Is it worth loading 40SW up to 10mm levels?

[bacardisteve]

First I suggest you test those bullets on something before you decide they are good enough for a "woods load". Most cheap copper jacketed bullets ive messed with acted like a soft lead bullet when impacting the target. Secondly if your going to try and hotrod pistol rounds make sure your weapon is up to the task or you risk catastrophic consequences

 

[44 AMP]

And yes - I noticed the specific load in the OP was within .40 S&W tolerances but that wasn't made clear until deeper into the thread.

I went back though the thread, I can find where the OP talks about the powder TYPE, the bullet, his gun, the velocity of a "published load" and the pressure of that load being within SAAMI specs, but I cannot find where he says what the load IS (charge weight).

If its in there, would someone please point it out to me?

Because, otherwise, we really don't know exactly what he's talking about.

Do we??

 

[Dufus]

Because, otherwise, we really don't know exactly what he's talking about.

Do we?

It appears to me that we are talking about making hand grenades by taking a cartridge outside of its design range.

 

[Marco Califo]

I think blowing up a 40, trying for it to be a 10mm, is not the best rationalizion for buying the 10mm you think you want.
Longshot powder will get you best performance in either.
I recommend that you test fire a 10mm. In the Glock Compact G29 some people do not like the hand twisting recoil in a smaller (than a 1911) gun.

 

[Armed_Chicagoan]

The closest you can come to 10mm with .40 is using Vihtavuori 3n38, you can push a 165 grain bullet to 1250 fps or a 200 grain bullet to 1030 fps using published loads.

 

[Road_Clam]

I have both , a G22 in .40 S&W and the Kimber Target II LS in 10mm handload for both as well. My G22 even shooting mild loads , 180gr @ 880 fps is my least liked handgun. Pretty fierce and snappy recoil. Proficient follow up shots are a challenge. No way would i have any desire to make a snappy recoiling handgun shoot more snappy. My Kimber is pushing a 180gr bullet at 1230 fps, and its a 1911 long slide platform. A very well mannered shooting gun. Its definately got some elevated recoil but the Kimber is a heavy gun, thus absorbing a good amount of recoil. As ive stated many times, i got no desire to load everything "hot" i keep all my guns within reasonable pressures and intended usages.

 

[amd6547]

I recently bought a police surplus G22 Gen4, and have made a range visit, using three types of factory ammo.
I found recoil to be quite negligeable, really a non-issue. Maybe it’s the Gen4 recoil spring. I liked shooting it so much, that it has been my home defense pistol since, loaded with HST 180gn.
Hard for me to imagine anyone complaining about G22 recoil, but then, I shot 44mag in my youth, and still shoot 357mag in a 3” GP100.

 

[74A95]

It appears to me that we are talking about making hand grenades by taking a cartridge outside of its design range.

Nope. See post #9.

 

[74A95]

I think blowing up a 40, trying for it to be a 10mm, is not the best rationalizion for buying the 10mm you think you want.
Longshot powder will get you best performance in either.
I recommend that you test fire a 10mm. In the Glock Compact G29 some people do not like the hand twisting recoil in a smaller (than a 1911) gun.

The load pressure is within SAAMI specs. Nothing will blow up.

 

[74A95]

I went back though the thread, I can find where the OP talks about the powder TYPE, the bullet, his gun, the velocity of a "published load" and the pressure of that load being within SAAMI specs, but I cannot find where he says what the load IS (charge weight).

If its in there, would someone please point it out to me?

Because, otherwise, we really don't know exactly what he's talking about.

Do we??

Ramshot's old load data with Enforcer for 40 S&W with 165 grain bullets is:

165 Montana Gold FMJ loaded to 1.130 and 14.5 grains of Enforcer. Velocity is 1,253, pressure = 28,912 psi.

165 Montana Gold JHP loaded to 1.130 and 15.1 grains of Enforcer. Velocity is 1,277, pressure = 30,279 psi.

165 Speer GDHP loaded to 1.135 and 15.0 grains of Enforcer. Velocity is 1,308, pressure = 31,790 psi.

Winchester brass, Winchester magnum small pistol primer, 4.0" barrel.

 

[Master Blaster]

You could do it if the pressure is safe for your gun, drop back 10% and work up slowly.

You probably shouldn't do it as the .40 S&W uses a long bullet for its short case, in its early life there was a problem with pressure spikes caused by bullet setback, that resulted in Kabooms. If you get into compressed load territory with that powder a small amount of bullet setback could spike pressures way beyond what the gun can take.

JMHO YMMV.

 

[74A95]

You could do it if the pressure is safe for your gun, drop back 10% and work up slowly.

You probably shouldn't do it as the .40 S&W uses a long bullet for its short case, in its early life there was a problem with pressure spikes caused by bullet setback, that resulted in Kabooms. If you get into compressed load territory with that powder a small amount of bullet setback could spike pressures way beyond what the gun can take.

JMHO YMMV.

Please demonstrate that will happen with Enforcer.

Compressed loads tend to not suffer setback because the compressed powder prevents it.

 

[Master Blaster]

Please demonstrate that will happen with Enforcer.

Compressed loads tend to not suffer setback because the compressed powder prevents it.
74A95 is online now Report Post

Please demonstrate that it will not happen!!!

Thanks

 

[74A95]

Please demonstrate that it will not happen!!!

Thanks

If you say something will happen, you have the burden of proof.

 

[44 AMP]

what's the burden of proof if you say something could happen?

Not "will" but could, may, might, and so on?

thank you 74A95 for posting some actual loads that can be examined and researched, not a vague "its a published load and does this...."

I am not particularly in awe of the claim "it's published data". This is the 21st century, literally anyone can publish anything. Making a claim that it is published data is worth as much as "it must be true, I read it on the Internet".

Saying who published it, where, and when adds tremendous credibility, as we may then, on our own, if desired, confirm it, and form our own opinions of the reliability of the source.

Which brings us back to making a claim and providing proof. With some claims, providing proof (or the location where such proof will be found) is necessary to convince others of the validity of your statement. In other cases, I think its entirely apt (though a bit rude) to basically say "Sod off! Go and look for yourself!"

Reminds me of the truism, "if you say there are a billion stars in the night sky, people will nod and agree with you, but if you say "WET PAINT" they have to TOUCH IT!"

 

[74A95]

Which brings us back to making a claim and providing proof. With some claims, providing proof (or the location where such proof will be found) is necessary to convince others of the validity of your statement. In other cases, I think its entirely apt (though a bit rude) to basically say "Sod off! Go and look for yourself!"

You've posted this before and it's been debunked. If you claim something, you have the burden of truth. Claims that are made without evidence are as easily dismissed (Hitchens's razor).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitchens's_razor

"Hitchens's razor is an epistemological razor asserting that the burden of proof regarding the truthfulness of a claim lies with the one who makes the claim; if this burden is not met, then the claim is unfounded, and its opponents need not argue further in order to dismiss it. "

 

[44 AMP]

I've said it, or similar things before, and I don't consider it "debunked".

I consider "burden of proof" to be a very situational thing, dependent on the claims made and the situation they are made it. Our legal system has multiple levels of "burden of proof" that vary with the situation.

Debating society rules are another situation. All are valid in their specific circumstances.

You may use Hitchen's razor as justification to deny a claim, and be correct in some situations. You can use Occam's razor to deny or accept a claim and be correct in some situations. Having a full beard, I haven't touched any kind of razor in years.

interesting subject, but we're seriously drifting from the OP, (and I'm partly to blame) so continued discussion on burden of proof should go to PM or its own thread.

getting back to the idea of getting 10mm velocity levels from a .40S&W, most powders won't do it within industry standard pressures. The OP says there is one powder that will do it, BUT the people who make that powder are not supporting that claim.

IF the claim is valid, factual, WHY aren't the people who make the powder shouting its "advantages" from the virtual rooftops???

Or ANYONE else doing it, other than the OP??

What might the reason(s) be??

 

[74A95]

getting back to the idea of getting 10mm velocity levels from a .40S&W, most powders won't do it within industry standard pressures. The OP says there is one powder that will do it, BUT the people who make that powder are not supporting that claim. Yes, they are supporting that claim. They tested it and published it. They are the ones who made the claim in the first place.

IF the claim is valid, factual, (see red text above) WHY aren't the people who make the powder shouting its "advantages" from the virtual rooftops???

Or ANYONE else doing it, other than the OP?? I don't know, how many 40 S&W shooters have you asked? I'm guessing none.

What might the reason(s) be??

Ramshot stopped publishing their Enforcer data for the 45 Auto because they felt the powder was not efficient in the 45. They didn't think it was unsafe, only inefficient. That information is here: https://www.shootingtimes.com/editorial/fast-loads-for-the-45-acp/99214

I asked Ramshot about Enforcer in the 10mm back in 2016. They said they have changed their policy towards highly compressed powder. "That is way (sic) there is no load data for the .40 S&W and 10mm using Ramshot Enforcer. With these powders you have to have load densities (case fill) that are well over 115% just too barely come to pressure."

 

[Paul B.]

Many years ago I came to the conclusion that any big game rifle I owned would have to consistently shoot groups of 1.5" or less, preferably less. If it was a rifle I was particularly fond of I would work until I decided it would never shoot within the parameters I set. One such rifle was my Ruger M77 RSI in .308 Win. I won't go into the details of the slightly over two years struggle to it to shoot 1.5" groups but I was successful so I still have that rifle. In fact I got it down to a sometimes 1.25" shooter.

Most of my rifles will shoot one inch or slightly less but I constantly tinker with the loads looking for that ever smaller group. I do that mostly because it's fun and what more reason does one need than that?
Paul B.

 

[44 AMP]

Yes, they are supporting that claim. They tested it and published it. They are the ones who made the claim in the first place.

ok, I see your point here, and that they no longer publish that data, because they choose not to, because it is inefficient and over compressed??

Or ANYONE else doing it, other than the OP??

I don't know, how many 40 S&W shooters have you asked? I'm guessing none

None would be the answer, as what I was asking is why no one else was shouting the advantages from the virtual rooftops, not if anyone else was loading that powder in their .40s.

I don't have a dog in this fight, I don't have a .40 nor a S&W M&P nor have I ever used Ramshot powder (of any kind). I'm just trying to follow what is going on and why, if the load is so great why its not in current published data, and why no one else is saying the things the OP is saying.

I do understand how these kinds of things can happen though. A powder maker makes a decision for commercial reasons which is not always sensible seeming.

Some time back, the people making Blue Dot stopped listing loads for the .41 mag. Said the powder wasn't suitable, if I remember right. Having used Blue Dot in .357 and .44 Mag, there's no way you can convince me it won't work / be safe (in the proper loads) in the .41 Mag.

According to the rumor mill, Blue Dot wasn't "suitable" because of variations greater than desired, in the .41 Mag. I have no idea what the truth really was, but it seems we have something somewhat similar here. For whatever reason, apparently they did list the data, but no longer do.

for the OP, or anyone else loading Enforcer in the .40 I am curious, can you get 15gr in the case without special techniques? Does it fill the case to the mouth? Do you need a long drop tube, and/or vibration in order to get it all in?