Gryffydd
Member
Fitty isn't too bad either, but that limits us to the .50 AE for the current discussion
Why the majority of semi-auto manufacturers stops at 45 ACP-40 S&W???
- Thread starter saturno_v
- Start date
- Status
rcmodel
Member in memoriam
I think another factor is a lot of big-bore magnum revolver shooters and hunters tend to be handloaders.
A 10mm auto pitches it's brass into low-earth orbit, never to be seen again.
And it is uncommen enough that you won't find once-fired brass laying on the ground at the range.
rc
A 10mm auto pitches it's brass into low-earth orbit, never to be seen again.
And it is uncommen enough that you won't find once-fired brass laying on the ground at the range.
rc
Armed Bear I do not understand your point...
To your Model 60 I can oppose a Glock 29...very compact....you may pocket carry in hiking clothes
Yes you could go 2" in a snubnose 357..however you lose significant power...I would not rely on one of them in the woods...
Why a 357 revolver should be more effective than a 10 mm Auto pistol??
In anything, in a similar size you can carry over double of the rounds.....the only reasonable argument is that a semi-auto may be statistically less reliable than a revolver...it may....
Furthermore at full SAAMI specs for both the 10 mm has a slight edge over a 357 and with heavier bullets..
If for light wildlife defense we consider only cougars and very small black bears, with the right bullet the 45 is more than adequate....but for a just bit bigger blackie the 10 mm has an edge over the 45 and I do want that edge...
however I agree with you, at the moment when I take the way of the woods I carry my Mod 29 in 44.....but to sum it up a 357 Revolver has no advantages over a 10 mm auto pistol as "light" wood pistol, quite the contrary....
To your Model 60 I can oppose a Glock 29...very compact....you may pocket carry in hiking clothes
Yes you could go 2" in a snubnose 357..however you lose significant power...I would not rely on one of them in the woods...
Why a 357 revolver should be more effective than a 10 mm Auto pistol??
In anything, in a similar size you can carry over double of the rounds.....the only reasonable argument is that a semi-auto may be statistically less reliable than a revolver...it may....
Furthermore at full SAAMI specs for both the 10 mm has a slight edge over a 357 and with heavier bullets..
If for light wildlife defense we consider only cougars and very small black bears, with the right bullet the 45 is more than adequate....but for a just bit bigger blackie the 10 mm has an edge over the 45 and I do want that edge...
however I agree with you, at the moment when I take the way of the woods I carry my Mod 29 in 44.....but to sum it up a 357 Revolver has no advantages over a 10 mm auto pistol as "light" wood pistol, quite the contrary....
We also have rattlesnakes. Alternating loads work perfectly in a revolver. And drop both in the mud...
Seriously, though, I don't give a crap what you carry.
Carry a Glock 29 if you want. Don't delude yourself that you get book velocity from it, though.
Depends on what revolver and what semi auto...I had my Beretta 92 shooting pefectly after being dropped in mud....
I carry both actually..I recognize the advantages of one versus the other without ideological prejudice
180 gr. 10 mm Auto BB at 1350 fps, 782 ft/lb...
.357 SIG is not a .357 Magnum in any way. They just capitalized on the well known .357 name.
The 10mm Auto is the auto version of the .357Magnum.
The .357 SIG being a .40 S&W tapered to 9mm.
If you taper the 10mm Auto to 9mm you get the 9x25 Dillon. A real monster, (but too loud for practical use). It launches light 9mm (.356) projectiles at velocities comparable (or even faster) to high power .357 Magnum loads using light bullets. While the 10mm Auto covers much of the heavier bullet range of the .357 Magnum.
A 9x25 dillon barrel fits right into a 10mm auto gun, just as a .357 SIG barrel fits into a .40 S&W gun as they are essentially the same round just tapered for a smaller bullet.
So if you get a 10mm Auto with a 9x25 dillon barrel for it you can do what you could with your .357 automag with light 90 grain loads. You can load them even hotter, softer, or anywhere in between as a 9x25 dillon 90 grain bullet goes well over 2,000 feet per second.
A simple barrel swap and you can go from super fast light bullets in 9mm to heavy bullets in 10mm. Separate recoil springs can fine tune it for nicer shooting if you wish as well.
HoosierQ
Member
I would prefer the firearms makers concentrate on making better and/or more inovative platforms for the rounds we already have...including 10mm and .357 sig. There would seem to be sufficient variety all up and down the power spectrum to do whatever you want, today, with rounds we have...even though you do have to cross over from an auto to a revolver at some point.
There have been a variety of "dream" threads as to what gun would you like to see made. Some imagination there, employed by the firearms makers, would be how I'd want it to go. Heck, I'd just like to see more steel firearms in modern configurations. How about a steel M&P or s steel Glock...made by glock. Thin everything down etc.
There have been a variety of "dream" threads as to what gun would you like to see made. Some imagination there, employed by the firearms makers, would be how I'd want it to go. Heck, I'd just like to see more steel firearms in modern configurations. How about a steel M&P or s steel Glock...made by glock. Thin everything down etc.
Full power Norma 10mm Auto loads were never issue by the FBI. The FBI tests in 1989 were heavily weighted towards what would become 40 S&W ballistics, with only one of the 5 10mm loads tested making more than 1,000 fps. They tested 170 gr (Norma, 1358 fps avg), three 180 gr (Federal, Winchester and IMP-3D at 931 fps, 955 fps, 991 fps avg respectively) and 191 gr (Buffalo Bore, 916 fps). They adopted the Federal 180 grain JHP.
I have read, but not substantiated, that this loading was based on early, pre-test observations that the Colt Delta Elites were not handling the full power Norma loads well. Supposedly someone in the lab bought some 180 grain JHP's and loaded them to around 950 fps. They liked this load, and convinced Federal to provide some factory loads to this spec. Since so many of the tested loads mimic these ballistics, it is likely this spec pre-dated the test.
Given the momentum numbers for the power level of the load they adopted, the 45 acp springs were probably correct. This load generates very similar energy and momentum to the 45 ACP rounds included in the test. However, I have never heard of issue 1076's that were under sprung. The Delta's used in the test most likely were under-sprung. I know the Delta I bought in 92 was, and the one my college roomate had in 89 was as well.
Most notably, they 'solved' the excessive recoil problem by switching to a lighter gun (Glock 23 - 21 oz vs 1076 40 oz) firing the same projectile at the same speed (180 gr .400" JHP at 950 fps). This means they fixed the complaints about excessive recoil by using a new platform that would have more recoil than the old one.
Zoogster nailed it though about mfg. In the late '80's everyone was tooling up to make some variant of the 'wonder-nine'. The 10mm was going to require all new engineering and tooling. The 40 S&W though would drop right into about any wonder-nine frame with just a new barrel and breech face. If you owned a company, would you back the round that would cost you hundreds of thousands to tool to for, or the one you could be shipping guns in a month with only some changes to existing parts?
At the end of the day, the only two tested ammunition to score 100% in the FBI's 1989 tests were the 158 gr Federal .357 Mag at 1183 fps and the 170 gr Norma 10mm at 1358 fps.
The full power 10mm loads were largely rejected due to the recoil and concerns over gun longevity. Ultimately, neither were particularly valid in my mind. The S&W 1076 has proven itself more than capable over the years of the handling full power 10mm loads. And, the recoil of the 170 gr JHP at 1358 fps in a 40 oz gun is probably not significantly worse than the recoil of the current 180 gr JHP at 980 fps in a 20 oz gun.
I have read, but not substantiated, that this loading was based on early, pre-test observations that the Colt Delta Elites were not handling the full power Norma loads well. Supposedly someone in the lab bought some 180 grain JHP's and loaded them to around 950 fps. They liked this load, and convinced Federal to provide some factory loads to this spec. Since so many of the tested loads mimic these ballistics, it is likely this spec pre-dated the test.
Given the momentum numbers for the power level of the load they adopted, the 45 acp springs were probably correct. This load generates very similar energy and momentum to the 45 ACP rounds included in the test. However, I have never heard of issue 1076's that were under sprung. The Delta's used in the test most likely were under-sprung. I know the Delta I bought in 92 was, and the one my college roomate had in 89 was as well.
Most notably, they 'solved' the excessive recoil problem by switching to a lighter gun (Glock 23 - 21 oz vs 1076 40 oz) firing the same projectile at the same speed (180 gr .400" JHP at 950 fps). This means they fixed the complaints about excessive recoil by using a new platform that would have more recoil than the old one.
Zoogster nailed it though about mfg. In the late '80's everyone was tooling up to make some variant of the 'wonder-nine'. The 10mm was going to require all new engineering and tooling. The 40 S&W though would drop right into about any wonder-nine frame with just a new barrel and breech face. If you owned a company, would you back the round that would cost you hundreds of thousands to tool to for, or the one you could be shipping guns in a month with only some changes to existing parts?
At the end of the day, the only two tested ammunition to score 100% in the FBI's 1989 tests were the 158 gr Federal .357 Mag at 1183 fps and the 170 gr Norma 10mm at 1358 fps.
The full power 10mm loads were largely rejected due to the recoil and concerns over gun longevity. Ultimately, neither were particularly valid in my mind. The S&W 1076 has proven itself more than capable over the years of the handling full power 10mm loads. And, the recoil of the 170 gr JHP at 1358 fps in a 40 oz gun is probably not significantly worse than the recoil of the current 180 gr JHP at 980 fps in a 20 oz gun.
Last edited:
My point is that a semi-auto is not necessarily less reliable than a revolver in principle....I brought up the Beretta 92 because that is the "mud experience" I had with a pistol...
Of course not....from a Glock 20....
Even for the 357 the published numbers applies often to barrel length of 6" or more....
From double tap website to further compare glock 20 and glock 29 velocities:
http://www.doubletapammo.com/php/catalog/product_info.php?cPath=21_25&products_id=39
As you can see only about a 50 fps difference.
If you fire a 180 grain round that goes 1350 FPS from the glock 20 it will be between 1280-1300 from the glock 29 depending on powder burn rate. 180 grain and 200 grain projectiles reach almost the same speed from the slightly shorter barrel. The velocity loss being somewhere around 50 FPS give or take.
In the lighter loadings the 20 begins to pull away from the 29.
Last edited:
Gryffydd
Member
If so, nobody's loading it that way. The top factory .357 loads still outperform the top 10mm factory loads. (Buffalo Bore, Double Tap et al)
Dude, I already said the 10mm is better. That doesn't change the fact that 230 grains at over 1000fps is a very respectable load. We're not talking comparisons we're talking absolute values.
Oh, and good luck getting a 10mm to feed these:
The .357 will also always have better SD than the .40.
4" for my loads. And I have a 4" also.
What I put in my .357 for the trail is similar to the numbers you quoted, so take off some FPS either way for a snubbie or a 29.
LOL
I forgot about that: bullet flexibility. What will feed in a semi isn't necessarily what I want on the trail. Jacketed handgun bullets with soft cores may have impressive numbers on paper, but when they come apart on contact with a predator, they're not so impressive.
The only load I found in 357 (revolver) that beat the 783 ft/lb 180 gr. 10 mm Auto from Buffalo Bore is....from Buffalo Bore...one load reaches 783 ft/lb (1 ft/lb more) in 180 gr. (better SD for the 357 I admit) and another reaches 802 ft/lb in 125 gr.
Everybody else is lower...
Everybody else is lower...
Very true...infact is critical to find a good semi-auto that feeds reliably with anything and as good break-in/polishing, etc.......that is one of the revolver advantages....
This si the reason I'm looking for a S&W 1006 or 1026 in 10 mm...very tough and they can digest anything...
Last edited:
Gryffydd
Member
...so at the very least, they're a tie rather than the 10mm being better when you pick the best you can find in either caliber.
Also more proof that muzzle energy is not the number one should be looking at especially when it comes to wildlife. No one would ever say the 802ft/lb from the 125gr HP is a better load than the 783 with the 180 WFNGC.
I do wonder if they'd feed WFN LBT style bullets...
They do, at least the ones I know
Of course ft/lb is not the only measure, I never said that.....bullet constrution and SD are fundamental too..
Obviously 802 ft/lb coming for a 125 gr. HP bullet doesn't mean much for wildlife defense...an overexpanding bullet with poor SD....
Gryffydd
Member
I do realize that. I was just making a side note because that load illustrated the problem with the pure muzzle energy people.
The only problem with the 1006/1026 is that they're still single stack..
I know....
.....but 9+1 is better than nothing....I still prefer a S&W 1006 or 1026 rather than a 10 mm 1911 based pistol which have even less capacity (usually 8+1) and are SA only....And the S&W were built around the original specs of the 10 mm Auto cartridge from the ground up....
Last edited:
I think single stack 10mm lose a lot of thier appeal. The capacity is no longer much different from a revolver and I would just go with a 44 Magnum revolver which can be loaded up or down.
Only in doublestack firearms do I see the appeal of the 10mm auto.
So to me most of the 1911 designs don't take advantage of the 10mm's potential benefits.
Only in doublestack firearms do I see the appeal of the 10mm auto.
So to me most of the 1911 designs don't take advantage of the 10mm's potential benefits.
Last edited:
BTW the fact that the high end of the regular production semiauto scale is comparable to what in 2009 is a trivial production revolver round (most of my "play guns" are in .357) is also revealing.
There's some overlap, but that's about as far as it goes. Serious revolvers start where semiautos leave off.
There's some overlap, but that's about as far as it goes. Serious revolvers start where semiautos leave off.
Gryffydd
Member
Bingo. We've been focusing on the .357 too much so far in this comparison. 6 vs. 10 really isn't much when you consider the vast power difference between 10mm and .44 Mag or .45 Colt--even excluding the ridiculous revolvers of 454 Casull and up.
I totally agree
This is the reason why is very sad that the EAA Witness is not (or not longer with the new slide design) capable to handle full specs 10 mm Auto loads....a stronger Witness supported by a reputable company would be very nice...I woudl gladly pay few hundred dollars more than the current prices...
The only other remaining high capacity 10 mm is the Glock 20 if you can stomach the plastic and the action....it is quite reliable and tough, very popular for wildlife carry....
Last edited:
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Poll
- Locked
