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

Guys I have been away and out of internet reception for far to long I see.

WOW I couldn't read the last 10 pages...

I am going to put this in simple turns...

The 10mm is the most powerful production semi-auto cartridge available today.

Geo your 4" 357mag loaded with appropriate loads will come very close to closing the gap but does not in the end match 10mm ballistics, as well as you have to consider more rounds and faster reloading capabilities for the 10mm.

I have 3 different 10mm semi-auto handguns that I use in the winter month's when the bears are sleeping or if I am jumping in and out of my truck.

I own handguns mostly for protection of my life and the lives of others from wild animals (yes I shoot competitions as well) and do not own anything smaller than .400" diameter.

Let me put it another way...

I wouldn't own a 45acp handgun for defense unfortunately they just don't cut it...

Here are my choices from years of carrying handguns for defense...

10mm in a Colt Delta Elite, Glock 20 & now a new 4.25" Glock 29

45 Colt Ruger Bisley Vaquero's

454 Casull Ruger Super Redhawks

I am on a working trip right now...

What handguns do I have with me???

G20 & 29 10mm's and my Armco shortened 4.25" 454 Casull SRH...

Sorry guys but 350mag has it right...
 
Wow, am I ever coming in late on this one.

I own handguns in 9mm, a .45 auto, .357 magnum and .44 magnum. The autos haven't even been put on my ATC, because they do not meet my ballistic requirements. The bullet I want is the heaviest for caliber that can be driven between 1100-1200 fps, which precludes the 9mm (a prohib) or the .45. If I owned a .480 Ruger, .475 Linebaugh, or a .500 S&W, I would also load those rounds to a maximum of 1200 fps, because when loaded to that velocity, the gun can be pulled down out of recoil quickly if a follow up shot is required, while the velocity assures good penetration with a nonexpanding bullet.

If we drive 2 bullets at the same velocity, the bullet with the higher SD penetrates deeper if the construction and profile of both bullets is similar. The .40/200 has a SD of .178 and the .357/200 has a SD of .224. Given that the heaviest 10mm bullet which can be driven to the velocity I want is 200 grs, I believe that the .357 has a slight edge. In the real world I would be equally comfortable with either gun, (read less comfortable than I would be with my .44 loaded with 325's) and the .357's slight advantage disappears if both bullets exit, because the 10mm produces a larger wound volume.

For those who are screaming - "What about shock energy?" - there is little shock energy transferred to a live target when the impact velocity is below 2000 fps. Penetration is the key ingredient when we consider the killing effect of handgun bullets on big game, particularly if the animal in question weighs over 500 pounds.

AS an analogy, consider the non-expanding bullets used for very large African game. The best bullet is the one which produces through and through straight line penetration, and caliber is a secondary consideration. So it is with handgun bullets on bears. The bullet which penetrates the deepest, while cutting a full caliber hole, wins. Expanding bullets for use in ATC guns I believe are a disadvantage.
 
I think I'm getting just over 1100 fps with 200 gr cast in my M-27, but I'll have to go back and check. At equal pressure, the larger diameter of two bullets with the same weight should be faster because there is less bearing surface in contact with the barrel. Then again cast might shoot a tad faster then jacketed. I don't have a 10mm to shoot against, but they probably come up pretty close in velocity when both are loaded with 200 gr bullets.
 
dan belisle said:
I'll have to check, but I don't think that a 200 gr 358 bullet (from a handgun) will be going faster then a 200 gr bullet from a 10mm. If you could get equal speeds, it would definately penetrate more, all else being equal, but all else rarely is. - dan

Now that we have finished with that "off topic" 45 ACP stuff....we can now get back on topic...


DoubleTap.

http://www.doubletapammo.com/php/catalog/product_info.php?cPath=21_27&products_id=152

357 Magnum with 200gr Hardcast


Finally, a serious, heavyweight load for the .357 Magnum for the woods and hunting! These hardcast LBT-style bullets create wide DEEP wound channels for hunters and those concerned with woods protection.
Velocity is from a 4" bbl.

Velocity: 1200fps / 4" Ruger GP-100
Muzzle Energy: 640 ft. lbs.




http://www.doubletapammo.com/php/catalog/product_info.php?cPath=21_25&products_id=105



10mm with 200gr Hardcast


This is the load that you have been hearing about! This hardcast Wide Flat Nose gas - checked bullet will not deform on impact, and will create a large deep wound channel. Excellent for hunting or woods protection!

Caliber : 10mm

Bullet : 200gr WFN Beartooth

Ballistics : 1300fps/ 750 ft./lbs. - Glock 20(4.6 inch FACTORY BARREL)

If you went with a 6 inch 357 and a 6 inch KKM or Barsto with the Glock the 10mm would still have a slight edge.


Slight edge to the 10mm.

p.s

They now have 230 Gr load for 10mm with Hardcast lead with wide meplat...:D

Mike is working on getting Canadian Distributor lined up. If he does get his ammo up here that would be good news for the guys with ATCs and CO's.
 
Last edited:
Camp Cook said:
I am going to put this in simple turns...

The 10mm is the most powerful production semi-auto cartridge available today.
Wrong.

That would be the Magnum Research Model XIX in .44 Magnum and .50AE, I believe. Making the 10mm not even a pretender to the throne. I have shot the .50AE, and it is very controllable indeed.

Geo your 4" 357mag loaded with appropriate loads will come very close to closing the gap but does not in the end match 10mm ballistics, as well as you have to consider more rounds and faster reloading capabilities for the 10mm.
I suppose we're comparing a 4" revolver barrel to a 5" SA barrel here. Without degenerating into measurebating, given that there are published loads from VV and others that will move a 200 gr. bullet out of a .357 Magnum at between 1300 and 1350 fps, I think any real difference between the two simply comes down to measurebating.

Somebody with Quickload can figure out the velocity loss from a 6" to 4" barrel in the .357 - or to an equivilent 5" barrel for those who have one of those 5" series that regularly came out/those with a trimmed down 6" barrel. Or compare to one of the 10mm 4.5" barrels. I think we'll still be reduced to measurebating to find any difference, none of it meaningful.

Of course, if we're measurebating ballistics to see what has the theoretical edge, we'd have to consider terminal ballistics. That means we have to play with sectional density. And if you believe it is all about penetration and nothing more, you have to include the SD differences in the measurebation. Weight for weight, SD favors smaller calibers, so....

I do believe it is safe to say that (using the data posted here for Double Tap ammunition - unavailable in Canada where this matters) if a 200gr Double Tap 10mm load has a muzzle velocity of 1250 fps and 19" of penetration, then I would expect a 200 grain .357 load going 1350 fps at the muzzle to be pretty much the same thing. Assuming similar bullet makes were used, of course.

As for speed in reloading and number of shots... I'm not sure a bear is going to give you enough time for the number of rounds an autoloader carries to make a difference over a 6, 7, or 8 shot revolver. And if you're trying to reload after being empty, there's a good chance the bear in question might be distracting you from reloading by doing something amusing like gnawing on your face or something like that.

If we are going to deal with "what if's", there is the fact that a revolver doesn't get shoved out of battery by being pressed against a bear's hide or skull. They also don't have jams and stovepipes, even if you're weak wristing them, have them partially pressed up against your body or fur when you fire, etc. Immediate action drills, slapping, tapping, and racking to clear stoppages are a ##### when something is chewing on your face.

Of course, this is akin to measurebating. You aren't likely to be in a situation where an auto pistol jams for whatever reason, and you're not likely to have to go to reloads (and have the chance to do it in the first place). Revolvers and pistols each have their strengths and weaknesses in defensive situations. As far as that goes, one can have a .357 Magnum in a pistol if you want one.

I wouldn't own a 45acp handgun for defense unfortunately they just don't cut it...
We have one previous poster here who has found the .45 ACP to work for defense just fine.
Under my ATC I have dispatched two black bears since 1980 . Both were in full charge mode , both were killed within feet , not yards and both were taken down with a .45 ACP.
You could try convincing him of the error of his experiences, but unfortunately, I don't think he's viewing the thread any longer.

And the CO's in this province also shoot blackies with the .40 S&W and it seems to make them go flop - I have not heard an outcry from CO's that they need a bigger handgun. And some doing predator control with their dogs have shot a LOT of bears with a .40 S&W. You might also ask rgv to provide more details of the number of bears he has personally witnessed CO's shoot with a 40 S&W. I have spoken to him about this face to face while heading into camp, as it happens, and from what he told me the .40 S&W dumped bears with authority.

As far as that goes, I have destroyed two crippled bears with an issue .38 Spl and ordinary service ammunition. They weren't charging but they were very much alive, mobile, and upset. They went flop pretty fast, and the .38 Spl service load doesn't have anything on the .45 ACP.

Your milage, of course, may vary. And if you have had problems killing black bears with a .45 ACP under the conditions of your ATC in real life, then that is important experience worth hearing about, and I for one would find it very interesting to hear about.

However, too often pronouncements are made based on small differences in ballistic charts and internet lore. As our friend who killed two charging black bears with a .45 ACP noted, the bears don't read ballistic charts. I suspect most of the CO's destroying bears with 40 S&W's don't pay much attention to ballistic charts either.

Here are my choices from years of carrying handguns for defense...
And good choices they are.

Sorry guys but 350mag has it right...
Or... you and he are wrong... there's the other possiblity.

I'll side with the guys who have actually killed charging black bears with a .45 ACP and guys regularly destroying bears with a slightly lesser cartridge over theory and measurebating using ballistic charts any day.

And at the end of the day, I want a shotgun, not a handgun, if I have to have a problem with a bear. In the meantime, I'm not going to tell others what to use, but when the possible problems are primarily black bears and cougars with some chance of grumbly bear problems, I'm personally quite happy with either a .357 Magnum or .40 S&W. If I ever end up working where the potential problem is lots of grumbly bears, then I'll be looking at a .45-08, 50AE, or something of similar power that I can shoot both fast and accurately.
 
I keep hearing about all these Black Bears being dispatched by CO's with 40 S&W??? Is this common practice in B.C? Do the CO's there not carry shotguns or rifles with them in their vehicles?

I would be very interested in the circumstances that these CO's are finding themselves in having to resort to using a side-arm for dispatching a Bear.


The Sask CO's that came out to deal with a nuisance Bear at our mine-site a couple of weeks ago used a 12 gauge with slugs? They have their side-arms on of course but used the long-gun for the Bear.

Just seems strange that these CO's in B.C should have long-gun available to them when dealing with a nuisance bear so why the hell are they using a side-arm?
 
There have been cases where a bear has been taken down with a 9mm, so does that mean 9mm is an adequate choice for bear defence?

Do I think .45acp is capable in killing a bear? Sure I do.... But I bet bears have been taken with a .22LR as well.

What I'm trying to say is that there are a lot better choices out there...

Now going back to .357mag and 10mm

.357mag with a bullet of the same weight as 10mm loaded to the same velocities will have a greater penetration because of the smaller bullet surface area (.357" vs .400") Just like 10mm loaded to the same velocities with the same bullet weight as a .45acp will have a greater penetration, also considering that 10mm will have a higher velocity the advantage will be even greater. And yes we all know that wound diameter is very important, but when we’re talking about .85” vs. .95” it’s a moot point.
 
Last edited:
Boomer said:
For those who are screaming - "What about shock energy?" - there is little shock energy transferred to a live target when the impact velocity is below 2000 fps.
Hmmmmm....
30-30%20Winchester.jpg


As per the above, I don't agree with that.

I have also seen the results of a muzzleloader projectile going through a bear. Pure lead doesn't fragment, and the bruising and bloodshot meat extended well beyond the hole marking the passage of the ball. I take that is pretty graphic evidence that there is kinetic energy transfer to the areas to the sides of the passage of the projectile.

Penetration is the key ingredient when we consider the killing effect of handgun bullets on big game, particularly if the animal in question weighs over 500 pounds.
I'm not sure how exclusively important you mean by "key ingredient", but I don't think I agree with that either.

There's a lot of research that has been published in Wound Ballistics Review and elsewhere that identifies three main components to incapacitation:
  1. Penetration - which obviously destroys the tissue it passes through.
  2. The permanent cavity - which is the volume of tissue destroyed by the projectile and related to depth of penetration.
  3. The temporary "crush" cavity, which is stretching caused by the transfer of kinetic energy at the time of passage. This can tear/disrupt muscle, nerves, organs, etc not actually touched by the bullet during its' travel.
You will find few handgun hunters who would not agree that a LBT bullet design does much more damage on game animals than a round nose or even a SWC design.

If follows that, if it indeed were all about penetration, those hunting with handguns (or whatever) would pick spitzer designs, round noses, etc to maximize the amount of penetration they achieved. Experience has pushed those hunting with low velocity handguns the other way, and those who shoot a lot of game with handguns are doing it with hollow points and LBT designs that inhibit penetration in exchange for a larger permanent and temporary crush cavity.

AS an analogy, consider the non-expanding bullets used for very large African game. The best bullet is the one which produces through and through straight line penetration, and caliber is a secondary consideration. So it is with handgun bullets on bears. The bullet which penetrates the deepest, while cutting a full caliber hole, wins. Expanding bullets for use in ATC guns I believe are a disadvantage.
I have never hunted in Africa. On the other hand, I've read enough accounts by Peter Capstick Hathaway and others to know that softpoints are generally used on lions - which considerably outweigh the vast majority of our black bears - and often for broadside shots at Cape Buffalo which tremendously bigger. I can dig through my Capstick Hathaway library easily enough and find references to where a solid was loaded in one barrel and a soft point in the other.

Soft points are also preferred for most of the large plains game - one difference is that African hunters don't seem to be as shy about plinking a herbivore with a solid bullet as we are here. Of course, they're often hunting with rifles of .416 caliber and larger, which essentially means a certain amount of "pre expanded".

Solids in Africa, I gather, are due to concerns that an expanding bullet will not be able to penetrate the distance necessary to penetrate the skull or break the shoulders/spine of a large animal like an elephant, rhino, hippo, etc. A black bear skull/shoulder/spine is not in the league of those animals.

For those who believe it is all about penetration and expansion can only be a detriment, then FMJ round nose or truncated cone bullets will give you maximum penetration. However, I don't think you will find many handgun hunters or those carrying on an ATC using them along with you...
 
IM_Lugger said:
There have been cases where a bear has been taken down with a 9mm, so does that mean 9mm is an adequate choice for bear defence?
There have been cases where a bear has not been taken down with a 44 Magnum - or larger - so does that mean a .44 Magnum is still not big enough to be an adequate choice for bear defence? Shall we say the exception proves the rule?

Do I think .45acp is capable in killing a bear? Sure I do.... But I bet bears have been taken with a .22LR as well.

What I'm trying to say is that there are a lot better choices out there...
Yes. It's called a shotgun. Or at least a .44 magnum. But what we have been discussing here is all pretty much in the same performance ballpark - unless, of course, you believe that measurebating an inch of penetration here and a few tens of an inch of expansion there amounts to a hill of beans in real life.

Some people do; some people don't. When we get finished with this one, we can all choose up sides to argue whether the .338 Winchester or .358 Norma Magnum is the superior cartridge. I think that, again, it's an argument based on measurebating.

And yes we all know that wound diameter is very important, but when we’re talking about .85” vs. .95” it’s a moot point.
Okay... let me see if I get this straight...

When a .45 bullet gets only 78% of the penetration of a 10mm, that's a significant advantage in favour of a 10mm. BUT... when a 10mm gets only 76% of the expansion of a .45... why... why...

That's only a "moot point"!

Okay... Sure makes sense to me!
 
in that picture it does say "Vel: 2017fps" which is over 2000fps...

most human tissues are very elastic and will stretch a deal without damage. In the FBI report it clearly says that handgun rounds don’t have enough velocity to produce a temporary cavity that can cause any real damage.
 
There have been cases where a bear has not been taken down with a 44 Magnum - or larger - so does that mean a .44 Magnum is still not big enough to be an adequate choice for bear defence? Shall we say the exception proves the rule?
I call it shot placement. With a poor shot placement 12gage will not be very effective either….

When a .45 bullet gets only 78% of the penetration of a 10mm, that's a significant advantage in favour of a 10mm. BUT... when a 10mm gets only 76% of the expansion of a .45... why... why…
because if a bullet doesn’t reach vitals some 0.15” makes VERY little difference.
 
There has to always be a nit picker in every bunch...

OK I'll try and repeat what I was saying so that there is no further misunderstandings...

The 10mm is the most powerful standard size, standard production semi-auto handgun available...

Yes there are more powerful unrealisticly huge semi-auto handguns available but I was not refering to them...

My personal loads of choice for ATC carry are Beartooth 405gr WLNGC's @ 1200fps in my shortened SRH 454 Casull, or Cast Performance 360gr WLNGC's @ 1520fps in my 7.5" SRH 454 Casull and Beartooth 200gr WFNGC's @ 1280fps to 1300fps in my 10mm's.
 
albertacoyotecaller said:
Since we are on the topic of hardcast, any preference for these for use in my 40 S&W for my ATC?
Anything resembling Veral Smith's WFN concept should give about the same results - all the "LBT" designs originate from Veral and the "LBT" that gets so commonly thrown around is his company name, Lead Bullet Technologies. Veral is back in business but is only making "canned" moulds now, and a 200 gr. .40 is not among them.

I had my moulds custom made at Mountain Molds:
http://www.mountainmolds.com/

However, he just moved his shop and the design function doesn't work so well at the moment - it looks like he's redoing that part of his website. But they are excellent moulds, and you can get designs that would be unavailable anywhere else. The thing about Mountain Molds is you can design a really big meplat, about as wide as you dare go. I kind of cheated and replicated an old LBT mould I had, just increased the meplat even further while making the lube groove smaller.

NEI makes excellent moulds, and this one should be just fine:
401-200-bb.jpg


There are some other small mold shops out there as well, catering to the handgun hunters and whatnot.

BTW, I don't truly shoot them as hardcast; I follow what I do with cast rifle bullets: heat treat the bullets after casting and quench to desired hardness, then draw the hadness from the nose with a torch so it is more of a "soft cast".

There are also some companies like Beartooth in the US who sell pre cast LBT type designs. I can't say what US customs says about those bullets being exported from the US without a permit, but I would presume it would be about the same as other ammunition components.

Much is written about Double Tap bullets. Of course, so far they have been unavailable in Canada, so unless you want to gamble your freedom at the border by trying to smuggle them out of the US, mostly they remain in the realm of theory.
 
IM_Lugger said:
in that picture it does say "Vel: 2017fps" which is over 2000fps...
Somebody just after you posted that "there has to always be a nitpicker in every bunch"...

But you're right, that extra 17 fps is nearly 1% greater than the 2000 fps ceiling somebody chose for discussion on that point. And if we're having a discussion on measurebating, every difference counts.

So forget the first one; perhaps this one will make you feel a bit better. It's the good ol' .45 ACP, at a lower bullet weight and lower velocity than what we're talking about here...
45%20ACP%20WW%20STHP.jpg


And a few more...
38%20Spl%20FBI%20load.jpg

357%20Magnum.jpg

12%20Gauge%20Foster%20Slug.jpg


So tell me... do you agree with the statement that there is very little energy transfer to surrounding tissues at velocities below 2000 fps?

In my opinion, there is.

most human tissues are very elastic and will stretch a deal without damage. In the FBI report it clearly says that handgun rounds don’t have enough velocity to produce a temporary cavity that can cause any real damage.
First, properly prepared ballistic gelatin cannot model all the structures in the body i.e. skin and bones. It is, however, intended to have the same yield strength as human tissue, so what displaces/tears gelatin should do about the same to human tissue.

Second, I'm not really up on all the FBI reports out there, but there are reams and reams of articles and research out there done by Fackler and others who say that handgun rounds can indeed cause real damage from a temporary cavity. Furthermore, consider this: if the permanent wound channel from any bullet has a dimensional size greater than that of the bullet... how did that damage get there when that particular tissue couldn't have even come in contact with the bullet? Seems to me the temporary cavity must have had some effect after all.

My opinion only, of course...
 
Camp Cook said:
There has to always be a nit picker in every bunch...
This whole thread has been about measurebating and nit picking from the word go; why would this be any different?

OK I'll try and repeat what I was saying so that there is no further misunderstandings...

The 10mm is the most powerful standard size, standard production semi-auto handgun available...
Well, that certainly tightens the criteria up enough to eliminate any competition! You should also mention that used .44 Magnums on the market - like the Coonan's for example - can't be considered either.

Yes there are more powerful unrealisticly huge semi-auto handguns available but I was not refering to them...
I guess they must fall in with all the unrealistically huge revolvers such as Smith & Wesson's X-frame guns that are apparently selling well in Alaska and elsewhere.

Having fired all, I can't say I find a 7.5" Super Red Hawk or an 8" S&W much handier than a Desert Eagle. A pound lighter of course, but there's tradeoffs with that as well.
 
IM_Lugger said:
because if a bullet doesn’t reach vitals some 0.15” makes VERY little difference.
What Black Bear have you ever seen where, coming at you, 15" of penetration won't go through the skull, neck vertebra, or reach the shoulder? We're not talking about attacking Cape Buffalo here.

And do we also throw out all the 10mm loads that won't do any better penetration wise than the 45 ACP and 40 S&W. That leaves us with about ONE acceptable load for ATC use in the 10mm. It also probably leaves us without a single 10mm load off the store shelf in Canada today that would pass this test of what is supposedly required for an effective ATC defense round.

BTW, while we're measurebating here... as you apparently believe that handgun bullets do no real damage from the temporary stretch cavity and only the permanent stretch cavity does the job.

What happens when the bullet misses the aorta, carotoid, or cervical vertabrae by about... .15"?
 
Back
Top Bottom