Did you ever throw a hand grenade - 10 mm

{dives through a window to avoid the blast}

10mm is the cartridge as it's intended to be and 40 s&w is the compromise that followed. Both are effective but a larger case is always better for a handgun . I like 10mm and I'm indifferent to 40 s&w, neither good or bad, I do prefer 40 to 9mm but I don't currently own either and don't plan to. I do have a 10mm though and it's not going anywhere.

The difference is velocity. Think of them like the .38 and .357 magnum. Though in this case the 10mm came first.

{sticks head back in the window, unscathed by the initial blast}

I own both though my only 10mm Auto is a revolver. Nearly all my semi-auto handguns are 40 S&W. I like 40 S&W and have shot that cartridge more than just about any other cartridge I have owned, possibly more than even 22LR. I have shot many tens-of-thousands of round a 40S&W in USPSA competition and carried a 40 S&W for years as my CCW. I have used the 10mm Auto revolver (for competition with 40S&W for years) and took two deer with it using 10mm Auto but that revolver/cartridge has now, for the most part, been replaced by a 44 Mag revolver. I like both cartridges, 40S&W and 10mm Auto but I get far more use out of 40 S&W.

One problem is a lot of the 10mm ammo on the market is not loaded to the potential of the cartridge. At one time there was one company where their 40 Short and Weak was actually faster than their 10mm load for the same bullet.

If one reloads or buys the correct ammo then the 10mm is basically a 357 in a auto pistol package.

What's the difference between a 40 cal and a 10 mm

Click to expand...

The 40 S&W is a spin off the 10mm auto. That’s 3.6mm shorter in case length, uses small primers and has a max SAAMI operating pressure of 35,000 PSI.

The 10mm uses large primers has longer case length, thus more internal volume as well as a higher SAAMI max operating pressure of 37,500, that makes it capable of speed and or energy’s that the 40 can’t reach.

40 is much more popular and some places I go, I can’t leave unless I take a bag of 40 brass with me. People that load 10mm are crawling around like they are looking for 38 super brass. A paper or cardboard target can’t tell any difference between the two.

Since the FBI switched back to 9mm, neither the 10mm nor .40 cal can stop a threat any longer. That being said, now that modern 9mm is so much better, the .45 ACP is no longer capable of damage to a human. Obviously, you don’t spend enough time doing internet research. Golly.

PWC said:

That's true....I don't spend time researching what I don't have, and never will have. I was just curious why people love or hate the cartridges, and why one is pronounced dead, and the other alive, not the technical aspects of either.

Click to expand...

Is this thread not time spent (albeit minimal time) researching into something you don't have? I research a lot of things I don't have. Sometimes that leads me to acquire the subject of the research and sometimes it leads me to not acquire the subject. The more expensive or time consuming a thing might be the more I usually spend researching
it.

PWC said:

That's true....I don't spend time researching what I don't have, and never will have. I was just curious why people love or hate the cartridges, and why one is pronounced dead, and the other alive, not the technical aspects of either.

Click to expand...

They are both adequate cartridges. They both stem from the same basic line of thinking: find a compromise that balances the competing needs of handgun users for defensive applications, balancing capacity vs. bullet size, and power level vs. speed of shooting. Both were designed around shooters of similar size and skill level so the target recoil and other factors are very similar.

There is really only one core difference: The 10mm was developed to use in heavier long-action pistols i.e. steel 1911 pistols initially developed for .45 ACP, while .40 S&W was developed to operate in lighter short-action pistols i.e. polymer pistols initially designed for 9mm. All of the differences between the cartridges derive from that factor. When viewed relative to their primary platforms they are as close to identical as they can realistically be, though platform differences do give the 10mm a ballistic edge.

As for conflict or differences of opinion between the two, it boils down to the narcissism of small differences. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narcissism_of_small_differences

In a nutshell, 10mm is a pretty hot, pretty sizable caliber-wise, and can be pretty high capacity. Basically, what’s not to love, except perhaps the feeling that it might be overkill: extra blast and recoil when a wonder9 night do the job as well, with even more capacity. And most outdoorsy types will probably rather carry a powerful revolver in a caliber they reload for.

.40 was the darling of police in the ‘90s, trying to combine .45acp ballistics which most everyone agreed was the gold standard for semi auto stopping power, with higher capacity. It was also supposed to be lighter on recoil than .45, which is kind of a subjective thing.

With the advances in 9mm hollowpoints, modern prevailing theory seems to be that 9mm is good enough for social work, with even more capacity and even less recoil. So .40 has fallen somewhat in popularity, at least as regards issue-weapons. And 10mm has become an enthusiast’s cartridge like .357 Sig or .45gap (or even .45acp for that matter.) All rounds that do mostly the same thing but are considered too niche for mass adoption for one reason or another.

PWC said:

That's true....I don't spend time researching what I don't have, and never will have. I was just curious why people love or hate the cartridges, and why one is pronounced dead, and the other alive, not the technical aspects of either.

Click to expand...

i was really just making fun of all us. Not intended toward you in particular. Personally, I think both are perfectly adequate, but I’d hunt with the 10mm before the .40.

***Thread drift alert***

Ed Ames said:

The 10mm was developed to use in heavier long-action pistols i.e. steel 1911 pistols initially developed for .45 ACP, while .40 S&W was developed to operate in lighter short-action pistols i.e. polymer pistols initially designed for 9mm.

Click to expand...

I would disagree on intent, but in practice and practicality yes basically. The 10mm was designed to meet a specific criteria set forth and was identified as the future round of a few federal agencies based upon that criteria. It was developed to be used in a Bren-Ten and other similar pistols, among those being the halfassed attempt by colt by just slapping a 10mm barrel and magazine in a 1911 without bothering to fix the chamber support issue or properly re-engineer the frame to handle the snappier recoil and added stresses of a hotter round. Colt hit the market first (again with a halfassed attempt) and got a few contracts simply by being the horse to win the race. The issues that stemmed from the Colt shortcuts left a blemish on the 10mm rounds reputation, and with the heavy recoil from large slides moving around in overly heavy pistols combined with the advent of the wonder nine, officers in the field begged for a bastardization of the wonder nine with the 10mm but size limitations prohibited a direct changeover, but by shortening the cartridge to essentially 9mm overall length they could bastardize them and only lose a couple rounds capacity in a gun that was smaller, lighter, cheaper, and easier to maintain.

If I didn’t convey my main thought here well enough I can restate it very simply, Colt screwed up by rushing the delta elite to the market, and to this day refuses to fix part of the problems. By screwing up the first market “ready“ gun Colt screwed up the 10mm at launch and nearly caused it to be a failed cartridge from the start because all of the new and incredible 10mms were failing in some way.

WestKentucky said:

***Thread drift alert***


I would disagree on intent, but in practice and practicality yes basically. The 10mm was designed to meet a specific criteria set forth and was identified as the future round of a few federal agencies based upon that criteria. It was developed to be used in a Bren-Ten and other similar pistols, among those being the halfassed attempt by colt by just slapping a 10mm barrel and magazine in a 1911 without bothering to fix the chamber support issue or properly re-engineer the frame to handle the snappier recoil and added stresses of a hotter round. Colt hit the market first (again with a halfassed attempt) and got a few contracts simply by being the horse to win the race. The issues that stemmed from the Colt shortcuts left a blemish on the 10mm rounds reputation, and with the heavy recoil from large slides moving around in overly heavy pistols combined with the advent of the wonder nine, officers in the field begged for a bastardization of the wonder nine with the 10mm but size limitations prohibited a direct changeover, but by shortening the cartridge to essentially 9mm overall length they could bastardize them and only lose a couple rounds capacity in a gun that was smaller, lighter, cheaper, and easier to maintain.

If I didn’t convey my main thought here well enough I can restate it very simply, Colt screwed up by rushing the delta elite to the market, and to this day refuses to fix part of the problems. By screwing up the first market “ready“ gun Colt screwed up the 10mm at launch and nearly caused it to be a failed cartridge from the start because all of the new and incredible 10mms were failing in some way.

Click to expand...

Yep, that’s a good example of what I mean.

The 10mm and .40 were designed to fill exactly the same role, with the same reasons, in different platforms. The Bren 10, delta, etc. were all the same basic thing: 38-39 ounce steel framed full size long-frame pistols designed to accommodate rounds like .45 ACP. The .40 took exactly the same constraints in terms of capacity, recoil, and bullet diameter, and adapted it to smaller and lighter guns. Even the Glock 22 shaves 4-5 ounces off the weight of a typical full size 10mm. Lower weight gun means less power available for the same recoil limit.

They are, from a shooter/human factors perspective, identical. There was a difference in ballistics early on but that’s because both were maximizing performance within their human factors envelope, and one platform was heavier. Once the 10mm moved to lighter platforms the load was adjusted to maintain the same human factors.

Recently picked up a used Glock 21.
Bought a 10mm barrel for it. Just need some Glock 20 magazines now.

YMMV - I've a read a few accounts of folks shooting 40sw in their 10mm semi-autos with no mag change or barrel change.

PWC said:

What's the difference between a 40 cal and a 10 mm

Click to expand...

Here's an example: full version found here: https://www.sellierbellot.us/products/pistol-and-revolver-ammunition/pistol-and-revolver-cartridges/



Though it does not encapsulate every manufacturer ever, it provides an idea, if the OP has asked with genuine interest.

PWC said:

Why are people hard over for one or against either?

Click to expand...

There is so much internet hype. Gun marketing exists to sell guns (and ammo). Gun manufacturers want to sell the feeling of power to the purchaser, in whatever incremental benefit that may entail, regardless of potential detriments. Every caliber comparison thread ever exists because of the comparison of power.



The for/against arguments are the same, old, tired ones. It's not like things have changed. Here's a list to research and compare if there is genuine interest.

Action/Frame size (and shooter's hand size, 1911 style vs aluminum framed vs polymer vs 80's and 90's defunct manufacturers )
Capacity for said frame
Firearm and ammo Availability (handloading component availability)
Firearm and ammo cost differences
Ammo velocity (barrel length: 4"vs 5" test barrels, powder capacity, Large pistol vs small pistol primers)
Velocity window for hollowpoint projectiles
Casehead strength as it relates to primer size
Relative recoil as it relates to putting shots on target and follow up shots.
The word "niche"
The most ubiquitous caliber issued to LEO's for 20+ years.
Harold Fish case and discussion on CCW choices


Truly, the heyday of the hunting autoloader is at it's dusk. Less people hunt and those that do typically don't choose an autoloader. Since 10mm is considered a hunting caliber, that is why this is tacked on here. Again, I don't always agree with Chuck, but he gives a great rundown of autoloading hunting pistols... even if he misspells "Wildey," nobody under 30 has seen Deathwish III (haha), and the base price being $2,750 now. https://www.chuckhawks.com/handgun_hunting.htm

It has to be mentioned for all the "powerful" statements about 10mm, that it is on the low end of big game handgun hunting calibers. Compare it to others, like 475 Wildey, 45 Win Mag, 44 Automag, 44 Rem Mag (DE), 50AE, and revolvers that have some better choices (IMHO).

I have owned both caliber and have gotten rid of both as well.

For semi autos only 9s and 45s for me and with wheel guns only 357s and 44s for me.

when it comes to rifles its different story as roles become specific etc.

Handguns for me are SD HD only and 9/45 do the best job for me. I own a Glock 18 and a CZ Auto that I use often but most carry sigP226 or hk P30 these days with MK23 as my night stand.

I cant find 45supers but use HST in Mk23 and its a super reliable shtf handgun bar none.


So I have long said good bye to all odd balls calibers like 10/40/5.7/357Sig etc. nothing wrong with them but just not for me.

Just my personal experience, I always liked 9mm and 45ACP, but never drank the 40S&W Kool-Aid. Then, while 40 S&W was all the rage, in the civilian market, the
worm turned, and the FBI abandoned it.
Later, a friend recommended 10MM, and I was lucky to find a decent S&W 1066. As far as the difference between the two, 10 & 40, as others have stated, not much,
if you don't buy the right 10mm ammo...

The ten was meant to be the middle ground between 11.45mm (cal..45) and 9mm.
It also was a nice round number, that had to be at least a millimeter 'better' than 9.

But, the 10mm had a problem experienced by some .45acp shooters, a serious kick. If you were used to heavier recoils, it was no big deal. If you were recoil averse, though, it was a lot.

So, the call went out for a "lighter" ten. So, there was, briefly, a 10mm-P. Not really a success. Also a confusion, who wanted a "less oomph" round? Who wants a .357magnum -P?

About that time they ginned up the 10mm -P- with a different case, different length, and much closer to 9x19 recoil, thus the .40 S&W

Which had a niche, "big gun" rounds in "wondernine" sized frames. Or, and easy-to-shoot cartridge in full-size frames.

A lot gets caught up in all these calibers. Only a millimeter of case length separates 9x17, 9x18, and 9x19---yet, pretty much everyone agrees those are three distinctly different calibers.

Dibbs said:

...
if you don't buy the right 10mm ammo...

Click to expand...

True.

Grenade throwing aside, I have owned two of each. If I had to start over I probably wouldn’t buy the .40s. For compact pistols I’d rather have 9mm and for larger pistols I’d rather have the options given by the larger case.

The price of “performance” 10mm ammo is such that I’m just not buying it. I will make my own full spec loads if I want them but not for SD. That means that - unless hunting - the two are interchangeable for someone as cheap as I am.

I have no experience what so ever with the 10mm or 40S&W. On the hand we have extensive experience with the 9x19mm and 45ACP. That's my story!

IMO, the biggest nail in the .40 coffin wasnt perceived recoil or accelerated pistol wear, it was that the ammunition price never came down to be competitive with 9mm in LEO training budgets.

For me its economics. Id rather stockpile 9mm in large quantities for Doomsday, and carry a .45 on Sunday.

I've thrown hand grenades, but don't see what it has to do w/ the .40/10mm debate.