10mm vs. 45ACP

Status
Not open for further replies.
For cdp the 45acp is a better choice. It has less recoil and plenty of energy for 2-legged predators.

Recoil depends on the load.
Yes, the hot 10mm loads, especially with heavier bullets, will have more recoil than a 45, but this is a controlable factor.

The Hornady 155 gr. XTP averaged 1,278 fps out of my Glock 29 which is a power factor of 198.

I had a Glock 36 and the Winchester Ranger T 230 gr. averaged 874 fps = power factor of 201.

According to the power factor calculation, the Glock 29 with that 10mm load is not producing any more recoil than the 45 acp Glock (That is a stiff 45 load, but it's not +P).

There may be a subjective difference is how that recoil is felt by the shooter (snap vs push) but in reality is going to be very comparable because the 29 is a little heavier than the 36.

The 45 is a good choice for human predators (I carry one sometimes) and I'm thinking select 10mm loads are too. :)
 
I own a Glock 20 and love shooting it. The ammo costs me about the same as the 357sig ammo that I also love to shoot out of my M&Ps & Glocks. These are my favorite rounds, but until I get set up to reload, I won't be shooting major amounts of them. You can find the more powerful loads out there on the web if you look, but be prepared to pay the price. I use the G20 for HD. It resides in the night stand loaded with Hornady xtp loads. Could my G21 do the same job...sure, I guess it's just a personal choice thing. Just like the 357sig that is loaded in my G27 on my hip. I've thought about the over penetration issue, but with the hollow point ammo that I use it should be a non-issue. Plus I've always been trained to look beyond the target as well as see what's in front. It's a no shoot situation until the target line is clear in both areas. But hey, that's just me...
 
The EAA guns in 10mm have a horrible reliability track record. Never known anyone who owned one that did not have trouble.

Now you do. Limited and Compact here, both great. My sister has had no trouble with her match model, either. And I don't load light; 180's at 1,400.
 
Have you all heard of the Harold Fish trial when he used his 10mm for defense? There were alot to this story, but one of the points was that the prosecution convinced the jury that the 10mm was too much for defense.

I never let left wing state laws and jury prejudices in specific cases govern my carry choice. That said, I don't carry a 10, don't even own one. I occasionally carry a .45 and usually carry a 9x19. 10mm requires a large frame gun, not the best for concealment in south Texas coastal areas.

Ya know, if that guy's lawyer had half a brain, he would have argued that the .357 magnum is just as powerful as the 10 and law enforcement carried THAT for several decades before autos became popular. My .357 hunting load pushes a 180 JHP to 1400 fps from a 6" barrel. Hell, just the word MAGNUM would intimidate a hand picked 12 morons in a jury box. :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
I'd prefer a .40 or .45 for anything that doesn't need the power of a 10mm. If both will provide adequate penetration, the bigger hole wins (or in the case of the .40, same effect for less $$, and I can get it on the XDM, which I prefer over the Glock for minor reasons).

If I wanted an auto to handle 4-legged predators, I'd take 10mm FMJ.
 
Couple things. First off, the 10MM=45 Super/.451 Detonics. I LIKE .45 Super, and 10MM, because they are far enough outside the SD box to actually make a difference. You are nearly doubling K.E. with these rounds over .45 ACP.

However, that said, I'm more relying on the actual shooting information provided by police to Detonics, and what they found effective. They had EXCELLENT results using Speer Flying Ashtrays, 200 grains, at 1200 fps. That was what they suggested over 185's at 1350 fps, or 230's at 1100 fps.
Quick history lesson: .451 Detonics was the original round similar to .460 Rowland, but loaded lighter. Longer case then normal. Detonics recommended using standard .45 ACP brass, in their tight, fully supported chambers, with .45 Super level loads.

10MM is the perfect California round, or states limited by 10 round magazine capacity.

10MM also makes an excellent woods round, compared to .45ACP.
It's in another category as far as killing power on deer sized game.

Things that bother me: 10MM can be loaded heavy or light. Light and fast would be ideal, with an expanding bullet, for urban areas, or for people that have fear of missing, or, believe in the boogie man of over-penetration.

I would match my ammunition to my bad guys, and, in my experience, they all start around 250 pounds, or bigger. Penetration, or lack of it, is a concern for me.

Fish's trial was obscene. Yes, he made a perfect choice of a woods gun, 10 MM, and ended up having to use it. He shot a guy who had a long history of violence.
Still, it should have been brought in to show pattern of behavior, and state of mind, since the guy had a history of going psycho on people, and hurting them.
Bad trial, throw it out, and start over.

10MM is an excellent choice, problem is trying to find a gun for it.
I think timing a strong .45 ACP 1911, and setting it up properly is a better choice then a 10MM.

I don't like Glocks sloppy chambers, since yes they feed everything, but they also let the brass expand so much you can't use it again. I'd also be reluctant shooting 40k 10MM loads out of an unsupported, loose chamber.
Brass just isn't THAT strong.
 
There is no perfect defense gun, just as this isn't a perfect world. What works in New York is not a great choice for Texas bush.
 
There were alot to this story, but one of the points was that the prosecution convinced the jury that the 10mm was too much for defense.

You are assuming the prosecutor convinced the jury the 10mm was too much for self defense.

Harold's problem was he shot an unarmed man after having the decency to give the unarmed man's dogs the courtesy of a warning shot. He gave the unarmed man no such consideration, and just capped his arsch.

Something people need to consider whenever resorting to deadly force is whether it is justified in the eye of a reasonable person. You cant shoot people just because they scream they wanna kill you.

Harold would habe been convicted even if he had used a 38 loaded with rubber bullets.
 
One of the convicting jurors, female IIRC, said the use of such a powerful gun caliber was an issue with her. Kind of tells you that the defense didn't do their job.

Fish correctly perceived that the guy was going to try and do severe bodily harm to him. He had in the past stabbed, and otherwise attacked people.
The dog was smart enough to leave, the owner instead attacked the shooter.
You really think a warning shot, ANOTHER warning shot would have made any difference?
 
Fish did not know the man's history at the time he shot him, therefore he could not use it as justification. All he saw was a loudmouth, of similar size build and age, with open hands. There was no disparity of force. Fish was not allowed to resort to deadly force under those circumstances.
 
That's hilarious. So, you correctly understand that this nut, after you fire a warning shot at his dog, is nuts, and is going to attack you, and do you bodily harm. You are rewarded with 10 years in jail. I do notice that in all of this discussion, never any mention of weapons carried by the 'innocent' man, which, I find very hard to believe. This guy had a history, using stabbing weapons.

I gather Arizona has corrected the problems with such stuff by writing new laws?

Please cite the law you mention, and how it's been changed.
 
I'm not going to cite common law for you. There has not been any change it it, hence the conviction.
 
Whatever. It wasn't a federal trial, common law has no influence, unless Arizona adopted common law for their state criminal law.

In short, your response means your full of it, legally.

Anyone that is being The High Road, would be posting Arizona State Statutes that apply to this case, and how they changed, 10 years later, unless you have an agenda.
 
Where did you get the idea that common law does not apply in Arizona? Why are you ignoring the AZ jury instructions and the common law cites they contain? Yeah, whatever.
 
Common law (also known as case law or precedent) is law developed by judges through decisions of courts and similar tribunals rather than through legislative statutes or executive branch action. A "common law system" is a legal system that gives great precedential weight to common law,[1] on the principle that it is unfair to treat similar facts differently on different occasions.[2] The body of precedent is called "common law" and it binds future decisions. In cases where the parties disagree on what the law is, an idealized common law court looks to past precedential decisions of relevant courts. If a similar dispute has been resolved in the past, the court is bound to follow the reasoning used in the prior decision (this principle is known as stare decisis). If, however, the court finds that the current dispute is fundamentally distinct from all previous cases (called a "matter of first impression"), judges have the authority and duty to make law by creating precedent.[3] Thereafter, the new decision becomes precedent, and will bind future courts.

In practice, common law systems are considerably more complicated than the idealized system described above. The decisions of a court are binding only in a particular jurisdiction, and even within a given jurisdiction, some courts have more power than others. For example, in most jurisdictions, decisions by appellate courts are binding on lower courts in the same jurisdiction and on future decisions of the same appellate court, but decisions of lower courts are only non-binding persuasive authority. Interactions between common law, constitutional law, statutory law and regulatory law also give rise to considerable complexity. However, stare decisis, the principle that similar cases should be decided according to consistent principled rules so that they will reach similar results, lies at the heart of all common law systems.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law
 
Whatever. It wasn't a federal trial, common law has no influence, unless Arizona adopted common law for their state criminal law.

NOT LEGAL ADVICE:

??? Common law is a state creation. It can apply in federal court where the federal court is applying state law, but of course it applies in state court. State court is where common law is created!

(Some people use the term "common law" to mean all case law/decisional law. That's not really right, since a lot of case law is applying statutes or regulations. It's decisional law, and it shapes the meaning/interpretation/application of those statutes and regs, but it's not "common law" as such. Regardless, all US courts have some body of decisional law - often multiple bodies - that they apply, depending on their jurisdiction and the matter before them.)
 
Fish did not know the man's history at the time he shot him, therefore he could not use it as justification. All he saw was a loudmouth, of similar size build and age, with open hands. There was no disparity of force. Fish was not allowed to resort to deadly force under those circumstances.
It appears you know little of the actual facts in the case. There was nearly a 20 year disparity in age. And while Fish had no way of knowing Kuenzli's past, not being aable to show his past in court put doubt in jurors mind that Fish was accuratly discribing Kuenzli's actions.
I'll also point out AZ law with respect to the castle doctorine putting the burden of proof on the prosicution to prove it wasn't self defense. This would have forced the prosicution to allow Kuenzli's past into evedence.
They knew they couldn't win a retrial which is why today Harold Fish is a free man.
 
The 10mm has an advantage as it carries more energy down range than the .45
You need to consider the distances you plan to shoot in a personal defense situation. You may have a real problem trying to claim self defense when you shoot someone at 50 yards. This is where the 10mm really has its advantage over the .45
 
It appears you know little of the actual facts in the case. There was nearly a 20 year disparity in age.

It appears you know very little about the law as it pertains to self defense. Being the standard is that of a reasonable person, the assailant's past or concealed weapons that were not brandished could not weigh into Fish's decision to use deadly force. I know plenty about the case, both men were pretty evenly matched. Fish was an avid hiker and in excellent physical condition. Just because one is younger does not allow the other to shoot him. Otherwise there would be alot of dead teenagers littering the streets.
 
I'll also point out AZ law with respect to the castle doctorine putting the burden of proof on the prosicution to prove it wasn't self defense. This would have forced the prosicution to allow Kuenzli's past into evedence.

NOT LEGAL ADVICE:

Why would the burden of proof being on the prosecution force them to "allow" evidence* that would have been unfavorable to their case? Rules of evidence are generally a separate body of law from the substantive law, which controls things like the burden of proof.

* The judge decides which evidence to allow, although the lack of an objection from an opposing party will usually result in the evidence being allowed. An objection brings the legal question to the judge's attention, and forces him/her to make a ruling.
 
The threat or use of physical force is not justified:
1. In response to verbal provocation alone;

This is not consistent with the account of Kuenzli charging Fish while threatening bodily harm, which is more than "verbal provocation alone."
 
I think the assailant's past would be allowed into evidence if Fish claimed he was attacked, so it would have been used to support Fish's claim that he was in fact attacked.

But Fish did not claim he was attacked, just that the other guy threatened to kill him. Being that in AZ verbal threats alone do not justify deadly force, to allow the assailant's history into evidence would have been prejudicial and irrelevant.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top