XenopusTex
Member
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2014
- Messages
- 24
Unless it's truly T-shirt weather, I tend to carry a 1911 in either .45ACP or 10mm Auto. Well, as the saying goes, ounces are pounds, and pounds are pain, particularly when you are carrying capacity limited. Typically carry the firearm in 8+1(.45ACP) and 9+1(10mm) along with two 8 rd / 9 rd backup magazines.
Typically, had been carrying 200gr HST in the 10mm. However, I think that the time may be coming to switch out for lighter rounds for the next few months.
So, with regard to the 10mm (assuming I should be lugging that much steel around anyway), I had made a series of purchases of Cor-Bon DPX ammo, 9mm+P, .38Sp+P, .380ACP, and 10mm. I'm not sure how I managed to miss the "meh" performance envelope on the 10mm, but it seems lacking. The Buffalo Barnes 10mm Auto seems to be a pretty compressed powder loading, and I admit to being a bit nervous about that. I'm assuming that the Underwood/Barnes loading is similar due to the closeness of the specs? Due to my line of work, and general ideology, I refuse to use "Double Tap" ammo for the same reason I hate the asinine names companies use for their firearms at times. Looking at gel tests, it seems that the Buffalo Bore (and probably the Underwood as well) loading drives that 155 Barnes bullet to the limits of its performance, with the petals actually starting to fold back toward the "core" of the bullet. So, are Buffalo Barnes and Underwood/Barnes kind of a horse-a-piece?
Also, one other question regarding all copper 10mm ammo. I see that Underwood loads 140gr Lehigh Defense penetrators, and Buffalo Bore loads 190gr Lehigh monolithic .40Cal bullets. Is there really that much real-world performance difference say a good, stiff FMJ/TMJ loading and either the Underwood or Buffalo Bore "boutique" high penetration rounds? The Underwood penetrator rounds just give me a gimmick feeling for some reason. I also recognize that relatively heavy monolithic projectiles, i.e the Buffalo Bore round, have been used against dangerous game due to their utter lack of separation and resistance to deformation. My gut reaction regarding anti-wildlife applications is that the Buffalo Bore would be the superior choice between the two due to the mass of the projectile. Anybody have any experience with either of these loadings and their performance in larger, potentially hostile wildlife?
Typically, had been carrying 200gr HST in the 10mm. However, I think that the time may be coming to switch out for lighter rounds for the next few months.
So, with regard to the 10mm (assuming I should be lugging that much steel around anyway), I had made a series of purchases of Cor-Bon DPX ammo, 9mm+P, .38Sp+P, .380ACP, and 10mm. I'm not sure how I managed to miss the "meh" performance envelope on the 10mm, but it seems lacking. The Buffalo Barnes 10mm Auto seems to be a pretty compressed powder loading, and I admit to being a bit nervous about that. I'm assuming that the Underwood/Barnes loading is similar due to the closeness of the specs? Due to my line of work, and general ideology, I refuse to use "Double Tap" ammo for the same reason I hate the asinine names companies use for their firearms at times. Looking at gel tests, it seems that the Buffalo Bore (and probably the Underwood as well) loading drives that 155 Barnes bullet to the limits of its performance, with the petals actually starting to fold back toward the "core" of the bullet. So, are Buffalo Barnes and Underwood/Barnes kind of a horse-a-piece?
Also, one other question regarding all copper 10mm ammo. I see that Underwood loads 140gr Lehigh Defense penetrators, and Buffalo Bore loads 190gr Lehigh monolithic .40Cal bullets. Is there really that much real-world performance difference say a good, stiff FMJ/TMJ loading and either the Underwood or Buffalo Bore "boutique" high penetration rounds? The Underwood penetrator rounds just give me a gimmick feeling for some reason. I also recognize that relatively heavy monolithic projectiles, i.e the Buffalo Bore round, have been used against dangerous game due to their utter lack of separation and resistance to deformation. My gut reaction regarding anti-wildlife applications is that the Buffalo Bore would be the superior choice between the two due to the mass of the projectile. Anybody have any experience with either of these loadings and their performance in larger, potentially hostile wildlife?
