10mm the equivalent of the 41 - sheer BUFFOONERY

Status
Not open for further replies.
Also... you're not getting 1,300+ fps from a 4 inch 10mm with published load data.

My Glock 40 MOS has a 7 inch KKM barrel and I've pushed it as hard as is sanely safe....it only gets a tick over 1,300 fps with published data... and I've tried every powder from Longshot to 800x to AA9 to Enforcer, and everything in between.

AA9 is the clear winner with 200 grain bullets.

IMG-20170526-181735877-zpsfl0uuv68-1.jpg
 
Last edited:
The 147 gr 9mm hardcast bullets have penetrated 5'+ in gel. Farther than any bullet tested including the big bores. They only had 5' worth of gel and the 9mm load was the only one they didn't catch. Shoemaker has been guiding brown bear hunters for nearly 50 years and has done extensive testing of loads to determine how much penetration is needed to kill one. He didn't just pick the 9mm on a whim. He had already done extensive testing of that specific load and was confident that it was up to the job.

As to 10mm vs 357, 41, and 44 mag. It's all about barrel length, or better yet overall length of the gun. All the published ballistics you see on magnum revolver rounds are from 7.5"-8.5" barrels. All of the semi-auto ballistics are from 4.5"-5" barrels and are much more realistic to what you'll see in the real world. No one would be surprised to see 300 WM velocities to be way off from 12" barrels, but guys expect the magnum revolver rounds to match published speeds with a barrel 1/2 the length the loads were tested in.

And then you have to consider overall size. My 4.5" Glock 20 is an inch shorter, and a full pound lighter than my 4" magnum revolvers. Yet I can get a measured 1315 fps with 200 gr loads, my 4" G29 will get 1250. You might match that with a 6" 357 or 41 mag revolver. You sure won't beat it with a 3" 357 or 41 mag revolver and 200 gr bullets. And that is a lot closer to 44 mag performance than most realize when the 44's are fired from 4' and shorter barrels.

If someone wants to lug around an 8" barreled revolver just to say they can beat my 4" 10mm then have at it. If I'm carrying a handgun with an 8" barrel I'd just as soon carry a rifle.
This is one of those things you constantly post in every thread on the subject and never respond afterwards. ALL NONSENSE.

There is nothing magic about the 147gr cast 9mm load. Smaller meplat than a comparable .357 and less penetration than a 180gr load. It sure as hell isn't going to out-penetrate the heavy revolver loads. Phil Shoemaker has been at it for decades. The fact that he killed a grizzly graveyard dead is not an endorsement for the 9mm for Average Joe who wants brown bear protection. Far from it. It does prove the importance of a cool head but it helps when the bear is after a 3rd party. It's cool though, I've added that load to the list for my next round of penetration testing so we can see how it compares to everything else.

Barrel length has little to nothing to do with it. 100fps in either direction doesn't amount to a hill of beans on the terminal end. If I post numbers, it either comes off a chronograph or takes barrel length and real guns into consideration. As I've already said dozens of times, what the 10mm does with 200-220gr bullets, the .41's, .44's and .45's do with MUCH heavier slugs in COMPARABLE length barrels. Sorry but that argument has absolutely nowhere to go.

Blah, blah, blah, the Glock 20 is a "full pound" lighter. It ain't. It weighs 40oz loaded, or the same as a S&W 629MG or 4oz heavier than a 4" K-frame .357. Or a whopping 5oz less than a 4 5/8" Bisley, which is exponentially more capable. So I don't know where you're getting this "full pound lighter" nonsense but you need to stop repeating it. In fact, nothing you posted here is true.

G20%20weight.jpg


And then you have to consider overall size. My 4.5" Glock 20 is an inch shorter, and a full pound lighter than my 4" magnum revolvers. Yet I can get a measured 1315 fps with 200 gr loads, my 4" G29 will get 1250. You might match that with a 6" 357 or 41 mag revolver. You sure won't beat it with a 3" 357 or 41 mag revolver and 200 gr bullets. And that is a lot closer to 44 mag performance than most realize when the 44's are fired from 4' and shorter barrels.
The Kool Aid is strong, have you ever actually shot a revolver? Here is what you REALLY get from a 4 5/8" Ruger .44Mag or .45Colt, using published loads. You're quoting a 200gr at 1250fps and claim that is comparable to what you'll get from a 4" .44 revolver. I'll raise you a 330gr Beartooth .44 or a 335gr CPBC .45.

Penetration%20test%20chart.jpg
 
Those are the same folks who think they’re going to rattle off multiple shots in an attack situation. Ignorance is bliss - LOL!
Get a bear, or a buffalo( nearest approximation for me was a pissed off 2000lb black Angus Bull), or even a bull elk charging at you close range, and you will be lucky to even unholster let alone shoot. If it's chewing on or trampling you, good luck triple tapping the vitals!

Yeah,... right! A Glock 9mm is just the thing to piss off griz.

I've heard that there are signs put up in brown bear country that advise people to wear bells so that they don't surprise the bears.
They are also advised to be able to distinguish the scat of black bears from those of the brown.
(The brown bear's scat sometimes has bells in it.)
The grizzly scat also smells like pepper spray...

https://www.americanhunter.org/arti...ishermen-from-raging-grizzly-with-9mm-pistol/

I am not saying the the 9mm is the best choice or even a good choice but they are just bears, flesh and blood, not some demon possessed up-armored were-bear.

Regular grizzly bear:
View attachment 876419

Bear as imagined by internet handgun discussion boards (except the were-bear would have an armored helmet on too):
View attachment 876420
Up close even a 500# blackie can seem like that when they won't move away and are popping their jaw at you...
 
The 147 gr 9mm hardcast bullets have penetrated 5'+ in gel. Farther than any bullet tested including the big bores. They only had 5' worth of gel and the 9mm load was the only one they didn't catch. Shoemaker has been guiding brown bear hunters for nearly 50 years and has done extensive testing of loads to determine how much penetration is needed to kill one. He didn't just pick the 9mm on a whim. He had already done extensive testing of that specific load and was confident that it was up to the job.

As to 10mm vs 357, 41, and 44 mag. It's all about barrel length, or better yet overall length of the gun. All the published ballistics you see on magnum revolver rounds are from 7.5"-8.5" barrels. All of the semi-auto ballistics are from 4.5"-5" barrels and are much more realistic to what you'll see in the real world. No one would be surprised to see 300 WM velocities to be way off from 12" barrels, but guys expect the magnum revolver rounds to match published speeds with a barrel 1/2 the length the loads were tested in.

And then you have to consider overall size. My 4.5" Glock 20 is an inch shorter, and a full pound lighter than my 4" magnum revolvers. Yet I can get a measured 1315 fps with 200 gr loads, my 4" G29 will get 1250. You might match that with a 6" 357 or 41 mag revolver. You sure won't beat it with a 3" 357 or 41 mag revolver and 200 gr bullets. And that is a lot closer to 44 mag performance than most realize when the 44's are fired from 4' and shorter barrels.

If someone wants to lug around an 8" barreled revolver just to say they can beat my 4" 10mm then have at it. If I'm carrying a handgun with an 8" barrel I'd just as soon carry a rifle.



Yup there you are I knew you wouldn’t be able to help yourself and post the same regurgitated internet garbage as you always have as Craig C pointed out. As all the others have pointed out the 10mm is not and never will be the equal of the .41 magnum no matter how many ways you slice it. Kinda hard to carry a rifle when grouse hunting with a shotgun:thumbup::thumbup:

As far as bears go I just wonder how many folks have actual real first hand experience with bears that post here. I for one can tell you that even when you come upon a black bear you will still wish you had more than what is in your hands, along the lines of a 105mm howitzer. Bears are quicker than double greased lighting and just as unpredictable, I really dislike how these threads always deteriorate into bear threads Just reminds me why I haven’t posted much here in such a long time.
 
Last edited:
I had so many neckbeards and momma's basement dwellers tell me they load their 10mm up to .41 mag specs it's not funny. When pressed they can't tell me the super secret squirrel load data they are using.

They use pretty much the same powders, and the .41 Mag has half again the case capacity. So tell me again how you can load them up to be equal?
 
They use pretty much the same powders, and the .41 Mag has half again the case capacity. So tell me again how you can load them up to be equal?

Exactly this.

I had loaded 10mm for years when I finally got a .41 and started loading for it. I did a double-take when I saw the powder weights for the same powder types I was used to using in 10mm. You literally cannot even fit the .41's powder charge with mid-slow powders into a 10mm case and have any room left for the bullet.
 
I had so many neckbeards and momma's basement dwellers tell me they load their 10mm up to .41 mag specs it's not funny. When pressed they can't tell me the super secret squirrel load data they are using.

They use pretty much the same powders, and the .41 Mag has half again the case capacity. So tell me again how you can load them up to be equal?
Neck beards lie.
 
Will someone please get in touch with Tim on the Military Arms Channel and tell him that he needs to do a mea culpa on his channel about the total buffoonery of equating the 10mm to the 41 magnum!

Tim, if you’re out there, 10 minutes will do.
 
I had so many neckbeards and momma's basement dwellers tell me they load their 10mm up to .41 mag specs it's not funny. When pressed they can't tell me the super secret squirrel load data they are using.

They use pretty much the same powders, and the .41 Mag has half again the case capacity. So tell me again how you can load them up to be equal?

Just curious but what's a neckbeard? I know all about the mama's basement dwellers, but never heard of a neckbeard.
 
FWIW, original Norma 10mm ammo back when it was first developed early to mid 80's.....

200gr JTC @ 1200 fps 635 Ft/Lbs Norma Ref #11001
170gr JHP @ 1300 fps 636 Ft/Lbs Norma Ref #11002
165gr JHP @ 1400 fps 719 Ft/Lbs Norma Ref #11002 (Sample labeled as 165 gr was 170gr)

Smokin hot loads for that time!
 
FWIW, original Norma 10mm ammo back when it was first developed early to mid 80's.....

200gr JTC @ 1200 fps 635 Ft/Lbs Norma Ref #11001
170gr JHP @ 1300 fps 636 Ft/Lbs Norma Ref #11002
165gr JHP @ 1400 fps 719 Ft/Lbs Norma Ref #11002 (Sample labeled as 165 gr was 170gr)

Smokin hot loads for that time!

Yup, and still well short of the .41 Mag loaded to spec!
 
The 41 is far, far, FAR from extinct...

I expect it will be gaining some ground as more states move towards straight walled rounds for deer hunting.
While that may happen, I don't see hunters digging up .41 Magnum like it's the holy grail and answer to their prayers, they'll find something else to use, maybe even something entirely new will be made to meet that demand. That's how .350 Legend came about, it was purpose built for deer hunting for states with stupid straight wall restrictions.
 
I can't speak for all, but my work constantly (95%) of the time finds me in bear and moose country, in northern BC, Canada. When I am out there, I have to work. There are people that have shotguns (Defenders being common) but you can't work with something like that. Have you walked through balsam and spruce and alder brush, carrying over 3ft of shotgun? And with the cruise vest, flagging ribbon, pumpkin boots, hardhat, winter clothes, 4 different measuring tapes (reel, loggers, Dia., measuring) first aid pouch, blanket and fire bag, ear muffs, hatchet.....well you get the point. God forbid you need the chainsaw for the day. A shotgun and its 7 extra pounds isn't worth it. As I said, I need to work. Naturally a handgun would be an option, but even that is trouble finding space for and an extra weighted hassle. Not to mention Canada ridiculous Restricted Law and ATC program. What about the weather, I have to service the gun every 2-3 days because it may get wet and muddy for 6-7 hrs at a time. It is not worth it by principle, or effort, and statistics have it bear spray is the way to go. I have had 3 black bear encounters and 1 brown bear, over 4 years of this sort of work - and only once did I have to gas a black bear a bit too curious. The brown bear even had 2 cubs but was 50m off and ignored me after a moment discerning I was no threat at all. I carry 1 11oz can, 1 7oz can, and 1 5oz dog mace can that I adopted after an encounter with a loggers loose rottweiler. Truth be told moose are the problem, as moose are most unreasonable during rut season. I have been from Fort St John to Williams lake, Smithers to Grand Prairie, and never wished I had a gun at work or needed one. Statistics show I am much safer without one.

Speaking of which, perhaps in decades to come, resource workers will start getting equipped with wildlife tasers. Read some material of Alaska troopers, using wildlife pronged tasers capable of knocking over 1,300lb moose. Don't need to aim for the face like sprays, as you can pass current through a targets feet or appendages as easily as the neck and far less of an irritant to the operator.

ATC legal requirements are a bore size of minimum .357 caliber. Energy thresholds are rated minimum, .357 Mag, so you can't think you are being smart and use something like 9mm/.357sig/.40SW. I am using Wilderness Protection carry permit, not for bank security, or diplomat security, or ATM truck security. You need to prove yourself at the range at multiple distances, in front of grading RCMP officials. The same weapon and cartridges you test with, are the same you are allowed (and only) to take out to the field and have as your defense. Pretty rigorous and consuming process.
...........

With that all out of the way, 10mm Auto seems very analogous to .357mag. .41mag seems an awful stretch, I agree.....But what about Tritons .40 Super? .40 Super is most certainly no 10mm Auto, and can fit frames like 1911 and Glocks. While not very common, .41mag isn't common either, and the purpose of ATC Wilderness Protection isn't to be common, but to be suitable. I would also wager Dan Wessons unique supermag concept cartridges would also be great choices for Wilderness Protection, and those sure aren't common.
 
We have revolvers in 10mm and 41 mag (as well as 357 mag as it was also mentioned in this thread). First, we handload everything with the principle that accuracy is more important than top velocity so no doubt someone could wring more energy out of some or all of these revolvers if that is the sole objective. Our best 10mm load is grouping just over 2" @ 50 yds and makes 865 ft/lbs at the muzzle (SRH), the favorite 41 mag load is nearly as accurate at 915 ft/lbs (RH), while the hunting load from the 357 mag is 718 ft/lbs (BH). I don't know how much functional difference there is in the three as far as game performance but in paper ballistics, the numbers are what they are. IMHO too many new shooters try to push the performance to the limit for little more than bragging rights. My advice to them has always been the same, if you want more power then get a bigger gun over running something smaller at 10/10ths all of the time. YMMV
 
FWIW, original Norma 10mm ammo back when it was first developed early to mid 80's.....

200gr JTC @ 1200 fps 635 Ft/Lbs Norma Ref #11001
170gr JHP @ 1300 fps 636 Ft/Lbs Norma Ref #11002
165gr JHP @ 1400 fps 719 Ft/Lbs Norma Ref #11002 (Sample labeled as 165 gr was 170gr)

Smokin hot loads for that time!
Interesting load data there Viper1357.
I had so many neckbeards and momma's basement dwellers tell me they load their 10mm up to .41 mag specs it's not funny. When pressed they can't tell me the super secret squirrel load data they are using.

They use pretty much the same powders, and the .41 Mag has half again the case capacity. So tell me again how you can load them up to be equal?
Who are you calling a neck beard?, you mamma's basement dweller. :p :D
 
Last edited:
We have revolvers in 10mm and 41 mag (as well as 357 mag as it was also mentioned in this thread). First, we handload everything with the principle that accuracy is more important than top velocity so no doubt someone could wring more energy out of some or all of these revolvers if that is the sole objective. Our best 10mm load is grouping just over 2" @ 50 yds and makes 865 ft/lbs at the muzzle (SRH), the favorite 41 mag load is nearly as accurate at 915 ft/lbs (RH), while the hunting load from the 357 mag is 718 ft/lbs (BH). I don't know how much functional difference there is in the three as far as game performance but in paper ballistics, the numbers are what they are. IMHO too many new shooters try to push the performance to the limit for little more than bragging rights. My advice to them has always been the same, if you want more power then get a bigger gun over running something smaller at 10/10ths all of the time. YMMV

What is the barrel length on the 10mm SRH. Would you share the load data for that 10mm load or at least the bullet weight? I have never seen a load that exceeded 800ft-lb in 10mm that also did not exceed SAAMI Max Average Pressure. I could believe your load is safe loaded in a SRH but I have a hard time believing it is in spec per SAAMI unless that is a super light bullet.
 
What is the barrel length on the 10mm SRH. Would you share the load data for that 10mm load or at least the bullet weight? I have never seen a load that exceeded 800ft-lb in 10mm that also did not exceed SAAMI Max Average Pressure. I could believe your load is safe loaded in a SRH but I have a hard time believing it is in spec per SAAMI unless that is a super light bullet.

The barrel is 6.5" on the SRH and the bullet is a NOE gas check that weighs 203 grains with gas check and without lube.
 
Our best 10mm load is grouping just over 2" @ 50 yds and makes 865 ft/lbs at the muzzle (SRH), the favorite 41 mag load is nearly as accurate at 915 ft/lbs (RH), while the hunting load from the 357 mag is 718 ft/lbs (BH). I don't know how much functional difference there is in the three as far as game performance but in paper ballistics, the numbers are what they are.
I would say that the numbers left out of these equations are far more important than energy.


IMHO too many new shooters try to push the performance to the limit for little more than bragging rights. My advice to them has always been the same, if you want more power then get a bigger gun over running something smaller at 10/10ths all of the time. YMMV
IMHO, this has much to do with 100yrs of marketing, selling velocity through the worship of energy figures.
 
The barrel is 6.5" on the SRH and the bullet is a NOE gas check that weighs 203 grains with gas check and without lube.
Thanks, what powder are you using to push that bullet to nearly 1400fps? And how do you get it all in there? It would be interesting to see what you would do with 10mm Magnum in that revolver.
 
Thanks, what powder are you using to push that bullet to nearly 1400fps? And how do you get it all in there? It would be interesting to see what you would do with 10mm Magnum in that revolver.

AA9 is what we use. Good velocity and great accuracy. We actually went higher than that to see if there were any pressure signs and we were still good at 1448 but the accuracy was no better so we reduced the load 1 grain. It was not compressed even at that point. Without the moon clips you can still lift the fired cases out without any resistance even at 1448. As I said before, accuracy is more important to us than velocity so we have no desire for the 10mm mag. We started doing testing off sand bags at 50 yds and then moved that back to 100 so we could see finer changes in results. The cases shown are from the 1448 tests.

45703268922_ec1fa4a5c5_c.jpg 43935880290_5ea4a64dc4_z.jpg 38794388250_48777ed2d1.jpg
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top