Talk:10mm Auto

WPMILHIST

The wpmilhist tag has been removed due to this article not being military related.--Oldwildbill 11:52, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Unclear statement

"It is also an inherently accurate chambering, and one that makes major in IPSC even in lighter loadings."

Is there a word missing after "major"? —wwoods 20:48, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Not necessarily. The full term is "major power factor", as opposed to "minor power factor", but in context they're just called "major" and "minor". scot 21:56, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

NPOV

I have removed the following statement:

'powerful and versatile'

This is not a neutral Point of View.

See Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view for an explanation of this policy.

These policies are in place to keep Wikipedia running smoothly.

Read the fucking policies.

172.162.229.185 01:12, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I have trouble conceptualizing how the statement "powerful and versatile" is non-neutral. Comparing the 10 mm to an equivalent revolver cartridge, the 357 magnum, which I would consider powerful and versatile in a handgun, I see much similarity which I would consider a neutral opinion. Specifically, I commonly shoot both guns, 357 mag and 10 mm, with light 38 special or light 40 S&W equivalent loads up to full power 357 magnum or full power 10 mm loads in a wide range of bullet weights. If anyone believes this to be non-neutral, please explain the concept to me. Gflory (talk) 14:17, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree with this opinion. How is a statement like 'powerful and versatile' overtly jaded and opinionated? Frankly this editor's decision and reasoning for deleting this phrase is more opinionated than the phrase itself. It's like someone declaring that we can't call the sky 'blue' because someone questions what exactly IS blue... Monoblocks (talk) 05:12, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree. I can buy loads that go from 300 to 900 ft-lbs. It is both powerful and versatile. I can go from light target loads, to loads that can kill moose at close range reliably (There is video on Alaska State Troopers of a man saving his dog from a moose and calf with a 10mm and the moose are then given to a food bank). How about "is a powerful caliber that comes in a range of loadings from light target rounds (~300 ft-lbs) to high power hunting rounds (~900 ft-lbs)." Msjayhawk (talk) 19:01, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Hydrostatic Shock

A number of papers document remote neural effects of ballistic pressure waves at energy levels comparable or lower than provided by the 10mm. I cited one of them which provides a pretty good paper trail to the others. The others can be cited directly if this is preferable, but it would seem odd for all five or ten citations for the 10mm article to support the point about hydrostatic shock.

You will be hard pressed to cite data supporting claims contrary to the existence of remote ballistic pressure wave effects in the scientific literature. The assertion is made fairly often in venues that are less than scientific, but the fact is that the claim that hydrostatic shock does not exist at 10mm energy levels is simply not backed up by published data.

I have removed the spurious claim of dispute, since the cited reference provides an ample paper trail and compelling case in the scientific literature.

Michael Courtney (talk) 02:00, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Michael, there is also a flood of evidence and papers against it. While this debate is mostly academic, it is certainly only tangentially related to the 10mm auto at best. At worst, it's indulgent and a superfolous. The hydrostatic shock discussion should take place on pertinant articles like the 5.45 and 5.56 articles, not this article. You make the leap that the 10mm 'can' cause hydrostatic shock damage, yet you leave out the thousands of other loadings that can also... if the 10mm can. Heck, a .22lr Quickshock load will cause hydrostatic shock. EVERY frangible bullet out there can cause hydrostatic shock. It's a discussion that is not limited to the 10mm nor is there anything magical about hollow-point bullets in the 10mm that would warrant that discussion here. You're making a spurious connection between the 10mm and the disputed theory of Hydrostatic Shock. --'''I am Asamuel''' (talk) 03:54, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I've cited scientific publications that state explicitly that ballistic pressure wave effects become significant at 500-600 ft-lbs of energy. The 10mm has that, the 22 LR does not. In addition, there is simply not a "flood" of scientific papers that provide evidence against hydrostatic shock. The general (though not unanimous) consensus is that remote ballistic pressure wave effects are real, and only a few scientific authors have objected, and these have not offered data.

Remote Pressure wave mechanism exists: FT Chamberlin, S Tikka, A Cederberg, P Rokkanen, WO Puckett, H Grundfest, WD McElroy, JH McMillen, A Suneson, HA Hansson, T Seeman, E Lycke, Q Wang, Z Wang, P Zhu, J Jiang, AM Göransson, DH Ingvar, F Kutyna, GJ Ordog, S Balasubramanian, J Wasserberger, L Ming, M Yu-Yuan, F Ring-Xiang, F Tian-Shun, M Courtney, A Courtney (Except for Chamberlin, all these authors assert their position in at least one peer-reviewed journal article.)

Remote pressure wave mechanism does not exist or is not significant: ML Fackler, D MacPherson, U Patrick, G Roberts (Of these, only Fackler has asserted his position in a peer-reviewed journal)

Editors who assert that remote ballistic pressure wave effects known as "hydrostatic shock" do not represent the prevailing view in the scientific literature need to support their claim by providing references. You cannot claim a dispute without providing references.

Michael Courtney (talk) 11:39, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I can and did claim a dispute (which you did not disagree with at all) and I can also revert the edit for the reasons I've stated. I can put a reference about Reagan's Ghost on the Ronald Reagan page also. I'm sure I can get volumes of information to back up my position that Reagan's Ghost walks this world. That discussion, however, is irrelevant on the Ronald Reagan page as it applies to all dead people. Your only reason for insertion in this article seems to be this 'magical amount' of energy that one of your references cited as significant. All bullets create hydrostatic effects. Heck, a baseball bat does as well. This argument applies certainly to the vast majority of rifle cartridges and many pistol cartridges as well just given your criteria. Therefore, there is no precedent for inclusion in this article. The 10mm was not involved in any of these research projects I know of. Now then, the 5.56 and 5.45mm were. Inclusion there would be warranted and, IIRC, there are discussions of that sort there already. Beyond that, Hydrostatic shock, we can agree, is disputed. I happen to believe it's 'snakes oil' having shot many living beings in my time with some pritty high energy/velocity projectiles and observing the results. Remember that one of the main pushes for research were stories that a shot in the arm would kill a man... and that cartridge was the 5.56mm M193. --'''I am Asamuel''' (talk) 12:27, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Hydrostatic shock at 10mm energy levels is supported with a number of peer-reviewed scientific publications, including some that present data from 10mm shooting events and others that present data from slightly lower energy levels (9mm). Usually, it is the claim that is unsupported with verifiable information from reliable sources that is considered snake oil. In contrast, you are going against a large number of scientists. To support your claim of dispute, you should present more than your own unpublished original research.

To my knowledge, the last claim disputing remote ballistic pressure wave effects in the scientific literature was made by Martin Fackler 12 years ago. It was based on an analogy with lithotriptors which has since been shown to be demonstratably false. You need more than "This is disputed because I say so." In the scientific method, you are compelled to cite published data from a reliable source in order to support your claim of a legitimate dispute.

If you can find reliable sources to back up your assertion of dispute, you can certainly make a case for citing them also to maintain a NPOV. Michael Courtney (talk) 14:28, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

While you and I can disagree on the relative merits, science, and peer-review status, what you fail to do is address the subject head-on of whether that information should be included in THIS article. Why not the .357 Maximum or .400 CorBon articles? How about the .220 Swift article? The crux of my argument doesn't involve Hydrostatic Shock, although that's what you chose to address. Please address whether or not it's appropriate to MENTION hydrostatic shock in this article. Again, you're making an original statement saying that power levels with hollow-point bullets reach the threshold of hydrostatic shock damage that is arbitrary at best, even given your info and explanations to date. You then include it in this article without establishing notability with regards to this subject. I'd love to read about all of this crap in another lifetime, but if I were to read through it, I'd like to do it on the Hydrostatic Shock page, not here. --'''I am Asamuel''' (talk) 14:38, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Pardon me for a minute, but it seems we are not 'clicking' on what we are talking about. The entire time, I've been making points on whether Hydrostatic is significantly relavant to the 10mm article to warrant inclusion, even going so far as to cite examples. You've been arguing whether or not it's real. Maybe you could read my posts and address them. --'''I am Asamuel''' (talk) 14:41, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

You've made a number of comments addressing the merits of hydrostatic shock independent of the 10mm, claiming that there are "a flood of evidence and papers against it" and that your original research failed to see hydrostatic shock with "high energy/high velocity" projectiles. In response to your specific claim that the citations did not include data on the 10mm, I pointed out that they did.

Why did you feel that data on hydrostatic shock in the 5.56 would justify inclusion in that article, but that published data on remote pressure wave effects in the 10 mm do not justify inclusion in the 10 mm article?

The pressure wave magnitude has been published and remote ballistic pressure wave effects that are known as "hydrostatic shock" have been documented in a number of service caliber handgun rounds including 9mm, .40 S&W, .357 Mag, .357 Sig, and 10mm. A one sentence mention of hydrostatic shock has been made in these articles. Hydrostatic shock is less interesting and notable in other rounds such as the .357 Maximum and .400 Cor-Bon, both because these are rarely used in law enforcement and self-defense loads. Consequently, I do not think that published pressure wave magnitudes or studies of pressure wave effects are available for these loads.

A brief reference to hydrostatic shock is warranted for all commonly used self-defense cartridges for which the effect is significant (based on energy transfer) and for which there is published data. This includes the 10mm.

Finally, the assertion that 10mm energy levels are sufficient to see the effect is not original research. The cited paper from the peer-reviewed journal, Brain Injury, states that remote neural effects are documented and expected for at least 500-600 ft-lbs of energy transfer. Are you claiming it is original research to simply observe that the energy transfer of the 10mm exceeds a previously published threshold? Michael Courtney (talk) 15:31, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that it's appropriate to mention hydrostatic shock in any of the handgun calibers as it's mostly an issue of contention when discussing the 5.56. I've already stated my case for that and don't wish to keep coving ground I've already covered. Your position is that every common cartridge should have a mention of hydrostatic shock even though the firearms research community is split on whether or not it is even a significant factor in terminal ballistics. I find that position indefensible and indulgent. I believe your edits to the Hydrostatic shock article indicate you have a deep interest and you are trying to promote that work and that interest on an article that's connected by a shoestring. I know you disagree, I'm not trying to convince you any longer. You've dodged my head-on arguments and chose another path so I doubt you'll respond to me ever. I'll go ahead and end this exercise in futility. --'''I am Asamuel''' (talk) 15:40, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Contentious discussions are not reliable sources unless they occur in appropriate scientific publications. Hydrostatic shock may or may not occur with the 5.56, but the published data suggests that it does for well-placed chest hits in cases where the bullet impacts with adaquate energy, tumbles, and the rate of energy transfer exceeds established threholds. The debate is fueled with anecdotal cases where the bullet fails to tumble, is poorly placed, or impacts with inadaquate energy.

The firearms research community is split, but as I point out above, the overwhelming majority of scientists who have published on the subject support remote ballistic pressure wave effects, and all of the published quantitative data supports remote neural effects at energy levels within the reach of service caliber handguns. If you can provide appropriate citations, it would be fair to mention the minority view to maintain a NPOV. (My personal opinion is that the minority view is not sufficiently supported to warrant inclusion, but I would not object if another editor felt differently and provided the citations.)

Whose case is supported by a shoestring, the one that agrees with a boatload of scientists and references a large number of scientific papers, or the case that agrees with two real scientists and is not supported with published data?

Wikipedia is about verifiability and reliable sources. If you cannot provided reliable scientific citations that support you assertion that the results of hydrostatic shock are dubious, the tag should be removed. I have certainly provided ample citations showing it is well-established. Michael Courtney (talk) 16:03, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Uh, you've already provided those. I said, argument over, you're not listening to me anyhow. --'''I am Asamuel''' (talk) 16:22, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

• FWIW, yesterday I added "fact" tags to Mr. Courtney's revisions on the .40 S&W and 9x19mm pages, where he added content about hydrostatic shock (HS). He then added citations to his paper, which I read. I have also read this discussion on the 10mm Auto talk page. Since I was asked to weigh-in on the discussion, I must say that I am undecided but he may well have a valid point that the content belongs. Without necessarily agreeing with his thesis, if his point is that 10mm Auto performance reaches a threshold at which peer reviewed studies show hydrostatic shock effects to be significant, then a comment to that effect would seem to belong in the article. It would be notable under the "performance" topic. I don't think it would be encyclopedic to add a note about HS in cartridge articles where HS is not significant. I would also think that if any content on HS is included, that mention of the debate on the subject be made. Of course, the danger in including such content is that it has the potential to bog down the article on a disputed topic which is not core to the subject matter. And as Asams10 correctly notes, consistency would require making mention of HS in every article where the cartridge performs above the claimed threshold. Sorry to equivocate here, but I can see both sides of this issue and hope a compromise can be reached.--Ana Nim (talk) 17:04, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

How about this wording:

A number of studies (appropriate citations here) have documented remote pressure wave effects (known as hydrostatic shock) with levels of energy transfer possible with the 10mm cartridge. However, some experts claim (appropriate citations here) that directly crushed tissue is the sole wounding mechanism of service-caliber handguns.

This wording supports both NPOV and wikipedia standards for reliable sources better than most of the other information at firearms related pages. Michael Courtney (talk) 17:22, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Courtney, the issue here is not whether or not your theory and research is true and accurate, it is whether or not the idea of hydrostatic shock is notable in this context, or notable enough to actually warrant space in the article being spent on it. My opinion is no; I think that the see also, combined with the wikilink to stopping power at the top of the article are sufficient, especially since the article already discusses the stopping power, and self-defense utility of the cartridge.--LWF (talk) 19:30, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Stopping power encompases all of the legitemate internal ballistics factors and the dubious ones as well. Certainly the issue of stopping power should be included. --'''I am Asamuel''' (talk) 22:42, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

And as I said, it already is.--LWF (talk) 01:56, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, so I'm not allowed to edit articles any more as my stalker has showed up. Hopefully my comments on the talk page don't get reverted as well. I'll let what I've said here stand. --'''I am Asamuel''' (talk) 15:34, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

That's a ridiculous strawman argument. Nobody has ever said you cannot edit articles anymore, and nobody is stalking you. You just are not allowed to edit war. Please calm down and start acting rationally; sardonic, petulant, childish comments like the one above do nothing to help your cause. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 16:02, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

With the understanding that "Stopping power" will be added to the "See Also" section, are there any objections (aside from notability) to the proposed wording for the addition to the "Performance" section? The proposed wording maintains NPOV and is verifiable with reliable sources:

A number of studies (appropriate citations here) have documented remote pressure wave effects (known as hydrostatic shock) with levels of energy transfer possible with the 10mm cartridge. However, some experts claim (appropriate citations here) that directly crushed tissue is the sole wounding mechanism of service-caliber handguns. Michael Courtney (talk) 11:25, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

First, Hydrostatic shock and kinetic energy are unrelated. A 3,000 pound car traveling at 5 miles per hour generates 2,500 ft/lbs of energy, and it's certainly not going to induce hydrostatic shock. Hydrostatic shock (cavity stretch) results from VELOCITY, and the threshold is about 2,000 feet per second (600 meters per second). Very few handgun cartridges achieve this. There will be *some* bruising around the wound due to small capillaries that exceeded there elasiticity during the temporary cavitation, but the lower velocity of the bullets does not create the permanent stretch cavity associated with high velocity rifle rounds that create wound channels much larger than the bullet.

Secondly, "stopping power", "energy dump" and "energy transfer" are nonsensical concepts pertaining to small arms. The wounding mechanism of a bullet is tissue damage, period. Where handgun cartridges are concerned, this is accomplished by direct crushing/tearing/cutting of the tissue. "Energy dump" or "energy transfer" are best described as blunt force trauma, which bullets do not cause in quantities sufficient to kill. If they did, ballistic armor would be useless, because the person would die anyway from the instantaneous "energy dump". It takes a helluva lot more than a few hundred foot pounds to damage a human body without penetrating it.

Now I'm going to go remove the term "hydrostatic shock" from the main article, because it doesn't belong there. The "citations" are nothing more than a whole bunch of theories that are all countered by other theories and actual data. Shooting a few pigs and dogs in the leg and discovering that they are affected by it (imagine that) is hardly evidence of "hydrostatic shock", as there are literally dozens of other explanations for the symptoms exhibited. Is there a pressure wave sent through the body during impact? Yup. Same thing happens when you cough or sneeze, both of which create more pressure than a bullet hitting you in the thigh.

Surgeons all over the world patch people up after being shot and find that bullets have passed within millimeters of arteries and nerve bundles without damaging them. Handgun bullets even pass through brains (the most fragile tissue in our bodies) without damaging beyond the wound channel. Many of these victims make remarkable recoveries if the swelling is controlled. A good friend of mine is one such example.

There's no question that bullet wounds cause significant trauma, but handgun bullets simply do not cause the kind of damage you wish to associate with them. If getting shot in the belly scrambled your brains from "hydrostatic shock", there wouldn't be an over 80% survival rate for handgun wounds.

Sixtysixdeuce (talk) 05:36, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Glock 20

When I click on the link Glock 20, cames the link to Glock itself. An article about Glock 20 is on the site [Glock 20]Agre22 (talk) 12:40, 16 December 2008 (UTC)agre22

??? Glock 20 redirects to Glock pistol and an article. Are you making a statement that Gunblasts.com has an article about the Glock 20? This article is about the Cartridge, not the pistol. What's the point here? --Nukes4Tots (talk) 19:13, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

"developed by Jeff Cooper"

Sure Norma didn't do the developing following Cooper's sketches? Would make more sense imo. --84.163.225.64 (talk) 07:03, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Could somebody provide some documentation for the statement below?

Resolved

Could somebody provide some documentation for the statement below?

"Since its introduction, the 10mm Auto has had a reputation for accuracy which the shorter cartridge seems unable to match."

Is the 10mm more accurate than the .40S&W or is it because of the flatter trajectory of the 10mm there is less hold over when aiming? I have very limited experience with the 10mm but shoot .40 S&W, 9mm, and magnum revolvers often. With the exception of firing the revolvers in single action I have never noticed a great deal of difference in accuracy.

If I am incorrect it would be nice to have a citation for the accuracy statement. Also the use of the words “reputation for” and “seems unable to match” are subjective and in my opinion should not be used in an encyclopedia.

BobG64 (talk) 18:06, 27 October 2009 (UTC)BobG64

I tried to fix it, but ended up just removing the whole paragraph. It was all unsourced, non-neutral, and based on original research. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 00:06, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Dead link

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

• http://www.cip-bp.org/index.php?id=tdcc-telechargement
  • In .223 Remington on 2011-05-20 21:28:33, Socket Error: 'getaddrinfo failed'
  • In 10mm Auto on 2011-05-23 02:08:47, Socket Error: 'getaddrinfo failed'
  • In .223 Remington on 2011-05-31 04:44:11, Socket Error: 'getaddrinfo failed'
  • In .325 WSM on 2011-05-31 12:36:32, Socket Error: 'getaddrinfo failed'
  • In 10mm Auto on 2011-06-01 01:40:56, Socket Error: 'getaddrinfo failed'

--JeffGBot (talk) 01:41, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I've been trying to find an image file of that CD now for about a year. CIP either took it off their website or moved it to a place I can't seem to find (much to my consternation). I really hope someone can find this resource, because it would be invaluable for making cartridge diagrams. Morgan Phoenix (talk) 23:51, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Over four years now since their website renewal and the TDCC downloads page is still "Section being restructured". How much longer is it going to take them? 71.229.23.9 (talk) 22:05, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Good news! The Tables are now back online and available; they're in PDF format. 71.229.23.9 (talk) 01:30, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Ballistics

A couple of the velocity figures under Ballistic performance are incorrect given actual manufacturer data. The Hornady XTP 180gr muzzle velocity is 1180 ft/s, as opposed to 1350, according to this [1]. That is a 13% discrepancy; if that is the intended figure it requires a justification.

None of the 150gr loads listed by Nosler [2] reach 1475 ft/s. The fastest is 1292. Another large discrepancy.

The Double Tap (200 and 230gr) figures appear to match manufacturer claims. I found no corroboration for the "165 gr Golden Saber HP" claim; that looks like someone's hand load since that brand name is for a bullet, as opposed to a manufactured round.

Allenc28 (talk) 08:41, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Right. So Zmanzant in his one and only contribution ever reverted my changes without comment. Care to share your thoughts Zmanzant, before I restore those changes?

Allenc28 (talk) 23:02, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

As long as the sources agree with your changes, go ahead and restore them. ROG5728 (talk) 00:04, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Underwood ammo makes a round that is 135 grain, and will do over 800 ft-lbs. I have a friend's chrono on it for five shots from a witness 4.75" barrel. "Underwood 135gr. Nosler HP 1634, 1653, 1689, 1674, 1711. Average = 1672.2 FPS/ 838.03 LBS" Msjayhawk (talk) 23:31, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Main image idea

Just a thought, but how'd a high definition, upright image of a FMJ round in actual size sound? The picture file size would still be small enough to fit within the regulations and infobox since it's a pistol caliber and not to mention, the cartridge we've showing now is casting too large a shadow and reflective in a bad way to really stand out.

I'd think it'd hold a really nice encyclopedic value too. Agree? 71.229.23.9 (talk) 18:54, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Create a user account and upload the picture you wrote about to Wikimedia Commons (beware of not violating copyright, but Wikimedia Commons will point that out to you) and add it to the Category:10mm AUTO so everybody can see and use your image in Wikipedia articles.--Francis Flinch (talk) 07:16, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

I think you've misunderstood me: It was only a suggestion I threw out there for those that can to take if they wished so. I can't due to lack of proper equipment. 71.229.23.9 (talk) 15:03, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Someone needs to correct the bullet diameter on the graphic

Someone needs to correct the bullet diameter on the graphic - see 40 S&W on Wikipedia DennisLMay DennisLMay (talk) 00:24, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Don't see anything needed to be fixed here. Since the nomenclature of the cartridge and its partial origins lie in Europe, the infobox's details (if that's what you were pointing to) are correct as is with the SI units used (along with corresponding conversions) instead of the imperials. If you had something else more specific in mind, be sure to make it clear. 71.229.23.9 (talk) 23:30, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

The dimension H2 is incorrectly repeated for the bullet diameter which should be G1 instead [see Wikipedia 40 S&W for similar graphic] The graphic is file File:10mm Auto.svg

DennisLMay (talk) 00:27, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

That would be the user-created cartridge dimension graphic based on C.I.P.'s numbers - I see what you're referring to now. You might want to contact Morgan Phoenix to sort this out as that is his file. I'll give him a pip once I find the time as well. 71.229.23.9 (talk) 15:45, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Cartridge dimensions graphic

Someone who is part of the field making, editing these pictures needs to come and either edit the old red-outlined one, or create a completely new one.

On a added note, I came across this while googling for official S.A.A.M.I. documents and think it merits a recreation and followed addition into the Cartridge dimensions section. That way, a clear comparison between the C.I.P.'s numbers, and S.A.A.M.I.'s can be made.

The times I wish I had the right software and means to do these myself…71.229.23.9 (talk) 22:05, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Performance

Why in the performance section are HOT .357 and 10mm rounds listed, and then a run of the mill .41 magnum?? Why not show a .41 magnum in the same HOT form like 210 grain, 1,560 fps, 1,135 ft-lbs? I can get +P+ up to 1,350 ft-lbs. I think the problem is that people want to say that the 10mm is more than a .357 so the next step up is the .41. The problem is the .41 is not in between the two, it is really just a 44 light. Hot loads for the 357, 41, and 44 are as follows 750, 1,350, 1,550 ft-lbs. Cross sectional areas of the the three (% of .44 mag) are .100 in^2 (69%), .132 in^2 (92%), and .144 in^2 (100%). Here is a good hot .41 mag load with no + or ++ pressure. http://www.underwoodammo.com/41remingtonmagnum210grainjacketedhollowpointboxof50.aspx Msjayhawk (talk) 20:54, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Hey Msjayhawk and everyone else who's wondering about the Performance section being gone,

I figure that entire bit of the article was originally meant to spotlight how the Ten at its full potential (read: loading) has the capacity to out punch the .357 Mag at a similar par, and close-in to the energy capabilities of a "dull" if not, moderate .41 round. As it stands currently, the performance numbers used in that part of the article formerly detailed in the reference link (also dead in its old URL form; the new ones are as follows: .357, 10, .41) to the product pages that showed them have changed, and thus—as far as I know—does not hold the same notation as previously intended. Accordingly, I have taken the initiative to remove this section until someone with more knowledge on cartridge loadings/performance can come in and recreate those three bullet-pointed comparisons more appropriately. May Our X mark a spot amongst the vastness of firearms history forever, 2601:5:C480:88E0:DAA2:5EFF:FE96:5BB8 (talk) 03:58, 21 January 2015 (UTC) (Formerly 69.244.222.20, 71.229.23.9, 69.244.220.111, and occasionally: Fukoku Kyohei (talk)).

Slightly contrary to the above, I've re-inserted the Performance section with only the bit cited by the BREN-TEN.com link. 'Til we get more verifiable references and someone even more knowledgeable, I think it will suffice. 2601:5:C480:88E0:DAA2:5EFF:FE96:5BB8 (talk) 04:09, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

bren-ten.com

The website bren-ten.com appears to be an anonymous, self-published source. The "Whois" entry appears to be fictitious.[3] It looks like it contains reprints of articles published elsewhere, whose reliability would be based on the original source. But material which hasn't been published before probably does not meet WP's reliability standards. Does anyone have any more information on this source? Rezin (talk) 19:57, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

1980's?

Japanese WWII Mambu and baby variants of automatic pistol were chambered in 10 mm. They have 10 mm written down the side of them even. 121.211.33.244 (talk) 14:08, 23 December 2015 (UTC)