Talk:10mm Auto

message: The wpmilhist tag has been removed due to this article not being military related.--Oldwildbill 11:52, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: WPMILHIST

message: : "It is also an inherently accurate chambering, and one that makes major in IPSC even in lighter loadings."
Is there a word missing after "major"? —wwoods 20:48, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not necessarily.  The full term is "major power factor", as opposed to "minor power factor", but in context they're just called "major" and "minor".  scot 21:56, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Unclear statement

message: 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)
replies: text: I have trouble conceptualizing how the statement "powerful and versatile" is non-neutral. Comparing the 10 mm to an equivalent revolver cartridge, the 357 magnum, which I would consider powerful and versatile in a handgun, I see much similarity which I would consider a neutral opinion. Specifically, I commonly shoot both guns, 357 mag and 10 mm, with light 38 special or light 40 S&W equivalent loads up to full power 357 magnum or full power 10 mm loads in a wide range of bullet weights. If anyone believes this to be non-neutral, please explain the concept to me. Gflory (talk) 14:17, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with this opinion. How is a statement like 'powerful and versatile' overtly jaded and opinionated? Frankly this editor's decision and reasoning for deleting this phrase is more opinionated than the phrase itself. It's like someone declaring that we can't call the sky 'blue' because someone questions what exactly IS blue... Monoblocks (talk) 05:12, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree. I can buy loads that go from 300 to 900 ft-lbs. It is both powerful and versatile. I can go from light target loads, to loads that can kill moose at close range reliably (There is video on Alaska State Troopers of a man saving his dog from a moose and calf with a 10mm and the moose are then given to a food bank). How about "is a powerful caliber that comes in a range of loadings from light target rounds (~300 ft-lbs) to high power hunting rounds (~900 ft-lbs)." Msjayhawk (talk) 19:01, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I 3rd this motion to return "powerful and versatile" 2603:6010:7C40:1177:845E:63A:D1DC:C0D7 (talk) 13:22, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV

message: 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)
replies: text: Michael, there is also a flood of evidence and papers against it.  While this debate is mostly academic, it is certainly only tangentially related to the 10mm auto at best. At worst, it's indulgent and a superfolous.  The hydrostatic shock discussion should take place on pertinant articles like the 5.45 and 5.56 articles, not this article.  You make the leap that the 10mm 'can' cause hydrostatic shock damage, yet you leave out the thousands of other loadings that can also... if the 10mm can.  Heck, a .22lr Quickshock load will cause hydrostatic shock.  EVERY frangible bullet out there can cause hydrostatic shock.  It's a discussion that is not limited to the 10mm nor is there anything magical about hollow-point bullets in the 10mm that would warrant that discussion here.  You're making a spurious connection between the 10mm and the disputed theory of Hydrostatic Shock. --I am Asamuel (talk) 03:54, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

text: Oh, I can and did claim a dispute (which you did not disagree with at all) and I can also revert the edit for the reasons I've stated.  I can put a reference about Reagan's Ghost on the Ronald Reagan page also.  I'm sure I can get volumes of information to back up my position that Reagan's Ghost walks this world.  That discussion, however, is irrelevant on the Ronald Reagan page as it applies to all dead people. Your only reason for insertion in this article seems to be this 'magical amount' of energy that one of your references cited as significant. All bullets create hydrostatic effects. Heck, a baseball bat does as well.  This argument applies certainly to the vast majority of rifle cartridges and many pistol cartridges as well just given your criteria.  Therefore, there is no precedent for inclusion in this article.  The 10mm was not involved in any of these research projects I know of.  Now then, the 5.56 and 5.45mm were.  Inclusion there would be warranted and, IIRC, there are discussions of that sort there already.  Beyond that, Hydrostatic shock, we can agree, is disputed.  I happen to believe it's 'snakes oil' having shot many living beings in my time with some pritty high energy/velocity projectiles and observing the results. Remember that one of the main pushes for research were stories that a shot in the arm would kill a man... and that cartridge was the 5.56mm M193. --I am Asamuel (talk) 12:27, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

text: While you and I can disagree on the relative merits, science, and peer-review status, what you fail to do is address the subject head-on of whether that information should be included in THIS article.  Why not the .357 Maximum or .400 CorBon articles?  How about the .220 Swift article?  The crux of my argument doesn't involve Hydrostatic Shock, although that's what you chose to address.  Please address whether or not it's appropriate to MENTION hydrostatic shock in this article.  Again, you're making an original statement saying that power levels with hollow-point bullets reach the threshold of hydrostatic shock damage that is arbitrary at best, even given your info and explanations to date.  You then include it in this article without establishing notability with regards to this subject.  I'd love to read about all of this crap in another lifetime, but if I were to read through it, I'd like to do it on the Hydrostatic Shock page, not here. --I am Asamuel (talk) 14:38, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

text: Pardon me for a minute, but it seems we are not 'clicking' on what we are talking about.  The entire time, I've been making points on whether Hydrostatic is significantly relavant to the 10mm article to warrant inclusion, even going so far as to cite examples.  You've been arguing whether or not it's real.  Maybe you could read my posts and address them. --I am Asamuel (talk) 14:41, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

text: I don't think that it's appropriate to mention hydrostatic shock in any of the handgun calibers as it's mostly an issue of contention when discussing the 5.56.  I've already stated my case for that and don't wish to keep coving ground I've already covered.  Your position is that every common cartridge should have a mention of hydrostatic shock even though the firearms research community is split on whether or not it is even a significant factor in terminal ballistics. I find that position indefensible and indulgent.  I believe your edits to the Hydrostatic shock article indicate you have a deep interest and you are trying to promote that work and that interest on an article that's connected by a shoestring.  I know you disagree, I'm not trying to convince you any longer.  You've dodged my head-on arguments and chose another path so I doubt you'll respond to me ever.  I'll go ahead and end this exercise in futility. --I am Asamuel (talk) 15:40, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

text: Uh, you've already provided those.  I said, argument over, you're not listening to me anyhow. --I am Asamuel (talk) 16:22, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

text: Courtney, the issue here is not whether or not your theory and research is true and accurate, it is whether or not the idea of hydrostatic shock is notable in this context, or notable enough to actually warrant space in the article being spent on it. My opinion is no; I think that the see also, combined with the wikilink to stopping power at the top of the article are sufficient, especially since the article already discusses the stopping power, and self-defense utility of the cartridge.--LWF (talk) 19:30, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Stopping power encompases all of the legitemate internal ballistics factors and the dubious ones as well.  Certainly the issue of stopping power should be included. --I am Asamuel (talk) 22:42, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

text: And as I said, it already is.--LWF (talk) 01:56, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, so I'm not allowed to edit articles any more as my stalker has showed up.  Hopefully my comments on the talk page don't get reverted as well.  I'll let what I've said here stand. --I am Asamuel (talk) 15:34, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a ridiculous strawman argument. Nobody has ever said you cannot edit articles anymore, and nobody is stalking you. You just are not allowed to edit war. Please calm down and start acting rationally; sardonic, petulant, childish comments like the one above do nothing to help your cause. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 16:02, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Hydrostatic Shock

message: 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)
replies: text: ??? Glock 20 redirects to Glock pistol and an article.  Are you making a statement that Gunblasts.com has an article about the Glock 20?  This article is about the Cartridge, not the pistol. What's the point here? --Nukes4Tots (talk) 19:13, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Glock 20

message: 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)
thread_title: "developed by Jeff Cooper"

message: 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)
replies: text: I tried to fix it, but ended up just removing the whole paragraph. It was all unsourced, non-neutral, and based on original research. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 00:06, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Could somebody provide some documentation for the statement below?

message: 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!
* http://www.cip-bp.org/index.php?id=tdcc-telechargement
** In .223 Remington on 2011-05-20 21:28:33, Socket Error: 'getaddrinfo failed'
** In 10mm Auto on 2011-05-23 02:08:47, Socket Error: 'getaddrinfo failed'
** In .223 Remington on 2011-05-31 04:44:11, Socket Error: 'getaddrinfo failed'
** In .325 WSM on 2011-05-31 12:36:32, Socket Error: 'getaddrinfo failed'
** In 10mm Auto on 2011-06-01 01:40:56, Socket Error: 'getaddrinfo failed'
--JeffGBot (talk) 01:41, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I've been trying to find an image file of that CD now for about a year. CIP either took it off their website or moved it to a place I can't seem to find (much to my consternation). I really hope someone can find this resource, because it would be invaluable for making cartridge diagrams. Morgan Phoenix (talk) 23:51, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Over four years now since their website renewal and the TDCC downloads page is still "Section being restructured". How much longer is it going to take them? 71.229.23.9 (talk) 22:05, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Good news! The Tables are now back online and available; they're in PDF format. 71.229.23.9 (talk) 01:30, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Dead link

message: 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)
replies: text: Create a user account and upload the picture you wrote about to Wikimedia Commons (beware of not violating copyright, but Wikimedia Commons will point that out to you) and add it to the Category:10mm AUTO so everybody can see and use your image in Wikipedia articles.--Francis Flinch (talk) 07:16, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you've misunderstood me: It was only a suggestion I threw out there for those that can to take if they wished so. I can't due to lack of proper equipment. 71.229.23.9 (talk) 15:03, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Main image idea

message: 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)
replies: text: Don't see anything needed to be fixed here. Since the nomenclature of the cartridge and its partial origins lie in Europe, the infobox's details (if that's what you were pointing to) are correct as is with the SI units used (along with corresponding conversions) instead of the imperials. If you had something else more specific in mind, be sure to make it clear. 71.229.23.9 (talk) 23:30, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

text: That would be the user-created cartridge dimension graphic based on C.I.P.'s numbers - I see what you're referring to now. You might want to contact Morgan Phoenix to sort this out as that is his file. I'll give him a pip once I find the time as well. 71.229.23.9 (talk) 15:45, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Someone needs to correct the bullet diameter on the graphic 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Cartridge dimensions graphic 

message: The website bren-ten.com appears to be an anonymous, self-published source. The "Whois" entry appears to be fictitious. 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)
thread_title:  bren-ten.com 

message: 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)
thread_title:  1980's? 

message: 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150319133613/http://saami.org/specifications_and_information/specifications/Velocity_Pressure_CfPR.pdf to http://www.saami.org/specifications_and_information/specifications/Velocity_Pressure_CfPR.pdf
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://us.glock.com/products/model/g20
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:31, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
replies: text: Thanks for calling attention to this list, I've just removed it.  I concur with all the reason to remove it given above, and would add that such a list does not appear on other handgun cartridge pages.  If, however, anyone would prefer that the list remain (or has any idea why it was there in the first place), feel free to say. - Mr.1032 (talk) 01:53, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[10mm Auto#Guns in 10mm Auto]] 

message: 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)
replies: text: This is an encyclopedia anyone can edit. So fix it. Though to be fair, you might consider starting with your own edits, since "Crissake" is a grammatically incorrect misspelling, there's no need to capitalize "grammar" or "proper sentence construction", there's only three "..." in an ellipses, and since literally dozens of people wrote this article, your uncivil attack in the headline should be plural.  In any event, please avail yourself of this opportunity to review our policies on civility and attacks against other editors. ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 01:26, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another article written by a functional illiterate 

message: 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.Taurus TH10 - 10mm Double/Single Action LoVeloDogs (talk) 23:21, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Added, but with a slight tweak to the language to justify including a second citation since we were already citing the Taurus page. ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 01:21, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you! LoVeloDogs (talk) 20:41, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Additional citation for Taurus TH10 10mm