F.B.I. why .10mm. over .45ACP. ?

Well, isn't this just a blast from the past! It's extremely informative though, a good read for sure.

One thing that I find mildly amusing is seeing posts from 2008 declaring that the 10mm Auto was in the midst of a grand revival. It seems like anytime a company offers a gun chambered in 10mm Auto, the diehard fans insist that it's a sign that the 10mm is all setup to take the market by storm, that it will finally receive the recognition it deserves and claim its place as the undisputed best handgun cartridge.

Don't get me wrong, 10mm Auto is a fantastic cartridge, but it just doesn't have that kind of widespread appeal. It's a special purpose cartridge which will always have a following and its niches, but it isn't ever going to overtake .45 ACP, much less 9mm Luger in popularity or common usage.
 
Last edited:
Laketime said:
@ Model 15 forever .... Doesn't seem like shoulder rigs were an option for the agents. Any reason they wouldn't be.
Click to expand...

The issue holster for the vast majority of the 1076 issue was the DeSantis Speed Scabbard. A strong-side three-slot OWB pancake-type holster with an open top. The Bureau has forever gone back and forth between retention and non-retention holsters. The 1076 was issued during the non-retention fad.

Some number of early guns were issued with the then-new Safariland 5181 open top high-ride paddle holsters made of brown "Safarilaminate" - phony leather with a suede lining. These were referred to as the "Buck Rogers" holsters as they appeared futuristic with a lot of holster cut away in the front. They were popular with range guys, but they rode too high for average Agents in business attire - not enough support for a heavy pistol.

Shoulder holsters were never an issue item - unsafe on a mass firing line, a defensive tactics nightmare, not well-received in the office when someone takes their jacket off and you are looking down the muzzle of their loaded pistol in a horizontal rig. They are also not very concealable under business attire (either style), and are fatiguing with a heavy pistol worn for 8-12 hours a day.

However, agents purchased all manner of "alternative holsters", and the field office PFI had the authority to approve or disapprove it. Anything that was not carried on the strongside muzzle down, I made the Agents do some drills with. This was frankly a PITA because I had to clear the range, and make time for them separately, to do so safely. The only holster I ever banned was the Serpa, and FBI FTU at Quantico did the same Bureau-wide a few years later.

Shoulder holsters were very popular with Agents during mobile surveillance details, in which you were sitting in a vehicle for hours, often in very bad neighborhoods. Drawing from a shoulder rig was faster in those circumstances, especially if seatbelted in. It was far less conspicuous to have your hand inside your jacket, gripping the holstered pistol, when random bad actors were milling about.

I used a DeSantis horizontal rig when doing surveillance work for that very reason, for the short time I was using the 1076. The shorter slide of the 1076 was better for that application than the 5" barrel of 645.
 
Last edited:
I usually pass by zombie threads with an eyeroll, but the added info provided by Model 15-4ever is priceless. For me, the key statement in his post is this:

Re "too much recoil" for Agents with the 10mm. The full house 170 grain Norma was never issued. FTU Unit Chief John Hall and crew fired it in his Colt Delta Elite when they were examining the 10mm and decided quickly it was a ridiculous choice for a LE load.
Click to expand...

Clearly, the "you can never have enough gun" brigade are not going to like that. Tough. The decision was made by those who know their job and what it takes to carry a gun every day.

On that last point, I see that somebody made this comment:

The race to the 9mm was partially driven by some definite improvements in projectile construction but largely by agencies more interested in "diversifying" their organizations than training men and women to survive a fight.
Click to expand...

While this is written as a bit of a swipe, I don't consider diversification of the FBI a criticism. I think it is a realization that employing more people who look like more of the population is an advantage as the FBI's role in intelligence and penetration of criminal gangs evolved.
 
This was an interesting thread to read through from start to finish. Some of it filled with facts and some speculation. I worked in law enforcement for 30 years and the FBI was always held in high regard in firearm selection by many agencies. They had the time, inclination and money to really get into selecting hand guns and ammunition for their agents. My agency did not have the resources for that type of selection process, but we did try to glean whatever we could from the FBI and other department studies. Unfortunately my agency usually took the cheap way out on firearms, but not so much on ammunition.

I came into law enforcement at an interesting albeit frustrating time. The days of big tough ex-military type applicants was fading away and giving way to smaller less physically strong applicants who had absolutely no experience with firearms and were quite literally afraid of them. To them a firearm was just something they had to accommodate themselves with and get a passing score on the qualification test. Once that was done then they could move onto whatever the next hurdle was.

Early on we carried a 4 inch S&W Model 66's loaded with 158 grain full power loads made by Remington. It was a handful for the uninitiated and caused many problems for new shooters. We tried to break them in by only shooting 148 grain wadcutters in their first week on the range, but the second week they started shooting the "combat" courses with duty ammunition. By the end of the second week the recruits had to shoot a qualifying score with duty ammunition or they were removed from training.

If you are a firearms enthusiast and wanna-be-instructor you haven't lived until you stand alone on a range with a struggling student in heat and humidity, rain or snow and they know their chosen career is on the line because they need a passing score. That is where an good firearms instructor is made. Yes the life of that student and others is also on the line at that point, but the student isn't thinking of that at that point. The only thing they want to know is what am I doing wrong and it's up to the instructor to help them figure it out and save their job if possible. I know we lost more than a few good people that no doubt would have made good officers but when I looked at their cut and bleeding hands from shooting Lord knows how many full house loads in their Model 66's I felt sorry for them, but I felt it was necessary. I should add in those days we were shooting part of our qualification course out to 50 yards. That was eliminated when we converted to semi-autos and 25 yards was the maximum distance.

When we went to a 9mm semi-auto we tested different ammunition and picked Winchester 115 Silvertip +P+. It was good stuff and about the best 9mm ammunition available at that time. We ran our training the in the same format, the first week was more or less target shooting with 9mm ball ammo. If the recruits qualified they moved to the second week of combat shooting with duty ammunition. It was a night and day difference using a 9mm semi-auto versus our old .357 magnums. Oh we still had "problem" shooters, but they were far fewer and much more time could be given to improving student performance and running many more scenarios with them. The recruits still got tired after a full day on the range, but gone were the cut and bleeding hands unless they put their hand where it didn't belong. Overall our shooting scores jumped up dramatically. Today I don't believe many departments even shoot for score anymore and it's just pass or fail which is another conversation for another day.

The point of my entry is this, I don't believe every shooter, especially new ones, can be trained to shoot a large caliber handgun such as a 10mm or even a .40 as well as they could shoot a 9mm. It just isn't in the cards when you consider weapon size, hand size, recoil sensitivity and experience. It can and in most cases takes years for a person to become a really good pistol shooter and few departments are going to want to spend the time and money to develop a good shooter with a 10mm pistol when they can accomplish the same thing with a 9mm service weapon. A few years before I retired my old department followed the lead of a well known agency and went to a .40. I said it was a mistake at the time and our qualification scores proved my point. They went down, but when I mentioned this fact to our brass they shrugged it off and didn't want to talk about it. A few years later I retired and it didn't matter to me anymore. A few years later still and they have gone back to the 9mm cartridge. Funny how the wheel always seems to be re-invented.

Rick H.
 
Last edited:
This has been a very interesting thread for me.

Rick H made a remarkable point (why I am remarking) when he said that most LE agencies now do not score shoots, just pass/fail. I don't know whether or not my old department now does this. When I was working, one could earn a marksmanship badge (actually a metal ribbon) based on ten scores over a year's period. Whatever one earned was worn on the uniform, so there were bragging rights at stake. The axiom of competition improves the breed applied here.

On the never ending debate of caliber and controllability I have my own experience which informs my opinions. I was a power lifter my whole career (still work out now). I have large enough hands to require extra large gloves. So grip strength, wrist strength, recoil capacity, etc, were never issues for me.

In the late 80s, we were carrying S&W 686s with 4" bbl. These were great revolvers. I was offered a department owned 9mm S&W 469 that the court had turned over to the department. I took it out and tested it. I loved the double stack grip, hated the action. But it shot great and I wanted to carry it. At my own expense, since I could never own it, I had my local gunsmith do an action job. His work was amazing. Pressing the trigger in SA felt like just pushing a light switch. DA was similar to my 686, but smoother and lighter. Our FBI modified PPC qualification maxed at 25 yards by then. I found that I could score as well with this small, light, high capacity 469 as I could with my 686. What did it for me was the way that double stack grip frame fit my hand. Between that grip frame and the vastly improved action, I was set up to derive every bit of accuracy that amazing little pistol could deliver.

All good things must end. The department decided to issue full size .40 cal Glocks (I forget the model number). I had been spoiled by the 469 though, so much so that I bought the third generation iteration, the 6906, and had my gunsmith do the same action job. I still own this pistol.

I was fine with the Glock. I could not discern any felt recoil difference or follow up shot delays between the 9mm Smith and the .40 cal Glock. Thinking back, way back, I have only had such an experience once. I was tasked with teaching a group of probation officers how to shoot so they could be legally qualified to be armed. Most of them already were very familiar with firearms, so this one was really a walk in the park. On the last day, since we had time and qualification was already done, I had told them to bring out any artillery they wanted to fire. One probation officer brought out two Smith 29s, one with 4"bbl, the other with 6.5" bbl, and full power .44 magnum loads. I fired each off the barricade at 25 yards, meaning I did not have a full two handed grip as I would have had just standing. I found with the 4'' bbl that the muzzle really jumped and that did delay subsequent shots. The muzzle jump was far less with the 6.5" bbl, so more manageable. In my mind I concluded that were I to consider a .44 magnum for carry, I would have had to go with the 6.5" bbl for it to be a practical option.

Where I lived (but no longer) and worked we were infested with gangs. These brave warriors always travel in packs, so one had to assume multiple assailants. For this reason more than any other, I preferred 9mm because I could get the most capacity in the least pistol.

And old habits die hard.
 
Last edited:
Rick H. said:
A few years later still and they have gone back to the 9mm cartridge.
Rick H.
Click to expand...

Was there a noticeable increase in scores after they went back to the 9mm? Or could it be the difference was folks were not used to the 40 gun or platform and that was the real blame for the scores?

Lots of folks shoot terrible when they anticipate more recoil than what they are used to. I had a buddy that had never shot, started him with a 44 mag, then after that every other lesser caliber was easy for him to shoot. No, I wouldn't have done that to lots of folks, but knew he could handle it.

Rosewood
 
Last edited:
It seems like everyone looks to blame equipment after a shootout. The same thing happened following my 1974 gunfight w/armed robbery suspects. The aftermath left one officer wounded (he recovered), one suspect dead, another wounded and a third surrendered at the scene. A major newspaper even weighed in w/their “experts” on what they termed dum-dum bullets vs our lead round nose standard pressure .38 ammo. Looking back if I’d known what was coming I would have brought a rifle w/me.
 
Echo40 said:
Well, isn't this just a blast from the past! It's extremely informative though, a good read for sure.

One thing that I find mildly amusing is seeing posts from 2008 declaring that the 10mm Auto was in the midst of a grand revival. It seems like anytime a company offers a gun chambered in 10mm Auto, the diehard fans insist that it's a sign that the 10mm is all setup to take the market by storm, that it will finally receive the recognition it deserves and claim its place as the undisputed best handgun cartridge.

Don't get me wrong, 10mm Auto is a fantastic cartridge, but it just doesn't have that kind of widespread appeal. It's a special purpose cartridge which will always have a following and its niches, but it isn't ever going to overtake .45 ACP, much less 9mm Luger in popularity or common usage.
Click to expand...


Well, I'll bump it another couple of years. If you look at current production, you'll see there are more 10mm's being made now (and when you made this post) than at any other time in the 10mm's history). I'd say it's revival is in full swing. Match the .45 ACP? It's got a 120 year head start. 9mm? 125 years head start. These both were introduced not long after the dawn of the conversion from blackpowder to smokeless less than 20 years earlier.
There's not a lot of room for really ANY new cartridge to overtake established ones even if they are better. Generally speaking, there's not enough to be gained. An example of this is all the short-mags that were so popular for a while. They offered an improvement, and could be fired from short actions.

For myself, and many others like me, the 10mm will always be about versatility. I don't care if it is mainstream as long as it is available. It's a magnum in a semi-auto without having to carry around a LAR Grizzly, Desert Eagle, Coonan, Widley, etc.
 
Last edited:
Ol' George Luger was on top of his game when he developed the 9x19 Parabellum back in 1901! It was an improvement of a couple earlier cartridges but that is true of most.
I think the .30 Super Carry would be an improvement for its increased magazine capacity, but the existing 9mm infrastructure is too well established.
Back to 10mm. Purely on a working level vs. just wanting it for personal reasons, it is a good choice for non-specialized platforms when projectile penetration is needed for heavy animals.
To me the current raison d'être for .45 ACP is how perfectly it satisfies when launched from a 1911. It hogs a lot of space in a magazine and terminal ballistics have shown it is not significantly more lethal than the 9x19 Parabellum.

Flame on.
 
Last edited:
Folks with a more academic inclination did some figuring and thought the 210 grain SWC would be a big improvement over the typical .38s. They were right, but the implementation was flawed. The SWC that was available apparently leaded barrels at a rapid rate. The 210 grain JSP was a hunting load that turned about 1400 fps from an M58 that some wanted to use to avoid the leading. It was ... stout. When I was younger and tougher, I qualified with that load. It could be done, but I got cussed out by everyone under the covered firing points. I think I mostly carried Silvertips (175 grain at about 1200 fps IIRC), with one of my three speedloaders loaded with the JSP. I also qualified with a nasty hunting load (210 grain Gold Dot IIRC) when I retired, mostly because the indoor range did not allow unjacketed lead.

Our academy instructors were all (mandated to be) Gunsite instructors and thus advocates of 1911s and also big (.44 Special) revolvers. One of them wrote an article about how an M66 simply was not a good platform for a female recruit and how much better she did with a 1911. The department had a fit in part because the Chief was of those idiots with a uniformity fetish.
 
Last edited:
pantannojack said:
I just gotta ask: If the m58 41 magnum was never to be good enough either, why did it happen in the first place?
Click to expand...


My personal take is that in the time of mostly duty revolvers, it was a solution looking for a problem. The .357 and the .44 both already had a lighter Special" variant. So, from a .44 mag perspective, all it offered was smaller diameter.



However, in a semi-auto dominated world that we are in now, those looking for a "lite magnum" are well served by the 10mm full power loads. It can be watered down to .40 S&W or up to light .41 mag loads in some guns. That said it isn't a do-all, nor was it designed to be. I am not a revolver fan, just don't like the way most of them feel in the hand. I have a Desert Eagle with .357 Mag, .44 mag, and .50 A.E. for when I want to shoot the heavy stuff. But, a 4+ pound gun on the hip gets heavy in the back country.
 
I will absolutely unequivocally give the edge to the .45 ACP in one area in centerfire pistols - shooting suppressed. Since most rounds are already at or near subsonic and the slugs are large diameter and heavy, it is the perfect platform for it. By the time you slow down other rounds like the .357 mag, 10mm, etc. to subsonic, they've lost most of their benefit which is their velocity.


People are always trying to improve upon power yield in this intermediate cartridge class as there is interest in it. Very few make it though. Notable tries are 9x25 Dillon, .451 Detonics, .460 Rowland, .45 Super, and the necked .40 Super which even eclipses the 10mm.



I expect at some point as powders improve and metallurgy improves that a cartridge will be developed that can handle magnum rifle pressures of 65,000 or more but in a 22mm or shorter case allowing pistols of a standard 9mm size frame/grip to shoot even more powerful rounds than available with longer grip magnums of today. Unfortunately, I can only think of Desert Eagle that still makes the semi-auto magnum. There used to be Coonan, LAR Grizzly, Widley, and some would consider AMT.



Outside influences play into what survives and what doesn't. Like the 10mm being tied to the 1076 and the FBI as discussed early in this thread. Old example. 220 Swift came out in 1935 and was the first round that factory loaded over 4,000fps. But, this is when metallurgy wasn't what it was later. It got the reputation (rightfully so) as a barrel burner. The .22-250 came out as a wildcat shortly after the Swift, but not commercially until 30 years later. It took off, whereas the Swift is used a lot less even though it is more capable, at least in factory loads. Another example is the 6mm Rem coming out with the wrong twist rate in the barrels. It's about 200fps faster than the .243 Win. But, after the bad initial press about inaccuracy, it is nearly obsolete and the .243 has been the go-to starter rifle for deer hunters everywhere across the U.S. Or, a more current one is the 5.7x28 FN round is quite popular in spite of the fact that the .22 TCM is a superior round. Examples continue, but sometimes whether a cartridge survives isn't due to its merits alone.
 
Last edited:
It seems to me that the 10mm as adopted by the FBI is not all that different from a 185-200 grain .45 ACP. I am sure that there was some inclination to have something different, but that the incremental difference was not important.

The 1076 broke and broke a lot. I was issued one, and they were deeply flawed. (The FBI had to fly some of their pistols back to Quantico for work.) Mine had very few rounds through it as it had been issued as a replacement to have for after an OIS and sat in the Sergeants' office for quite some time before I had it. I liked shooting it, as the Sig style decocker was handy for a lefty. The data on failures was not collected and at least one armorer was relieved because they did not keep the data and so replacement was hard to justify. They were replaced with the 4566 and they broke a lot too. I saw a couple come out of the box broken when issued.

At the time we could buy our own HK USP 45s and that was a terrible experience - HK's customer service was awful and they would not get off their backsides to get us pistols with our specs. It was so bad that at least some cancelled their orders and did fraud complaints with the State AG's office. I angered some folks in HK as I wrote a scathing letter and sent it FedEx to their main office.
 
Bambihunter71 said:
But, a 4+ pound gun on the hip gets heavy in the back country.
Click to expand...
Chest rigs seem to be more and more common for woods carry.

Bambihunter71 said:
I will absolutely unequivocally give the edge to the .45 ACP in one area in centerfire pistols - shooting suppressed. Since most rounds are already at or near subsonic and the slugs are large diameter and heavy, it is the perfect platform for it.
Click to expand...
Good point, I had relegated it to fun/toy status due to its bulk in magazines.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

GF
The unpopular 357.
2
Replies
38
Views
5K
Fishslayer
Fishslayer
C
Which is more powerful .357 Magnum or .45ACP?
2 3
Replies
42
Views
112K
Ziptar
Z
dan-g
Above max revolvers, S&W 28&27,Ruger Redhawk,DW
2
Replies
22
Views
7K
bigun
B
handejector
  • Sticky
Notable Thread Index
Replies
2
Views
82K
DARE
D
S
is the 10mm gone?
2 3
Replies
41
Views
8K
remat457
R

Latest posts

Back
Top