10mm for self defense

[Dan-O]

Maybe I should have clarified. If you have to ask......it’s too much for sd.

[TruthTellers]

Originally Posted by lll Otto lll

Yep. Too much muzzle energy for most shooters, especially newbies. I guess that's why factory loads are so anemic now.

The reason a lot of the factory ammo for 10mm is loaded weak is the bullets used are meant for .40 S&W velocities, not the velocities 10mm can achieve.

Only exception to that, I believe, is the 200 grain loadings. No ammo company makes a 200 grain .400" JHP bullet meant to be shot from .40 S&W, they know it's a 10mm specific bullet and design it for the higher velocities.

[TruthTellers]

Originally Posted by Forte S+W

One thing I'd like to know is that since apparently energy foot-pounds don't matter anymore, why choose 9mm Luger over .380 ACP? I mean, it's the same diameter, modern JHPs such as Hornady XTPs will penetrate to at least 12" in IWBA Spec Ballistics Gel with full expansion, they can be fit into smaller, lighter, more easily concealed firearms, and has softer recoil in firearms of similar size. Just about the only tangible benefit 9mm Luger has over .380 ACP these days is energy, but apparently that doesn't matter at all, or is it merely that 9mm Luger is right at the threshold in which energy foot-pounds conveniently cease to make a difference?

And if bullet weight is more important, then shouldn't a 158gr .38 Special +P be superior to 9mm Luger?

Pretty much what Wild Cat said, the .380 suffers badly from poor penetration. A more appropriate comparison would be why choose .357 over .38?

Looking at Lucky Gunner again, using a 4" barrel, the Federal 130 grain HST Micro gets 854 fps, .71" expanded diameter, penetration to 14.1 inches. Works out to 211 ft/lbs. For .357 Magnum, again from a 4" barrel, the Federal Hydra Shock 130 grain gets 1407 fps, .67" expanded diameter, and penetrates to 13.3 inches, which comes to 572 ft/lbs.

Same weight projectile, nearly identical penetration and expansion, but using Wild Cat's thesis that energy foot pounds doesn't matter, that means the .38 load is better because it penetrated a bit over three quarters of an inch more and expanded .04 inches more.

[wild cat mccane]

All 357 loads are not equal. A Seirra bullet (garbage/junk) in 357 vs a Gold Dot 38 loaded by Speer? I would take the Gold Dot. No question. In that case of that luckygunner 38 vs 357? Yep, the 38 performed better. Enough to say 38 is always better? na. As the luckygunner 38/357 article states, the performance gains out of some 357 might not be worth it in the end. Their words. Somewhere out there on Youtube, there is Federal plant walk through. A Federal employee is asked about the different caliber results. Straight up, the dude says we care more about expansion AND penetration than the caliber. Welp, Federal makes more ammo than any manufacturer in the world (Federal makes Lake City ammo for the DOD).

If i were buying 10mm self defense rounds? I would buy Speer Gold Dot 200gr and know I'm getting the exact same results as Speer .40 Gold Dot 180gr results. Which are great. Good expansion. Good penetration. All you need. But...then what was the point of 10mm? And since 9mm HST outperformed 40 HST, what was the point of 40? 45 sized gun with 40 level results for self defense. Meh.

10mm and 357 suffer from extreme internet hype. Just because it is 357, doesn't make it better. More than likely, pick up a 10mm commercial load and you're getting 40 level results. Can you go harder in 10mm? Oh sure! what for though?

You're seeing it here. The higher lbs was mentioned. Wild cat, what/why isn't lbs important? Well, back to you, what happened to all the lbs on the 10mm that only went 14" in gel was asked? Simple. The expansion ate it up. And it cost you 4" of penetration that HST 9mm didn't eat from expansion. All expanding rounds have the crushing lbs eaten by expansion. 380 all the way to mega huge rounds. That's why hollow point is different than non expanding FMJ.


For hunting? I don't even think 10mm is that special either. FMJ goes almost the same depth 9mm, 40, 10mm (from 24-34" inches, all rounds within that range). There are some pretty fast 9mm XTP loads. Look at those compared to 40...kinda similar. Now what does a few fps more in 10mm do? 357 and 10mm are not in rifle feet per second ranges. It isn't until you go rifle speed that rifle rounds do their rifle level things Recall, I mentioned Federal 9mm 115gr+P+ at 1,300fps. That is faster than all (?) 357 commercial speeds. Anyone care about that round anymore? Nope. Usually cheap.

For SD? Hollow points are designed to do specific things. XTP goes deep by not expanding as much as Gold Dot/HST/Winchester Ranger T. Gold Dot expands. Make a Gold Dot go SUPER fast? Blossoms it up super fast, slowing it down since the area increased in the front, penetration gets weighted down by the new area. Hollow points can't open past what they are designed to open up.

If you rip a hollow point too fast, it breaks up. That makes the hollow point not expand the full travel, leaves behind weight, and slows the weight that it maintains. Does anyone thing frangible rounds are good for handgun hunting? No. But rip an old style Gold Dot going 1300fps from a 10mm from BB/Underwood/Double Tap and everyone thinks it is amazing. It might not be. A 9mm at 9mm fps Gold Dot might have performed equally at doing what the 10mm results on target do.

[COSteve]

For daily CCW, I prefer my G23 with 13+1 rds of 180grn 40s&w handloads using Speer Gold Dots and Speer brass at 1,075fps with 462ft/lbs of ME (so if something goes down it looks like Speer factory ammo). For the woods, my custom 16 year old G20L (6" slide like the G40) with 17+1 rds of 200grn hardcast handloads pushing 1,350fps with 809ft/lbs of ME are plenty good enough for anything I'll see in the Rockies. Better still, my G20L with 18rds on board is actually lighter and less bulky than a comparable 6" barreled S&W 686 with only 6rds of 180grn .357mag on board.

As I handload, I don't even own a 9mm because my quality handloads are larger, faster, and harder hitting than any commercial 9mm+P stuff and they are about 1/2 to 1/3 the price of even bargain priced ammo. And all the crap about snappy 40s is hype. My larger, heavier, harder hitting 180grn Gold Dot 40s&w handloads in my G23 aren't as snappy as 147grn Federal HST 9mm+P loads (1050fps with only 360ft/lbs of ME) in a G19. Same Glock platform just different caliber so the comparison is perfectly valid.

People forget that standard 9mm is the same pressure as 40s&w but the 9mm+P ammo is a real high pressure round with a SAAMI spec of 38,500psi. That compares to the 40s&w SAAMI spec of 35,000psi and in fact 9mm+P is loaded to a higher pressure than the 10mm at 37,500psi. That high pressure with the 147grn bullets gives the +P loads a real snap that everyone forgets about. Those are real world facts, not interweb fantasy.

[wild cat mccane]

And on hard cast. The boutique round makers really live off the hard cast and flat meplat in handgun rounds myth.

Kel Tec forum did some great testing 15 years ago with hard cast 380 vs FMJ. Which one broke up on bone?

FMJ deforms but keeps moving. Hard cast can shatter and stop pretty quick. The copper surrounding FMJ can be harder than most blends of hard cast. Then you just made frangible hard cast.

Who here thinks frangible rounds are good?

See. It's not as simple as 10mm is just better. In sd or hunting, it doesn't do one role better than another round. Versatility? Well, they all are versatile. It's the bullet and round you select that changes the role.

I don't dislike 10mm. It's pretty darn cool. I do dislike 357 and 10mm myths. And there are a lot of them for these rounds. Most myths are from way back when bullet designs were actually pretty junk. That's changed.

[RoyceP]

I think if you have a choice and are willing to practice anything bigger in diameter is going to be a better answer than anything smaller in diameter. Some folks might be slight of build or old and weak. Those folks are better served by a smaller caliber weapon.

To some extent velocity is able to make up for lack of diameter. See "Major Power factors" for example.

[paknheat]

I’ve been carrying a G-29 since
2005. Use the 155 gn Hornady XTP bullet & Power Pistol.

Don’t see any reason to change.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[Iron bottom]

I had forgotten that the great 9mm does not have the power to be carried while hunting.

I think some of the local hunters are pushing to allow the 9mm to be used for harvesting small squirrels under 4" long. What will they think of next?

[agtman]

I think some of the local hunters are pushing to allow the 9mm to be used for harvesting small squirrels under 4" long. What will they think of next?

The Wild Kitty McCane would be pleased, since it's a Mini-meter, not the Best-meter.

[Hal]

Kel Tec forum did some great testing 15 years ago with hard cast 380 vs FMJ. Which one broke up on bone?

FMJ deforms but keeps moving. Hard cast can shatter and stop pretty quick. The copper surrounding FMJ can be harder than most blends of hard cast. Then you just made frangible hard cast.

Sounds a lot more like someone botched a lot of cast lead bullets.

[Webleymkv]

Regardless of which yardstick you prefer to measure terminal ballistics with, 10mm is always going to be superior to 9mm. You want premium bullets? 10mm comes in Speer Gold Dot, Federal HST, Hornady CriticalDuty, and Winchester Defender. Even with older bullets like Hornady XTP's or Winchester Silvertips, the extra horsepower available can compensate for what may be lacking in bullet design.

The fact of the matter is that 10mm has the capability to drive a larger-diameter, much heavier bullet at equal or higher velocity than 9mm. Given the ballistics you have to work with, it's not hard to make a bullet that will expand larger, penetrate deeper, or both.

One of the advantages of powerful cartridges like .357 Magnum and 10mm is that they don't need premium bullets to perform well. Generally speaking, if you can drive a heavy enough bullet fast enough, you can make it do what you want it to do. If something like, oh I don't know, a sudden panic buy of guns and ammo we're to happen and I had to use whatever JHP ammo happened to be available, I'd feel better with something like 10mm that will still perform well even if loaded with dated, less-than-premium bullets. At the end of the day you can safely and easily download 10mm (ammo companies have done it for years) but you can only hotrod 9mm so far.

[rodfac]

I was considering the .45 ACP in a 1911 but I want something that’s going to hold more than 8+1 rounds.

A good & better choice, IMHO, Doc.

Good SD loads available over the counter that'll do the job without paying boutique bullet prices, with good practice ammo available generally. The .45 has been panned by many that know, with about all the recoil the average handgunner can handle and still get good 2nd shot placement.

All that, and an absolute menagerie of quality guns available to choose from: DA/SA, SAO, DAO...plastic, steel or alloy frames...you pic, then train with your choice. It's been a reliable choice for 109 years and counting. Rod

[JERRYS.]

a lot of the detractors who complain about the 10mm being too much of this or that for self defense for some reason are not tossing those same complaints in when the .357 is mentioned.

[wild cat mccane]

Oh. Absolutely. I will also throw 357 under the bus. 9mm HST performs better than most 357 commercial loads without the horrible recoil. Even Luckygunner straight up says 357 is probably never worth the cost of recoil given performance differences of 357. As someone else brought up, there are 38 special loads doing better penetration and expansion than 357. For defense. As the topic states defense. But I also mentioned hunting too.

Recall, I mentioned a commercial Federal 9mm load is faster than almost all commercial 357. Federal 115gr +P+ is not really even an okay round by the standards of today.

In boutique loads from BB, UW, and DT, they are using inferior bullets but plunking faster fps behind them. Big deal. What you tend to see in tests of BB, UW, and DT is ACTUALLY less depth because of the increased FPS. When it isn't less depth, the expansion isn't as impressive as HST 9mm. Recall, I am saying and tests are showing HST is going slower with huge depth AND expansion. Old tech requires high FPS to get big expansion. High FPS in this old technology blooms the hollowpoint too large too fast. Less expansion.

Even XTP I mentioned as a hunting round? When you look at the results, the pedals are almost completely flat against the round when it goes TOO fast/deep. Why? It's because BB, UW, and DT are sending the bullet so fast the expansion hits past what is desired and it keeps going. So okay for hunting, bad for self defense. On Gold Dot? Jury is out if those bullets aren't also breaking up, but for sure they are flattening too fast.

Are there any 357 loads opening .7" and going 18" on average? nope.

HST 9mm does BETTER without high FPS.

That said, I love 357 in a revolver at the range.

But this is about 10mm. You are seeing people staying on topic of 10mm and pointing out 10mm isn't up to the internet hype for self defense.


Recall, no one is saying 10mm or 357 doesn't work. What I'm saying is the 9mm in the same shot will have the same results and have done a better job doing it. Data shows that is true. AND it is a smaller gun. AND it is less FPS. AND it is less recoil. AND it has more rounds. AND it is usually 25 bucks for 50 rounds.

The only thing it has going for it is higher FPS and weight. Those aren't showing up as advantages not matched in 9mm for self defense or hunting using modern hollow points.

[Webleymkv]

It seems to me that a lot of seemingly miraculous performance is being touted about certain bullets and that such performance may be exaggerated. Because Federal HST's keep being mentioned, let's look at what Federal says they'll do (if anyone had reason to exaggerate, it would be the manufacturer).

Bare Gel
P9HST1 (9mm 124 gr standard pressure)
Velocity 1158 fps
Penetration 11.00 in
Expansion .880 in
Retained weight 124.0 gr

P9HST2 (9mm 147 gr standard pressure)
Velocity 1004 fps
Penetration 12.0 in
Expansion .850 in
Retained weight 147.0 gr

P9HST3 (9mm 124 gr +P)
Velocity 1260
Penetration 10.0 in
Expansion .870 in
Retained weight 124.0 gr

Wow, even with a "state of the art" bullet like HST we're getting what the FBI would deem inadequate or barely adequate penetration. Let's look at heavy clothing

Heavy Clothing
P9HST1
Velocity 1192 fps
Penetration 12.0 in
Expansion .590 in
Retained weight 124.0 gr

P9HST2
Velocity 1023 fps
Penetration 12.50 in
Expansion .690 in
Retained weight 147.0 gr

P9HST3
Velocity 1265 fps
Penetration 13.0 in
Expansion .610 in
Retained weight 114.0 gr

So in heavy clothing penetration was better, but still on the shallow side of adequate and short of the 14-16" the FBI says is optimal. Also, the improved penetration came at the expense of significantly reduced expansion as compared to bare gel.

So, from what I can see while 9mm HST's certainly aren't bad bullets, they're not magic. No amount of bullet design can escape physics. All else held equal you can make a bigger, heavier, faster bullet expand more, penetrate deeper, or both easier that you can a smaller, lighter, slower one.

[Webleymkv]

So then, where are all these grandiose ideas about magician 9mm HST's coming from? I think the answer is the widespread use of Clear Ballistics gelatin in tests like Lucky Gunner's. Simply put, Clear Ballistics gel isn't the same as real 10% ordinance gelatin and cannot be counted on to give the same results.

The reason this is a problem is because 10% ordinance gel, while generally accepted as the best approximator to living tissue available, is still an imperfect medium for predicting bullet performance. Living organisms are not uniform in side shape and composition like ballistics gel nor are they homgenous. When the best you have is already imperfect (some might even argue fundamentally flawed), deviating even further from it can't be expected to give particularly useful data.

Now some will argue that Clear Ballistics gel is still useful because, even though it doesn't behave like real ordinance gel, it's still a consistent and repeatable means of testing bullets against each other. While it may be consistent and repeatable, the results and comparisons can't be extrapolated to other materials. Water jugs, wetpack, and pine boards are consistent and repeatable too, but unless I'm planning on shooting watercoolers, damp bookcases, or Pinocchio the data they provide is of little usefulness.

[agtman]

So much hurt ...

[wild cat mccane]

Amazing stuff..

https://le.vistaoutdoor.com/wound_ba...omparison.aspx

[TunnelRat]

When I look at those results I like the Gold Dots better, YMMV (and I say this as someone carrying HST).


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Forte S+W]

When exactly did Lucky Gunner and Vista Outdoors become definitive authorities on ballistics performance?

Regardless, if I've learned one thing of value from this thread, it's just how unreliable Ballistics Gel really is as a commercial testing medium. Honestly, I used to put down Paul Harrel for his "meat targets" which he uses over Ballistics Gel because it isn't as scientific, but at least the results are easier for the lay person to understand, as opposed to Ballistics Gel which despite being a more consistent testing medium for attaining repeatable results, is taken far too seriously by the lay person who apparently doesn't understand that it is by no means a 1:1 representation of the sort of performance one can expect within a living vertebrate organism, and thus draw all sorts of wild conclusions about how little of a difference more powerful ammo makes.
Also, maybe the problem with Ballistics Gel is that the results of it are too consistent, too repeatable, and therefore completely unrealistic when it comes to the sort of results which often occur as a result of shooting actual organisms with bones inside of them.

I don't think we'd see this level of absurdity if we were comparing the results of a testing medium with bones in it. Obviously shattered bones tend to be a bit more debilitating than bones with neat little holes punched in them, and bullets which are actually capable of consistently smashing straight through bone tend to stay on target and penetrate better than those which may glance off of bone or otherwise veer off course afterwards.

[TunnelRat]

Originally Posted by Forte S+W

When exactly did Lucky Gunner and Vista Outdoors become definitive authorities on ballistics performance?

Regardless, if I've learned one thing of value from this thread, it's just how unreliable Ballistics Gel really is as a commercial testing medium. Honestly, I used to put down Paul Harrel for his "meat targets" which he uses over Ballistics Gel because it isn't as scientific, but at least the results are easier for the lay person to understand, as opposed to Ballistics Gel which despite being a more consistent testing medium for attaining repeatable results, is taken far too seriously by the lay person who apparently doesn't understand that it is by no means a 1:1 representation of the sort of performance one can expect within a living vertebrate organism, and thus draw all sorts of wild conclusions about how little of a difference more powerful ammo makes.
Also, maybe the problem with Ballistics Gel is that the results of it are too consistent, too repeatable, and therefore completely unrealistic when it comes to the sort of results which often occur as a result of shooting actual organisms with bones inside of them.

I don't think we'd see this level of absurdity if we were comparing the results of a testing medium with bones in it. Obviously shattered bones tend to be a bit more debilitating than bones with neat little holes punched in them, and bullets which are actually capable of consistently smashing straight through bone tend to stay on target and penetrate better than those which may glance off of bone or otherwise veer off course afterwards.

I’ll go out on a limb and trust the makers of the ammunition (Vista Outdoors) more than Paul Harrel and his meat targets. YMMV.

I don’t know if anyone here really thinks ballistics gel is 1:1 with a real person. I haven’t seen anyone make that claim. To me the question is if there is some advantage of one cartridge over another I would expect that difference to show in the results in the ballistics gel.

Yes ballistics gel isn’t the same as bone. But the entire human body isn’t as resistant as ballistics gel either. There are plenty of softer tissues and essentially cavities. Yes the human body involves much more randomness. The point of this kind of testing is one variable at a time, in this case the cartridge. If you have an idea for a test on the impact of bullets and bone specifically that would be interesting to pursue. I’ve watched some of Harrell’s testing. That channel has felt a lot like confirmation bias in action to me. But then again maybe I’m the same and just have a different bias.

As for some bullets shattering bones versus making holes in them, there are loads of variables then including density of the bone at the point of impact, angle of incidence, etc. I would be leery of going down this track or we’ll go back to the days of aiming for the pelvic girdle and going for disabling shots rather than the upper thoracic cavity and the cranial ocular cavity. Certainly people have been disabled by shots, but if the goal is stopping a threat quickly before the threat has time to hurt us or someone else I’m not sure just shattering bones is the goal, unless that’s while the bullet is on the path to a vital organ.

I don’t disagree that some cartridges are more powerful than others. I would state, as I did earlier, that we’re talking handguns. While that is the sub forum in question and what most carry on their person, there are reasons law enforcement carry shotguns and carbines. I’m not convinced that one handgun cartridge is dramatically more powerful than another, in terms of the typical center fire options. Now is there a significant difference that may be meaningful to someone or multiple someones? That I can see.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[wild cat mccane]

haha...

Vista Outdoors owns Federal and CCI/Speer. Vista is owned by northrop grumman. ATK is owned by Northrop so these two companies have been owned corporately as sister companies for a very long time. ATK dropped ammunition and Vista Outdoors brought Speer/Federal into one corporate house.
(Fusion, CCI, Speer, Federal Premium, Estate, Blazer, American Eagle, Independence, etc). Winchester (Freedom Group (Barnes)) and Hornady are pretty much the only others as a percent of US ammunition.

They are the largest ammunition manufacture in the world. Federal operates the US govt's Lake City plant for all DOD ammunition. Federal currently manufactures Winchester's ammunition that is market as anything from Lake City. Winchester lost Lake City comanagement to Northrop.

That makes them the leading expert.

[Forte S+W]

Fortunately salesmen are always 100% accurate about their products, never skew their statistics, and obviously wouldn't benefit at all by marketing all of their products as being equally effective.

Off-Topic: Has anyone here tried the Impossible Whopper at Burger King? They say that the taste is completely indistinguishable from an ordinary all-beef Whopper.

[TunnelRat]

Originally Posted by Forte S+W

Fortunately salesmen are always 100% accurate about their products, never skew their statistics, and obviously wouldn't benefit at all by marketing all of their products as being equally effective.

Off-Topic: Has anyone here tried the Impossible Whopper at Burger King? They say that the taste is completely indistinguishable from an ordinary all-beef Whopper.

Actually that doesn’t make sense to me for a few reasons. Even within calibers the different bullets are shown to perform differently (like I said I think the Gold Dot actually performs better for say 124 gr). Additionally, 10mm is more expensive than say 9mm. If the goal was pure profit it would make more sense to make the larger calibers look better and sell more of those. Lastly, while I don’t disagree that an independent third party is best for examination, does anyone on YouTube fit that mold? Controversy garners more views than the status quo. I’d hazard a guess that’s at least partly responsible for Harrell’s view count on a number of videos. YouTubers are salesmen in their own right.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk