Test Gun: Glock 20.
Barrel length: 4.6 Inches.
Ammunition: Federal 10mm 200gr HST.
Test media: 10% Vyse Ballistics Gel.
Distance: 10 feet.
Chronograph: Caldwell Ballistic Precision Chronograph G2.
Five shot velocity average: 1078fps
BB Calibration: 3.75inches

https://general-cartridge.com/2020/08/11/federal-10mm-200gr-hst-in-vyse-ballistics-gel/

Thanks as always OP.

I like that load and if we ever get back to pre-chicom-19 prices I will get some. Unlike most 10mm users, I do NOT want all my ammo to be the nuclear full-power 200gr at 1300fps since people are my primary threat rather than Grizz or polar bears. And a 200gr HST going 1050 fps sounds about perfect for HD (basically like a good 45 load).

Great post, but damn that’s an expensive load. My 180 grain Gold Dot Underwood nuclear load that I use is way cheaper!

40 s&w +p

A great self defense load either way

Good Stuff! Thanks as always, 5pins!

Great test!

Another 100 fps and that would be perfect. The bullet has some room to expand, especially on the clothed shots.
I wish they would sell these as components.

That would ruin your day.

.40-duplicating performance from the mo' pricey 10mm case?

Why? ... Wut fer?

Premium 200gn bullet or not,  I could get (in pre-panic times) essentially the same ballistics from DT's 'heavy-weight' factory .40S&W load, which pushes a 200gn Hornady XTP-HP @ 1050fps. Virtually the same as this Federal 10mm load that 5pins posted.

Federal could've easily loaded this 200gn HST bullet into real 10mm territory   - say, 1125-1150fps  - without necessarily reaching the max 'nuclear' level of 1300fps, ... nor even the old Norma standard of  200gns @ 1200fps,  ... which once upon a time was called a 'Sonny Crocket load.'

I appreciate that 5pins posted his test data, but at day's end this is just another attempt by a mainstream ammo-maker to separate 10mm users from their money with a .40-level junk load packaged as '10mm' ammo.

C'mon, let's get serious.

I can't say I disagree.

At that point why pay for 10mm?

The purpose of 10mm is to have more power. That's a reduced load.

I've found most off the shelf ammo(at least back when there was a shelf with ammo on it)for 10mm outside of Sig to be very underwhelming unless stepping up to Buffalo Bore or Underwood.

No kidding. My mild .45 practice load hits 1077 with 200gr swc

I've learned that the renewed, soaring, popularity of the 10mm has little to do with ballistic tests, energy, etc. and is MUCH more the product of marketing and perceived benefit.

In reality, much of the 10mm ammo is loaded close to .40 S&W ballistics, and the hot loads approach .357 mag. There is nothing particularly exceptional about the 10mm and its ballistic performance.

I think the biggest plus to the 10mm is the ability to send warning shots into the ground infront of large bears before you need to start shooting the bear.

Hot factory 10mm comes pretty close to hot 357 factory ammo. The bandleader can push the 357 far beyond the 10mm in a sturdy revolver, but most people I know choose factory ammo for bear defense. But for me its the capacity thats the biggest draw. You get 2-3 times (or more) capacity with a lighter, easier to carry gun. And warning shots are pretty common with bear encounters, so if you have a 5 or 6 or 7 shot 357 or 44 mag revolver, even one warning shot makes a big difference, because odds are you won't have time to reload if the bear charges. Especially for black bears the 10mm is a great choice. I have a 7 shot 686 plus and a Ruger alaskan, but I usually choose the g21 with 255gr WFN handholds loaded hot because its easier to carry and the capacity is a big boost. Also, its penetration that kills bears, and a 200 or 220gr hardcast WFN penetrates very well

Capacity is the only thing 10mm has going for it, and even then, you'd have a hard time convincing me that the 10mm is more effective under real world field conditions then either my Glock 21 or Glock 22 loader with hot, hardcast ammo.

This is bullshit.

Factory 10mm ammo from the Big Three was only watered-down to .40-levels because a segment of 10mm users continued to buy it.

Once DT in 2002, and then BB, and in more recent years Underwood, started churning out full-power loads across a varieties of bullet-weights, they captured the market of 10mm users wanting 'real' 10mm ammo to shoot (those who don't reload anyway), which forced a couple of the Big Three,  like Federal, to begin offering one or two full-power loads in their 10mm ammo line in order to compete in that 'real' 10mm market. Federal offers a 180gn TB load that's actually pretty hot.

The .357 Mag vs. 10mm comparison devolves into the Stoopid zone very quickly because it tends to ignore two things:

First, it ignores the 10mm's wider bullet-diameter and that the bullets it pushes (in factory ammo) are generally heavier than what a .357 user loads his revolver with, e.g., 158gns to, maybe, 180gns  - again in factory ammo. Whereas the 10mm in factory ammo can, and has, been loaded with 200gn, 215gn, 220gn, and 230gn bullets, FMJ-FPs as well as hard-cast slugs;

Second, the comparison is almost never 'apples to apples' in terms of a ballistic basic: the specific barrel length used to derive the .357's claimed velocities. .357 advocates ignore that in most factory ammo the velocity specs are chronographed from .357 revolvers having barrels of 5"-6". And that's 5"-6" of true bore length which the bullet traverses before reaching the muzzle.

Plus, they like to ignore that 95%+ of the .357 wheelguns actually carried in the field or boonies have barrels of 4" or less, which of course reduces the factory's claimed 'box-flap' velocity. Short-, or shorter, barreled revolvers give up velocity for the gain of easier portability in the field, not to mention on the street.

The velocity specs of 'real' 10mm ammo (at least from the credible sources  - i.e., DT, BB, UW) are derived from the real-world barrels of commonly available 10mm pistols, e.g., 3.8"  G29, 4.6" G20, 5" Delta/1911, ... or more recently the longslide 6.2" G40.

But the key point is: the measured length of the barrel in a semi-auto INCLUDES the chamber, which the bullet doesn't traverse.

So comparing the velocities obtained from, say, a 4" S&W M686 to a 4.6" Glock 20, is 'apples-to-oranges' due to the disparity in ACTUAL rifled bore length that the respective bullets are traversing to obtain the recorded velocities. Credible chronographed velocities between .357 & 10mm bullets of equal weight have to factor for true bore length; otherwise the conclusions and arguments based on them aren't valid.

That was a pretty long-winded reply about 10mm compared to .357 mag, but my claim about the 10mm not doing anything particularly exceptional still stands.

Ballistically the 10mm will fall short of the .357 mag, or as you point out, given varying barrel lengths it may match it, but what you've missed is the fact that a 180 grain .357 mag bullet actually has a greater sectional density than a 220 grain .40" bullet. You can do the math yourself.

At any rate, I'm not going to argue that the .357 outclasses the 10mm ballistically....I don't think it does.......but that's my pont. The 10mm doesn't do anything exceptional. The 10mm doesn't do anything that a hot .40 S&W, .45 acp/super, or .357 mag can't. Penetration with heavy, hardcast loads in ALL of those loads is measured in feet. You've fallen for the marketing.

Call it apples to oranges if you want but it's rediculous to say its not valid.

Taking 2 common handguns to compare is the name of the game. Barrel length is taken into account but its moot.

Fwiw my 2.75" m66 gets 1300fps with BuffaloBores 180gr load.

It's not a valid comparison due to unequal barrel length, but also to the nature of the platforms. That's why ballistic debates involving a revolver versus an autoloader of similar, or even the same caliber, quickly devolves into Stoopid.

Okay, let's try it this way: a dude who wanted to due a true, or at least a much closer, 'apples-to-apples' stack-up as between the .357 Mag and the most awesome 10mm AUTO would first start with the same platform - semi-auto v. semi-auto, or revolver v. revolver.

In revolvers:  a 6.5" S&W 10mm 610 versus any 6.5" .357 Smith (or, if none available, try it with the same wheelguns with 4" barrels);

In semi-autos, say, a .357 Desert Eagle or Coonan 1911 with 5" or  6" barrels, versus any 5" or 6" barrel 10mm pistol, like a 5" Delta Elite or S&W 1006, or if a 6" tube is involved, try maybe a DW Bruin or a Glock 40 versus the Deagle or Coonan (although, technically, the G40's barrel might be 6.2", I believe).

Nothing to lose ... aside from a deflated ego and the ensuing butt-hurt.

Id rather just see glocks vs 3-4" revolvers because that is realistically what people carry.

A half inch here or there is meaningless when 2 identical guns can have a larger velocity variation for no apparent reason.

Just because

moon clips left to right: 10mm 200gr hard cast "bear loads", 10mm 200 gr HST, 40 SW 180 gr Gold Dot

I understand the desire for 10MM loaded proper, and I would GLADLY take more factory loads with more ass behind them.

BUT.

For urban carry, I'm perfectly content with a 200 grain pill doing ~1100FPS. A 2 legged threat won't notice the difference in another 100-150FPS. My follow-up shots will.

Good load for it's intended use. Just my 2 cents.

I need to get some of those HSTs.

I'm running 200 gr Gold Dots in the G20 for around town when I carry it instead of the G45.

So how can pistol rounds work in a revolver?  Don't the bottom of the bullets need a wider diameter to stay in place in a revolver?

Look at the picture again. Note that the rounds are in moon clips. Those work against the ejector to allow them to be pushed out. They also headspace the rounds if they are too long, but usually you can fire without them; they headspace like they do in an autoloader.

Oh, so you have to use something called a "moonclip" that goes in the cylinder with the bullets?

Yes. Look at the picture above. The ammo is clipped into a circular sheet of spring steel. They go into and out of the gun as a unit.

Thanks, never realized that.