XD 10MM?

Well, its really quite simple. Its not economically viable for Springfield to pursue this. With ballistics as good as, if not better than the .45acp, the .45GAP filled the "hole" (no pun intended) in the XD lineup. The other calibers you mentioned (.400 corbon, 9x25 dillon) are strictly niche calibers that no company mass produces in a current firearm.

While I would love it if major companys produced products at my whim, this is a fantasy vision. Glock produced the G20/G29 because they had a existing frame that the .45acp was built on and it was a fairly cheap/simple thing to accomplish.

Dont get me wrong- I am a 10mm fan. I truly wish there were more current offerings in 10mm. I do think the cartridge is on a revival with people finally realizing the true potential of a 200gn./1200fps projectile. However, it will take years for this to really catch on. Until then, we have the venerable 1006 and the Dan Wesson Razorback to tide us over.

Sqott,

You see no point in 10mm since 40 came along?

How about 700+ ft/lbs of energy?

Even "medium" factry loads (Winchester Silver Tips 175gr) have (by Winchester's claim) 649 ft/lbs at the muzzle. Take the some of the hottest 40 you can buy (Ranger LEO ammo) and it only makes 476 ft/lbs in light loads. Once you get nea 10mm loads at 180gr the Ranger ammo makes 392 ft/lbs.

Now, go get some DT ammo, and you have some loads.

Keep in mind 40, loaded to the max, is only 10mm light.

I personally see no reason for 40 when 10mm exsists. You can download 10mm, but you can't upload 40. Many loading manuals for 40 even go sa far as to say specifically not to use 200gr bullets in 40 as bullet seating depth can make dangerous pressures. Thats not even getting into 210 and 220 gr bullets.

-Dana

Yikes!!!!

Lighten up masterofg3.......


I think he is simply saying why have the 10mm when the 40 is around and has proven itself to be an excellent round.

10mm brass goes for about 70-80$ per 1K..

40 brass can be bought for 15-20$ per K...

The 40 easily adapts to framed built around the 9mm.

The 10 requires extra tooling, etc. Even the FBI got rid of it years ago.

I've shot 10mm, liked it.

I'm sure SA doesn't want to produce a 10mm, in fact they don't even make a 10mm. They sell few of the .357 sig chambered XDs compared to the 9 and 40, why bother with a 10???

With 200 grainers, powder selection is key, you can't use a fast powder. Use 200 occasionally with VV320 and it works fine.


I can only think of Glock as the current manufacturer of a 10mm..

Smith and Wesson stopped production of their 610 revolver due to light demand.

The 10mm is going nowhere fast.

With the advent of newer powders on the market the 40 makes perfect sense. Newer powders is why the GAP has similar ballistics to the 45 ACP.

Dana, can you explain to me the purpose of 700 ft-lbs of muzzle energy?

According to the performance charts I've seen, the .40 S&W is as equal to or better than any other popular defensive caliber, and actually exceeds the 10mm performance. For defensive purposes, the 10mm only seems to serve a purpose in those cases where you might need to shoot an engine block or through a car door, where the extra energy is quite useful. In those cases where you aren't shooting through a car door, the .40 S&W has superior performance, as it's less likely to simply pass through the bad guy.

For all competition purposes I'm aware of, the .40 S&W is also a superior round, as it's smaller, cheaper, and more manageable. It's got more than enough power to make major in IDPA or IPSC, and allows a smaller more comfortable grip.

About the only scenario I can think of where the 10mm would be superior to the .40 S&W is for hunting, where the higher energy is a nice advantage. So I'll stand corrected, the 10mm round should be a superior hunting round to the .40 S&W.

As for masterofog, what the heck are you talking about? I don't recall making any comments about .44 Magnum, .357 Magnum, or any of those other rounds.

Here's the bottom line, to me. Since most of us are likely to ever use a handgun in a defensive situation, we have to use things like ballistics, tests, and real world reports to assess the performance of these rounds. I'm not aware of a more expansive compilation of this research than that done by Marshall and Sanow. If there's info out there I'm not aware of, I'm certainly happy to be educated.

If you take a look at this chart http://www.chuckhawks.com/handgun_power_chart.htm which is drawn from various sources, including Marshall and Sanow, as well as incapacitation tests done on goats, you'll see that the .40 S&W round out-performs all other defensive rounds other than the .357 Magnum. And yes, it out-performs both the 10mm and the .44 Magnum in real world shooting.

Reach your own conclusions. I wouldn't want to be shot by any of them.

Scott

Here is a link to the data you requested.

http://glocktalk.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=336612

I will cut and paste the info about 40 and 10.

>>>>
DoubleTap .40 S&W Penetration / expansion
165gr Gold Dot JHP @ 1200fps - 14.0" / .70"
180gr Gold Dot JHP @ 1100fps - 14.75" / .68"

DoubleTap .357 Sig
125gr Gold Dot JHP @ 1450fps - 14.5" / .66"

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 Golden Saber JHP @ 1330fps - 16.0" / .85"
180gr Gold Dot JHP @ 1300fps - 15.25" / .96"
200gr XTP @ 1250fps - 19.5" / .72"
230gr Equalizer @ 1040fps - 11.0" and 17.0" / .62" and .40"
>>>>

So let me ask you a question. Would you rather 14.25" of pentetration and a 1.02" diameter hole or a 14.0" penetration and a .70" inch diameter wound on a BG? Also, do a search on a topic I posted that compared energy dump.

What "energy" dump is is a seat belt. IF you crash a car into a brick wall without a seat belt, and are going 60mph the car stops and your body is going 60mph. You decelerate rapidly once you contact a hard surface. Typically, this causes lots of trama. IF you are wearing a seat belt, you decelerate with the car cause less trama. Would you rather jump off a 5 story builing onto concrete or off of a 7 story building with 2 stories worth of very soft foam? Would you rather hit a brick wall in a car going 100mph or 150mph?

WHy do I say this? When you take something and decelerate it fast, it causes trama to a body.

When you figure that all deleceleration of the bullet occurs in the geletine, it is causing damage. Take a bullet weighing 165gr and decelerate from 1200ft/sec to zero in 14 inches. That dumps 2011Newtons of force into the body (remeber force = mass*acceleration, deceleration is simply negative acceleration). Take that same 165gr bullet at 1400ft/sec and decelerate it to 0 in 14.25 inches and you have dumped 2689 Newtons into the body.

Geletin is a visocelastic material. It requires force to rupture along with a unstustainable strain rate. The faster a bullet is moving the greater the strain rate is on the material.

I know that you probably don't really see the need for the extra damage, or maybe you do. However, I would ask, would you rather have the extra power or not if and/or when you actuallyneeded it?

Also, keep in mind that the FBI dropped the 10mm for other reasons. They had determined that a 180gr bullet moving at 990ft/sec is what they were after BEFORE they began testing. This was based upon performance data of a 185gr 45ACP round that had worked well. Therefore, the 10mm was downloaded for the FBI based upon thier wishes. In fact, S&W and Winchester started developing a load (40SW) based upon the 180/990 requirements that they could get to market fast in by converting a 9mm pistol. What is ironic, is that Glock actually beat SW to market with a pistol that shot the S&W caliber. Also, a common misconception is that the Glock 20 was before the Glock 22. The Glock 22 was actually on the market first. The G20 was being designed first, but was put on hold so that the G22 could make it to market before S&W was to the market.

Not always is teh choice of LEO mean that it is the best gun.

I would bet that there are soldiers who don't think that a M9 is better than a 1911 and that an M16 is better than an M14. Some would argue that the M16 is better than the M14. Same with M9 better than 1911. But decisions are made like that, like them or not, for military and LEO all the time and many times aren;t just based upon performance.

-Dana

Firtst of all, anyone who thinks that the .40 equals or exceeds the ballistics of the 10mm doesn't know anything about firearms or ammo anyway. I don't think anyone can rationally explain that line of thinking.

.40 and 10mm are the same bullet. 10mm is a .40 caliber bullet. A 10mm round is a .40 caliber bullet sitting in a much bigger case with much more powder than a normal .40 round. So how could less powder, less velocity, and less energy translate into better ballistics? It doesn't. It's dumb to even argue that point.

The FBI abandoned the 10mm because they were using 10mm before there was a good platform to use it with. It didn't cycle reliably in the guns at that time. There are good platforms to use it in today, like the Glock 20 or 29. EAA also makes a 10mm as do a few 1911 makers. The popularity of 10mm has been steadily growing since the Glock 20 came out. If Springfield came out with a 10mm I'd definately buy it in a second. I'm sure many other people would as well. I'm sure they will make one eventually because I believe they'll make a double-stack .45 eventually. I think the reason they came out with the GAP first was because that was the easiest way to make a quick buck. All the XD fans were screaming for a .45 and they really didn't have to invest much time and effort to put out the GAP. Making a gun in .45ACP would have required a totally new design at a time when the main focus of the company was making as many of their current pistols as they could. It's only a matter of time before they have a fullsize .45ACP and a 10mm available.

I appreciate the additional information, Dana. I want to look at it a bit more closely, but it's an interesting and slightly different perspective, which I appreciate. There is always more out there to consider.

As for this, glfpunk writes:

Firtst of all, anyone who thinks that the .40 equals or exceeds the ballistics of the 10mm doesn't know anything about firearms or ammo anyway.

Click to expand...

When you say "ballistics" I'm not sure I understand what you mean. Are you saying that a fully loaded 10mm has more muzzle energy? Obviously it does, it's got a much bigger case. Are you saying that more muzzle energy = better? Well, that depends, doesn't it?

Depends on the purpose that round is intended for, and the shooter who is using it. A .308 is a great round, with outstanding accuracy and great penetration, right? Based on your logic, seems like we ought to make some handguns chambered in .308, right? I'd hate to be the one pulling the trigger on that one...

My point with the 10mm was that while it can certainly be downloaded to match .40 S&W performance, the extra energy that a fully loaded 10mm round has is not necessary or even desireable for many applications. The larger cartridge size increases the size of the gun, and the higher energy makes the gun more difficult to manage through recoil.

Certainly there are applications where the extra energy that a 10mm has over a .40 S&W is desireable. I would suggest that those applications are not common. Your mileage may vary.

Scott

ScottQ said:

I appreciate the additional information, Dana. I want to look at it a bit more closely, but it's an interesting and slightly different perspective, which I appreciate. There is always more out there to consider.

As for this, glfpunk writes:

Firtst of all, anyone who thinks that the .40 equals or exceeds the ballistics of the 10mm doesn't know anything about firearms or ammo anyway.

Click to expand...

When you say "ballistics" I'm not sure I understand what you mean. Are you saying that a fully loaded 10mm has more muzzle energy? Obviously it does, it's got a much bigger case. Are you saying that more muzzle energy = better? Well, that depends, doesn't it?

Depends on the purpose that round is intended for, and the shooter who is using it. A .308 is a great round, with outstanding accuracy and great penetration, right? Based on your logic, seems like we ought to make some handguns chambered in .308, right? I'd hate to be the one pulling the trigger on that one...

My point with the 10mm was that while it can certainly be downloaded to match .40 S&W performance, the extra energy that a fully loaded 10mm round has is not necessary or even desireable for many applications. The larger cartridge size increases the size of the gun, and the higher energy makes the gun more difficult to manage through recoil.

Certainly there are applications where the extra energy that a 10mm has over a .40 S&W is desireable. I would suggest that those applications are not common. Your mileage may vary.

Scott

Click to expand...

I don't think that it depends in this case. In this instance, more muzzle energy is better. I'm referring to use in self defense. A one-shot stop is much more likely with a 10mm than with a .40. While I will agree that in most circumstances a .40 is more than sufficient to get the job done, why not be armed as best as you can? Regardless, 10mm has better ballistics.


Basically your argument is that 10mm is overkill as a defensive handgun round, and that it's not necessary. Is a .45 too much also? I'm just curious as to where you draw the line on what is too much in a defensive round. While the larger rounds of the 10mm and .45ACP do require a larger frame and aren't a good fit for some people, they are a good fit for other people. Either way, it's nice to have that extra power there if it's needed IMO.