Privacy guaranteed - Your email is not shared with anyone.

10mm Hate

Discussion in 'The 10 Ring' started by CCantu357, Feb 26, 2014.

  1. cowboywannabe

    cowboywannabe you savvy?

    Jan 26, 2001
    the 10mm is a great defensive round for those who dedicate the time to learn how to shoot it.

    even a half-ass defense attorney can "shoot down" a claim that the 10mm is some sort of monster gun or what ever. if anybody is convicted of a crime based primarily on the use of a 10mm, then their lawyer was less than half-ass in competency.
  2. Fish didn't kill the dogs as some have stated.

    He fired a warning shot and the dogs took off.

    He told the nut he didn't shoot the dogs but he still came charging at him.
    Last edited: Mar 5, 2014

  3. Angry Fist

    Angry Fist Dehumanizer® Lifetime Member

    Dec 30, 2009
    Hellbilly Hill
    Nothing beats a perfect 10.
  4. agtman

    agtman 10mm Spartiate

    Feb 28, 2001
    :perfect10: I'll say ... :cool:

    Plus, this is the only pistol cartridge that comes with a govenment-mandated warning to potential users:


  5. TDC20


    Apr 11, 2011
    People who "hate" 10mm either have very low threshold for recoil, or they are just plain ignorant, repeating something they have read or been told. Have they fired 10's of thousands of rounds from 9mm, 40SW, 45ACP, 357 Mag, and 44Mag? If they had, they would know what a 10mm is and what it is not. What 10mm is ballisticlly is a 357 Mag in a semi-auto configuration. That semi-auto configuration amounts to less severe recoil and more rounds than a 357 mag. That's it in a nutshell. So to all the 10mm haters, bite me! I really don't care. When you get the rounds downrange in various calibers, then we'll debate the +/- of the 10mm.

    As far as the Fish case goes, I use the "cop" comparative analysis. Would a cop shoot two aggressive dogs? Of course he would, there are many videos out there of cops shooting people's pets that are no more aggressive other than standing their ground on their territory. That Mr. Fish fired a warning shot for the dogs is commendable.

    A sane person wouldn't charge a person with a gun, making death threats, unless he intended to carry out those threats. Would a cop be justified in shooting such a person making threats and charging downhill on him? Remember, Mr. fish was 14 yrs younger than his attacker, and he had just completed a day-long hike and still had a pack on his back. I'm not saying that a majority of cops would have shot him in such a circumstance, but some would have. And those who would have shot him would not have been charged with 2nd degree murder.

    In my state, I am authorized to use deadly force if I believe I am at risk of death or SERIOUS INJURY. That's the law. Mr. Fish was, reasonably, in risk of death or serious injury. If you don't like it, then don't make death threats or acts of aggression that can be interpreted as RISK OF DEATH OR SERIOUS INJURY.

    If you want to go toe-to-toe with someone who spilled beer on you at the bar, be my guest. I know two people who were stabbed in such incidents (let's take it outside) back in the late 70's and early 80's. If you are carrying, you need to avoid any such encounters. My state law has significant definitions for who was the initial aggressor in deadly force cases. So, screw around and pay the price. On the other hand, I'm old, I don't hang out at bars anymore. I have a repaired detached retina, and I have no intentions of proving my "manhood" by duking it out with some punk. I'll talk my way out of or walk away from any issue over parking places, road rage, spilled beer, etc. if I'm carrying. I would run away, but i'm not that fast anymore :tongueout:

    Personally, I think cases like George Ziimmmerman and Harold Fish are good things for society. An armed society is a polite society, just for that reason. Anyone who thinks they can solve their issues using violence needs to rethink their case in a world where more and more people are CCW. Legal opinions have two conseqences IMO, one is to punish the bad behavior of an individual in a case. But the other serves as precedent to others, governing their actions. As far as I'm concerned, the Zimmerman and Fish decisions (late on the Fish decision) are wins for people who don't want to participate in a violent society. If you want to go hand to hand, you have my support, but don't expect me to have a black belt in tak-kwan-do or kung fu before I am allowed to CCW and defend my life.

    Remember, if you choose to fight before you feel the need to draw your weapon, that will be portrayed as a case of "he was losing the fight, so he pulled a gun." There is no black/white no matter what you think in your mind. In a trial, you will most likely be portrayed as the aggressor regardless of the circumstances that lead up to a SD shoooting.
  6. Andrew Wiggin

    Andrew Wiggin

    Dec 15, 2011
    Great post. Thank you for contributing.
  7. agtman

    agtman 10mm Spartiate

    Feb 28, 2001
    Yes, very articulate post, TDC20. Thanks. :cool:
  8. Bongo Boy

    Bongo Boy

    Jan 11, 2012
    Colorado USA
    If one defines 'best' as a wonderful balance of overall versatility, potential for ballistic performance that beats most if not all rounds offered by any major manufacturer in a practical concealed carry handgun, capacity potential that meets or exceeds the limit of all state limits, availability and pricing of components that is on par with 9mm, 40SW and 45ACP, and a proven accuracy potential that makes this factor a non-issue...then yes.

    Screw IS the most excellent auto pistol caliber.

    But experience so far is that it can only be pushed so far. It is not to be compared to the big bore revolver cartridges and it's not a 12 gauge in disguise. It's just a 40 caliber with big potential. Folks seem to want this thing to be a 41 or a 44 in the pocket, and it simply isn't. You can load it up until it destroys something in a desperate effort to make reality look like Fantasy, but it 'is what it is'.

    Pretty much The Choice for auto pistols that don't suck. ;) point is not that you wait to be bludgeoned to death before you decide to use lethal force. My point is that being attacked by an unarmed person and pounded silly is NOT, as far as I know, justification for lethal force. I may be wrong, but I can't kill you because I think you're going to break my nose.

    History of violence and a potential weapon I know nothing about? These are completely irrelevant and have nothing to do with the situation at all. Not even sure why they'd be brought up. Did they have an impact on the victim's perception of the danger? No, they didn't. The impact they have is on our perception of the attractiveness of the ultimate outcome. Fortunately, that's not allowed as a factor in the decision.

    This seems to be an absurd end of the spectrum. The other end is the ridiculous question asked by our local news media retards when a cop recently (yesterday) shot a guy in a domestic altercation. Cop says "put the gun down", guy doesn't. Guy gets shot and is now dead (Darwin once again...proven right). New media asks "Did you have to shoot him?".

    Brain dead public. Did you expect the cop to resort to harsh language?
    Last edited: Mar 8, 2014
  9. happie2shoot


    Jan 5, 2008
    this is Top Dead Center:wavey:

    The 10mm is good, I have two, it does hold more rds than
    my 357 revolvers but most of my 357s are more powerful
  10. I just read the Dateline account of the Harold Fish story for the first time. I wish Dateline would allow us to watch the entire video instead of just the first few minutes.

    The bottom line I think is, Fish gets charged by a couple of angry dogs. He fires warning shots or misses (we will never know). The angry hot headed owner comes charging at Fish. Fish fires and kills the owner.

    I had asked Mas Ayoob a while back if Fish's use of the 10mm was a determining factor. He responded the 10mm was an issue but not the main issue:

    An interesting point of discussion is the fact that Arizona did not use a grand jury to decide evidence prior to a murder indictment at the time. A grand jury may have no billed Fish, but again we will never know.

    I will say one thing though....the quick version of the Fish story reminds me of Gregory Peck in a scene from the Guns of Navarone where after he kills the female traitor and angrily says concerning his handgun, "Well you've gotten me in the mood to use this thing...."
  11. TDC20


    Apr 11, 2011
    That's exactly the way I feel. I've handloaded 38spl, 9mm, 40S&W, .357 Mag., 45 auto, and 44 Mag., plus a bunch of rifle calibers. I've shot them all and chrono'd my own loads and plenty of factory loads. I know what published load data is accurate, and what is marketing BS from my own measurements, in all of these calibers, and I know what an inch or two barrel length does for velocity. So when someone starts bashing the 10mm, I just laugh. Actually, it seems to me like a lot of people who are big bore revolver shooters get drawn to the 10mm and have a lot of love for it. Not because it can in any way match the power or ballistics of their favorite magnum handgun, but like you say, it's "Pretty much The Choice for auto pistols that don't suck. ;)" And, unlike a Desert Eagle, you can CCW a 10 :)

    I agree with you. Actually, Harold Fish even said later that he wished he had used his walking stick to repel the dogs, rather than firing the warning shot, which then put into motion the rest of the tragedy. And that's exactly what it was, a tragedy. It's always a tough call to Monday Morning Quarterback these kinds of things. I wasn't there, but I'm pretty sure I wouldn't have shot the guy. I'm a dog lover, and I know how to read dogs' intentions better than most people, so, based on that, I may or may not have shot the dogs...or fired a warning shot. Probably not. But, that's the way things happened. Harold Fish was 57, and his attacker was a big, strapping guy 14 yrs younger. I'm sure he was scared, and he probably panicked. If you've ever been in a fight with someone in a true rage, or experienced that rage yourself, it can be pretty dang scary. And very dangerous, too.

    And for the record, I think George Zimmerman is probably a wuss, getting pounded like he did. But I'm pretty sure Trayvon sucker punched him in the dark, which lead to George being disoriented, next thing you know someone has mounted you and is doing the "ground and pound" on your face. Even at my age, I think I would have been able to get myself out of that, but who knows? I know that when I was 24, Trayvon would have been left in a bloody heap on the sidewalk if he had tried that on me, without any guns involved. Who knows, it could have been the "life changing experience" that young man desperately needed.

    In both cases, neither Fish nor Zman initiated violence. They were both attacked. And, even though the letter of the law was on their side, the aftermath of the shootings are something that no CCW holder ever wants to be a part of. To me, they represent that gray area, which I prefer to stay away from. Honestly, I will never be thinking, "if I shoot this guy now, could I sell it to a jury? Am I OK with the law yet?". Nope, my gun isn't going to be drawn until I get to the point of, "if I don't draw and shoot now, I'm a dead man." And I think if I stick with that, I'll be pretty OK. I believe both Fish and Zman were at that point, but their threshold was questionably low, which led to lots of legal issues. Both prosecutions were also politically motivated. I have read of cases with much lower thresholds that never went to trial, believe it or not.

    Forums aren't a good place to get advice, but they are a great source of information, and a great source of opinions to make you think. I've learned a lot about CCW here, and read a lot of interesting case history. Many thanks to the LE community who contribute to this forum, from whom I have learned more than any CCW class could ever teach.
    Last edited: Mar 8, 2014
  12. TDC20


    Apr 11, 2011
    Actually, it did go to at least one grand jury. I did quite a bit of internet reading about the Fish case several years ago. There doesn't seem to be as much info out there now as there was back then. It has been said, and I have in fact said it, that three grand juries had no-billed it, but the prosecutor kept going back until he got a fourth grand jury to indict. I can't find any evidence of the "4 grand jury story" out there now, so maybe it was just an internet rumor. But, it is well documented that at least one grand jury did indict Fish. That indictment was tossed out by a judge because the prosecutor presented a one-sided story to the grand jury, withholding certain evidence, and coloring other evidence to get the indictment. (Was that the fourth grand jury? I don't know.) From there it went to a "preliminary hearing," and eventually to trial. I'm not a lawyer, but I believe at the time Arizona law allowed either a grand jury indictment or a preliminary hearing to determine if a trial was warranted. Not sure if the choice was for the prosecution or defense.

    Possibly more rumor, but I tend to believe person who commented on a news article about the case said he checked FEC filings and found that the prosecutor had given something like $995 to democrats or the democratic party. Another commenter said that the jury was drawn from a blue part of the state.

    Which brings me to another opinion here, but in all of the discussion over what caliber and whether or not using handloaded ammo vs. factory ammo has any bearing on a jury trial in a SD shooting. I think it's important to weigh the locale where you live and work/travel. For example, if I lived in Chicago and was about to get my CCW permit (it's legal now), I would only carry a 9mm with factory ammo. Why? Because I KNOW that would be the first thing some jackass prosecutor would go after. I can only imagine, but I doubt Zman would be a free man if he shot Trayvon 3 times with a 10mm. Just an opinion there, but think about it. On the other hand, I live in a rural area where my sheriff made national news saying he wouldn't enforce any anti-2A laws that the feds might pass. And he runs as a democrat! (Only democrat I'll ever vote for). In my small community, everyone knows who the good people are and who the troublemakers are. The vermin around here are mostly white, so little chance that Jesse Jackass gets involved. So I don't worry about carrying a 10mm with hand loads when I'm out and about.

    Again, just an opinion, but I would definitely tailor my CCW habits to suit the political environment of the areas I frequent while carrying.
  13. bac1023


    Sep 26, 2004
    As others have mentioned, the 10mm is a great SD round. Don't worry about naysayers. Shoot and carry what you like.
  14. WeeWilly


    Nov 12, 2011
    On the Grand Jury thing, maybe state Grand Juries are different in AZ than here in CA, but having served on a Grand Jury here, to me, Grand Juries are a place where DA's take their case when they want the "perception" of fairness or want to distance themselves from a politically charged case.

    The Grand Jury I served on was formed like any other jury, picked from a pool, questioned by a judge and DA staff and empaneled. You then go for a few hours of "training".

    After this part is done, nothing else is like a trial or anything resembling "Blind Justice" again. DA's convene Grand Juries in secret, present evidence and witnesses in the order they want. The subject of the Grand Jury hearing is called "The Target" and most times "The Target" doesn't even know they are a subject of a hearing. There is no judge present during the hearing, just the jurors and the DA people (and of course witnesses). Judges do review the results, but I never saw a judge reject any indictment and I never saw an indictment not handed down. There are no defendants, no objections, no redirect, no defendant expert witnesses, nada. Just the DA laying out everything they have that makes their case. I guess as a "Target" you have the fact that as an officer of the court, the DA can't lie to the Grand Jury, but if you think having a Grand Jury is going to help you if you are found in a similar situation to Fish, well, you may want to rethink that notion.

    I heard that a famous trial lawyer said you could indict a ham sandwich with a Grand Jury, after having served on one, I think he was right.

    Sorry for the Hijack, we now return you to your regularly scheduled programming...
    Last edited: Mar 9, 2014
  15. Great post!
  16. TDC20


    Apr 11, 2011
    I finally got around to reading your article, Andrew. It was extremely well written, and I think you nailed everything that the 10mm is, and isn't. Spot on!

    ...well, you could have mentioned how much fun you can have with a few hot 135's and some over ripe cantalopes. :cool:

    Just kidding, great article!