The Cartridge Debate, Part III: A Divergence

I have many more profound things to say about the New Conventional Wisdom of handgun cartridges, but alas I have been sidetracked by knowledge that has descended upon me by podcast. Woe is me.

I have to thank the PowerFactor Show podcast for rejuvenating my interest in the 10mm cartridge. I've always liked "magnum" cartridges, which the 10mm by power alone (and not development from) definitely qualifies. It is not a "magnum" derived from a lesser, a la .38 Special to .357 magnum, but definitely is in the magnum class.

But its origins definitely bring into question the "conventional wisdom" of "adequate" power for defense.

So for the sake of studying the 10mm in the pantheon of service cartridges, I require a little revisionist history to help me get my thoughts straight.

The 10mm Cartridge, A History:

Everyone knows that the 10mm pistol cartridge was created by Col. Jeff Cooper (Ret.), was introduced in the Bren Ten, and was adopted by the FBI for a short time after the famed Miami Shootout.

But according to a few sources, the "real story" goes something like this: Col. Cooper wanted to create a gun that pushed a 200-grain bullet to a 1000-feet-per-second impact velocity. That performance approximates what the .40 Smith & Wesson cartridge turned out to be.

Is that true? Is any of it true? Let's see.

I found a few sources that stated that Col. Cooper did call for the development of a .40-caliber cartridge that pushed a 200-gr. bullet to a 1000-fps impact velocity for a semiauto. Apparently, Col. Cooper specified a muzzle velocity of 1050 fps to achieve that performance at 50 yards. He then pushed the muzzle velocity to 1100 fps as cushion to achieve performance. He wanted to have a pistol like the Browning Hi-Power chambered for the cartridge.

Well, it seems a little more complicated than that, according to a forum exchange on thehighroad.org, and quoted or paraphrased by Cal4D4:

"In the early 1970's an individual by the name of Whit Collins started looking at the feasibility of rechambering the 9mm Browning Hi-Power to a more powerful cartridge. Originally he was considering the .38 Super, but Col. Cooper's idea of a 200gn bullet of .400" diameter traveling at 1,000fps changed his thinking. Whit Collins did a lot of work just looking into the feeding geometry to see if a .40 caliber bullet could be made to function. When he was satisfied that it could he began looking for existing rifle cases that had the proper casehead dimensions and could be trimmed down to proper length for the Hi-Power magazine. With his drawings and some "dummy" loads made up he approached Jeff Cooper about his idea. Col. Cooper lent his support to Mr. Collin's idea and with investigative and research help from Guns & Ammo the project moved ahead. Next came assistance from Irv Stone of Bar-Sto and master gunsmith John French and by 1972 a Browning Hi-Power chambered in .40 G&A was being test fired. The loads being fired consisted of a 180gn bullet at 1,050fps out of the 5" barrel. In 1973 Col. Cooper and Mr. Collins started talking about a longer cased .40 caliber round that would be developed with the various .45 Auto platforms in mind. At this point Whit Collins went on to continue working on his .40 G&A and Jeff Cooper began his work on what was being called the .40 Super. A number of years went by until 1978 when Col. Cooper teamed with Thomas Dornaus and Michael Dixon. Via the Bren Ten semiautomatic pistol the .40 Super evolved into what we now call the 10mm Auto and the rest, as they say, is history." (This comment references the following deadlink http://www.bren-ten.com/bren10mmautomainpage/id3.html.)

So D&D agreed to develop the gun, and they patterned their contribution after the CZ75, which was "inspired" by the Browning Hi-Power.

Norma signed on to create the ammo for the D&D Bren Ten pistol. Norma upped the ante with velocity by increasing it to 1200 fps at the muzzle. D&D requested more. Norma settled on 1250 fps and wanted to get into production.

The Bren Ten basically flopped, was pulled from "Miami Vice," the FBI had a bad shootout in Miami, the FBI chose the 10mm and the S&W 1076, the FBI quickly chose the downloaded "10mm Lite," because the full-power 10mm loads were too much for some special agents, and the .40 S&W was developed as a replacement for the "10mm Lite" to accommodate smaller hands, to take advantage of the reduced need for powder volume, etc.

TO BE CONTINUE
PREVIOUS POST IN SERIES

The C̶a̶l̶i̶b̶e̶r̶ Cartridge Debate, Part II: A Clarification

I complain about this, but I've gone and done it. I've used terms interchangeably and most likely incorrectly. To clarify what I am getting at I provide these definitions:

service cartridge: In the last post in this series, I referred to "major calibers" as what conventional wisdom says are okay to use for self defense. Well, I should have said "service cartridges."

Well, that's it for that. Because from re-reading my first post in this series, I discovered that I pretty much had fell upon the correct terminology toward the end of it. So a cartridge is a cartridge like a .40 S&W or 10mm, and a caliber can be both. Also, a "service cartridge" means a cartridge that is appropriate for self defense as a government official or not, instead of "major cartridge" which means something that puts you in a different class in gun games.

TO BE CONTINUED
PREVIOUS POST IN SERIES

The C̶a̶l̶i̶b̶e̶r̶ Cartridge Debate: The "New" Conventional Wisdom

The new conventional wisdom is that the selection of handgun c̶a̶l̶i̶b̶e̶r̶  cartridges doesn't matter, as long as it is at least 9x19 mm and - well - conventional. Or, one of those newfangled .380 ACPs with "modern" hollowpoints - er, something.

Apparently, modern "quality" "defensive" ammunition is so great that all "major" run-of-the-mill cartridges will save your life. Oh, and shot placement is "now" the most important thing. But high pressure cartridges apparently beat up guns, and heavier bullets risk over penetration. But again, having one of the regular players levels the field.

So, I sit comfortably with my selection of the 9mm "for war" cartridge in a handgun that can handle +P, NATO, and +P+ - I guess. And as a disclaimer, my chances of getting in a gunfight are irrationally south of nil. But people love to parse differences, so ...

(edited 2/8/15)

TO BE CONTINUED

Hindsight is Bullshit, Or ...

"Hindsight is 20/20," or it's just plain wrong.

I was flipping through the September 2002 edition of American Riflman - the NRA's premier rag.

I stumbled upon what should rightly be called a glowing eulogy to William Batterman Ruger. Many took Ruger to task for going along the magazine-capacity partial ban of the early '90s (or so). I am still uncomfortable with any such accommodation (or, in Ruger's case, an apparent overabundance of self righteousness), BUT that was a different political climate, a different social climate, and the apex of Second Amendment dilution that ironically allowed for an abundance of pre-ban "banned" items.

Now in hindsight, when the worm has turned, people are recognizing that a right to arms is a Constitutional right at the lease and a natural right at the best, but we are stuck with draconian regulations and laws.

I fault Bill Ruger, Sr. for accommodation, but it seems his heart was in the right place. He was a good, though apparently harsh, guy.

If there is a lesson to be learned it is this: A right is a right, and it is folly to let it be abrogated in trade or to prevent a greater assault.

Mr. Ruger wasn't perfect, but he made great guns, supported the gun culture, contributed more than he took.

Hundreds Vs. David Friedman's Minicity

In Machinery of Freedom, David Friedman proposes breaking down cities into 100,000-constituent minicities.

My first reaction: What about hundreds?

My second reaction: That's pie-in-the sky idealism, thinking that 100,000 people can make any system work.

But I do understand economies of scale, and that 100,000 is much better than 1 million or more, but there is a certain appeal to "hundreds." I don't fully understand the concept, but I'm certain it had to do with a manageable "political" organization, like New England small-town direct democracy, that came very much after the original concept.

Also, my feeling is that "hundreds" would most likely be composed of 100 families, of whatever composition, because the original "hundreds" were composed of only men.

An interesting contrast. Something to look into.

The Armed Society Cycle: Armed, Polite, Safe

The armed society cycle: An armed society is a polite society, a polite society is a safe society, a safe society is an armed society ...

 Second amendment. Natural law. Real rights.

Duty To Retreat

Under natural and common law - but apparently not Missouri statute - Officer Darren Wilson had an obligation to retreat, if he was the aggressor. If he struck Michael Brown with his car door (battery) and threatened Brown (assault), then Brown had the right to defend himself, regardless what "government" authority Officer Wikson had.

Police Militarization Is a Symptom

Police militarization is a symptom of the growth of centralized morality, not universal morality but the implementation of a government definition of morality sponsored by the federal government - and other central states.

Unnamed Cop/Michael Brown Fight - And Social Norms

A recurring thought I have had, since I first heard about the killing of Michael Brown by an unnamed Ferguson, Missouri cop is:

The confrontation wouldn't have occurred, if the police were not enforcing victimless, petty "crimes."

Others are thinking along the same lines. Reason.com's Ed Krayewski penned this gem:

"America's various polities pass laws that demand cops police what used to be understood as harmless (selling loosies) or at-your-own-risk (walking in the street) behavior, these encounters will continue, especially among poor and marginalized communities, whom these laws tend to effect and in whose communities they tend to be more strictly enforced." from "Some Thoughts on Ferguson, Newark, State Violence, Insurrections, and Democracy"

Apparently, Michael Brown and his friend were jaywalking. According to Brown's friend, they were instructed in some manner to get out of the street, then the cop started to drive away. But apparently, the two friends did not move quickly enough, because the cop reversed his car to confront the two about leaving the street.

Now, I'm sure that there are plenty of people out there that think a "young punk" deserves to be slammed to the ground for disrespecting authority. But respect is earned, and it is not by being a petty dictator forcing petty victimless "laws." Respect is learned, when one is respected, and one is taught to respect others - in a respectful way.

As far as I have heard, the two dominant versions of the incident quickly diverged. Brown's friend said that, when the cop had reversed his car back to their position, he swung open his door so swiftly that the door hit the friends rebounding and hit the cop. The "official" version is that the two nonsupercitizens slammed the door against the cop.

The friend claims that the cop pulled Brown into the cop car and threatened to shoot Brown. The "official" version claims that Brown attempted to seize the unnamed cop's gun.

The friend and other witnesses claim that Brown was shot multiple times while he had his hands up. The "official" version obviously claims something else.


I used to be a big proponent of police enforcing petty "laws." I used to be a big "there aught to be a law" kind of guy, and cheered when cops confronted those littering, speeding, or being general assholes.

I loved it when Mayor Rudy Guiliani was clearing the NYC streets of drug dealers and "illegal" gun possessors by enforcing victimless license plate "laws" and other moving "violations." But I also believed at the time that the government should be locking people up for the victimless "crimes" of drug dealing or exercising their 2nd-Amendment-enumerated right. (And yes I know that drug dealers do sell poison, but the Drug War actually encourages more dangerous drugs - look it up.).

It all comes down to this: Should we allow government agents to force victimless "laws" with  violence? Should we allow government agents to lock people up for victimless "crimes," allowing the cops to commit the violent, forceful act of imprisoning the petty nonlaw breaker? There are a myriad way of getting people to abide by social norms without turning those norms into ordinances, statutes, and "laws" that are backed up with the force of government agents.

Oh, yeah. If you believe in the nonaggression principle and freedom in general, then the answer to the last couple of questions is an absolute NO.

Political Affiliation Reduction

A recent post on The Federalists Papers blog featured an app available through iTunes. The app allows you to scan products and determine the political contributions of the products' manufacturers (and I also assume the brands' owners, if they vary from the manufacturers).

My key problem with the app is that it breaks down donations by "Republican," "Democrat," and "Others." My reaction? I want to see a version that breaks down donors by "libertarian" and "Other."

And that led me to think: In the final analysis, your political affiliation only really matters on a one-dimensional scale from "libertarian" to "Other." I like political charts that are multidimensional, but when you parse things too far then you miss the forest for the trees.

And what could possibly be represented by only those the two categories of "libertarian" and "Other?"

libertarian
small "L" libertarian
Libertarian
minarchist
anarchist
voluntaryist
agorist

Other
Democrat
Republican

Tea Party
Green
Socialist
Communist
Fascist

I know that there are libertarians that are affiliated with the Republican AND Democrat parties, and there are all shades in between "libertarian" and "Other," so the lists above are just maps NOT the terrain.