A case for the 10mm?

mdauben said:
I think this is a gross oversimplification and very misleading. Sure, a shotgun or mid-large caliber rifle is going to be much more powerful than any handgun, and much more likely to take down an opponent, but the fact is that handguns regularly "stop" opponents, whether through death or incapacitation. Sure they are less effective than a rifle or shotgun in that regard it true, saying they are ineffective in that regard is just not true.
Click to expand...

Much more eloquent than the response I had in mind. Thanks.:thumbup:
 
Okay...I'll restate my premise for clarification: All handguns are generally ineffective in stopping motivated critters. I didn't mean to imply it won't stop them just it is not as effective as rifle/shotguns (thought I said that & that is exactly what you just stated)

I realize you guys all have much more experience and training than I do...I'm only stating what I know from my experiences & training. I should realize I'm out of my league here and will relegate back to lurking which is where I belong anyway...
 
Last edited:
I have 5 Glock 20's and 2 Glock 29's. I cleaned a department out of their supply of 10mm Winchester Silvertips after his department dropped the HK MP5/10 as a service weapon. It's basically all I shoot through the gun.

I have chronographed loads with the 6" hunting barrel as opposed to the standard barrel, and there is basically no velocity difference with this load.

I'm a big guy, 6'4" and 300 pounds. I have no problem with the size of the gun or the recoil. I don't feel underarmed in any situation on the contiguous 48 states, but I do subscribe to the notion that a handgun is only good for fighting to your long gun, and gear up accordingly.

For Alaska, I use the .500 S&W magnum and a Serbu Super Shorty as side arms. For anyplace else, the G20 will do just fine IMHO.
 
Simon520 said:
....I have chronographed loads with the 6" hunting barrel as opposed to the standard barrel, and there is basically no velocity difference with this load....
Click to expand...

I'm curious about your results. I don't have experience with the longer barrel, but ASHTXSNIPER posted (#89) here about getting 120 to 150 fps increase with the longer barrel. That yields a significant increase in energy, which would be the point of the longer barrel.

As to the guy who posted that handguns are pretty much useless for shooting things with -- they may not be optimum, but I WILL carry my G20 hiking with me, whereas I won't have a rifle or shotgun.

To say they're useless is ignoring reality. How do you explain away the posters on this very thread who have used handguns to kill critters with? Or the guys who use handguns all the time for hunting?

How about this story about Doug Koenig, where he shot a black bear with a .44 Mag as it was running away, and killed it? Was that a fluke?
 
Okay...wait a minute... go back and re-read what I said, not what you read "into it". I never said at any time a handgun is "useless" and I never once said they are "useless for shooting things with" NEVER. I said "they are ineffective" and that is synonymous with your own choice of words "they may not be opimum." So my friend we are concurring on the same point and principle!

Ineffective doesn't mean it won't work and it doesn't mean it is useless either. Ineffective means it works but not as effective as other choices and/or one should not set unrealistic expectations as to its effectiveness (a quick clean kill). A 10mm over a .40 is not going to produce such a significant increase to make is "more effective." It is a better choice, no doubt, but let's not imply it will be substantial or more effective. Keep in mind (and in context here) the original poster indicated he was considering a GLOCK in 10mm similar to the GLOCK 35 .40 he is carrying now. So he isn't going to be able to use high end hunting cartridges loaded for "bear" and he isn't going to have a longer barrel. We're talking about the difference between a service grade semi-auto in 10 vs a service grade semi-auto in .40.

I at no time implied they are useless as I carry two handguns on my person every single day and work with them on a professional basis. So for me to say they are useless would be counter to how I make my living and livelihood.

Keep in mind: the original posted ask about wanting more stopping power relative to other handgun calibers. I only stated the difference between a 40 and a 10mm is different but insignificant. A couple FPS is insignificant! A 1000 FPS plus increase would make a difference (plus better ballistic coefficient of the missile) would make a huge difference.

I also stated a handgun performs like a large bore, lower velocity, cartridge like the .45 2 1/10" for example. I never once said they are useless as that cartridge was instrumental in almost exterminating the American Bison. It would be hypocritical of me to take a pot shot at that technology as I've invested a king's ransom in in this technology.

Counter my claims and challenge my assumptions all you want as good debate brings to light the truth...but don't misquote me and state it as fact.
 
Last edited:
Barrel length is a good guide line but I have seen 4 inch barrels develop more speed the 6 inch and vice versa. Every gun has it's own traits and the kind of powder in the load can very the speed more than barrel length.

You really need to chronograph your load if you want to know where it really is.In the field my 10 MM S&W Revolver with 6 1/2 inch barrel and my Ruger GP-100 with 6 inch barre are almost twins when shooting 180 grain bullets in both. I never loaded them both with 200 grain bullets. However I had a Dan Wesson 357 Maximum revolver that really kicked it up a notch. I had the Full size Glock 10mm as well. Nice gun.
 
Quirt said:
Okay...wait a minute... go back and re-read what I said, not what you read "into it".
Click to expand...
While I agree that after your explination we are more or less in agreement, I didn't read anything into what you said.

Ineffective doesn't mean it won't work and it doesn't mean it is useless either.
Click to expand...
Uh, yeah, that's exactly what it means. According to the dictionary, ineffective means "not producing an intended effect". So, it does not mean less effective, it means not effective. I understand what you mean now, but your misuse of the word "ineffective" clouded your argument, not my reading anything "into" what you said. ;)

A 10mm over a .40 is not going to produce such a significant increase to make is "more effective."
Click to expand...
Sure it is. Heavier bullet, higher velocity, of course its going to be more effective.

Keep in mind: the original posted ask about wanting more stopping power relative to other handgun calibers. I only stated the difference between a 40 and a 10mm is different but insignificant. A couple FPS is insignificant!
Click to expand...
Yes, a few FPS would be insignificant, and typical 10mm factory ammo is not that much more powerful than .40. However, full-power 10mm load throw the same weight bullets 200-300 FPS faster than a .40 in the same length barrel, and in handguns that is enough to make a difference. The 10mm can also throw heavier bullets than the .40 while still attaining enough velocity to reliably expand. :cool:
 
Last edited:
Quirt said:
Okay...wait a minute... go back and re-read what I said, not what you read "into it". I never said at any time a handgun is "useless" and I never once said they are "useless for shooting things with" NEVER. I said "they are ineffective" and that is synonymous with your own choice of words "they may not be opimum." So my friend we are concurring on the same point and principle!

Ineffective doesn't mean it won't work and it doesn't mean it is useless either. Ineffective means it works but not as effective as other choices and/or one should not set unrealistic expectations as to its effectiveness (a quick clean kill). A 10mm over a .40 is not going to produce such a significant increase to make is "more effective." It is a better choice, no doubt, but let's not imply it will be substantial or more effective. Keep in mind (and in context here) the original poster indicated he was considering a GLOCK in 10mm similar to the GLOCK 35 .40 he is carrying now. So he isn't going to be able to use high end hunting cartridges loaded for "bear" and he isn't going to have a longer barrel. We're talking about the difference between a service grade semi-auto in 10 vs a service grade semi-auto in .40.

I at no time implied they are useless as I carry two handguns on my person every single day and work with them on a professional basis. So for me to say they are useless would be counter to how I make my living and livelihood.

Keep in mind: the original posted ask about wanting more stopping power relative to other handgun calibers. I only stated the difference between a 40 and a 10mm is different but insignificant. A couple FPS is insignificant! A 1000 FPS plus increase would make a difference (plus better ballistic coefficient of the missile) would make a huge difference.

I also stated a handgun performs like a large bore, lower velocity, cartridge like the .45 2 1/10" for example. I never once said they are useless as that cartridge was instrumental in almost exterminating the American Bison. It would be hypocritical of me to take a pot shot at that technology as I've invested a king's ransom in in this technology.

Counter my claims and challenge my assumptions all you want as good debate brings to light the truth...but don't misquote me and state it as fact.
Click to expand...

Misquote you and state it as fact? Show me where you leaped to that conclusion. Your logic is all over the place here. You say handguns are ineffective, but "may be useful"? How does that work? Ineffective means it doesn't have the desired effect. If I desire my handgun to kill an animal, and it does that, it durn sure was effective! Not .375 H&H effective, but as I stated, I WILL have my handgun with me, not a large rifle.

I'm not hunting, so you saying my 10mm is not as effective as a rifle is meaningless to me. Sure, I'd much rather have a 45/70 to take on a bear, but that's not reality.

To say that the 10mm is no more effective than a .40 is silly, too. Let's see: for the typical rounds carried, it has more energy, more impact, and has been proven to kill medium sized animals. That's exactly what I'm looking for it to do.

The potency of the 10mm depends on what round you use. If you look up a .40 cal ballistics here, you can get from 265 lb-ft of energy all the way up to over 600 lb-ft. From the same site, 10mm gives as little as 361 lb-ft of energy all the way up to 649 lb-ft. Places like Buffalo Bore offer even hotter loadings, such as a 180 grain JHP with 728 lb-ft of energy. This is The point of the .40 cal is to give a softer shooting, easier to handle round, which is not going to be as effective against medium sized game as the hotter 10mm rounds.

You made some pretty strong statements about handguns being ineffective, got called on it, said you'd retreat because you weren't qualified to state a strong opinion, then came back and stated that opinion again, anyway. I don't need to win an argument with you -- I don't really care that much. I am curious as to why you make such strong statements on the subject. As has been hashed and re-hashed many times, the idea of using a handgun to fight your way to your rifle is sort of urban legend. I carry a powerful, high capacity handgun as a tool to deal with predators, not a stopgap to get home to my rifle or shotgun.

Who knows -- maybe we're trying to say something similar, and just having trouble understanding each other.
 
.357 sig vs .357 mag effectiveness?
The .357 mag effectiveness and reputation also comes from the shape and profile of the bullet. The mags' nose is wider than the .357 Sig, so more tissue disruption will occur regardless of whether or not the hollow point will expand. The .357 Sig effectiveness relies on whether or not the hollowpoint will expand.
Handgun hollowpoints reliably expand on people, not on large, tough animals. Rifle hunting rounds reliably expand on large tough animals because they have enough velocity to do so.
Wild hogs are not LARGE dangerous game, but they should be considered so. They have effective "armor" covering their vitals, thick sculls (when they are facing you, this is why you can take hogs with a .22 from the side of the head). Handgun hollowpoints will have a hard time on some hogs gristle (how thick is the gristle, does the hollowpoint have enough velocity left to cause significant tissue disruption?).
Tissue disruption? It's not the be all end all...but it does have it's place. Shutting down the CNS doesn't require a direct hit. The CNS doesn't work by sending jolts of electricity to all parts of the body. It works by chemical cation and anion exchange that are held and excreted in the body then the electrical signal is sent along the nerves to another junction where the chemical exchange happens again. Tissue disruption near, say, one of the hearts nerve centers or the spine can cause temporary paralysis without the bullet actually touching the organ itself by moving those crucial chemicals around.
Take some .380ACP round nose and some .380ACP semi-wadcutter ammo and go cantaloupe hunting. The results are interesting.
One thing I like about the 10mm is that the FMJ loads are semi-wadcutter. It has enough weight to give you the penetration, it's been proven on hogs. Also, not mentioned previously, it's faster velocity means you get a flatter trajectory, always a good thing.
I think what most people here agree on is the 10mm is a compromise cartridge. Not too hot for people but the .40 will give you better control, and not the best stopper for wild hogs ( a .44 or .454 would do better) but it will give enough penetration to hit any vitals on a hog that you want hit (but it's up to you to hit em:). I hate to tie this into blades but this is the "large knife vs. small knife for survival" argument all over again. The difference is, you can get the effect and ability of a "bigger knife" without increasing significantly the size and weight of your "blade" by going with the 10mm.
 
Last edited:
For current Glock users , What is now available from Glock in 10 mm? Are they still building the 20? I had mine about 20 years ago.
 
Thanks. The 20 is the only Glock that I ever had a malfuction with. I had a stove pipe. I called Glock and the told me to fire a few more Mags through it and if it happened again, send it back. It never happened again. He figured there was just a little burr somewhere and that must have been the case. It was the most accurate of all the Glocks that I owned which is all of the full size Glocks. The Baby ones just don't fit but the compact ones like the 19 were fine.
 
Apples = Apples and Oranges = Oranges. Apples therefore are not equal to Oranges so don't compare them.

Guys, keep this related to the original post. It is veering off course. Don't make me get out the traffic gloves again to put it back on track or stop it completely.
 
udtjim-There is the Glock model 20 and 29 in 10mm. I've seen the 20sf offered for sale,but nothing on the Glock site about it. I was thinking since I had a 21sf I might invest in a few parts and have a conversion kit for 10mm. ;)
 
Thanks. It is a good cartridge for the outdoors man who prefer auto's I should have kept one of the 10mm revolvers.:grumpy:
 
I've carried the G20 many times, although it does seem to be just a bit too large for my hands as well.

Unfortunately they make an excellent +5 magazine extension for them, leaving me with the option of sending it in for a grip reduction if I really want to feel comfortable with it.

Literally 3 days ago I picked up a Kimber 10mm, and promptly placed an order for some 9 round Chip McCormick magazines.

I plan on using Double Tap 230gr Wide Flat Nose Gas Check Hardcast for the woods, and 180gr Speer Gold Dots for urban use.

For big heavy animals penetration is key.
 
Fieldtestornothing said:
I use and like both .40 and .357 but I wish I could have a bridge for both power and capacity. My question is about the 10mm glock. Does anyone have experience with the cartridge? I plan on reloading on a dillon 1050 so ammo shouldn't be a huge concern.
Click to expand...


For some reason, factory loads in 10mm are on the feeble side. I think that's a big reason why the 10mm doesn't get the respect it should as a high-powered handgun cartridge. People look at the factory ammo numbers and figure it's just not that big a step up from the .40.

Since you handload, you'll be able to get the horsepower the cartridge was originally designed to have. Colonel Cooper wasn't fooling around when he worked up the 10mm and Bren Ten!

Stay sharp,
desmobob
 
In its best loads the 10mm is about equal to the 19th century 38/40 Winchester black powder loads out of a rifle. At the time, this was thought of as a very good deer/black bear size game round. Today, most would call it next to useless. I carry a Glock 20 on a regular basis but I know it is going to require a lot of luck and some good shooting on my part to stop anything larger than a coyote.
 
Sidehill Gouger said:
In its best loads the 10mm is about equal to the 19th century 38/40 Winchester black powder loads out of a rifle. At the time, this was thought of as a very good deer/black bear size game round. Today, most would call it next to useless. I carry a Glock 20 on a regular basis but I know it is going to require a lot of luck and some good shooting on my part to stop anything larger than a coyote.
Click to expand...

So, you're saying a 10mm isn't useful for dropping something that weighs more than 40lbs.?
 
My point is if you wouldn't hunt it with a 38/40 then you probably shouldn't count on a 10mm. How many bear hunters hit the woods with a 73 Winchester anymore? But that doesn't change the fact people used to think they were adequately armed with one in 38/40 for all sorts of big game.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top