When they were popular, my dept. issued the S&W, but decided against the full power loads. We were issued the sub-sonic rounds, and the S&W wouldn't feed reliably. When I was hired in 1970, we had Colt or Smith .38's and carried 158 gr. roundnose lead bullets. In the 80's, we went to 9mm, then 10mm, and finally to the .357 Sig. Now, in retirement for 7 years, I know they were onto something with the 10mm.
I can't understand why it fell from popularity? I don't know why so many agencies and civilians prefer the weaker .40, unless it's because of the smaller frame guns. I realize a .40 is good medicine for bad guys, but a 10mm loaded like it was intended falls somewhere between a .357 Magnum and a .41 Magnum. It certainly provides more punch than a .45acp. It'll shoot through car doors and windshields and still get the job done. Recoil is quite managable, muzzle blast is far less than a magnum revolver, and magazine capacity is more than sufficient, yet, the 10 remains obscure, except for a few zealous shooters who know its worth.
I realize the .40 is better than the respected 9mm, but it can never be what the 10 is. I think if I were limited to one handgun, it would be a 10mm. It works in the woods, at home, and on the street.
What say you? Why do you not prefer a 10mm for CC? I suspect most carriers object to the gun's size, which is a good argument. Is that the reason? I'm just wondering if I'm incorrect in my belief that we can't do better than a Glock 20, which shoots 16 rounds, each of which carries in excess of 700 ft. lbs. of energy.