened with the 10mm Auto. The original Norma load soon fell out of favor, especially after the FBI found that such loads were not suitable—or necessary—for law enforcement

As always, many shooters like to believe they’re dealing with the hot stuff, but don’t really like shooting it—or its effects on their guns.

When I looked at taking up the 10mm, I looked hard at the history of the cartridge and it seemed obvious that the original Norma spec load was no longer popular.
I use Underwood for carry ammo since it replicates the old Norma load. That's what the gun is designed for.
My practice ammo is whatever I can get cheap.

Cheapest/best 10mm ammo I've found for practice is Sellier & Bellot 180gr fmj at $.28/rd. It chronographs at around 1160fps which is a bit more energetic than most offerings. I only carry my 10mm pistol (Glock 40) when I'm living in the Upper Peninsula forest. Like YoopeerSigs, I've chosen Underwood for carry ammo.

That is why I buy Remington for target practice. It is loaded hotter than the rest.

I use Sig V-crown in my G29. It's good enough, not too expensive, and plentiful.

quote:

Originally posted by ohioup:
Cheapest/best 10mm ammo I've found for practice is Sellier & Bellot 180gr fmj at $.28/rd. It chronographs at around 1160fps which is a bit more energetic than most offerings. I only carry my 10mm pistol (Glock 40) when I'm living in the Upper Peninsula forest. Like YoopeerSigs, I've chosen Underwood for carry ammo.

I agree, S&B is a great practice round at an excellent price for 10mm.

The SIG 10mm, Underwood and Buffalo Bore rounds are the real deal, DoubleTap isn't too bad either.

I also wish I could find the 175 gr Winchester Silvertips, another pretty good round.

For what it's worth 10mm got watered down back when it was shooting guns apart.

I like .40 and I am not a 10mm guy but REAL 10mm loaded like it should be is like .40 Magnum if you will. Real 10mm ranks up there with the good magumn revolver rounds.

At the end of the day though.......they are all pistol rounds and there is only so much you can do.

Ohh and Paul has a GREAT channel but "you be the judge". Have watched his stuff for quite some time. He is like the anti James Yaeger.

My own unscientific test indicated differently.

This was the result of shooting a car with .40 S&W:


This was shot with a 10mm:

So you were using watered down 10mm?? I mean the frame is clearly left intact.

quote:

Originally posted by bobtheelf:
My own unscientific test indicated differently.

This was the result of shooting a car with .40 S&W:


This was shot with a 10mm:

This got me laughing... and cslinger's comment was just icing on the cake.

You've gotta admit that the guy with the comparison was using fairly light 10mm in comparison to the .40. Had he been comparing SIG's Elite performance ammo, or even some of the mid-range offerings by Underwood, there would have been a fairly significant difference in power.

Certainly, at the end of the day, shooting in a hunting or defensive situation is more about shot placement than ballistics. I'd say that a mid range 10mm such as the SIG Elite performance ammo offers pretty good punch for the money, and could give you a much better margin of error when being compared to .40.

You want 10MM Performance ammo? Got to Underwood Ammo.
You want .40 S&W performance (Proven since 1992) Get the Remington Golden Saber, Bonded (Now known as the Black Belt).
Get the 180 grain bullet, as it has the greatest expansion of any of the .40 caliber loads (Expands to .80 +)

For proof of pudding, look at Lucky Gunner Labs.

you want expansion get a 50GI with the CHP bullets. Over 1" diameter expansion from a 230grn bullet.

quote:

Originally posted by cslinger:
REAL 10mm loaded like it should be is like .40 Magnum if you will.

At my local club, I was the first shooting 10mm in club matches. Picking up brass, one woman said it was "super", because she was used to seeing .38 super brass as just a longer 9mm case. She had never seen 10mm before. When I mentioned it was 10mm, she said, to her, anything longer was "super", so now we call it .40 super.