Talk:10mm Auto

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 10mm Auto article.
Article policies
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Firearms; If you would like to join us, please visit the project page where you can find a list of open tasks. If you have any questions, please consult the FAQ.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale

Contents

[edit] Comment

The 10mm is a fine high powered auto pistol for hunting, protection or just plain shooting. Recoil? Yes... but not as bad as one might think. I just let it kick and don't try to hold it down. I can't anyway so I don't try. Quite a bit more power than the 40 SW or the 45 ACP, in fact the 40 and 45 are very close themselves. As of late there are some different manufactueres that are making the 10 mm again. It reminds me of some of the old archived articles about the .357 Mag and how unpopular it was at one time. Now look at it! It's still one of the most versital hand gun cartridges and has nothing to prove.

[edit] WPMILHIST

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

[edit] Horrifying Price

US$37 for 25? Good LORD. I had to read that four times. I thought $26 for 50 rounds of my favorite +P .38 was bad!

[edit] Unclear statement

"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)

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)

[edit] NPOV

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)

[edit] Hydrostatic Shock

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)
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)

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)

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)

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)

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)
  • FWIW, yesterday I added "fact" tags to Mr. Courtney's revisions on the .40 S&W and 9x19mm pages, where he added content about hydrostatic shock (HS). He then added citations to his paper, which I read. I have also read this discussion on the 10mm Auto talk page. Since I was asked to weigh-in on the discussion, I must say that I am undecided but he may well have a valid point that the content belongs. Without necessarily agreeing with his thesis, if his point is that 10mm Auto performance reaches a threshold at which peer reviewed studies show hydrostatic shock effects to be significant, then a comment to that effect would seem to belong in the article. It would be notable under the "performance" topic. I don't think it would be encyclopedic to add a note about HS in cartridge articles where HS is not significant. I would also think that if any content on HS is included, that mention of the debate on the subject be made. Of course, the danger in including such content is that it has the potential to bog down the article on a disputed topic which is not core to the subject matter. And as Asams10 correctly notes, consistency would require making mention of HS in every article where the cartridge performs above the claimed threshold. Sorry to equivocate here, but I can see both sides of this issue and hope a compromise can be reached.--Ana Nim (talk) 17:04, 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)

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)
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)
And as I said, it already is.--LWF (talk) 01:56, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)

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)