Open Gear Question What 10 mm do you use for a side arm when hunting?

[RustVendor]

Why do people assume the only way in California to aquire a handgun is if it's on the roster?

If you want a 10mm and want to enjoy shooting it, go find a ppt S&W 1006.

if we are talking full steel frame 40oz guns I'd probably rather run the Kimber 10mm which ironically is on roster.

 

[Deleted member 6005]

if we are talking full steel frame 40oz guns I'd probably rather run the Kimber 10mm which ironically is on roster.

I have an Eclipse 10mm. I'm a 1911 fanatic. I'll still take the 1006 for pure shooting fun.

 

[ari_d_sparki]

+1 for not much dangerous wildlife in backcountry. Rattlesnakes are probably your biggest hazard.

Brown bears keep to themselves.

That being said I carry a 10mm M&p 4.6” with a 24lb spring

Been on the lookout for a comp/carry slide

You could send the top half to Mag-na-port

 

[ari_d_sparki]

Why do people assume the only way in California to aquire a handgun is if it's on the roster?

If you want a 10mm and want to enjoy shooting it, go find a ppt S&W 1006.

Dude, the 1006 is near impossible to find in CA.
They are pure gold and are very nice to shoot.
The Double Eagle, the odd forgotten cousin of the 1911 is a good shooter. But also incredibly difficult to find in CA.

 

[RustVendor]

I have an Eclipse 10mm. I'm a 1911 fanatic. I'll still take the 1006 for pure shooting fun.

Fair enough! They do seem cool

 

[Makoman]

This is one of the only options https://www.smith-wesson.com/product/performance-center-m-p-10mm-m2-0-ca-compliant

https://www.smith-wesson.com/product/m-p-10mm-m2-0-4-6-inch-ca-compliant

C'mon guys. I hear this a lot and I just don't get it. Do you guys think it's too powerful? If you can handle a .357 magnum you can handle 10mm. A lot of people falsely believe the 10mm is the ballistic equivalent of .41 mag, and it's not. I would say that .41 mag might be "too much" for CA, but definitely not 10mm.

To explain what I mean, I'll just paste a post of mine from another thread:

"When you start doing your research, you quickly realize the 10mm was developed to duplicate the performance of the .357 magnum in a semi-auto platform. To put things into perspective, the 200 gr 10mm bullet (the original 10mm bullet weight) has virtually identical sectional density to 158 gr .357 projectiles. The 158 gr .357 traveling at ~1250 feet per second was a standard issue LE load back in the day, so to speak. The original 10mm load as developed by Norma was a 200gr bullet at 1200 feet per second. When you piece these tidbits of info together, it becomes pretty evident that the people behind the 10mm were chasing .357 ballistics for the Bren Ten pistol and the 10mm cartridge.

For those that argue 10mm matches .41 magnum ballistics, sure it does. From a minimum 6" barrel, loading them hot as you can, you can enter the weak end of the .41 magnum spectrum just like how you can hot load .40 S&W to equal the watered down 10mm loads.

Many years ago Winchester had loads, Silvertips I believe, in 10mm and .41 that had the same muzzle energies and velocities printed on the box. This is what started the myth that 10mm =.41 magnum. What many people don't realize is that when the .41 mag was developed, there was a magnum load and a watered down "police" load (.41 was originally developed to be a LE load, but S&W decided to magnumize it which resulted in guns that were way too heavy for practical use. Another story for another day). 10mm has suffered as a result ever since. Most people seem to think that the 10mm is a bear gun only when it was also originally developed as a LE round that was meant to give LE .357 performance in a semi-auto package with greater capacity/firepower over a revolver. I've even heard a gun store commando tell people looking at 10mm to go with .357 instead because 10mm is too powerful lol.

For perspective a couple of common 10mm and .357 "bear" loads:

Buffalo Bore HEAVY 10MM OUTDOORSMAN - 220 gr. Hard Cast - FN (1,200 fps/ME 703 ft. lbs)
Buffalo Bore HEAVY 357 MAG OUTDOORSMAN - 180 gr. Hard Cast LFN-GC (1,400fps/M.E. 783 ft. lbs.)

Underwood 10mm 220 gr. Hard Cast- FN (1200 fps/ME 704 ft. lbs)
Underwood .357 180 gr. Hard Cast- FN (1400 fps/ME 784 ft.lbs)

220 grain 10mm and 180 grain .357 have similar sectional densities. Even still, .357 still edges out 10mm, which is why the whole 10mm = .41 magnum argument just doesn't jive. When comparing hangun rounds of different calibers, always compare sectional densities for a more apples to apples comparison, not bullet weights.

My primary EDC is a G29 with 155 grain loads at ~1400 FPS. 155 grain 10mm has virtually identical sectional density as 125 grain .357. The 125 grain .357 @ 1400-1450 fps was for many years considered the ultimate manstopping round with the highest percentage of one shot stops comparrd to other calibers. The 155 grain 10mm at similar velocities mimics that .357 load nicely."

If you guys want a 10mm, don't think it's just for bears. With hard cast loads from some of the boutique ammo makers, sure. But with proper spec 10mm defense loads, you've got 10+1 rounds of .357 magnum performance on tap, more than that obviously for those in free states. I say proper spec because there's a lot of 10mm ammo out there that's barely hotter than 40 S&W. Just go off of the original Norma spec. 200 grains at 1200 fps, and eventually they rleased a 170 grain at 1300 fps.

Oh, and in an ammo crunch, you can shoot .40 S&W out of your 10mm

 

[Gawernator]

C'mon guys. I hear this a lot and I just don't get it. Do you guys think it's too powerful? If you can handle a .357 magnum you can handle 10mm. A lot of people falsely believe the 10mm is the ballistic equivalent of .41 mag, and it's not. I would say that .41 mag might be "too much" for CA, but definitely not 10mm.

To explain what I mean, I'll just paste a post of mine from another thread:

"When you start doing your research, you quickly realize the 10mm was developed to duplicate the performance of the .357 magnum in a semi-auto platform. To put things into perspective, the 200 gr 10mm bullet (the original 10mm bullet weight) has virtually identical sectional density to 158 gr .357 projectiles. The 158 gr .357 traveling at ~1250 feet per second was a standard issue LE load back in the day, so to speak. The original 10mm load as developed by Norma was a 200gr bullet at 1200 feet per second. When you piece these tidbits of info together, it becomes pretty evident that the people behind the 10mm were chasing .357 ballistics for the Bren Ten pistol and the 10mm cartridge.

For those that argue 10mm matches .41 magnum ballistics, sure it does. From a minimum 6" barrel, loading them hot as you can, you can enter the weak end of the .41 magnum spectrum just like how you can hot load .40 S&W to equal the watered down 10mm loads.

Many years ago Winchester had loads, Silvertips I believe, in 10mm and .41 that had the same muzzle energies and velocities printed on the box. This is what started the myth that 10mm =.41 magnum. What many people don't realize is that when the .41 mag was developed, there was a magnum load and a watered down "police" load (.41 was originally developed to be a LE load, but S&W decided to magnumize it which resulted in guns that were way too heavy for practical use. Another story for another day). 10mm has suffered as a result ever since. Most people seem to think that the 10mm is a bear gun only when it was also originally developed as a LE round that was meant to give LE .357 performance in a semi-auto package with greater capacity/firepower over a revolver. I've even heard a gun store commando tell people looking at 10mm to go with .357 instead because 10mm is too powerful lol.

For perspective a couple of common 10mm and .357 "bear" loads:

Buffalo Bore HEAVY 10MM OUTDOORSMAN - 220 gr. Hard Cast - FN (1,200 fps/ME 703 ft. lbs)
Buffalo Bore HEAVY 357 MAG OUTDOORSMAN - 180 gr. Hard Cast LFN-GC (1,400fps/M.E. 783 ft. lbs.)

Underwood 10mm 220 gr. Hard Cast- FN (1200 fps/ME 704 ft. lbs)
Underwood .357 180 gr. Hard Cast- FN (1400 fps/ME 784 ft.lbs)

220 grain 10mm and 180 grain .357 have similar sectional densities. Even still, .357 still edges out 10mm, which is why the whole 10mm = .41 magnum argument just doesn't jive. When comparing hangun rounds of different calibers, always compare sectional densities for a more apples to apples comparison, not bullet weights.

My primary EDC is a G29 with 155 grain loads at ~1400 FPS. 155 grain 10mm has virtually identical sectional density as 125 grain .357. The 125 grain .357 @ 1400-1450 fps was for many years considered the ultimate manstopping round with the highest percentage of one shot stops comparrd to other calibers. The 155 grain 10mm at similar velocities mimics that .357 load nicely."

If you guys want a 10mm, don't think it's just for bears. With hard cast loads from some of the boutique ammo makers, sure. But with proper spec 10mm defense loads, you've got 10+1 rounds of .357 magnum performance on tap, more than that obviously for those in free states. I say proper spec because there's a lot of 10mm ammo out there that's barely hotter than 40 S&W. Just go off of the original Norma spec. 200 grains at 1200 fps, and eventually they rleased a 170 grain at 1300 fps.

Oh, and in an ammo crunch, you can shoot .40 S&W out of your 10mm

I mean it's a flex to have for sure but 9mm will be just or almost as lethal but easier to shoot and a lot more bullets. Shot placement will be more important than their size difference.

For large animals you wouldn't want the defensive ammo you'd want those special deep penetration rounds

 

[RustVendor]

C'mon guys. I hear this a lot and I just don't get it. Do you guys think it's too powerful? If you can handle a .357 magnum you can handle 10mm. A lot of people falsely believe the 10mm is the ballistic equivalent of .41 mag, and it's not. I would say that .41 mag might be "too much" for CA, but definitely not 10mm.

To explain what I mean, I'll just paste a post of mine from another thread:

"When you start doing your research, you quickly realize the 10mm was developed to duplicate the performance of the .357 magnum in a semi-auto platform. To put things into perspective, the 200 gr 10mm bullet (the original 10mm bullet weight) has virtually identical sectional density to 158 gr .357 projectiles. The 158 gr .357 traveling at ~1250 feet per second was a standard issue LE load back in the day, so to speak. The original 10mm load as developed by Norma was a 200gr bullet at 1200 feet per second. When you piece these tidbits of info together, it becomes pretty evident that the people behind the 10mm were chasing .357 ballistics for the Bren Ten pistol and the 10mm cartridge.

For those that argue 10mm matches .41 magnum ballistics, sure it does. From a minimum 6" barrel, loading them hot as you can, you can enter the weak end of the .41 magnum spectrum just like how you can hot load .40 S&W to equal the watered down 10mm loads.

Many years ago Winchester had loads, Silvertips I believe, in 10mm and .41 that had the same muzzle energies and velocities printed on the box. This is what started the myth that 10mm =.41 magnum. What many people don't realize is that when the .41 mag was developed, there was a magnum load and a watered down "police" load (.41 was originally developed to be a LE load, but S&W decided to magnumize it which resulted in guns that were way too heavy for practical use. Another story for another day). 10mm has suffered as a result ever since. Most people seem to think that the 10mm is a bear gun only when it was also originally developed as a LE round that was meant to give LE .357 performance in a semi-auto package with greater capacity/firepower over a revolver. I've even heard a gun store commando tell people looking at 10mm to go with .357 instead because 10mm is too powerful lol.

For perspective a couple of common 10mm and .357 "bear" loads:

Buffalo Bore HEAVY 10MM OUTDOORSMAN - 220 gr. Hard Cast - FN (1,200 fps/ME 703 ft. lbs)
Buffalo Bore HEAVY 357 MAG OUTDOORSMAN - 180 gr. Hard Cast LFN-GC (1,400fps/M.E. 783 ft. lbs.)

Underwood 10mm 220 gr. Hard Cast- FN (1200 fps/ME 704 ft. lbs)
Underwood .357 180 gr. Hard Cast- FN (1400 fps/ME 784 ft.lbs)

220 grain 10mm and 180 grain .357 have similar sectional densities. Even still, .357 still edges out 10mm, which is why the whole 10mm = .41 magnum argument just doesn't jive. When comparing hangun rounds of different calibers, always compare sectional densities for a more apples to apples comparison, not bullet weights.

My primary EDC is a G29 with 155 grain loads at ~1400 FPS. 155 grain 10mm has virtually identical sectional density as 125 grain .357. The 125 grain .357 @ 1400-1450 fps was for many years considered the ultimate manstopping round with the highest percentage of one shot stops comparrd to other calibers. The 155 grain 10mm at similar velocities mimics that .357 load nicely."

If you guys want a 10mm, don't think it's just for bears. With hard cast loads from some of the boutique ammo makers, sure. But with proper spec 10mm defense loads, you've got 10+1 rounds of .357 magnum performance on tap, more than that obviously for those in free states. I say proper spec because there's a lot of 10mm ammo out there that's barely hotter than 40 S&W. Just go off of the original Norma spec. 200 grains at 1200 fps, and eventually they rleased a 170 grain at 1300 fps.

Oh, and in an ammo crunch, you can shoot .40 S&W out of your 10mm

I was just making the point that you can carry what you already carry, you don't need a special cartridge just to go in the woods in CA because the threats are minimal. I live in a city so I personally worry about over penetration so I'm fine with my +p hand loads for self defense.

 

[Makoman]

I was just making the point that you can carry what you already carry, you don't need a special cartridge just to go in the woods in CA because the threats are minimal. I live in a city so I personally worry about over penetration so I'm fine with my +p hand loads for self defense.

I agree 100%. There's an article out there about someone, a lady I think, that stopped a b grizzly attack with hard cast out of her 9mm. Nothing wrong with 9mm. I have more than one favorite caliber and 9mm is one of them.

I mean it's a flex to have for sure but 9mm will be just or almost as lethal but easier to shoot and a lot more bullets. Shot placement will be more important than their size difference.

For large animals you wouldn't want the defensive ammo you'd want those special deep penetration rounds

I don't know tha it's necessarily a "flex". The point I was making is that a lot of people dismiss 10mm as being too powerful. My point is it's not. The way people hype it up you'd think it's the equivalent to a handheld howitzer. When you look at the numbers, you realize it's not exactly the stuff of legend. It's just a semi-auto version of .357 magnum.

As to shot placement being more important than bullet size, absolutely. Every caliber will suck if you are unable to land rounds on target. I practice with my 10mm quite a bit and have become as proficient with it as I am with my 9mms, so as far as 9mm being easier to shoot, generally speaking, yes. Practically speaking, it will depend on the individual and how much practice they are willing to put in.

 

[Gawernator]

It

I agree 100%. There's an article out there about someone, a lady I think, that stopped a b grizzly attack with hard cast out of her 9mm. Nothing wrong with 9mm. I have more than one favorite caliber and 9mm is one of them.

I don't know tha it's necessarily a "flex". The point I was making is that a lot of people dismiss 10mm as being too powerful. My point is it's not. The way people hype it up you'd think it's the equivalent to a handheld howitzer. When you look at the numbers, you realize it's not exactly the stuff of legend. It's just a semi-auto version of .357 magnum.

As to shot placement being more important than bullet size, absolutely. Every caliber will suck if you are unable to land rounds on target. I practice with my 10mm quite a bit and have become as proficient with it as I am with my 9mms, so as far as 9mm being easier to shoot, generally speaking, yes. Practically speaking, it will depend on the individual and how much practice they are willing to put in.

It’s a flex as in you’re using a big caliber just because you can, overkill

 

[dilbert40]

This topic is close to my heart. Hiking alone in sierras with my two dogs for many years now.
First i got sw 329 44mag and trained with underwood ammo, on my ccw till last year. Switched to g20 10mm and trained with underwood, currently on my ccw. Never had close encounters although seen enough bears and occasional (3x times) mountain lions. Now I carry my urban firearm, sig 365 9mm. Thinking that rare moment I may need protection (for my dogs) from wolves that got reintroduced.

 

[Makoman]

It

It’s a flex as in you’re using a big caliber just because you can, overkill

More powerful caliber yes. "Big," not really. .355 cal vs .401 is .046" difference. As for overkill, for you maybe, not for me.

 

[Makoman]

This topic is close to my heart. Hiking alone in sierras with my two dogs for many years now.
First i got sw 329 44mag and trained with underwood ammo, on my ccw till last year. Switched to g20 10mm and trained with underwood, currently on my ccw. Never had close encounters although seen enough bears and occasional (3x times) mountain lions. Now I carry my urban firearm, sig 365 9mm. Thinking that rare moment I may need protection (for my dogs) from wolves that got reintroduced.

I switched to 10mm because my work takes me into the skid row area of Los Angeles 2 to 3 times a week where people are hopped up on every drug you can think of. I have far more confidence in 10mm stopping a threat in that scenario than I do 9mm.

 

[ari_d_sparki]

I agree 100%. There's an article out there about someone, a lady I think, that stopped a b grizzly attack with hard cast out of her 9mm. Nothing wrong with 9mm. I have more than one favorite caliber and 9mm is one of them.

I don't know tha it's necessarily a "flex". The point I was making is that a lot of people dismiss 10mm as being too powerful. My point is it's not. The way people hype it up you'd think it's the equivalent to a handheld howitzer. When you look at the numbers, you realize it's not exactly the stuff of legend. It's just a semi-auto version of .357 magnum.

As to shot placement being more important than bullet size, absolutely. Every caliber will suck if you are unable to land rounds on target. I practice with my 10mm quite a bit and have become as proficient with it as I am with my 9mms, so as far as 9mm being easier to shoot, generally speaking, yes. Practically speaking, it will depend on the individual and how much practice they are willing to put in.

Actually the story is a guide in Alaska using a 3rd Gen S&W with Buffalo Bore hard cast. Click on the link to read the story.

9MM +P OUTDOORSMAN Pistol and Handgun Bullets Pistol & Handgun Ammunition

9MM +P OUTDOORSMAN Pistol and Handgun Bullets Field Proven pistol and handgun ammo. Maximum firepower bullets. Best ammunition for pistols and handguns for sale. Buffalo Bore. Strictly big bore. Strictly Business.

www.buffalobore.com

 

[slixx]

I have an Eclipse 10mm. I'm a 1911 fanatic.

I had one that I purchased after owning my glock 20 for years. It's sole purpose was to replace my g20 when out in the woods, but knowing that I obtained freedom week mags for my g20, I prefer to use that over the 1911 that only allows me 9rds. It was a tack driver though, never had issue with it. I loved the eclipse but I was never going to ever use it so I sold it off to someone who would put it to better use than me.

 

[Gawernator]

I switched to 10mm because my work takes me into the skid row area of Los Angeles 2 to 3 times a week where people are hopped up on every drug you can think of. I have far more confidence in 10mm stopping a threat in that scenario than I do 9mm.

Based on what science or data? Shoot them in the head it’s game over with either caliber

 

[JDeltaWhiskey]

I have a g29 but switched to the g20 this year for woods. First carry will be black bear hunt in Colorado in September.

After shooting it a bunch this year my initial take is that g20 is good for one gun for every type of woods carry...but since I have both I probably will opt for g29 except when in brown bear country. I'll have a better feel after the hunt in September.

After shooting a lot of 480 Ruger and 454 Casull the last couple months think I would still prefer the 10mm for Alaska/montana. No way I could get off multiple quality shots with the Ruger Super big bores. Maybe in a group where I just need one or two good broadsides but not if it's just me.

As for 10mm generally, I don't find it to be difficult to shoot or carry. Agree it's more than needed in California but might as well have something that works in all scenarios

 

[NapalmCheese]

I had previously said that in black bear or no bear country I tend to carry a Ruger Single Six, but I will amend my statement. I carry the Single Six when I don't have my dog with me.

I carry a 10mm (or a 9mm, or a .45 ACP, or a .357, or a .45 LC) in california when I have my dog with me (rabbit, dove, quail, hiking, etc). I know what to do if I see a black bear (with or without cubs), my dog does not. I'll be damned if a bear is going to eat my dog because my dog decided to corner it or a cub while it's off leash.

 

[Makoman]

Based on what science or data? Shoot them in the head it’s game over with either caliber

Data from George Ellifritz, who conducted a 10 year study, researching the effectiveness of handgun calibers from 1800 police involved shootings, and whose research is highly regarded by law enforcement. The FBI's own testing back in the 80's found the 10mm a better performer than both 9mm and .45, but this was at a time when the FBI became politically correct and dropped their height and weight requirements for field agents and started hiring women and smaller statured men into their ranks. While recoil with 10mm was an issue for many, the bigger issue was that the gun they were looking at, and briefly adopted, the S&W 1006 was just too big for their hands. This led to the development of and adoption of the .40 S&W, another excellent round.

If you want a historic analogue, we can look at the Moro Rebellion from over 100 years ago which is well documented. US soldiers were issued .38 caliber revolvers. The Moro warriors were taking some type of stimulant or drug that made them numb to pain, and also tied tourniquets around their limbs to slow down blood loss so they could stay alive longer and could keep fighting. Multiple hits by those .38 caliber rounds would often fail to stop charging Moros in their tracks. In light of that, the Army switched back to .45 Colt and that solved the problem. I'm sure you've heard the story. Does this mean that the .38 Colt was a bad round? I don't think so. It just wasn't the right round for that situation and those circumstances.

All of this being said, I'm not sure why you've turned this into a caliber war. Never did I, or anyone else in this thread for that matter, state that 9mm is an inferior round for self-protection. It's a great round. It's just not my choice for my circumstances. My comment was to the gentlemen early in the thread that made the statements about 10mm being "too much for California." My response was based on the premise that they've read all the mininformation out there about 10mm being some type of overly powerful wonder caliber along the lines of .41 and .44 magnum. My intention was to inform that it's ballistically the equivalent of .357 magnum, which was for decades the standard issue sidearm for countless LEAs across the country.

I do carry 9mm also, and occasionally even a .32, but that's when I'm not working. I drive an 18 wheeler for a living and have been to, and go to dangerous places that you will likely never step foot into in your lifetime. Places like skid row in LA and worse, where people are hopped up on drugs probably 10x more powerful than whatever those Moro warriors were taking over 100 years ago. My chances of a potential violent encounter are far greater than the average person.

My choice of 10mm is not a "flex." I'm 53 years old. I am long, long past the stage in life where I need to try to show off or impess anyone. Whatever choices I make in life are based on research and consideration for my own unique circumstances.

 

[Gawernator]

Data from George Ellifritz, who conducted a 10 year study, researching the effectiveness of handgun calibers from 1800 police involved shootings, and whose research is highly regarded by law enforcement. The FBI's own testing back in the 80's found the 10mm a better performer than both 9mm and .45, but this was at a time when the FBI became politically correct and dropped their height and weight requirements for field agents and started hiring women and smaller statured men into their ranks. While recoil with 10mm was an issue for many, the bigger issue was that the gun they were looking at, and briefly adopted, the S&W 1006 was just too big for their hands. This led to the development of and adoption of the .40 S&W, another excellent round.

If you want a historic analogue, we can look at the Moro Rebellion from over 100 years ago which is well documented. US soldiers were issued .38 caliber revolvers. The Moro warriors were taking some type of stimulant or drug that made them numb to pain, and also tied tourniquets around their limbs to slow down blood loss so they could stay alive longer and could keep fighting. Multiple hits by those .38 caliber rounds would often fail to stop charging Moros in their tracks. In light of that, the Army switched back to .45 Colt and that solved the problem. I'm sure you've heard the story. Does this mean that the .38 Colt was a bad round? I don't think so. It just wasn't the right round for that situation and those circumstances.

All of this being said, I'm not sure why you've turned this into a caliber war. Never did I, or anyone else in this thread for that matter, state that 9mm is an inferior round for self-protection. It's a great round. It's just not my choice for my circumstances. My comment was to the gentlemen early in the thread that made the statements about 10mm being "too much for California." My response was based on the premise that they've read all the mininformation out there about 10mm being some type of overly powerful wonder caliber along the lines of .41 and .44 magnum. My intention was to inform that it's ballistically the equivalent of .357 magnum, which was for decades the standard issue sidearm for countless LEAs across the country.

I do carry 9mm also, and occasionally even a .32, but that's when I'm not working. I drive an 18 wheeler for a living and have been to, and go to dangerous places that you will likely never step foot into in your lifetime. Places like skid row in LA and worse, where people are hopped up on drugs probably 10x more powerful than whatever those Moro warriors were taking over 100 years ago. My chances of a potential violent encounter are far greater than the average person.

My choice of 10mm is not a "flex." I'm 53 years old. I am long, long past the stage in life where I need to try to show off or impess anyone. Whatever choices I make in life are based on research and consideration for my own unique circumstances.

Nah I’ve walked through the homeless camps for witnesses in a homicide case before, I’m a detective. 9mm gives me more rounds and more accuracy

The 80’s was 40 years ago. Technology has changed