This has been moved to Thursday night.

There is an upgrade to the forum software available.  I will be performing this upgrade on the UAT version of the site tonight. This will not impact this production website.  If that upgrade is successful (and I expect it will be), then I will upgrade this production site tomorrow night, around 9:00 PM MDT.  It should be a minimal downtime upgrade, so chances are it will be un-noticed.  But if you have a hiccup or error tomorrow night around that time, that is why.

My CBC headstamp brass came from Magtech ammo.  I have not had any issues with it.

I just grabbed a handful of brass from the bin.  These have been wet tumbled and sized/decapped.  My handful included 3 CBC, 4 FC, 4 Win, 3 Starline and 3 RP.  I measured them all and the CBC were not in any way outliers.  Primer pockets measured .206" except one RP that came in at .207".  Depth was between .120" (FC) and .125" (RP) with most being .122-.123".  The CBC all measured .122" depth.

About the only thing of note on inspection is the CBC brass did have the three-point stake on the primer pocket.  I don't ever remember having an issue seating primers in this brass.  I have been shooting some newer magtech lately and it is possible I just haven't reloaded any with the staked pockets yet.

https://www.smith-wesson.com/product/model-610-mountain-gun

Very nifty if wheelguns are you thing.

In another forum a discussion about the Coonan 357 Mag 1911 eventually came around to 10mm as an alternative.  I did some comparative analysis that I thought this group would appreciate:

A 5" or less breech face to muzzle comparison gives the 10mm auto a performance advantage over a 357 magnum. Physics is a relentless girlfriend.

F = P * A

For 357 magnum that means F = 35000 PSI * ((.357/2)^2)*3.1415 = 3,503.334 lbs-force

For 10mm Auto we get F = 37500 * ((.400/2)^2)*3.1415 = 4,712.250 lbs-force

It isn't even a close race in "short" (5" or less) barrels.

Some background as this was a bit of a slog to extract.  First I determined comparable bullets by using sectional density to normalize for the difference in diameter:  125 grain 357 (.140) vs 155 grain 10mm (.138).  I then went looking on the Ballistics by the Inch website for data.  They had solid data for Federal 125 JHP and Corbon 125 JHP that aligned with the best velocities that Underwood ammo advertises.  But Corbon loads for 150 grain and 165 grain 10mm were basically baked over 40 S&W data, acheiving velocities as 5" that are closer to what a 200-220 grain 10mm full power load can achieve.

So, I took an average increase in velocity from the BBTI 165 grain data and applied it to the Underwood muzzle velocity for a 5" barrel and extrapolated the velocity for the other barrel lengths.  I cross checked my process against other BBTI bullet weights in 10mm and had an accuracy of a couple percent, so I used this derived data for the comparison.

To be sure I had not introduced an unfair advantage to the 10mm I applied the same extrapolation method for the Corbon and the Federal 125 grain velocity data, and then for each barrel length I used the fastest of the four velocities for the 125 grain 357 mag from the actual corbon, actual federal, derived corbon or derived federal.  If there is a finger on the scale here it is for 357, not 10mm.

The results:

Barrel Length	357 Mag Velocity	10mm Velocity	357 Mag Energy	10mm Energy	Delta
18	2113	1731	1240	1032	-17%
17	2067	1729	1186	1029	-13%
16	2119	1727	1247	1027	-18%
15	2069	1719	1188	1017	-14%
14	2054	1717	1171	1015	-13%
13	2024	1705	1137	1001	-12%
12	1994	1690	1104	983	-11%
11	1978	1675	1086	966	-11%
10	1943	1662	1048	951	-9%
9	1901	1641	1003	927	-8%
8	1851	1614	951	897	-6%
7	1784	1586	884	866	-2%
6	1715	1550	817	827	1%
5	1614	1501	723	776	7%
4	1511	1441	634	715	13%
3	1257	1321	439	601	37%
2	1003	1211	279	505	81%

So, if 10mm has such a huge extra force budget why does it loose the long race?  Case volume.  The 357 Magnum has 8.5% more of it. This comes back on the 10mm two ways.

First, a bigger energy budget means the 357 can apply the force longer than the 10mm can.  And work is force * distance.  Given a longer distance the 357 pulls ahead.

Second, P1V1 = P2V2.  Since the 357 Magnum has a higher initial volume, it has a flatter pressure curve over distance.  For longer barrels this again contributes to more work done.

So, for a breech to muzzle of 5" or less, pick 10mm for a BIG performance improvement.  Between 5" and 7" it is a tie, and after 7" the 357 Mag runs away with the race.

https://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/finally-10mm-auto-for-rhino-revolvers-44821396

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0FD3S1LXK

My son's first novel.  It's not Tolkien, but it's OK.

I don't know that you are being fussy.  I agree that it would be more "readable" if the message body was not included.

But this isn't "search" driven.  It is controlled by the board index settings.  Here is a screenshot of the options from the admin a console:

You cannot view this attachment.

I can't find any settings to control the "recent" posts page.  But I will keep looking.

There isn't a button in admin to remove the message, but I agree that would be cleaner.  I will see if I can find a mod for it, or if I can find and update the code.

How about this:

https://www.10mm-auto.com/index.php?action=recent

Also now at the bottom of the forum main page.

It is amazing the impact that small change can have.  .015" is two average human hairs.

Quote from: 10 Round on June 17 2025 09:44:45 PM MDTNot to be a smart ass, but it kind of looks like a bullet hole

yeah...I didn't comment on that but when I first say it I had the same thought and wondered if a falling bullet had gotten to them.

I will look at it some over the next week or so.  I found one add-in package that looks nice, but it may not work with all the available themes.  I will deploy it to my test environment and see how well it works.  If the package works well I will schedule a change to apply it here.

A few years my family started receiving our CMP USGI surplus 1911's. This has spawned a fair bit of 1911 shooting. During this journey I looked into the pistol qualification requirements at the time these guns were entering service in WWII.  I found this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=enTnooHTsLY

This weekend we set up some two target stations and had a go at the qualifier. The shooters were my mom (79.5), me (55) and two of my sons (22,19). The shooting, if you aren't aware and haven't watched the video yet, is one-handed shooting.  Total course of fire is 45 rounds over 9 strings of five shots each.  Scoring is a combination of normal scoring + hit/miss scoring for the "quick fire".  Final score is an average of the percentage from slow, rapid and quick fire.

We were shooting 220 grain SWC over 5.4 grains of W231.  This is a 875 fps load and shoots pretty easily.  It normally feeds fine in these guns, but we did have a few malfunctions here and there.

Mom and I shot first.  Mom's heart and mind were in it, but after the slow fire strings her elbow was done.  She is only 4'10" tall, 120 lbs and nearly 80 years old.

I finished out the qualifier alone.  Then my two sons ran through the course.

Mom scored 29% on her slow fire string.  Room for improvement.

I scored 94% in slow fire, 57% in rapid fire and 93% in quick fire for a total score of 81% - Sharpshooter. I tanked (or mis-scored) my second rapid fire string, and it cost me "Expert".

The boys got 43%/56% on slow, 29%/42% on rapid and 40%/67% on quick for overall scores of 37% and 55%.  Both commented early and often how "wrong" it felt to shoot one handed.

All in all a very enjoyable time.  Next time Mom will shoot the Rapid Fire stages and the rest of of will hopefully shoot "better".

If you are looking for a fun time, this challenge is it.

You cannot view this attachment.

You are right.  Old man brain got me.  Speer.  I amended my post.