[QUOTE=MT Chambers;2410694]All a person has to do is put the 2 cases side by side, no voodoo loading will change it.[QUOTE]
Looks don't tell u much. U have to load and shoot them to see what happens. And no voodoo loading in my loads. They are loads that still fall under sammi in most and a few step over a little to the low 40,000 range. Being the sammi original spec for the 10mm was 41500. I am still loading in the original design area.
"I am still loading in the original design area."
Regardless, to compare a 10 mm to a .41 mag is pure nonsense. Don't know why the 10 mm fan boys insist on pretending the 10 mm is something it is not.
If u read my post u will see that I never said they were the same. I said in comparable barrels and weights they are almost the same. The advantage goes to the 41 with heavy bullets.Originally Posted by jmortimer
It's the same as those that try to compare the 357 mag to the 10mm
They take cast load data for the 357 and put it to jacketed 10mm. The speeds are close. But put the cast in the 10mm and it destroys the 357. Also in the same barrels the 357 can't even come close.
Last edited by ctious; 10-03-2013 at 10:51 AM.
You are wrong on every level in every way. Using real world test results from Buffalo Bore, which are take it to the bank accurate, the .357 with cast has more energy and better SD than the 10 mm. North of 750 ft lbs. The 10 mm not so much. As for the .41 mag, you are talking about over 1,000 ft lbs. I'll trust Buffalo Bore/Tim Sundles real world data over your pretend world any day. You can say anything you want, I'll rely on fact. The best you can say is that the 10 mm is comparable to a .357, but to compare the 10 mm to the .41 mag means you cannot be taken seriously.
Last edited by jmort; 10-03-2013 at 11:04 AM.
That's OK, 41 magnum is only available in clunky revolvers that date back to wwarI times. I'll take my 10mm with fifteen rounds in the mag any day over that old clunker.
Marty-hiding out in the hills.
Mike, I feel your pain!! A long three years ago I had money and did not buy a Marlin lever rifle at "Grandpa's Guns" in Longmont. Now in 2013 I still cry and just keep up the practice with NMBK.
Lol. I have 10mm loads in cast over 1000ft lbs. Taken to the max saami what I say is true. 700 ft lbs in a 10mm is easy to hit far below 37500. The reason 10mm is loaded weak is cause it will destroy semi auto guns in its full power. I shoot 10mm and 41 load both. All things being equal in barrel and weight the 10mm and 41 are almost identical. Go heavy and the 41 passes it by a lot. Same as the 10mm passes the 357 by a lot with heavier loads.
U have to remember a 4in barrel 41 is about the same length at a 6 inch semi auto.
Also my loads are all proven over at least 2 different chronos.
Also a 3.78 inch barrel of my glock 29 will outdo an 41 mag with the same bullet weight. Seeing u have to use a 2in barrel 41 to match the overall length.
Research performance of short barrel mag revolvers. Its pretty poor.
Wheel guns are measured barrel only. Semi autos from firing pin.
In my book the 41 mag is better,until someone makes a lever action in 40 caliber.
I have a 120 year old rifle in "40" caliber, shoots great, after the reline. 38-40, 1892 Win, first year production. Loaded toasty, it compares well with the modern magnums..
I also have a 10mm Magnum in a Coonan that pretty much stomps every thing in this whole thread,(rifles excluded) and I've been a 41 Mag addict for 43 years, and have loaded up and down the scale for them. I waited patiently for the 41 mag version of the Coonan, and finally had to build the 10 mag. the std 10mm wouldn't feed and cycle the Coonan (I have the original factory test barrel) Dan hardly gave it a second thought, magazine considerations aside.
I agree, most targets dont know the difference between the calibers discussed, interesting dialogue though...
"Also my loads are all proven over at least 2 different chronos."
I could care less about your "personal loads." I will take the Buffalo Bore data which is proven.
"Wheel guns are measured barrel only. Semi autos from firing pin."
Revolvers have a cylinder gap.
"Also a 3.78 inch barrel of my glock 29 will outdo an 41 mag with the same bullet weight."
From Buffalo Bore:
Heavy 10mm Ammo - 220 gr. 1140 fps - Glock model 20 4.6 inch barrel
Heavy .41 Magnum Ammo - 230 gr. Keith 1370 fps - 4" S&W Mountain Gun
"Research performance of short barrel mag revolvers. Its pretty poor."
Heavy 357 Magnum Ammo - 180 gr. Hard Cast LFN-GC 1302 fps - 3 inch S&W J frame
Not bad for a "belly gun" The short barrel mag myth is perpetuated by people with "short barrels"
Wow! This is almost officially a "zombie thread." It simply won't die.
Now that I've commented on the thread age, I'll throw in this:
In a revolver, you're better off with rimmed cartridges over the long haul. Moon clips just aren't quite as good...higher parts count, and they're relatively fragile.
I own a glock 20 (and a 29) and a ruger blackhawk in 41 mag. As with most calibers with similarly sized projectiles, a revolver round typically shoots from a case with higher capacity than it's autoloading counterpart.
A 41 has more energy than a 10mm, and that doesn't take anything away from the 10. I use both for deer season. I like both, but the comparison is like a 40 short and weak to a 357 mag. Not even close to the same performance. Maybe a better comparison is a 9mm +p to a 357 mag.
16 rounds of 10mm is a LOT more power than 6 rounds of 41, though.
I would say the 10mm is closer to the 41 than the 357 magnum.
I think everyone should own both.
Just my $.02.
Last edited by another gunslinger; 10-03-2013 at 09:04 PM.
Seems u missed the point that the 10mm ammo quoted is not loaded fully. If you would have read what I said u would see that most all 10mm ammo bought retail is not full loads. It's watered down to not break guns. Also in your quote you are giving the 41 a lot of extra barrel over the semi auto. You mention cylinder gap. But you forget that the semi auto is not a locked chamber. So the gap loss is the same as the non locked chamber.
The 3in 357 mag is equal to the 4.6 glock 20. And the 180 grain xtp easily does over 1400. And 180 cast is easy over 1500.
The die hard 10mm fanboys are the most dellusional bunch I have ever came across. The 10mm is a good cartridge and the most power you can get in several pistol platforms out of the box. That said comparing a 10mm to a .41mag is like comparing a .40sw to 10mm. The .40 falls short of the 10mm, the 10mm falls short of the .41mag. Energy numbers don't mean so much when you have to use a 135gr bullet that blows apart when it hits the target to attain that energy levels.
For god sakes enjoy your 10mm and .41mags for what they are and not what they are not.
Who shoots 135? 155 is my lightest. I like my 200s at 1400 to 1450 personally.
I got to vote .41 Mag every time. I don't even have one yet, but will be buying a BH in .41 Mag before long. I've had a number of 10mm's including some 1911's, a handful of G20's and G29s and a S&W 610 and loaded for it for a long time and can see the point a lot of the 10mm guys make, but inevitably these threads always turn into a platform debate. But since it's inception several years ago, this thread was about revolvers, the .41 Mag makes the most sense in that platform.
Revolvers have a cylinder gap which often costs them about 100 fps in velocity, or thereabouts if you compare velocities between, for instance, a Coonan .357 vs a 6" .357 revolver. If you kept everything even, same barrel length and type of barrel, the .41 Mag will win every time. It seems commonplace among the diehard 10mm fans to load the 10mm way over pressure and at the same time feel doing so is perfectly normal, even the guy above who seems to think that even Buffalo Bore 10mm isn't full powered. If they're going to load the 10mm beyond spec, it's fair game to do the same with the other cartridges. I know what a 10mm can do, and it's not a .41 Magnum.
Nobody sanely argues the 10mm is similar to the .41 Mag when it isn't, the .41 is in a different class. The 10mm has more in common with the .40 S&W, as it the both shoot the same caliber and weight bullets, the 10mm just has a little bit of a velocity advantage. The .41 shoots bigger bullets heavier bullets faster than the 10mm can. I also agree the 10mm, even loaded hot is similar in power to a warmly loaded .357 Mag, although I give the slight nod to the .357 Mag. The 10mm has the size, weight and capacity advantage, but only when platforms change.
Attack of the zombie thread!!!!
It comes down to case capacity. You will never truly match all out capability of a 41 magnum with a 10mm. It just isnt gonna happen. You can have 41mag "lite" capability, but never all out max.
From Hodgdon's website and max velocity:
10mm
180gr-1287 fps with Longshot
200gr-1172 with Longshot
41 Mag
170gr-1887fps with 296/H110
210gr-1631fps with 296/H110
265gr-1558fps with Lil'Gun
There just is no comparison when you look at the real data available to handloaders. None. Period. End of story. It's just basic physics.
While were at it, the same applies to the 357sig vs 357Mag. 357 Mag will win everytime.
That being said, I feel very comfortable toting my G20SF around the woods due to its overall capability, capacity and weight. It is enough for anything I'll encounter in GA.
Posting Permissions
| BP | Bronze Point | IMR | Improved Military Rifle | PTD | Pointed |
| BR | Bench Rest | M | Magnum | RN | Round Nose |
| BT | Boat Tail | PL | Power-Lokt | SP | Soft Point |
| C | Compressed Charge | PR | Primer | SPCL | Soft Point "Core-Lokt" |
| HP | Hollow Point | PSPCL | Pointed Soft Point "Core Lokt" | C.O.L. | Cartridge Overall Length |
| PSP | Pointed Soft Point | Spz | Spitzer Point | SBT | Spitzer Boat Tail |
| LRN | Lead Round Nose | LWC | Lead Wad Cutter | LSWC | Lead Semi Wad Cutter |
| GC | Gas Check |
Reply With Quote