Daily page views
|
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
10mm Auto article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
The wpmilhist tag has been removed due to this article not being military related.-- Oldwildbill 11:52, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
Is there a word missing after "major"? —wwoods 20:48, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
I have removed the following statement:
'powerful and versatile'
This is not a neutral Point of View.
See Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view for an explanation of this policy.
These policies are in place to keep Wikipedia running smoothly.
Read the fucking policies.
172.162.229.185 01:12, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
A number of papers document remote neural effects of ballistic pressure waves at energy levels comparable or lower than provided by the 10mm. I cited one of them which provides a pretty good paper trail to the others. The others can be cited directly if this is preferable, but it would seem odd for all five or ten citations for the 10mm article to support the point about hydrostatic shock.
You will be hard pressed to cite data supporting claims contrary to the existence of remote ballistic pressure wave effects in the scientific literature. The assertion is made fairly often in venues that are less than scientific, but the fact is that the claim that hydrostatic shock does not exist at 10mm energy levels is simply not backed up by published data.
I have removed the spurious claim of dispute, since the cited reference provides an ample paper trail and compelling case in the scientific literature.
Michael Courtney ( talk) 02:00, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
I've cited scientific publications that state explicitly that ballistic pressure wave effects become significant at 500-600 ft-lbs of energy. The 10mm has that, the 22 LR does not. In addition, there is simply not a "flood" of scientific papers that provide evidence against hydrostatic shock. The general (though not unanimous) consensus is that remote ballistic pressure wave effects are real, and only a few scientific authors have objected, and these have not offered data.
Remote Pressure wave mechanism exists: FT Chamberlin, S Tikka, A Cederberg, P Rokkanen, WO Puckett, H Grundfest, WD McElroy, JH McMillen, A Suneson, HA Hansson, T Seeman, E Lycke, Q Wang, Z Wang, P Zhu, J Jiang, AM Göransson, DH Ingvar, F Kutyna, GJ Ordog, S Balasubramanian, J Wasserberger, L Ming, M Yu-Yuan, F Ring-Xiang, F Tian-Shun, M Courtney, A Courtney (Except for Chamberlin, all these authors assert their position in at least one peer-reviewed journal article.)
Remote pressure wave mechanism does not exist or is not significant: ML Fackler, D MacPherson, U Patrick, G Roberts (Of these, only Fackler has asserted his position in a peer-reviewed journal)
Editors who assert that remote ballistic pressure wave effects known as "hydrostatic shock" do not represent the prevailing view in the scientific literature need to support their claim by providing references. You cannot claim a dispute without providing references.
Michael Courtney ( talk) 11:39, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Hydrostatic shock at 10mm energy levels is supported with a number of peer-reviewed scientific publications, including some that present data from 10mm shooting events and others that present data from slightly lower energy levels (9mm). Usually, it is the claim that is unsupported with verifiable information from reliable sources that is considered snake oil. In contrast, you are going against a large number of scientists. To support your claim of dispute, you should present more than your own unpublished original research.
To my knowledge, the last claim disputing remote ballistic pressure wave effects in the scientific literature was made by Martin Fackler 12 years ago. It was based on an analogy with lithotriptors which has since been shown to be demonstratably false. You need more than "This is disputed because I say so." In the scientific method, you are compelled to cite published data from a reliable source in order to support your claim of a legitimate dispute.
If you can find reliable sources to back up your assertion of dispute, you can certainly make a case for citing them also to maintain a NPOV. Michael Courtney ( talk) 14:28, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
You've made a number of comments addressing the merits of hydrostatic shock independent of the 10mm, claiming that there are "a flood of evidence and papers against it" and that your original research failed to see hydrostatic shock with "high energy/high velocity" projectiles. In response to your specific claim that the citations did not include data on the 10mm, I pointed out that they did.
Why did you feel that data on hydrostatic shock in the 5.56 would justify inclusion in that article, but that published data on remote pressure wave effects in the 10 mm do not justify inclusion in the 10 mm article?
The pressure wave magnitude has been published and remote ballistic pressure wave effects that are known as "hydrostatic shock" have been documented in a number of service caliber handgun rounds including 9mm, .40 S&W, .357 Mag, .357 Sig, and 10mm. A one sentence mention of hydrostatic shock has been made in these articles. Hydrostatic shock is less interesting and notable in other rounds such as the .357 Maximum and .400 Cor-Bon, both because these are rarely used in law enforcement and self-defense loads. Consequently, I do not think that published pressure wave magnitudes or studies of pressure wave effects are available for these loads.
A brief reference to hydrostatic shock is warranted for all commonly used self-defense cartridges for which the effect is significant (based on energy transfer) and for which there is published data. This includes the 10mm.
Finally, the assertion that 10mm energy levels are sufficient to see the effect is not original research. The cited paper from the peer-reviewed journal, Brain Injury, states that remote neural effects are documented and expected for at least 500-600 ft-lbs of energy transfer. Are you claiming it is original research to simply observe that the energy transfer of the 10mm exceeds a previously published threshold? Michael Courtney ( talk) 15:31, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Contentious discussions are not reliable sources unless they occur in appropriate scientific publications. Hydrostatic shock may or may not occur with the 5.56, but the published data suggests that it does for well-placed chest hits in cases where the bullet impacts with adaquate energy, tumbles, and the rate of energy transfer exceeds established threholds. The debate is fueled with anecdotal cases where the bullet fails to tumble, is poorly placed, or impacts with inadaquate energy.
The firearms research community is split, but as I point out above, the overwhelming majority of scientists who have published on the subject support remote ballistic pressure wave effects, and all of the published quantitative data supports remote neural effects at energy levels within the reach of service caliber handguns. If you can provide appropriate citations, it would be fair to mention the minority view to maintain a NPOV. (My personal opinion is that the minority view is not sufficiently supported to warrant inclusion, but I would not object if another editor felt differently and provided the citations.)
Whose case is supported by a shoestring, the one that agrees with a boatload of scientists and references a large number of scientific papers, or the case that agrees with two real scientists and is not supported with published data?
Wikipedia is about verifiability and reliable sources. If you cannot provided reliable scientific citations that support you assertion that the results of hydrostatic shock are dubious, the tag should be removed. I have certainly provided ample citations showing it is well-established. Michael Courtney ( talk) 16:03, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
How about this wording:
A number of studies (appropriate citations here) have documented remote pressure wave effects (known as hydrostatic shock) with levels of energy transfer possible with the 10mm cartridge. However, some experts claim (appropriate citations here) that directly crushed tissue is the sole wounding mechanism of service-caliber handguns.
This wording supports both NPOV and wikipedia standards for reliable sources better than most of the other information at firearms related pages. Michael Courtney ( talk) 17:22, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
With the understanding that "Stopping power" will be added to the "See Also" section, are there any objections (aside from notability) to the proposed wording for the addition to the "Performance" section? The proposed wording maintains NPOV and is verifiable with reliable sources:
A number of studies (appropriate citations here) have documented remote pressure wave effects (known as hydrostatic shock) with levels of energy transfer possible with the 10mm cartridge. However, some experts claim (appropriate citations here) that directly crushed tissue is the sole wounding mechanism of service-caliber handguns. Michael Courtney ( talk) 11:25, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
First, Hydrostatic shock and kinetic energy are unrelated. A 3,000 pound car traveling at 5 miles per hour generates 2,500 ft/lbs of energy, and it's certainly not going to induce hydrostatic shock. Hydrostatic shock (cavity stretch) results from VELOCITY, and the threshold is about 2,000 feet per second (600 meters per second). Very few handgun cartridges achieve this. There will be *some* bruising around the wound due to small capillaries that exceeded there elasiticity during the temporary cavitation, but the lower velocity of the bullets does not create the permanent stretch cavity associated with high velocity rifle rounds that create wound channels much larger than the bullet.
Secondly, "stopping power", "energy dump" and "energy transfer" are nonsensical concepts pertaining to small arms. The wounding mechanism of a bullet is tissue damage, period. Where handgun cartridges are concerned, this is accomplished by direct crushing/tearing/cutting of the tissue. "Energy dump" or "energy transfer" are best described as blunt force trauma, which bullets do not cause in quantities sufficient to kill. If they did, ballistic armor would be useless, because the person would die anyway from the instantaneous "energy dump". It takes a helluva lot more than a few hundred foot pounds to damage a human body without penetrating it.
Now I'm going to go remove the term "hydrostatic shock" from the main article, because it doesn't belong there. The "citations" are nothing more than a whole bunch of theories that are all countered by other theories and actual data. Shooting a few pigs and dogs in the leg and discovering that they are affected by it (imagine that) is hardly evidence of "hydrostatic shock", as there are literally dozens of other explanations for the symptoms exhibited. Is there a pressure wave sent through the body during impact? Yup. Same thing happens when you cough or sneeze, both of which create more pressure than a bullet hitting you in the thigh.
Surgeons all over the world patch people up after being shot and find that bullets have passed within millimeters of arteries and nerve bundles without damaging them. Handgun bullets even pass through brains (the most fragile tissue in our bodies) without damaging beyond the wound channel. Many of these victims make remarkable recoveries if the swelling is controlled. A good friend of mine is one such example.
There's no question that bullet wounds cause significant trauma, but handgun bullets simply do not cause the kind of damage you wish to associate with them. If getting shot in the belly scrambled your brains from "hydrostatic shock", there wouldn't be an over 80% survival rate for handgun wounds.
Sixtysixdeuce ( talk) 05:36, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
When I click on the link Glock 20, cames the link to Glock itself. An article about Glock 20 is on the site [ Glock 20] Agre22 ( talk) 12:40, 16 December 2008 (UTC)agre22
Sure Norma didn't do the developing following Cooper's sketches? Would make more sense imo. -- 84.163.225.64 ( talk) 07:03, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Could somebody provide some documentation for the statement below?
"Since its introduction, the 10mm Auto has had a reputation for accuracy which the shorter cartridge seems unable to match."
Is the 10mm more accurate than the .40S&W or is it because of the flatter trajectory of the 10mm there is less hold over when aiming? I have very limited experience with the 10mm but shoot .40 S&W, 9mm, and magnum revolvers often. With the exception of firing the revolvers in single action I have never noticed a great deal of difference in accuracy.
If I am incorrect it would be nice to have a citation for the accuracy statement. Also the use of the words “reputation for” and “seems unable to match” are subjective and in my opinion should not be used in an encyclopedia.
BobG64 ( talk) 18:06, 27 October 2009 (UTC)BobG64
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
-- JeffGBot ( talk) 01:41, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
A couple of the velocity figures under Ballistic performance are incorrect given actual manufacturer data. The Hornady XTP 180gr muzzle velocity is 1180 ft/s, as opposed to 1350, according to this [1]. That is a 13% discrepancy; if that is the intended figure it requires a justification.
None of the 150gr loads listed by Nosler [2] reach 1475 ft/s. The fastest is 1292. Another large discrepancy.
The Double Tap (200 and 230gr) figures appear to match manufacturer claims. I found no corroboration for the "165 gr Golden Saber HP" claim; that looks like someone's hand load since that brand name is for a bullet, as opposed to a manufactured round.
Allenc28 ( talk) 08:41, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
Underwood ammo makes a round that is 135 grain, and will do over 800 ft-lbs. I have a friend's chrono on it for five shots from a witness 4.75" barrel. "Underwood 135gr. Nosler HP 1634, 1653, 1689, 1674, 1711. Average = 1672.2 FPS/ 838.03 LBS" Msjayhawk ( talk) 23:31, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
Just a thought, but how'd a high definition, upright image of a FMJ round in actual size sound? The picture file size would still be small enough to fit within the regulations and infobox since it's a pistol caliber and not to mention, the cartridge we've showing now is casting too large a shadow and reflective in a bad way to really stand out.
I'd think it'd hold a really nice encyclopedic value too. Agree? 71.229.23.9 ( talk) 18:54, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
Someone needs to correct the bullet diameter on the graphic - see 40 S&W on Wikipedia DennisLMay DennisLMay ( talk) 00:24, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
The dimension H2 is incorrectly repeated for the bullet diameter which should be G1 instead [see Wikipedia 40 S&W for similar graphic] The graphic is file File:10mm Auto.svg
DennisLMay ( talk) 00:27, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
Someone who is part of the field making, editing these pictures needs to come and either edit the old red-outlined one, or create a completely new one.
On a added note, I came across this while googling for official S.A.A.M.I. documents and think it merits a recreation and followed addition into the Cartridge dimensions section. That way, a clear comparison between the C.I.P.'s numbers, and S.A.A.M.I.'s can be made.
The times I wish I had the right software and means to do these myself… 71.229.23.9 ( talk) 22:05, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
Why in the performance section are HOT .357 and 10mm rounds listed, and then a run of the mill .41 magnum?? Why not show a .41 magnum in the same HOT form like 210 grain, 1,560 fps, 1,135 ft-lbs? I can get +P+ up to 1,350 ft-lbs. I think the problem is that people want to say that the 10mm is more than a .357 so the next step up is the .41. The problem is the .41 is not in between the two, it is really just a 44 light. Hot loads for the 357, 41, and 44 are as follows 750, 1,350, 1,550 ft-lbs. Cross sectional areas of the the three (% of .44 mag) are .100 in^2 (69%), .132 in^2 (92%), and .144 in^2 (100%). Here is a good hot .41 mag load with no + or ++ pressure. http://www.underwoodammo.com/41remingtonmagnum210grainjacketedhollowpointboxof50.aspx Msjayhawk ( talk) 20:54, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
The website bren-ten.com appears to be an anonymous, self-published source. The "Whois" entry appears to be fictitious. [3] It looks like it contains reprints of articles published elsewhere, whose reliability would be based on the original source. But material which hasn't been published before probably does not meet WP's reliability standards. Does anyone have any more information on this source? Rezin ( talk) 19:57, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Japanese WWII Mambu and baby variants of automatic pistol were chambered in 10 mm. They have 10 mm written down the side of them even. 121.211.33.244 ( talk) 14:08, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on 10mm Auto. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 22:31, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
Is this supposed to be a list of notable guns in 10mm Auto? If so each entry should have its own wikiarticle to show notability. Even if it is intended to simply be a list of all guns in 10mm Auto each entry would need to be sourced. As it is this list has no links to articles for the individual guns, and no references showing that the guns take the 10mm Auto. I'm not a gun expert and for all I know there could be bogus entries on this list. Meters ( talk) 21:17, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
For Crissake,
Did you fail 9th grade English? We have these things called Grammar and Proper Sentence Construction.... 2601:154:8300:34E:2B09:16E3:4D55:9116 ( talk) 22:29, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
Avoiding potential COI by suggesting citation here. Last sentence under ==History==
In 2024 Taurus released the 10mm Auto TH10 pistol in the hammer-fired TH line. [1] [2] LoVeloDogs ( talk) 23:21, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
I'm not sure that the information for the 77gr RBCD TFSP should be included in the Ballistic Performance chart. The company is defunct (see en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blended-metal_bullets), and it seems like most of their claims about performance were smoke and mirrors (although, strictly speaking, a 77gr bullet at 2420fps would produce 1001 ft•lbs of energy; it just wouldn't meet FBI penetration standards). The lightest published load data i can find is for Lehigh Defense 100gr "Xtreme Defense". The LD bullet is not available as finished ammunition, and I don't see anything other than blog and forum posts detailing velocities or energy using that bullet, so I don't know that it's relevant here.
I'm not editing anything here, just asking; this is literally my first post on Wikipedia. Defiant5205 ( talk) 15:15, 6 March 2024 (UTC)