10mm for self defense

[Forte S+W]

Companies don't typically care what makes money so long as it is profitable, and any good businessman will tell you that it isn't as profitable to specialize as it is to diversify in order to appeal to the widest demographic possible. 10mm Auto may be more expensive and therefore theoretically more profitable than 9mm Luger, but 9mm Luger is far and away the most popular pistol cartridge on the planet, so they actually stand to profit more by pushing the 9mm Luger as being all that anybody needs for Self-Defense than it is for them to push an otherwise niche cartridge like the 10mm Auto, so rather than picking a favorite they'll push all of their ammo as good in its own right, (which is at least true in the greater scheme of things) than risk potentially losing sales on 9mm Luger by focusing on how great their 10mm ammo is in particular, or showing off side-by-side statistics which are obviously misleading to the lay person which would suggest that 10mm Auto is the absolute best thing they offer for all purposes.

As for Paul Harrell, don't get me wrong... I'm not saying that he is a 100% impartial observer who ought to be treated as an authority on anything firearms related. In fact, I myself have strongly disagreed with a number of his methods, opinions, and presentations on a variety of subjects. I'm merely saying that in hindsight I like his attempted approach in regards to alternative ammo testing because I believe that his so-called "meat targets" are more easy for the lay person to understand than Ballistics Gel tests, hence why you get absurdly over-the-top assertions that Ballistics Gel tests prove beyond a shadow of doubt that 9mm HST is equally (if not more) effective when compared to 10mm Auto.
Trusting any single source of information is foolish, hence why I called into question placing faith in a unilateral testing protocol such as Ballistics Gel Testing, or the results of said testing offered up by a website which specializes in selling ammunition and a conglomerate who owns a number of subsidiary ammo manufacturers.

[TunnelRat]

Originally Posted by Forte S+W

Companies don't typically care what makes money so long as it is profitable, and any good businessman will tell you that it isn't as profitable to specialize as it is to diversify in order to appeal to the widest demographic possible. 10mm Auto may be more expensive and therefore theoretically more profitable than 9mm Luger, but 9mm Luger is far and away the most popular pistol cartridge on the planet, so they actually stand to profit more by pushing the 9mm Luger as being all that anybody needs for Self-Defense than it is for them to push an otherwise niche cartridge like the 10mm Auto, so rather than picking a favorite they'll push all of their ammo as good in its own right, (which is at least true in the greater scheme of things) than risk potentially losing sales on 9mm Luger by focusing on how great their 10mm ammo is in particular, or showing off side-by-side statistics which are obviously misleading to the lay person which would suggest that 10mm Auto is the absolute best thing they offer for all purposes.

As for Paul Harrell, don't get me wrong... I'm not saying that he is a 100% impartial observer who ought to be treated as an authority on anything firearms related. In fact, I myself have strongly disagreed with a number of his methods, opinions, and presentations on a variety of subjects. I'm merely saying that in hindsight I like his attempted approach in regards to alternative ammo testing because I believe that his so-called "meat targets" are more easy for the lay person to understand than Ballistics Gel tests, hence why you get absurdly over-the-top assertions that Ballistics Gel tests prove beyond a shadow of doubt that 9mm HST is equally (if not more) effective when compared to 10mm Auto.
Trusting any single source of information is foolish, hence why I called into question placing faith in a unilateral testing protocol such as Ballistics Gel Testing, or the results of said testing offered up by a website which specializes in selling ammunition and a conglomerate who owns a number of subsidiary ammo manufacturers.

It’s been a while since I took microeconomics, but I’m not sure it’s true that any good business person favors diversification over specialization (at least not in all cases). That said, showing all calibers as equal doesn’t lead to diversification. If anything it would make 9mm seem like the easy choice because if each bullet performs the same then 9mm gives you more of them with less recoil. The focus then becomes 9mm above all else, which isn’t diversification.

To be honest I think the meat targets are just as easy to misinterpret as gel tests. A lay person is just that, someone with limited understanding. The issue is more to do with the person than the type of information that person is digesting. Certainly some presentations are better than others, but if the audience doesn’t have a clue then it’s sort of a moot point.

I would agree that multiple sources of information are better. That said, I don’t think you can toss out either the Lucky Gunner tests or the Vista Outdoors tests out of hand (and if you think that’s an unfair characterization, fair enough, I struggled with how to phrase that). To a point, it could be argued as bias in action in that you don’t agree with the conclusion so you take the easier route which is to discredit the source. I don’t know if that applies to you or not (and I actually do think you have a point about a company evaluating its own products), but it is a behavior I see a lot of online. My point about Harrell was that I am not sure he is either an authority or unbiased himself. At the end of the day each person has to examine the different forms of evidence and decides for themselves.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Webleymkv]

OK, so it seems Speer Gold Dots are the new magic bullet so let's see what Vista says they do in ballistic gel (for the sake of brevity we'll just look at penetration and expansion).

Bare Gel
9mm 115 gr GDHP
Penetration 11.75 in
Expansion .690 in

9mm +P+ 115 gr GDHP
Penetration 10.5 in
Expansion .830 in

9mm 124 gr GDHP
Penetration 11.35 in
Expansion .682 in

9mm +P 124 gr GDHP
Penetration 11.78 in
Expansion .720 in

9mm 147 gr GDHP
Penetration 12.58 in
Expansion .660 in

So, out of five different Gold Dot 9mm loadings only the 147 gr can make it past the FBI's 12" minimum and even then not by much. Let's look at the heavy clothing test

Heavy Clothing
9mm 115 gr GDHP
Penetration 13.75
Expansion .590

9mm +P+ 115 gr GDHP
Penetration 12.75 in
Expansion .600 in

9mm 124 gr GDHP
Penetration 14.61 in
Expansion .562 in

9mm +P 124 gr GDHP
Penetration 14.13 in
Expansion .600 in

9mm 147 gr GDHP
Penetration 14.93 in
Expansion .570 in

OK, so penetration was better, but none could expand larger than .600 in which is good, but not spectacular. Just for the sake of comparison, Let's look at .40 S&W Gold Dots

Bare Gel
.40 S&W 165 gr GDHP
Penetration 13.32 in
Expansion .672 in

.40 S&W 180 gr GDHP
Penetration 12.19 in
Expansion .640 in

So both of the .40's made it past 12 inches and both expanded larger than the 147 gr 9mm (remember the only 9mm to make it past 12 inches in bare gel). Let's see the heavy clothing:

.40 S&W 165 gr GDHP
Penetration 18.00 in
Expansion .618 in

.40 S&W 180 gr GDHP
Penetration 13.25 in
Expansion .709 in

So the 165 gr penetrated 18 inches (deeper than any of the 9mm's) and still expanded larger. The 180 gr .40 was able to expand significantly larger still and still managed to penetrate adequately. Bear in mind too, this is the .40 which is equal or slightly less powerful than the most pedestrian 10mm loadings.

The fact of the matter is, no matter which "magic bullet" you want to use, 9mm is still at the bottom-end of the common service calibers as far as wound ballistics goes (.38 Special is right there at the bottom too). Now, that's not to say that 9mm doesn't have advantages like lighter recoil, cheaper ammo, or higher magazine capacity for a given size gun, but those advantages come at the price of terminal performance.

9mm isn't a bad cartridge, but to say it's every bit the equal of more powerful cartridges is simply incorrect. The advantage of ballistic gel is that it's quantifiable and repeatable, but by every quantifiable measure that it gives us we see that more powerful cartridges are superior. Sure, modern bullets might make the 9mm better than it was before (though the bare gel tests of HST's and Gold Dots still leave a lot to be desired in the penetration department) but that same technology isn't the sole bailiwick of the 9mm. Apply the same bullet design to a more powerful cartridge (10mm comes in both HST and Gold Dot) and you can bet better performance still because you have bigger, heavier bullets and more velocity to work with.

[TunnelRat]

I never said Gold Dots were a magic bullet. At all. If you want to chase strawman arguments go for it. My comment was directed with the notion that HST doesn't seem to universally be the best, depending on your criteria.

Originally Posted by Webleymkv

you can bet better performance still because you have bigger, heavier bullets and more velocity to work with.

This is where I think your example does a bit of overselling. Let's take one of your own examples:
Bare Gel
9mm 115 gr GDHP
Penetration 11.75 in
Expansion .690 in

9mm +P+ 115 gr GDHP
Penetration 10.5 in
Expansion .830 in

9mm 124 gr GDHP
Penetration 11.35 in
Expansion .682 in

9mm +P 124 gr GDHP
Penetration 11.78 in
Expansion .720 in

9mm 147 gr GDHP
Penetration 12.58 in
Expansion .660 in

Bare Gel
.40 S&W 165 gr GDHP
Penetration 13.32 in
Expansion .672 in

.40 S&W 180 gr GDHP
Penetration 12.19 in
Expansion .640 in

Depending on the bullet weights I choose for each caliber, 9mm can both penetrate further and expand larger, for instance the 147 gr 9mm vs. 180 gr 40SW. In other cases the 40SW penetrates almost 3" more. In other cases the difference is less than 0.5". What's the standard deviation on these tests? 0.5" might even be in the realm of margin of error. While I do get the point of the 12" standard, I'm not sure it's so rigid that a bullet that gets to 11.78" is a definite fail while one that goes 12.19" is a definite pass.

Now if the argument is that the above shows 9mm isn't magic and that bullet weight and velocity matter, I agree. But with the differences mattering so much on bullet weight and velocity even within a given cartridge, how anyone can make a definitive statement from the above and state that "9mm is still at the bottom-end of the common service calibers as far as wound ballistics goes" is beyond me. I'd really like to see the same for 10mm. That might be something that illustrates the point you want to make.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Webleymkv]

TunnelRat, I admit that perhaps "magic bullet" wasn't the best term to use. Honestly, I wasn't even really intending to reply to you but was more attempting to head off those who seem to worship at the altar of Vista Outdoors from pivoting from HST to Gold Dot as the be-all end-all. You merely happened to be the one to mention Gold Dots first and I failed to distinguish your post from those of some others here.

As to my comparison of 9mm and .40 Gold Dots, you have to pick the one very best 9mm load (the only one that can make the 12" minimum in bare gel) to outperform one of the .40's by a very small amount in one test (the 180 gr .40 expanded to a much larger diameter through heavy clothing).

When I say 9mm (and .38 special) are at the bottom end of the service calibers, what I mean is it gives you the least to work with. You have the smallest bullet diameter, the lightest bullets, and depending on the bullet weight low-to-medium velocities. .40 and .45 offer bigger, heavier bullets and .357 Sig offers higher velocity. The point is that velocity and bullet weight matter and most of the other service calibers have more of one of those, if not both, to offer than 9mm does.

[Forte S+W]

I think we've all wandered off the point here and are know arguing/debating opinions rather than focusing on the fact which we can hopefully all agree on, and that's 9mm Luger can't equal, much less be ballistically superior to full-power 10mm Auto loads.

Furthermore, that's something that we really shouldn't have to argue over and frankly I'm sorry that I ever even bothered, because at this point it's like trying to argue that the sky isn't red with someone wearing rose-tinted glasses.

[TunnelRat]

I don’t believe I am wearing rose-tinted glasses. I can’t speak for others.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[wild cat mccane]

You've done a good job attacking me and provided sources while providing no data/sources.

Food for thought.

[JERRYS.]

Paul Harrell's meat targets are closer to real life than ballistic gel. humans are not homogenous like ballistic gel. we are made up of muscle, bone, soft squishy stuff, wrapped in some type of cloth; that is what his meat targets are. if you've seen recovered handgun ammo that was shot into people you will find it performed mostly like what Paul's targets show, not what ballistic gel shows. this is what shows me who has seen it and who hasn't and who misunderstands the purpose of ballistic gel. I need to add that I have never seen nor known of a 10mm shooting outside of hunting, so I can't comment on its results afterword.

[TunnelRat]

Originally Posted by JERRYS.

Paul Harrell's meat targets are closer to real life than ballistic gel. humans are not homogenous like ballistic gel. we are made up of muscle, bone, soft squishy stuff, wrapped in some type of cloth; that is what his meat targets are. if you've seen recovered handgun ammo that was shot into people you will find it performed mostly like what Paul's targets show, not what ballistic gel shows. this is what shows me who has seen it and who hasn't and who misunderstands the purpose of ballistic gel. I need to add that I have never seen nor known of a 10mm shooting outside of hunting, so I can't comment on its results afterword.

The purpose of ballistics gel is a consistent medium for comparison. That’s not something that’s easy to do with meat targets. Yes humans are more similar to meat than gel. I’m not sure what pointing out the obvious accomplishes.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[stinkeypete]

Here are some observations:
1. How many deer have you shot with a handgun?
Me: a lot more than 14, I lost count

2. What did you use?
Me: .454 Casull, .45 Colt (Ruger loads), .44 Magnum, .357 Maximum, .357 Magnum

3. What would you pick for reliable harvest? Why?
Me: .44 Magnum because the Casull is far overkill for deer and the weight and blast stopped being a novelty. .45 and .44 performed identically for me in both cast and 240 grain XTPs- there is no difference. .357 Max- too much blast and velocity at my ranges (under 50 yards) and my xtp fragmented explosively on hitting bone. The one deer dropped like a prom dress, though. Too much damaged meat. .357 I had too many deer run too far. I lost a few.

Where I live up north, white tails are 150 to 200 pounds plus. They have a leather coat and are not full of gel, they are living creatures.

My conclusion: real life isn’t perfect and no matter my excellent bullseye Marksmanship at the range.. imperfect shot placement is more likely than not. In that case... start with a 240 grain bullet and a big hole. If it expands, great. If it doesn’t you have a big hole to start with.

Why not Casull then? .44 is good enough and the pistol cost more than I was comfortable risking getting scratched up. It was enormous and heavy, too.

4. What little gun do you own? Why?
Me: Bersa Thunder .380. It’s double/single action hammer fired with an excellent trigger. Big enough and accurate enough to have fun shooting NRA targets at 25 yards. No one is winning pistol league with one, but it can hold the paper. Recoil is easy, weight is 20 oz and it fits in my jacket pocket just fine. I prefer my Ruger LCRX 3” in .38 special in the field because it doesn’t throw the brass in to the weeds. I still haven’t found a load that gives me the accuracy of the Bersa, but you really don’t even notice it in a jacket pocket.

I’ve never had any trouble with people in my whole life so both have been equally effective.

If other people feel different, well... get over it... it just doesn’t matter.. it’s all a compromise and all what YOU prefer. But when it comes to “stopping power”... I would not shoot a deer with a .38 and not with a 9mm because more than likely the deer will run off and you’ll have a long day tracking. If you get lucky with a perfect shot, it will work. Magic bullets might make a difference in a perfect world but with that logic so will a .22 long rifle with 40g lead. Based on shooting a lot of deer. I would use 10mm except I have a really nice .44.

If someone wants 10mm the only negative is it’s big and heavy. That’s all.

There are many things I’ve shot for fun. None of them were tubs of jello. I’ve literally ‘shot the s#it’ with my buddies. We learned to stand WAY back, it splatters!

[JERRYS.]

Originally Posted by TunnelRat

The purpose of ballistics gel is a consistent medium for comparison. That’s not something that’s easy to do with meat targets. Yes humans are more similar to meat than gel. I’m not sure what pointing out the obvious accomplishes.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

somebody complained about the "meat targets" and all I was doing is pointing out how they are closer to human anatomy than ballistic gel thus the results from each should be viewed accordingly.

[wild cat mccane]

Meat tests can never be replicated, ie, they are not reliable.

Gel, if you like clear or none clear, are the exact same between calibers. That means it is a reliable test. Regardless if you like gel or not. It's reliable.

Here's the funny thing. Clear gel is suppose to be more elastic. Luckygunner used clear gel, Vista used non clear. Regardless. Why didn't 10mm do better in Luckygunners clear gel?

Let's say you throw out everything I've said. Gold Dot is tested with non clear gel on Vista's website. That data is what they supply for State and Federal agencies. Gold Dot's predecessor, Speer "Bonded Uni-Core" is the more common load at DT, UW, and BB. So, does current Gold Dot in 40 look much different than 9mm Gold Dot? A little. But that isn't the round you're getting from DT, UW, or BB. But you are getting a claimed 1400 FPS. So what.

[Don Fischer]

I'm not sure a 10mm will kill someone any deader than a number of other cartridge's. Never shot one and not really any desire to. My son has one though, a Glock. I think for a carry gun for me it has the same problem any gun carrying much ammo does and was reinforced this past week. I normally carry a S&W Shield c9. Small and light. With this virus thing going around I figured I'd step up fire power some so went with my P89 Ruger for a couple weeks. Now the extra fire power may be a plus in a riot but the weight of the loaded gun and one extra magazine was just overwhelming! Back to the S&W now and barely notice I have it with me. The cartridge you choose is to me, no where near as important as the weight of the gun you shoot it in! If I were to go to some city where group's like antifa roam, I would be inclined to carry the extra fire power of the Ruger and just put up with the weight! But we all have choice's where we will go and I prefer to avoid place's where confrontation is a real possibility!

[TruthTellers]

Originally Posted by TunnelRat

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

Just because 10mm costs more than 9mm doesn't mean it makes a company more money by making it. These ammo companies focus on 9mm because it holds the largest share of handguns in the market, thus they can generate more sales. Why would you invest R&D into 10mm when it has 5% of the handguns in the market than 9mm does?

As for Youtuber's being salesman, I don't see Paul Harrell hawking sponsors like some other channels do. Funny enough, most of the channels who have an ammo sponsor are using... Federal.

Harrell has long been a proponent of the lowest price ammo and would consider HST to be "hyper ammo." People watch him because he makes good videos, not because he makes controversial ones based on ammo tests.

[TunnelRat]

Originally Posted by TruthTellers

Just because 10mm costs more than 9mm doesn't mean it makes a company more money by making it. These ammo companies focus on 9mm because it holds the largest share of handguns in the market, thus they can generate more sales. Why would you invest R&D into 10mm when it has 5% of the handguns in the market than 9mm does?

As for Youtuber's being salesman, I don't see Paul Harrell hawking sponsors like some other channels do. Funny enough, most of the channels who have an ammo sponsor are using... Federal.

Harrell has long been a proponent of the lowest price ammo and would consider HST to be "hyper ammo." People watch him because he makes good videos, not because he makes controversial ones based on ammo tests.

You’re certainly entitled to your opinion about Harrell.

Edit: I don’t believe I ever called Harrell a “salesman”, or really any YouTuber (some certainly have relationships with companies that I might feel fall pretty close to that, but I haven’t seen that with Harrell). YouTubers don’t necessarily sell products so much as they sell themselves (their “brand” if you want to use that terminology). How they present videos and information falls into that.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Webleymkv]

Originally posted by wild cat mccane
Meat tests can never be replicated, ie, they are not reliable.

Real shootings can't be replicated either. That's one of the problems with gel testing: you're trying to use laboratory methods to predict the outcome of real-world events with lots of uncontrolled variables. The very properties that make gel tests repeatable are completely absent in real living people. Not all people have the same body habitus, not all parts of the human body have the same density, and not everyone who is shot gets hit in the same place. It could be argued that a "meat target" like Paul Harrell's could be useful if repeated enough because, through increasing sample size, the variances between one meat target and the next become less and less statistically significant.

Originally posted by wild cat mccane
Gel, if you like clear or none clear, are the exact same between calibers. That means it is a reliable test. Regardless if you like gel or not. It's reliable.

The problem with clear gel is that it behaves quite differently from real gel and the results cannot be extrapolated between the two. The point of ballistic gel testing to to be a predictor of what a bullet will do if shot into a living human without the legal and ethical concern of actually shooting people under controlled lab conditions. Real 10% ordinance gel is the industry standard because it has been agreed by sources including but no limited to the FBI and other major law enforcement agencies that it's the best approximation of living human tissue available that can be used within the legal and ethical constraints I mentioned.

Simply being repeatable does not make a given ballistic test reliable. We could shoot lots of things like water jugs, wetpack, or pine boards and get repeatable results but those results would be quite different from what we'd get in 10% ordinance gel and thus of little or no value beyond entertainment. I view Clear Ballistics and other synthetic gelatin the same way: the results you get from it are too different from 10% ordinance gel to be useful. The reason synthetic gelatin has become so popular among amateur testers like Lucky Gunner is because it is both less expensive and easier to work with than real 10% ordinance gelatin (the real stuff has pretty stringent temperature requirements). Frankly, there is a reason that no major LE agency that I'm aware of nor any of the major ammo makers like Hornady, Winchester, Remington, or CCI/Speer/Federal use synthetic gelatin despite is lower cost and easier handling requirements.

Originally posted by wild cat mccane
Here's the funny thing. Clear gel is suppose to be more elastic. Luckygunner used clear gel, Vista used non clear. Regardless. Why didn't 10mm do better in Luckygunners clear gel?

10mm did do better when you look at comparable bullets. The overall best performing Speer Gold Dot 9mm tested by Lucky Gunner was the 124 gr standard pressure which had both the second largest expansion (.54") and second deepest penetration (18.1"). Also the 9mm Gold Dot loadings that bested it in penetration (124 gr +P short barrel) and expansion (115 gr standard pressure) only did so by 0.1" and 0.01" respectively.

https://www.luckygunner.com/labs/sel...tic-tests/#9mm

By comparison, the 10mm 200 gr Gold Dot penetrated 19.7" and expanded to .68", bigger and deeper than any of the 9mm Gold Dots

https://www.luckygunner.com/labs/10m...tic-gel-tests/

We see this in other loadings where comparable bullets are used as well. The Hornady 10mm Critical Duty loading both outpenetrated and expanded larger than either the standard pressure or +P 9mm Critical Duty loadings. The Federal 10mm Hydra Shok expanded much larger and more reliably than any of the 9mm Hydra Shoks (all had rather poor expansion in 9mm). Both Hornady XTP 10mm loadings were able to achieve near ideal penetration depths while expanding to much larger diameters than their 9mm XTP counterparts (the 9mm XTP's showed only moderate expansion).

While the 9mm Federal HST's you tout certainly did well in Lucky Gunner's tests, Lucky Gunner did not test the 10mm version of the HST. However, considering that the .40 S&W and .45 ACP versions managed to maintain adequate penetration while expanding to larger diameters than the 9mm versions in Lucky Gunner's tests, I see no reason to expect that the 10mm HST would not give similar performance gains over the 9mm version that it did with other bullet designs.

Originally posted by wild cat mccane
Let's say you throw out everything I've said. Gold Dot is tested with non clear gel on Vista's website. That data is what they supply for State and Federal agencies. Gold Dot's predecessor, Speer "Bonded Uni-Core" is the more common load at DT, UW, and BB. So, does current Gold Dot in 40 look much different than 9mm Gold Dot? A little. But that isn't the round you're getting from DT, UW, or BB. But you are getting a claimed 1400 FPS. So what.

Buffalo Bore certainly doesn't, they switched to Montana Gold JHP's in their 10mm ammo during the last Obama panic and, if they ever switched back their website does not reflect such. However, do you have any documentation to show that Double Tap and Underwood aren't using "real" Gold Dots? I know that when I look at reloading component bullets in that caliber they're clearly labeled as "Gold Dots" so I know they're available as components. As a matter of fact, I can't even find any of the old "bonded uni-core" bullets for sale in .40 caliber, all I've seen from Speer is TMJ, CPRN, and Gold Dots.

https://www.midwayusa.com/bullets/br...ctedSort=False

https://www.grafs.com/retail/catalog...ategoryId/556?

https://outdoors.natchezss.com/produ...ormat=diameter

Also, when I've ordered ammo from Underwood that loaded with their "bonded jacketed hollowpint" the bullets I received looked exactly like Gold Dots. Also, I can remember when Double Tap specifically advertised Gold Dot bullets in their 10mm loadings.

It's my understanding that Double Tap stopped advertising the use of Speer Gold Dots because Speer's legal team took issue with them using their trademarked name in a competitor's advertising (understandable), I don't believe that Buffalo Bore or Underwood ever specifically advertised Gold Dots to begin with. As a matter of fact, Double Tap no longer specifically lists any bullet manufacturer on their website though the pictures for the "Bonded Defense" appear to be Gold Dots while the "Controlled Expansion" loadings appear to be loaded with Nosler Sporting Handgun JHP's judging by the weights and pictures.

[wild cat mccane]

It's even worse for "good" 10mm loads.

Underwood loads Speer "uni-cor." That is the round before version one of Gold Dot. Otherwise, they would call it Gold Dot. G2 is actually version 3 of Gold Dot.


https://www.underwoodammo.com/collec...18785724923961


Double Tap doesn't load Gold Dots anymore..."Bonded Defense." Isn't a Speer name...


Agreed. Buffalo Bore hollow points are junk. That company is pretty shady. No one should buy their crap and expect premium stuff. But I take issue with your Obama comment. They actually did it 2007. When their 380 gold dot became very popular they ran out of gold dots and started loading it with Seirra crap. I still have a box of that crap when they made the switch and didn't tell anyone and had Gold Dots in the picture of the rounds.

[Swifty Morgan]

As a former physicist, I bought into the kinetic energy BS and went with fast 9mm rounds. Then I read the FBI report and moved to 10mm.

I carry 10mm because it's fantastic and because I reload. I don't have to pay $45 per box to get good ammunition. If I didn't reload, I'd go with .40 S&W or .45 ACP, and I wouldn't go near a 1911 because they're big and heavy and because no one in a gunfight ever said, "Gee, I wish my magazine were smaller."

I love the 1911, but mine are for fun, not defense. Magnificent firearms which are less practical than modern plastic guns.

All this being said, I will be carrying 9mm until the new spring for my Glock 29 arrives, and I don't think anyone will be able to take my lunch money during that time. One well-placed 9mm round gave George Zimmerman a quick victory over a larger, younger opponent who was beating his head against concrete, and I think it will work okay for me unless something really unusual occurs.

[TunnelRat]

Originally Posted by Swifty Morgan

As a former physicist, I bought into the kinetic energy BS and went with fast 9mm rounds. Then I read the FBI report and moved to 10mm.

I carry 10mm because it's fantastic and because I reload. I don't have to pay $45 per box to get good ammunition. If I didn't reload, I'd go with .40 S&W or .45 ACP, and I wouldn't go near a 1911 because they're big and heavy and because no one in a gunfight ever said, "Gee, I wish my magazine were smaller."

I love the 1911, but mine are for fun, not defense. Magnificent firearms which are less practical than modern plastic guns.

All this being said, I will be carrying 9mm until the new spring for my Glock 29 arrives, and I don't think anyone will be able to take my lunch money during that time. One well-placed 9mm round gave George Zimmerman a quick victory over a larger, younger opponent who was beating his head against concrete, and I think it will work okay for me unless something really unusual occurs.

Which FBI report? The one from 1986? The FBI recently switched back to 9mm.

https://sofrep.com/gear/the-reasons-...o-back-to-9mm/


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[wild cat mccane]

Recall, the FBI is buying commercial 40. Huge differences between commercial 40 and 10mm hasn't been provided/proven in this thread.

But the FBI did switch to deeper penetrating 135gr XTP with Flex Tip (FTX) 9mm.

[Forte S+W]

The difference between commercial .40 S&W/10mm FBI Loads and full-power 10mm Norma-spec Loads is about 200fps higher velocity / 200ft-lbs more kinetic energy, which is pretty significant.

If you disagree that 200fps/200ft-lbs is significant, then be sure to reiterate how 9mm Luger is better than .380 ACP, because that's the primary difference between the two cartridges, along with a follow up explanation of what makes a 9mm HST significantly better than a .380 HSD.

[Swifty Morgan]

The FBI didn't switch because 9mm was better. It's clearly way inferior in terms of power.

[TunnelRat]

Originally Posted by Swifty Morgan

The FBI didn't switch because 9mm was better. It's clearly way inferior in terms of power.

Better in what way? All I said is they switched. If the argument is you switched to 10mm because of the FBI report in 1986, I just think it’s interesting that same organization has now switched back to 9mm. Their reasonings are outlined in the article I linked. If you do or don’t agree that’s your call.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Swifty Morgan]

If you look at what I wrote, you will see that I said 9mm is way inferior in terms of power.