Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Handguns Hunting with a 10mm?

Marine Hawk, wow you did it again! In two posts you have, IMO, shed more light than many piles of posts by other members with armchair or Monday Morning Quarterback ameteur theorists who post this theory or that one and call it proven science or fact.

You are 1000% correct, sir that when any number of circumstance change, almost any of the popular theories can be found wanting.

This is why so many of my hunting rifles are of large diameter, and shoot deep penetrating bullets FAST. IF the Hydraulic overload don't get it done, the big deep hole through parts neccesary for the continuation of life and/or motation certainly will.

Thusly, my rifles for African and Alaskan XXL sized game have been my hot loaded (to roughly equal the mighty 416 WBY) 416 Rigby, my wildcat 340 Tyrannosaur that pushes a 225gr TTSX at 3100fps and as my smallest bore used there a 300 RUM sending 180gr TTSX bullets out at 3200fps. The 300 RUM and 340 T both knocked the wind right out of the sails on game as big and tough as Eland and Zebra, not to mention Kudu and the smaller plains game animals and were fast and flat shooting enough, plus accurate enough as well as flat shooting, for the "Poodleopes" as I call them, i.e. the Springbok, Klipspringer, etc.

I am saving several of the studies that you have cited to my 'favorites' list for future reference. I remember well Craig Boddington's article debunking the knock out blow idea of the big bores and his citing the 40-41 cals as being better and more reliable penetrators. I used to be something of an Elephant hunter, but even if my health returns, I fear that the hunting of these great beasts is going to be quickly out of range for all but the wealthiest of hunters. I am sure glad I went and did what I did, when I had the chance.

Thanks again for a couple of terrific posts!

WOW! I just read Rathcoombe's FULL terminal effects bullets report! What an AMAZING piece of work! Easily, far and away, the most complete and best testing of any bullet and wounding effect report I have ever seen, and I have read a bunch of them.

Marine HAwk,

This particualr article or series of tests need to be put into a separate thread in the hunting forums here. IF you do not cite and paste it in those, may I? (with a nod and note of appreciation/acknowledgement to you for originally bringing this to my attention in this forum) sir?

Not really:

Big is a sufficient (but not necessary) condition for good performance.
Fast is a sufficient (but not necessary) condition for good performance.

It follows that
Big=good
Fast=good
Big and fast=really good
Small and slow (BB gun)=really bad

If it is small, it better be fast. If it is slow it better be big.

I think we are saying the same thing.

Define "deep penetration", because I have not found that to be the case at all. It expands very quickly and I would not use it on deer sized game where I thought the bullet would encounter a shoulder on the way in.



Not really, you're trying to simplify something that is as far from simple as it could be.

Spend less time over analyzing it.
Spend more time loading and shooting.
Splitting hairs here.

Like Elmer said-- "Let's go shoot some rocks way out there".

Shoot more-talk less.

Well summarized and spot on. Thusly, I love my 340 wildcat pushing a big bullet (225gr TTSX) pretty fast (3100fps) why choose one or the other? When one can have both!

Dumbazz me will stick to my OM Ruger 44 Special conversion and plunk 250 gr 429421's at 1000 fps knowing that it will work.

The 429421 is a "dumb bomb". But it kills $h!t dead. Big or small,it kills them all.

The 180gr Laser-cast out of my 10's is developing the same reputation for me. Followed by the Beartooth 200gr FNGC.

No complicated math/physics to it. They just kill.

Safari, just wanted to let you know the other day I was window shopping, i.e. looking at 1911s. I saw they had a few different models of STI's, but the sales man wasn't pushing them, he was a huge fan of the RIA's. I might add this guy is a shooter also.

The RIAs, he thought were better, smoother than the Ruger he had out for comparison. They seem to be a hell of a deal this day and age.

I asked about the 10 mm, he checked and if they can get one, they sale for 610.

I want a 1911 and a 10mm, so I might start with this combo.

But it is complicated. The simpletons would have us believe that kinetic energy is a proper gauge of a cartridge's effectiveness when your example proves that to be bunk. Any handgun round produces but a fraction of the energy of even an average rifle round, yet they work just as well within their effective range. The hard part is getting people to discard their precious foot pounds.

Nothin dumbazz about that. My carry loads for my 329PD are about the same deal. My SWC bullets are a tad bit heavier because that is what I have on hand. But the formula is a sound one and well proven.

I am sure pleased as can be with mine. I have had a pretty good pile of 1911's and this one is my all time favorite so far. When I get a couple of bucks ahead I would like to have the trigger worked on a little, but it is quite good for a factory 1911. A marvelous value, for sure. Shooting times did a big article and spread on exactly the gun we are talking of, specifically the 10mm 1911 and they were very impressed, as well.

It is not complicated unless you make it that way. I have >70 hours of math,physics and chemistry and do not care. Loading,shooting and hunting is what I care about. Sure, my understanding of the disciplines help a lot. But I am not in the business of ballistics, OR teaching it, OR trying to impress people with it.

Use what you know and make it work. Have a good time doing it.
Enjoy it. Now that is not rocket science.

Sometimes people have to come full circle in life!

Just because you do not care does not mean it's not complicated. Terminal ballistics is far from simple. It's only simple to the simple-minded who think it's just "simple physics". If it were simple, we'd all be following energy figures and nobody would be arguing. Yes, it's really easy to figure out what works. What is not so easy is figuring out why or how to accurately compare one load to another. You don't have to be "in the business" to care. Anybody who has ever been in a discussion like this one when kinetic energy comes up cares to one degree or another. If you think that energy is NOT a proper gauge, then the question is, what is? Or can it even be measured? Those are not simple or easy questions to answer. Even if Gibby doesn't care.

If you really don't care, don't participate. I don't care about casting bullets but I don't go into casting forums and say, "who cares?".

Relax,Relax.

Don't take these things too seriously.

That is all I'm saying.

Internal,external and terminal ballistics is not hard. Plain and simple. Send a rocket to the moon, now that is tough.

Hunting with a 10mm. Not rocket science.

If you don't care or don't take it seriously, then don't participate. Certainly do not tell those who do care, who do take this seriously to "relax". Rather, go find a discussion you do care about.

Things that I dedicate most of my free time and nearly all of my disposable income to, are usually taken pretty seriously.

Just because you "don't care" or don't take it seriously, do not assume everyone else feels the same way.

It's only simple to those who bury their head in the sand, believing the nonsense about energy. Energy completely ignores bullet diameter and bullet construction. It completely ignores how the bullet and target interact once they meet. It completely ignores the size of a cast bullet's meplat or the rapidity of a jacketed bullet's expansion at a given velocity. All these and more are important factors affecting the way a target reacts to a given load. Any time one factor is altered, the results are altered. Yes, we can use elementary school logic and say, "this works so I use it" and if that's good enough for you, then perhaps this is not the discussion for you. Personally, I would like to find a better way to compare the terminal performance of two distinctly different loads. That being big & slow/small & fast. Because kinetic energy ain't it. Like I said, energy is a simple and incomplete answer to a complicated question.

I can participate anywhere and anyway I want.



I, like the others here are trying to help the OP.
I am involved in this thread.


Now I am trying to help you.
I'll say it just one more time. Ease up, your going to stroke out.

Done!

Stop telling me to calm down. It's your telling me to "relax" and "don't take it seriously" that is getting on my last nerve. I did not ask for and do not need your "help". If you want to help the discussion, stay on topic and stop with the personal bullshit. I'm here to talk about terminal ballistics, not mince words with folks that don't care about the discussion.



Yes, we know you do not care so let's move on.

I think you should calm down.



Travis

STFU.