What’s so great about 10 mm?

[Loyaljeeper]

The 10mm round is a good cartridge, but it's not the equivalent of the .41 mag. It's the equivalent of the .357 mag.

Read it again.

 

[LostintheOzone]

Ballistically speaking, there's a big difference between 10mm and 41 mag. The later is a much more potent cartridge. If you own a reloading manual like Hornady 10th it would be very apparent. Personally, I'm not seeing any reason to own a 610 unless it's to be able to use 10mm ammo or to just satisfy a curiosity.

I have a 625 so I can shoot 45 ACP so there is that, but if I had a 44 spl I wouldn't need it, right?

 

[BillBond]

What’s so great about 10 mm?

In a revolver, not so much, but 15+1 in a Glock 20 is more than great.

 

[Loyaljeeper]

Ballistically speaking, there's a big difference between 10mm and 41 mag. The later is a much more potent cartridge. If you own a reloading manual like Hornady 10th it would be very apparent. Personally, I'm not seeing any reason to own a 610 unless it's to be able to use 10mm ammo or to just satisfy a curiosity.

I have a 625 so I can shoot 45 ACP so there is that, but if I had a 44 spl I wouldn't need it, right?

To me the sole attraction in a 10mm revolver is to shoot all this 40 ammo I get from my agency. Otherwise a 16 round Glock 20 is one of the best woods gun ever.
I own a couple of 625s. I shot some of the really cheap, and plentiful right now, 45gap from GTs just yesterday.

 

[pittpa]

In a revolver, not so much, but 15+1 in a Glock 20 is more than great.

Not bad in a 29 either. [emoji846]

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Texas S&W Shooter]

Did he give you any idea of lead time? And how much is it going to cost?

Forgot the lead time.
He originally said two weeks. That turned into six when it was all said and done.
But it was worth it.

 

[tlawler]

Forgot the lead time.
He originally said two weeks. That turned into six when it was all said and done.
But it was worth it.

Not bad at all, I was expecting closer to six months instead of six weeks.

 

[Frank Black]

Looking at Double Tap ammo ballistics they list the 10mm magnum shooting a 230 gr bullet @ 1250 fps . They list the 41 magnum shooting a 250 gr bullet @ 1370 fps . So according to what Double Tap is showing using their ammunition . The 10mm magnum , though a stout cartridge does not exceed , nor even match the 41 magnum . Regards Paul

Sure it does.

If DT's 230gn bullet is hard cast, they may have downloaded it for that reason. You have to compare apples to apples: hardcast to hardcast, jacketed to jacketed. Also, are the hardcast bullets gas-checked?

Take a look at the 'Taffin Tests the 10mm Magnum' load data posted above. I believe most of the tested handloads used 10mm/.40-cal jacketed bullets, like Hornady's XTP.

 

[Frank Black]

Why specifically the S&W 610? Any revolver reamed out to 10mm Magnum would be able to shoot all three. I’m specifically looking at the Ruger SRH because I don’t want to alter my 610 no dash and I really don’t want to buy an IL 610. If I can find a -2, that would be a possibility too, but they don’t come up for sale often.

I said the S&W 610s because a huge number of 'Magnum' conversions have been done to the cylinders of these guns without issues. The .40, 10mm AUTO, and 10mm Mag, when loaded into moonclips, all 'fit' the Smith cylinder.

S&W moonclips don't work with Ruger's 10mm SRH or 10mm GP, because Ruger chose to use proprietary clips in relation to the size of their cylinders.

Sure, in theory, you could have the Magnum conversion done to the 10mm SRH's cylinder chambers, and then have the cylinder face shaved (or sized) in order to be able to use S&W moonclips.

 

[Frank Black]

* * *
Personally, I'm not seeing any reason to own a 610 unless it's to be able to use 10mm ammo or to just satisfy a curiosity.

'Any reason'? ... Clearly one reason is to be able to have the Magnum conversion done to the cylinders.

However, that really only makes sense on 610s having the 6.5" barrels (or possibly the 5" too), in order to take ballistic advantage of the Magnum upgrade for hunting or long-range silhouette shooting, which Taffin mentioned in his article. Obviously you can still shoot 10mm and .40 ammo after the conversion.

But personally, I'd still like to see this cartridge set up on an autoloading platform, with at least a 6" 'long-slide' and barrel. If not something along the lines of the Glock 40, then maybe returning to the concept of a larger and beefed-up 1911, such as the old LAR Grizzly pistols from back in the day.

Or maybe Magnum Research could do a run of Desert Eagles chambered in 10mm Magnum. After all, they made them in .41 Magnum way, way back in the day.

 

[Loyaljeeper]

My 10mm GP100 has a 1.575” cylinder. It is slightly longer than my 625 cylinder, and I assume a 625 and 610 share the same length cylinder.

 

[tlawler]

My 10mm GP100 has a 1.575” cylinder. It is slightly longer than my 625 cylinder, and I assume a 625 and 610 share the same length cylinder.

Thanks for the info LJ. That means dimensionally, the GP100 would work. My 610 cylinder is 1.573” and my 625 is just slightly shorter at 1.538”, so a difference of .035”.

 

[tlawler]

Thanks for the info LJ. That means dimensionally, the GP100 would work. My 610 cylinder is 1.573” and my 625 is just slightly shorter at 1.538”, so a difference of .035”.

Edit to add pictures

 

[challer61]

10mm Magnum is intriguing. It provides the opportunity for a three load gun. I had Hamilton Bowen's shop build a 616 - a .327 magnum that is also three or four different rounds for versatility. This has inspired me to do the same with a 610.

 

[tlawler]

I said the S&W 610s because a huge number of 'Magnum' conversions have been done to the cylinders of these guns without issues. The .40, 10mm AUTO, and 10mm Mag, when loaded into moonclips, all 'fit' the Smith cylinder.

S&W moonclips don't work with Ruger's 10mm SRH or 10mm GP, because Ruger chose to use proprietary clips in relation to the size of their cylinders.

Sure, in theory, you could have the Magnum conversion done to the 10mm SRH's cylinder chambers, and then have the cylinder face shaved (or sized) in order to be able to use S&W moonclips.

I just looked on TK Customs website and they carry the clips for the SRH as well as the GP100. Same price as the 610 clips. Is the
hole spacing different between the 610 and the SRH? The thickness difference is only .003”; .032” vs. .035”, but it may be enough to cause binding.
Buying additional moonclips for the SRH is no big deal. If I was already invested in a whole bunch of 610 clips I might be upset, but I’ve still only got the original 10 that came with the revolver when I bought it. Hmmm...good time to add some more 610 clips too...TK has free shipping on orders over $100

 

[Frank Black]

I just looked on TK Customs website and they carry the clips for the SRH as well as the GP100. Same price as the 610 clips. Is the
hole spacing different between the 610 and the SRH? The thickness difference is only .003”; .032” vs. .035”, but it may be enough to cause binding.
Buying additional moonclips for the SRH is no big deal. If I was already invested in a whole bunch of 610 clips I might be upset, but I’ve still only got the original 10 that came with the revolver when I bought it. Hmmm...good time to add some more 610 clips too...TK has free shipping on orders over $100

Yeah, can't recall where, but I did read of binding issue when trying to use 610 moonclips in the Ruger 10mm wheelguns. That, and there were also reports of Ruger's proprietary moonclips bending after several uses. They were described as 'flimsy,' compared to S&W's moonclips.

When I had my 610, which was a 6.5" 'no-dash' model from the first run (circa 1988 or '89), I never had problems with the moonclips, nor any binding, loading, or ejection issues with the cylinder. Great gun. Wish I still had it.

 

[BLUEDOT37]

...I assume a 625 and 610 share the same length cylinder.

All N-frame revolver cylinders, no matter the caliber, are of the same diameter, ~1.710", but lengths vary, depending on the specifics.

The later day general 325 & 625s run ~1.540" long but a 625PC runs just ~1.425" long.

As already noted, the 610s run ~1.573" long & by contrast a 657 cylinder runs ~1.670" long.

.

 

[BLUEDOT37]

Available case capacity differences: 10MAG -vs- 41MAG

A Starline 10MAG case has ~5.9% less capacity than a Starline 41MAG case.
I load my 165gr & 180gr 10MAGs to "approximately" 41MAG 170gr load data.

Using measurements & weights, from my previous handloading data with the 10MAG & 41MAG, I verified something I had noticed but hadn't calculated before.

As mentioned, the empty case capacity of a 10MAG is ~5.9% (or 2.0grs) less than a 41MAG's, but bullet seating depth affects the final available capacity.

.
In the 10MAG, a 165gr JHP loaded to 1.555" COAL (which is also max. COAL") is seated .265" deep in the case & uses 26.5% of the empty case capacity.

This leaves 23.37grs. of case volume available. (31.8gr-26.5%)

.
In the 41MAG, a 170gr JHC loaded to 1.560" COAL is seated .305" deep (which is to the cannelure) in the case & uses 30.1% of the empty case capacity.

This leaves 23.63grs. of case volume available. (33.8gr-30.1%)

.
The difference between the two is a surprising 1.1% or 0.26grs., a negligible difference.

.
However,

In the 10MAG, a 180gr JHP loaded to 1.555" COAL (which is also max. COAL") is seated .306" deep in the case & uses 30.6% of the empty case capacity.

This leaves 22.07grs. of case volume available. (31.8gr-30.6%)

The difference between the two then changes to 6.6% or 1.56grs., still pretty close.

.

 

[Frank Black]

Using measurements & weights, from my previous handloading data with the 10MAG & 41MAG, I verified something I had noticed but hadn't calculated before.

As mentioned, the empty case capacity of a 10MAG is ~5.9% (or 2.0grs) less than a 41MAG's, but bullet seating depth affects the final available capacity.

.
In the 10MAG, a 165gr JHP loaded to 1.555" COAL (which is also max. COAL") is seated .265" deep in the case & uses 26.5% of the empty case capacity.

This leaves 23.37grs. of case volume available. (31.8gr-26.5%)

.
In the 41MAG, a 170gr JHC loaded to 1.560" COAL is seated .305" deep (which is to the cannelure) in the case & uses 30.1% of the empty case capacity.

This leaves 23.63grs. of case volume available. (33.8gr-30.1%)

.
The difference between the two is a surprising 1.1% or 0.26grs., a negligible difference.

.
However,

In the 10MAG, a 180gr JHP loaded to 1.555" COAL (which is also max. COAL") is seated .306" deep in the case & uses 30.6% of the empty case capacity.

This leaves 22.07grs. of case volume available. (31.8gr-30.6%)

The difference between the two then changes to 6.6% or 1.56grs., still pretty close.

Another comparative factor to consider, as between the .41 Mag and 10mm Mag, is the range of bullet-weights and styles in each caliber.

With the .41, it's pretty limited.

With the 10mm Mag, you have a wide selection, ranging from 135gns on the 'light' end up to 230gns on the 'heavy' end, and jacketed or hard cast, FMJs or JHPs.

 

[Frank Black]

Bump-ski ...

We need more 10mm-awesomeness talk on the revolver forum ...