Is a full house 10mm more powerful than a .357 magnum?

[350 Mag]

Yup.

I didn't see one. I'd expect the 10mm to do at least as well as the .45 and .38...

Who's the IDIOT?

Stupid is as stupid says...since were resorting to name calling...

10mm Auto should test "at least as well" as the .38 Special.

For someone passing themselves off as an older experienced wiseman seems you are not above "name calling"....most of us grow out of that after High School?

 

[Globetrotter]

Ah, a refreshing change...
BTW, if you want to have fun with your ATC buddies and reinforce the importance of practicing enough to shoot well have yourselves a "bear shoot" with everyone throwing a tooney or fiver in the pot for each round.

All you need to build is a simple trolley with a light target stand at the front. Buy some of the medical tubing you use if you fly R/C gliders for launching. Secure the travelling target stand to a number of lengths of the rubber tubing, all running back to the shooting position. The back of your trolley has an attachment for a length of para cord. You haul the trolley back to the start position (frontal bear silhouette in position), stretching out the rubber tubing while doing so. The para cord goes through a simple screw in a support post or whatever else is handy, then back to the shooting point. When ready, you simply let go of the para cord, and your trolley and target come bounding and rolling towards the shooter more than quickly enough. Enough rubber tubing, and the shooter better get out of the way when the target gets there...

Anyways, it's fun, good practice, and sobering for those who think that just strapping the ultimate handgun on is a talisman that prevents anything bad from ever happening to them. I have yet to see anyone who didn't have fun shooting that one, and it can be a nice little revenue generator at club fun shoots for those who enjoy handgun shooting. Just run it like a meat shoot.

well, Rick...
I like your idea so much, that I will built a "contraption" like yours for
the range and will take it home every time, as too many shoot
wildly using speed , and damage even my target frames beyond repair.
I reload on my Star press and fire usually 3-4000 rounds every year and also
in most miserable weather conditions. It does pay off .

 

[Rick]

It is unlikely to make any difference with a body shot, where as I've said, organs (other than the liver and kidney) expand and contract as part of their normal function.

So... we have moved from your original claim there is no energy transfer occurring, to now claiming energy transfer is unlikely to make any difference. Well, that's a start. I guess one picture is worth a thousand arguments.

Maybe if you do not want people to question you experience you should not make statements like - "pure lead bullets do not fragment" - or refer to the deeper penetration of non-expanding spitzer bullets - they are designed as soft points but will not expand at handgun velocities.

As I said Boomer, I have a nice collection of pure lead Minie balls and round balls here that weigh pretty much what they weighed when they first came out of the mould. Do I have to go to the effort of loading pictures onto the Web to satisfy you?

Will pure lead NEVER lose so much as a grain of it's weight in a game animal? No, of course not. Does it fragment like a linotype bullet? No, nothing like that? How about like a Nosler Partition? No, nothing like that either.

Here's another perspective: if a 250 gr. Barnes bullet weighs 249 grains after being recovered from a game animal, do we say "Gee, they fragment"! What percentage of weight retention is acceptable to you before you would consider a projectile to not fragment? 100%?

And if you want people to take YOUR experience seriously, you might want to refrain from comments about there being no energy transfer in the face of such glaring evidence to the contrary.

That is a nice looking bullet you designed - I'd like one like it for a small game load for my .375.

Send me a draft of the dimensions of your chamber and ball seat, a cheque for $75, and I'll get right on it.

But if you are a bullet designer of some repute why is it that you seem unaware of these things?

I am not a designer "of renown"; I am simply one of those who actually knows enough about that style of cast bullet to be able to design those that work. Which would set me apart from people who DON'T know enough about them to do that, but must instead rely on purchasing moulds and/or bullets from those who do. Which would, apparently, include you.

I was, however, fortunate enough to be mentored by Dr. Richard Gunn while I was learning the craft of bullet design - and Dr. Gunn is a bullet designer of a great deal of repute in the eyes of anyone who knows the first thing about designing working cast bullets.

The fact that I am "unaware" of your wild flights of fancy regarding avowing that no energy transmission exists, etc and so on does not invalidate what I have learned. Like previous discussions I have followed you in - and much of what you have said elsewhere I agree with - it seems that while others put together an argument to support their position, you favour making pronouncements that are to be taken as fact by we peons out here.

We don't have many 700 kg black bears around here, however, from time to time we do see 800kg white ones, which is why I want a nonexpanding flat nosed bullet in my handgun. Oh, by the way - white bears can be quite scary.

Thank you for that fascinating piece of information - who'da thunk it! However, as the entire thread started up and revolved about ATC calibers for BLACK BEARS, I think applying the test of what would be suitable for polar bears is somewhat irrelevant. If you want to start a thread on ATC calibers suitable for those who have to deal with polar bears, please be my guest. You might find one person here who will claim the 10mm is the best damned polar bear cartridge going, but I don't think you will see me or anyone else stating that anything of that energy level or below is a particularly good choice.

In the meantime, I still have yet to see the black bear that 15" of penetration would not do more than nicely to go through the bones in the head, neck, shoulders, etc. As I said before, we ain't talking elephants and buffalo here - or polar bears for that matter.

It just beats the hell out of me why, when you design a bullet with all the features which I have been saying work you come up with a statement that I should carry a spitzer style bullet in my revolver.

Okay, you have me trapped.

Now if you could be so good as to point out where I've posted that people should be using spitzer bullets in their revolvers for ATC as you claim I have, then I'll slink away in embarrassment.

I've played around with bullet designs and cartridge designs, and came to the conclusion that there is nothing that I can design that will improve what is available.

Really? How many cast bullet designs did you actually have cut before you came to that conclusion?

When you gain a little more experience with bullet designs of the cast persuasion, you'll eventually come to realize that significant performance gains can be made with custom designs that precisely fit your particular firearm, as opposed to off the shelf designs that were an approximation of what would work best in the majority of firearms out there. Think of it as the cast bullet equivilent of handloading, if you will.

Once you get that sorted out, then we can discuss heat treating.

To aid you on your journey to enlightenment, I would highly recommend investing a few dollars each year for a membership in the Cast Bullet Association. Did it many years ago, and it worked for me. You too might find you can learn from people like Dr. Gunn, C. Ed Harris, Tom Gray, Ken Mollohan, Bill Ferguson, and others. Studying at the feet of the masters is never a bad thing.

In fact, if you pick up a catalog from NEI Handtools Inc, you will see bullet moulds very similar to the ones you designed. Their #346E could be laid right on top of your bullet.

... and I just copied or imitated the design?

You are increasingly demonstrating a very poor understanding of cast bullets indeed; in fact, you seem to lack a comprehension of the most basic features of cast bullet designs. I'm about to head out flyfishing, but let me take a few moments to try and help you out here.

Some cast bullets are called "plain based" - like the Fred Cornell design you're speaking of which can be viewed on their online catalogue (http://www.neihandtools.com/catpages/mold_pg12.htm, folks).

Others - like mine which you are referring to, have a heel for seating what is called a "gas check". You can see that at the bottom of the bullet in the picture I posted.

Now, Cornell's version has lube grooves considerably bigger than mine - which in the opinion of many of us results in carrying excessive lube and the related problems that go with that. And Cornell's lube grooves are considerably larger than the driving bands - again different than mine. There is also the small matter of that NEI mould having flat bottomed lube grooves while none of mine do. If you take another look at that bullet design of mine in the picture, it will be obviously apparent that my lube grooves do not have 90 degree corners at the bottom. Aids in mould fill out and release with very large bullets, you see (some free information for you there).

There are a few other minor differences like the ogive, the area of the meplat, etc. Suffice it to say, like most of the rest of your pronouncements from above, your claim that "their #346E could be laid right on top of your bullet" doesn't even pass the sniff test.

You can't even make a simple visual comparison while diligently hunting through your NEI catalogue, and I'm supposed to take your pronouncements seriously on other's level of knowledge and experience? Okay, whatever...

As I said before, are we having fun yet?

 

[Boomer]

The games continue:

Originally Posted by Rick
So... we have moved from your original claim there is no energy transfer occurring, to now claiming energy transfer is unlikely to make any difference. Well, that's a start. I guess one picture is worth a thousand arguments.

What I said was that the energy transfer from a low velocity handgun round would not aid in the killing of a large animal. It is the belief that the energy from an expanding handgun bullet results in better terminal performance on a large game animal that I referred to as fairy tail. That has not changed, nor will it.

Quote
As I said Boomer, I have a nice collection of pure lead Minie balls and round balls here that weigh pretty much what they weighed when they first came out of the mould. Do I have to go to the effort of loading pictures onto the Web to satisfy you?

Will pure lead NEVER lose so much as a grain of it's weight in a game animal? No, of course not. Does it fragment like a linotype bullet? No, nothing like that? How about like a Nosler Partition? No, nothing like that either.

What percentage of weight retention is acceptable to you before you would consider a projectile to not fragment? 100%?

And I have a nice collection of jacketed spitzers fired at handgun velocities that show no up set what so ever. Would you like to see pics of them? They have retained 100% of their original weight.

You are the one who said pure lead would not fragment. I don't intend to prop up your arguments. If you drive a lead bullet at the velocity intended for the design parameters of a jacketed rifle bullet, it just might fragment. If you drive a jacketed big game rifle bullet at normal handgun velocity it will not.

Quote
I am not a designer "of renown"; I am simply one of those who actually knows enough about that style of cast bullet to be able to design those that work. Which would set me apart from people who DON'T know enough about them to do that, but must instead rely on purchasing moulds and/or bullets from those who do. Which would, apparently, include you.

I have no issue with that statement at all. I am interested in being outdoors shooting, and I am not interested in being a stuck indoors in front of a computer screen or a drafting table. I am fortunate enough to live in a place where I can carry a gun and shoot everyday if I choose to. I'll continue to buy my bullets, and help the world go round in my own little way.

Quote
However, as the entire thread started up and revolved about ATC calibers for BLACK BEARS, I think applying the test of what would be suitable for polar bears is somewhat irrelevant.

The trouble with bears is that regardless of color they tend to do things, which are unexpected. If you have an encounter with a dangerous bear and you shoot - and your shot is not perfect, the bear might run off, and your target is now quartering away. Why is it better to have bullets, that are only suitable for broadside or frontal shots on black bears, rather than loads that are designed for deep penetration on much larger animals? If the bullet exits, that's a bonus, two holes for the price of one. Both holes let in cold air, and both holes let out blood. When considering a load for a defensive handgun, the load must allow one to recover quickly from recoil so a fast follow up shot is available, and the bullets must penetrate as deeply as possible.

Quote
Now if you could be so good as to point out where I've posted that people should be using spitzer bullets in their revolvers for ATC as you claim I have, then I'll slink away in embarrassment.

Quote
those hunting with handguns (or whatever) would pick spitzer designs, round noses, etc to maximize the amount of penetration they achieved.

That sounded like an endorsement the first time I read it, but on second reading I realize it is not intended that way.

Quote
You can't even make a simple visual comparison while diligently hunting through your NEI catalogue, and I'm supposed to take your pronouncements seriously on other's level of knowledge and experience?

I'll give you your due as a bullet designer - that bullet does look good to me, but I'll follow my own council concerning the proper loads and bullets for my ATC guns. Sure did look like the heel of the bullet I quoted from the NEI catalog was rebated for a gas check, but it might of been a bad picture on my copy. As for not being able to tell the difference between the band widths of the picture in the catalog and the band width of your posted pic, I don't feel bad about overlooking that degree of detail, but I apologize for doing so.

Quote
As I said before, are we having fun yet?

Hell yes - I wouldn't of missed it. Enjoy the fishing.

Edited to add - No gas check on NEI's 3346E, and you are correct, other than the nose profile there is not much similarity between the two bullets. Poor choice on my part for comparison.

 

[350 Mag]

Gatehouse seems to have changed his mind on the 45 ACP?

This was originally posted by Gatehouse...

one thing that has kept me form considering the 45ACp as a bear defense round is that it is a little underpowered.
These loads look interesting.

What kind of pressures are being created by these cartridges?

http://www.canadiangunnutz.com/forum/showthread.php?t=35507&highlight=armco


Now if you read this whole thread he advocates using it for ATC for woods protection.

 

[Gatehouse]

This was originally posted by Gatehouse...

one thing that has kept me form considering the 45ACp as a bear defense round is that it is a little underpowered.
These loads look interesting.

What kind of pressures are being created by these cartridges?

http://www.canadiangunnutz.com/forum/showthread.php?t=35507&highlight=armco


Now if you read this whole thread he advocates using it for ATC for woods protection.

I've already summed up my arguments several times, but I'll do it again, just for you. Hopefully this will penetrate:

I do indeed feel the 45ACP is a little underpowered for bear defense. Same for the 10mm.

If you actually read this whole thread you will find that I don't reccomend the 45ACP for woods protection, I say that you woudln't notice much difference between a hot loaded 45ACP and a 10mm, when shooting at a charging bear, and that shot plaement was more important than cartridge.

The 45ACp isn't loaded right up to it's full potential in a modern handgun, and the 10mm is. Load the 45ACP a little hotter, and the gap between the 10mm and 45ACP closes up a fair bit.

One thing I didn't do was post over and over that one cartridge was KING.

I personally think that bear defense starts around the 44 Magnum. A 45-08 will get you close enough, and the 45 Colt loaded well is probably the best choice out there, even better than the big ass hand cannons, which have enough recoil that makes multiple, rapid, accurate hits difficult for most shooters.

 

[Rick]

I've already summed up my arguments several times, but I'll do it again, just for you. Hopefully this will penetrate:

I doubt it will - it's like somebody told a teenager high on hormones that his girlfriend isn't the most beautiful woman in the world, while he believes no one else is even close. It's like it's a personal insult or something...

However, I think Gatehouse has a good idea in summing up for a last time. While it probably won't matter with our 10mm fanboy, it might clarify matters for anyone who has gotten confused as the original thread was hijacked, and then hijacked again.

We originally started this journey - when this thread was about BLACK BEAR defense, in response to this:

.45 ACP belongs in a museum, old cartridge, past its prime and quite easily a joke when compared to 10mm Auto which can run circles around the .45 ACP in any department...Faster, Flatter shooting, more accurate, more energy, more capacity, better penetration etc etc etc.

At the time I responded that "The 10mm probably is the much better choice for someone with an ATC". And I still believe that, unless you choose the option of altering your .45 ACP to also take something like the Armco loads, .45 Rowland, etc, then the 10mm is the marginally better cartridge. No problem there.

However, I said then and I still contend that claiming the .45 ACP belongs in a museum, is past it's prime and a "joke" when compared to the 10mm in any department, is simply a comment made out of the ignorance of a newby with a whole year's experience with handguns.

Loads for the .45 ACP improve every year - the Double Tap ammo loads listed here for the purposes of measurebating show that. It is still in service with more law enforcement agencies than the 10mm. It is still in service with a good number of military units, and the US has recently considered purchasing a new handgun in .45 ACP - NOT 10mm... The military shows little interest at all in the 10mm, and it isn't exactly being adopted by leaps and bounds by police forces either. Nobody using the .45 ACP in either the military or police is whining about it being a museum piece - that comment is reserved for the newby's among us whose primary function is poking holes in targets. I doubt any enemies on the receiving end of .45 ACP would consider it to be a "joke".

Given that, I see little reason to agree with the contention that the .45 ACP is past its' prime, a joke, and belongs in a museum. It's as silly as saying the 30/06 - developed in about the same year - is also past its' prime, a joke, and belongs in a museum. Real world performance shows how false either contention is.

Furthermore, there are some areas where the 10mm still lags behind the .45 ACP and probably never will catch up. It has not and shows no signs of ever replacing the .45 ACP in accuracy events like Bullseye and PPC. And while the .45 ACP can and has been modified for years to provide much higher performance - like the .45-08 Armco and similar cartridges that surpass the 10mm - the 10mm right now is producing just about all it's likely to get.

So... as I said before and continue to maintain, the 10mm is indeed ahead of the .45 ACP in many areas. But it can definitely NOT "run circles around the .45 ACP in any department". No matter how many newby fanboys might wish that to be true. In some areas, it still takes a back seat to the .45 ACP. That isn't going to change anytime soon.

That was the start of the thread hijacking... it subsequently moved on to this:

Normal .45 ACP is NOT an adequate round to dispatch a Black Bear. It may or may not do the job but lacks penetration needed to be considered an adequate bear gun.

The 180 gr Gold Dot actually out EXPANDS the much larger 45 and still out-penetrates...numbers don't lie.

For one last time, the measurebating figures that were provided for this discussion:

DoubleTap .45ACP
230gr Gold Dot JHP @ 1010fps - 15.25" / .95"

DoubleTap 10mm
135gr JHP @ 1600fps - 11.0" / .70" frag nasty
155gr Gold Dot JHP @ 1475fps - 13.5" / .88"
165gr Gold Dot JHP @ 1400fps - 14.25" / 1.02"
165gr Golden Saber JHP @ 1425fps - 14.75" / .82"
180gr Gold Dot JHP @ 1300fps - 15.25" / .96"
180gr Golden Saber JHP @ 1330fps - 16.0" / .85"
180gr XTP @ 1350fps – 17.25” / .77”
200gr XTP @ 1250fps - 19.5" / .72"​

For starters, we quickly see that the claim of the Gold Dot 180 gr. 10mm outpeneterating AND out-expanding the 45 ACP is incorrect. The lighter 180 gr. bullet penetrates no further than the larger diameter and heavier 230 gr. Gold Dot in .45 ACP - and expands exactly .01" greater in diameter by the time it comes to rest.

Here's the relevance of that: if the .45 ACP is "inadequate and lacks penetration" for black bears, then obviously, exactly the same thing can be said for the wonderous 10mm 180 grain Gold Dot. And about every single 10mm round that doesn't penetrate as far, or penetrates marginally better, but expands much less. In fact, among the 10mm data we were given, there are only two loads that might be argued have a significantly better combination of penetration and expansion than the best .45 ACP loads out there off the shelf.

Other than those, where factory ammunition is concerned, with the exception of two loads, it appears that .45 ACP is pretty much as good as all the rest of the 10mm loads listed in real life. If one actually believes that a 10mm bullet that weights 50 grains less, starts out at a smaller diameter, and expands less is superior because it penetrates an extra .75"... well, that's an interesting opinion, but we're all certainly entitled to our beliefs.

It's actually worse than that - for both the 10mm and .45 ACP, but mostly for the 10mm.

All the performance data used for the measurebating to show how "inadequate" the .45 ACP is used Double Tap ammunition. The minor fly in the ointment here is that this ammunition is not available in Canada. However, Hornady ammunition using the XTP bullets in question is available. Let's have a look at that...

The .45 ACP isn't driving 230gr Gold Dot JHP @ 1010fps any longer - the best it can do is 950 fps. A loss of 60 fps, and presumably an attendent loss of penetration.

But the 10mm suffers even more. The 180 grain XTP can now only manage 1180 fps - a loss of 160 fps. Meanwhile, the 200 gr. XTP - the best load for penetration from Double Tap - is now at 1050 fps. A loss of 200 fps, and now all of 40 fps faster than the Hornady factory .45 ACP load that uses a bullet 30 grains heavier.

Lets visit that "inadequate penetration" comment again. You have to ask yourself if a 200 grain 10mm bullet going a whopping 40 fps faster than a 230 grain .45 bullet is going to give any significant penetration/expansion advantage to the 10mm over the .45 ACP in the real world. Personally, I think anyone who claims one is better than the other is attempting to pick fly s**t out of pepper... And as neither of those loads performs as well as the Double Tap measurebating data we were given, one pretty much has to conclude that if the upper limits of Double Tap 10mm ammo is where a handgun finally becomes "adequate" for black bears, then neither the .45 ACP nor the 10mm meet the tests required for acceptable performance. Until Double Tap or similar ammunition eventually becomes available in Canada, of course...

That leaves reloading. You can reload the 10mm much hotter of course, and a lot of the popular loads out there are hardly SAAMI compliant. However, you can also load the .45 ACP to .45-08 - and end up with a much more potent load indeed.

This is the point where the newby's scream "But those aren't NORMAL .45 ACP loads". That should leave us asking them: just what the hell is "normal"?

• If you can't even purchase ammunition because it's unavailable in the country you live in, is it "normal"?
• Not so very long ago, there was no such thing as "+P" loads. Does that mean that these new loadings are not "normal" and shouldn't be considered in cartridge considerations?
• The .45 Colt mentioned by Gatehouse, along with the .44 Special and numerous other calibers were originally loaded in balloon head cases. They were much weaker than modern cases, and the loads of the day reflected that. Should the .45 Colt and similar loads being carried today be dismissed because they are not in the original cases and loaded to original pressures, and therefore they are not "normal"?
• Another example: the .45/70. The .45/70's being built today - and the loads being used in them - are immensely superior to the best that cartridge was capable of when it was developed. Or what it was capable of well into the middle of the last century for that matter. Since newer, stronger cases are being used, and since .45/70 firearms are being built today that will handle much stronger pressures than the original Trapdoors, Winchesters, etc... will anyone say "No fair, that isn't a "normal" .45/70"? I don't think so.

In short, attempting to disqualify ammunition fired in exactly the same barrel and chamber because it isn't "normal" is nothing but poorly concealed gerrymandering because the object of one's affection is coming out a poor second.

Developers have been developing stronger brass, better ways for firearms to handle hotter loads, etc for many, many years. To attempt to disqualify one particular instance as not "normal" borders on the ridiculous. And how many people would say "Oh, I can't consider using that particular load/combination to defend my life - it's not "normal"'...

In conclusion, I pretty much agree with Gatehouse in his thoughts on bear defence. However, my ideal starts with a 12 gauge, not a handgun to begin with; whenever possible, the shotgun accompanies me to work, not a handgun. When we are strictly talking about black bears, I think a properly loaded .357 Magnum, 40 S&W, .45 ACP, or 10mm are all adequate. I don't think the performance differences between them amount to a hill of beans. But the operative word is "adequate" - not 'best choice".

If I was delusional enough to believe I could shoot the 500 S&W at speed, with accuracy, then that would be my best choice for black bear or cougar defence. If I'm shooting for my life, nothing is big enough in bore, fast enough, or penetrates far enough. However, if you can't shoot it with precision at speed, then you're probably in trouble no matter how big the hole in the barrel.

Somewhere between the extremes is a cartridge/handgun combination that is the maximum each individual can shoot accurately, at speed. I know I can't do that with an N frame and have known it for 30 years - being able to pull the trigger does not qualify as being able to employ it skillfully and accuracy. For me, that either means something really big like the Magnum Research 50AE, or something like the 45-08. For others who can shoot snubby 44 Magnums and bigger like they are little more than .22 rimfires, lucky you, fill your boots. But I much prefer the ability to rapidly put a magazine full of lesser rounds exactly where they need to go in a second or two over carrying a hand cannon I cannot control.

I think that about covers it as far as summarizing goes...

 

[IM_Lugger]

Rick, you can reload 10mm hotter than you stated; using Power pistol you can safely push 180gr at 1240fps and 200gr at 1145fps, while .45acp +P is still well behind; 185 gr at 1075fps, 200gr at 1030fps, 230gr at 930fps.

And since .400" is smaller than .451" even at the same velocities 10mm would still outpenetrate 45...

The 45ACp isn't loaded right up to it's full potential in a modern handgun, and the 10mm is.

most 10mm factoty ammo is a BIT underloaded actually. Only Double tap and Buffalo bore ammo (and maybe Cor-bon) are loaded 'right'.

 

[Rick]

Rick, you can reload 10mm hotter than you stated; using Power pistol you can safely push 180gr at 1240fps and 200gr at 1145fps, while .45acp +P is still well behind; 185 gr at 1075fps, 200gr at 1030fps, 230gr at 930fps.

And since .400" is smaller than .451" even at the same velocities 10mm would still outpenetrate 45...

I think you'll notice that I didn't say anything about how hot 10mm can be handloaded - I compared the factory stuff while noting none of it would likely meet the test of "adequate" apparently used here for black bear defense. All I said about reloading the 10mm is that it could be reloaded hotter.

Of course, rather than reloading 10mm hotter, I think I'd just as soon stick a spring and buffer in the Norinco, buy some cases, and reload the .45 ACP to 45-08. A 200gr 10mm at 1145 may well be adequate, but I'll take a 200 gr. .45 bullet at 1400 fps and change out of the Norinco any day of the week. An extra 300 fps with a bullet bigger in diameter is another class of performance altogether. One that kind of leaves the 10mm sucking dust, if you know what I mean.

most 10mm factoty ammo is a BIT underloaded actually. Only Double tap and Buffalo bore ammo (and maybe Cor-bon) are loaded 'right'.

Yup, I know that. Of course, Double Tap and probably Buffalo Bore are nothing more than theory because we can't get them in Canada.

 

[350 Mag]

Not going to get into measurebating again....



Hornady Factory 10mm might as well be 40 S&W. Only utilizes 75% of 10mm Potential.

So you might as well just use 40 S&W vs 45 ACP for comparison if you are gonna start quoting factory ammo specs?

All of Mikes loads are within SAAMI spec.

I used his data to compare because he loads it to the MAX allowed by SAAMI spec. that removes all debate from numbers....no slight of hand or trickery involved.

If you use his data it compares the the ABSOLUTE max that the 45 ACP and 10mm can be loaded and still be within SAAMI max....the reason he does this is to expose the fact that most factory 10mm loads and EVEN reloading manuals don't do the 10mm Auto the justice it deserves.

Comparing the best 45 load and best 10mm load the 10mm has 4.25 inchs greater penetration, higher muzzle velocity, higher energy, higher sectional density.

As many here and elsewhere have said...

When it comes to handgun hunting penetration is the key.

Something the 10mm has over the 45 ACP.

 

[Rick]

Rick, you can reload 10mm hotter than you stated;

Related to that point, there are a lot of newby's and generally uninformed reloaders who claim that pressure testing equipment is only in the hands of the ammunition companies and the bigger custom ammunition firms like Double Tap, Cor-Bon, etc. Based on this rather flawed thinking, these people think nobody on CGN or any other handloader could possibly have pressure testing equipment to work with when developing handloads.

They would, of course, be wrong.

Pressure testing equipment has been affordable and available to handloaders since the early 90's. The first system I can recall was Oehler's Ballistic Laboratory - it was pricy at its' inception at a bit over $1000 with all the goodies. Of course, look what a loaded Dillon XL650 will cost you... But still a good value as it included a chronograph, pressure testing equipment, an acoustic target, etc.

These days, there are much more inexpensive solutions our there. I purchased the Pressure Trace setup several years ago after finally purchasing my first laptop. I believe the cost was $300 - pretty much within the budget of those who do any amount of reloading when amortized over time. It doesn't take long to shoot up $100 worth of bullets, powder, primers, etc when developing loads. I have made my money back over time, charging a small fee for other reloaders who wanted pressure tests of their handloads. Interesting to see the barrel stretching loads some people are shooting - many of which they picked up off the Internet. The fact that more firearms aren't blown up is a testament to the strength of the firearms on the market today, I think.

So the next time somebody tells you nobody other than a manufacturer owns pressure testing equipment, consider the source.

If you do any amount of maxing out loads in your firearms, I believe pressure testing equipment is a reasonably priced and well recommended tool be using while working up those loads to max. Both as a matter of safety, and as a matter of not beating the hell out of your firearms by shooting what are essentially proof loads out of it.

Pressure testing equipment is also useful for determining who consistent your loads are shot to shot, how much the pressures of your loads increase and decrease with changes in temperature, etc. Like chronographs, once you get pressure testing equipment, you wonder why you didn't buy it sooner.

 

[350 Mag]

Related to that point, there are a lot of newby's and generally uninformed reloaders who claim that pressure testing equipment is only in the hands of the ammunition companies and the bigger custom ammunition firms like Double Tap, Cor-Bon, etc. Based on this rather flawed thinking, these people think nobody on CGN or any other handloader could possibly have pressure testing equipment to work with when developing handloads.

They would, of course, be wrong.

Pressure testing equipment has been affordable and available to handloaders since the early 90's. The first system I can recall was Oehler's Ballistic Laboratory - it was pricy at its' inception at a bit over $1000 with all the goodies. Of course, look what a loaded Dillon XL650 will cost you... But still a good value as it included a chronograph, pressure testing equipment, an acoustic target, etc.

These days, there are much more inexpensive solutions our there. I purchased the Pressure Trace setup several years ago after finally purchasing my first laptop. I believe the cost was $300 - pretty much within the budget of those who do any amount of reloading when amortized over time. It doesn't take long to shoot up $100 worth of bullets, powder, primers, etc when developing loads. I have made my money back over time, charging a small fee for other reloaders who wanted pressure tests of their handloads. Interesting to see the barrel stretching loads some people are shooting - many of which they picked up off the Internet. The fact that more firearms aren't blown up is a testament to the strength of the firearms on the market today, I think.

So the next time somebody tells you nobody other than a manufacturer owns pressure testing equipment, consider the source.

If you do any amount of maxing out loads in your firearms, I believe pressure testing equipment is a reasonably priced and well recommended tool be using while working up those loads to max. Both as a matter of safety, and as a matter of not beating the hell out of your firearms by shooting what are essentially proof loads out of it.

Pressure testing equipment is also useful for determining who consistent your loads are shot to shot, how much the pressures of your loads increase and decrease with changes in temperature, etc. Like chronographs, once you get pressure testing equipment, you wonder why you didn't buy it sooner.

Will/does pressure trace equipment work for semi-auto pistols? That is after all what we are talking about here...unless you have been reffering to 45 ACP revolver loads?

Does it use a glued on strain guage?

If so please let us know because I would buy in heartbeat if it will work on semi-auto pistol...please explain to us NOOBS how you go about testing pressure with "your set-up" on a semi-auto pistol?

Thanx.

http://shootingsoftware.com/pressure.htm

I think the big boys(McNett included) might just have a little more sophisticated equipment at their disposal???

Drilled chambers....piezio-electric transducers....reliable data...

More "slight of words" and "trickery" going on....???

 

[Boomer]

Rick, this again points out differences in our approach to things. While it might be mildly interesting to know what the pressure of a given load is, using a chronograph, I can usually find my maximum load within 5 rounds, and from there I work downwards to find the load that produces the best combination of reliability, power and accuracy.

When I bought my Ohler 35, I considered the model 43, but concluded the additional information I could gain from it was unimportant for the type of shooting I do. Because I want reliability from my dangerous game guns, I load well short of the safe limit of the design parameters. Because accuracy seldom is at it's best with compressed loads, I load my target guns well short of maximum.

Let's say you are loading a .45 auto (long barrel extending beyond the slide so you have an exposed barrel surface upon which to glue your strain gauge) with a 230gr bullet ahead 7 grs. of Unique, and you are using a standard primer. Until you actually fire the subsequent round which has incrementally more powder, how do you know that subsequent load will be safe to shoot? Certainly using the pressure software does not help in finding the maximum safe load for that particular gun - which might differ significantly from SAAMI specifications, unless you have watched the pressure increase over a number of rounds as you conduct your load development. Therefore, if I can find my maximum load within 5 rounds, I do not see how your pressure equipment is able to safely find the maximum load within fewer rounds fired. If you took a shot in the dark, and found that 7 grs of Unique in the example I quoted is maximum for your test pistol, you have indeed found the maximum in fewer rounds than I, but I am sure you agree this is a poor way to conduct load development.

Still, the gimmicks available to handloaders are interesting, and spending money helps make the world go round, to which I do my share as well.

 

[Rick]

Rick, this again points out differences in our approach to things. While it might be mildly interesting to know what the pressure of a given load is, using a chronograph, I can usually find my maximum load within 5 rounds, and from there I work downwards to find the load that produces the best combination of reliability, power and accuracy.

I am not that confident in the reliability of a chronograph to tell you what peak pressures in a load are. I am also not that confident that one single round with a given load is an accurate representation of what pressures for that combination will be. Perhaps it's because statistical analysis is part of my profession, but I have to wonder what misinformation gets passed on from exactly one trial. What if the pressure from that round would have turned out to be an outlier on the high or low side if we had fired ten rounds or so? I can't say I'm a real believer in using a chronograph to determine when maximum pressures are arrived at. But if it works for some people...

Prior to pressure testing equipment and QuickLoad, I used Ken Water's case head expansion procedure. That was fine for approximating factory ammunition pressures, even though it can not and should not be taken as a definitive means of accurately identifying what pressures really are.

Furthermore, it is definitely unhelpful in the case of wildcats, rifles chambered in old cartridges in modern rifles (40/60 Maynard in a Lee Enfield, anyone?), when matching the Brinell hardness of cast bullets to the operating pressure of a given load, etc. In those instances, factory ammunition is unavailable or load pressures are well below factory ammunition levels - making exemplar factory ammunition basically useless.

Because I want reliability from my dangerous game guns, I load well short of the safe limit of the design parameters. Because accuracy seldom is at it's best with compressed loads, I load my target guns well short of maximum.

I don't believe in hotrodding handguns, rifles, or shotguns. Generally speaking, it seems to me you're better off in many respects to go to a bigger cartridge rather than stress a rifle by subjecting it to constant working pressures that it was not intended to operate at. That goes for spades in shotguns, where the patterning board generally shows the folly of pushing pressures. I would rather have a larger cartridge operating at moderate pressure levels than the smaller one working right at the ragged edge of safety.

On the other hand, it isn't sensible to leave anything laying on the table if you don't lose accuracy or reliability in the process. My .358 Norma Magnum gives me best accuracy AND best velocity loaded right to the max; I have a featherweight 30/06 that behaves exactly the same way. They might even get better yet if I was to exceed standard pressures a little, but I'm not goinging there.

With assets like pressure testing equipment or QuickLoad, there is very little question of what pressures are - and how they vary from winter to summer. A number of very nice loads have been red starred because I didn't realize how much the pressures fluctuated with hot weather.

Let's say you are loading a .45 auto (long barrel extending beyond the slide so you have an exposed barrel surface upon which to glue your strain gauge) with a 230gr bullet ahead 7 grs. of Unique, and you are using a standard primer.

A strain gauge on the end of the barrel would be essentially useless. The strain gauge is actually supposed to be over the center of the cartridge case (at least it is with the PressureTrace equipment), but you do the best you can. This requires finding where the strain gauge will fit on the barrel, as far back as possible, while still fitting into the slide, and then routing the small wires through the frame. This may not be possible on all semiautos, and I have read in forums where others put the strain gauge on the barrel where exposed at the port (which would be closer to where the guage should go in the first place) and then by various means fixed the slide so it could not move - or moved very little - during firing. There are other methods as well - none of them acknowledged or endorsed by Southwest Products as far as I know - but it does take some fooling around to get a strain gauge on a semiautomatic handgun where it will be useful. With shotguns, rifles, revolvers, and single shot handguns, it isn't an issue.

In any case, a strain gauge at the end of the barrel of any kind of firearm would offer very little information indeed, and I think the results would be essentially meaningless. Once you've seen the printout of a few pressure tests, you realize that peak pressures are near the beginning of the projectile's journey, not at the end of the barrel...

Perhaps more importantly - and conveniently - QuickLoad seems to be extremely accurate in predicting both pressures and muzzle velocity. The only thing it WON'T do is show you variations from shot to shot - as a chronograph or pressure testing equipment does. If QuickLoad had been in the advanced state of development it is today, I wouldn't have bothered with the pressure test equipment I bought at the time. I don't think it's precisely accurate, but then, a test barrel in a test lab does not replicate all the barrels out on the market with tight bores, loose bores, new brass versus brass fired multiple times, etc. Some brains are required, particularly for those wanting to tapdance on the ragged edge of pressure limits.

Still, the gimmicks available to handloaders are interesting, and spending money helps make the world go round, to which I do my share as well.

One man's "gimmick" is the next man's invaluable tool.

We could just as easily say that primer uniformers, neck sizing dies, M dies, separate seating and crimping dies, adjustable case length trimmers, primer seating tools, etc are all "gimmicks". After all, nobody REALLY needs more than the classic Lee Loader (or it's equivilent from other manufacturers) to turn out reliable ammunition that goes "bang" when you pull the trigger. With a set of plastic powder measures... under $30 Canadian. We could say everything else is just a "gimmick". In fact, we could probably cut all our powders back to about 3 - 5 powders and reload anything out there; why the annoyance of all those extra types of powder?

But I think many tools and choices go a long way to improving the quality and usefulness of the ammunition many of us turn out.

 

[Camp Cook]

All of the times that this thread has been going on I am unable to post because I have been off working in the bush without internet reception...

I come back into town and the theorist are still at it...

May I suggest more remote wilderness time and less armchair theories...

 

[albertacoyotecaller]

With all this debate..my new carry gun will be a..

I am thinking I am just going to have to get me a Glock 20 in 10mm to figure some of this stuff out myself.

I wish I could just convert my Sig 226 over to 10mm.

 

[magicchip]

lol...26 pages and it's still going.
I guess some topics will keep going forever.

I thought I'll hijack you thread abit:
Wat do you think is most effective for bear defence ?

 

[Boomer]

Rick -
It takes pressure to push a given bullet to a given velocity from a given barrel, and it takes the same amount of pressure each and every time. These results are repeatable within a given combination of components and firearm. The head expansion measurement is only meaningful if it is conducted with the same make and lot of brass from test to test, and I would assume with brass that has been fired the same number of times, but ideally with new brass. By comparing the chronograph's findings with either previously chronographed results, or by comparing the findings to published load data, the chronograph will tell you every time if your pressure is within acceptable limits. If there is a rise or drop in pressure due to; temperature, change of components, or for any other reason, the chronograph will show that change in pressure by indicating a change in velocity. It is up to the tester to determine the cause for the change in pressure - and no software, hardware or loading manuals will be able to make that determination for him.

As with any testing, the larger the test group the more accurate the results, but that does not mean the results of a small test group should be disregarded, or that data from a larger test group will be produce data that would influence the findings of the smaller test. The testing is for an individual shooter, with an individual firearm, and is done at a specific location. The purpose is not to test commercial ammunition which might be used in a wide range of firearms, by thousands of people, in the far reaches of the world.

The farther apart the chronograph screens, the more accurate the results. I find 6' is convenient for my purposes, and I am confident that small shot to shot variations are true readings. I was unsatisfied with the conduit Oehler reccomended to hold the screens, which was then supported by a camera tripod. I have a V shaped, perforated, steel post which holds the sky screens perfectly, and the distance between them is precise. This rail is then set in the jaws of a workmate.

When I first worked a load for the 380 gr bullets in my .375 Ultra, I got an average of 2308 fps. It seemed no matter how often I chronographed this load the extremes never dropped below 2300 fps, and never rose above 2320. After I had chronographed 100 rounds I finally had a round drop below 2300 by a few fps, but does that invalidate my claim that I was getting 2300 fps from that load? Not at all. Does it require that I resight my rifle? No. Does it mean that I should adjust the load to keep it safe in my rifle? I don't think so.

Provided that safe handloading procedures are followed, the handloader will not get himself in trouble using a chronograph to help him work up the ideal load for his firearm. Should he refuse to follow safe handloading procedures he will find himself in trouble, but that type is seldom going to much trouble with load development.

Perhaps an area where the chronograph might prove unsatisfactory is in the measuring of subsonic loads. Oehler advises that the muzzle blast may reach and trigger the screen before the subsonic bullet, resulting in a false reading. They go on to describe how a blast baffle can be used to prevent this phenomena from occurring, but anyone working with subsonic loads should be aware of the problem.

 

[Boomer]

All of the times that this thread has been going on I am unable to post because I have been off working in the bush without internet reception...

I come back into town and the theorist are still at it...

May I suggest more remote wilderness time and less armchair theories...

I've actually been able to walk around with my .357 during your absence. I sure hope my .44 gets home soon.

 

[Rick]

All of the times that this thread has been going on I am unable to post because I have been off working in the bush without internet reception...

I come back into town and the theorist are still at it...

May I suggest more remote wilderness time and less armchair theories...

Hmmmm... Camp Cook you say? Does sitting in camp, slaving over hot stoves to feed the field crews, surrounded by buildings with generators, trucks, equipment running, etc, count as "remote wilderness time"? Is time driving around in a crummy or service truck counted as "remote wilderness time"? In my version of "remote wilderness time", you ain't working in camp or driving around in a truck - you're out in the bush well away from any roads or buildings. The closest the camp cook gets to where I go is the lunch in my backpack that the cook put together.

Hmmmm, anyways Camp Cook, despite that I can appreciate your comment somewhat because some of the most vocal here don't have an ATC in the first place and therefore this is all theory for them and probably always will be. And while I've only had to shoot two bears with a handgun, along with a number of wild boars on another continent, once again some of our most vocal participants have never had to shoot anything with a handgun.

However I do work in the bush in BC and the Yukon, and I do carry on an ATC. I'm not a camp cook; I do GPS surveys. That means, weather and helicopters permitting (no roads or trucks here, that comes later), I'm out pushing around through the alders, huckleberry bushes and whatever else happens to be out there. We do see bears around camp when we're back to sleep and eat (and I have to tell you I appreciate a really good Camp Cook when we get back from being out in the boonies), but an insignificant portion compared to those we see out in the bush. If you're not a Camp Cook, but actually a geologist, or timber cruiser, or forester spending most of your time out in the bush rather than in camp or in or near a truck, then perhaps our jobs have something in common after all.

Incidentally, most development camps are complete with satellite Internet for business comms as well as personal communications - so Internet when you're actually in camp rather than out pushing through the bush is not an issue. Some of us just have it better than others, I guess; maybe you just need to change who you're contracting to?

When I'm not working in BC, I'm down at our second home in Montana, just a few miles from Glacier National Park and about 45 minutes south of the Kootenays - like right now for example. Very nice - I can sit here in my office looking out at the new snow on the mountains in Glacier, while typing this and slurping my morning coffee. The black bear and her cubs haven't been back for a few days, so hopefully the bear bangers did the job and they won't be getting themselves into trouble. Here I carry from the time I get up in the morning until the time I go to bed; open carry or concealed carry - my choice. I do because I can, and because we live outside of town and it's prudent. Lots of black bears here, a fair share of grizzlies, and a week ago a cougar just grabbed a dog from among a group of kids and dogs that were playing at a picnic a few miles from here.

I doubt you've spent as much time wandering around out in the sticks over the last thirty years as I have (time spent in the cookshack or driving around in a truck doesn't count in my books, sorry). I also doubt you'll ever spend as many hours legally carrying a handgun as I have over the last 30 years and still do for defense against both critters and people. Until you do, I will consider the source when reading your comments about "armchair theories", and take your comments under advisement accordingly.