The Best 10mm Handguns of 2025

It’s easy to see why. The 10mm Auto is among the most powerful handgun cartridges commonly chambered in semi-automatic handguns. Muzzle energy is nearly twice that of a 9mm and exceeds all but +P varieties of .45 ACP.

These ballistics make it an extremely effective personal defense cartridge, whether you’re worried about two-legged attackers or, for us here at MeatEater, the fuzzy, four-legged kind. The 10mm even has enough juice to hunt deer-sized game out to about 75 yards, depending on the firearm’s accuracy.

What I’m saying is, if you haven’t yet jumped on the 10mm bandwagon, there’s never been a better time.

Jump to: The Ultimate 10mm Showdown

To help parse the myriad handgun options on the market in 2025, I wanted to get my hands on five of the most popular 10mm models, courtesy of our friends over at Scheels: the Sig Sauer P320 X-Ten Compact, Glock G20 Gen 5, Springfield XDM Elite, Smith & Wesson M&P 2.0, and the FN 510 Tactical.

I may have missed your favorite handgun (if so, feel free to leave a comment!), but if you’re in the market for a new 10mm, these are probably the first five you’ll run into. They don’t fall at the same price point, but they share many of the same core features, and I think you’ll see that performance is comparable.

To choose a winner, I pitted these handguns head-to-head across seven categories:

3. Red Dot Sight Compatibility

Each pistol received a score from 1-5 based on their ranking, and their total scores are tallied at the end.

But before we get to that, here are the major specs for each handgun.

“Ergonomics” is one of those vaguely defined terms that lets gun writers wax eloquent about, basically, how comfortable a handgun is to shoot. Unfortunately for the left-brained among us, comfort is subjective. What’s comfortable for me might not be comfortable for you, so just keep that grain of salt handy as you read this section.

One component of a handgun’s ergonomics is the grip texture. On these handguns, the Springfield sported the slickest and least sticky texturing while the Smith & Wesson felt like a step below skateboard tape. The FN and Glock walked a middle line that leaned towards slick, and the Sig’s texturing was more aggressive.

For my money, I liked the Sig’s texturing. It wasn’t as aggressive as the Smith & Wesson’s, which you’ll appreciate if you ever have to shoot several hundred rounds without gloves. But it also offered enough grippiness to help control the stout recoil produced by the 10mm.

I also liked the shape of the Sig’s grip. It was the smallest of all five handguns, which allowed me to wrap my medium-sized hands around it and get a firm purchase. The more pronounced beavertail allows for a higher grip, but I think it’s the cutout for the middle finger below the trigger guard that really helps the gun feel secure in the hand. The other pistols all offer users the ability to change grip size, but the Sig just felt like it was meant for human hands.

The Smith & Wesson was the next most comfortable, despite the rough grip texture, and the Springfield felt fine despite its large size. The FN and Glock share a blocky silhouette that just feels like holding a brick. I’m not the first to say that about a Glock, and I won’t be the last. If you’re used to shooting Glocks, you’ll love it (though it is larger than most). If not, it’ll take some getting used to.

The other component of a handgun’s ergonomics is how comfortable it is to carry. You probably won’t be carrying any of these firearms inside the waistband, which gives you more flexibility. But even if you’re using an OWB hip holster or a chest rig, you should still think about how the shape of a handgun might make it more or less comfortable to carry.

All of the guns weigh about two pounds, though the Glock is definitely the lightest. The Glock is also the shortest (measured from the bottom of the grip to the top of the slide), which will make it easier to carry. The Sig has the shortest slide (though you pay for that with a shorter barrel and slower bullet velocity), and the Smith & Wesson is the thinnest.

None of these guns would be especially burdensome to carry, but the Springfield stood out as the tallest, and its flared magazine well might be more prone to catch on clothing or backpack straps. The “ears” on either side of the FN’s rear sight might also be a problem in this regard, but both complaints are relatively minor.

For me, the Sig’s grip design and its slightly more compact package make it the winner in this category.

All five handguns come from the factory equipped with iron sights as well as cutouts to accept a wide variety of micro-red dots. Each uses a slightly different iron sight setup:

• Sig Sauer: Three-dot white/tritium
• Glock: Front white dot, rear white block
• Smith & Wesson: Three-dot white
• Springfield: Front red fiber optic, rear white half circle
• FN: Front white/tritium, rear gray/tritium

Iron sights are all about personal preference, but I think we can all agree that more visible is usually better. That leaves out the Smith & Wesson and the Glock, neither of which glow in the dark or transmit light. I really liked the Springfield for precision shooting. That front red fiber optic contrasts nicely with the rear white half-circle, and something about the way those shapes fit together improved my accuracy.

That’s great for hunting, but for defensive purposes, I like the FN. The large white dot was the easiest to pick up and the grayed-out rear dots weren’t too distracting. The Sig was similar in that way, but the yellow tritium dot wasn’t as easy to see.

Of course, these days, you may never use the iron sights. Optical red dots are better for hunting, and the technology is now robust enough that even law enforcement and military users trust them in hectic situations. As with the iron sights, each handgun comes with a different mounting system:

• Sig Sauer: Slide cut compatible with Romeo2 and Trijicon RMR (requires sealing plate); no additional mounting plates included.
• Glock: Included adapter plate compatible with Trijicon, Ameriglo, and Holosun (except 509); additional plates available for purchase.
• Smith & Wesson: Included adapter plates allow user to mount a wide range optics, including Trijicon RMR, C-More STS, Leupold Delta Point and Delta Point Pro, Docter, Insight MRDS, Nikon Spur, J-Point and the Crimson Trace 1500.
• Springfield: Slide cut not compatible with any optics. Mounting requires the purchase of a separate mounting plate for $25.
• FN: Included mounting hardware allows user to mount a wide range of optics, including those from Trijicon, Leupold, Doctor, Vortex, and Burris.

The FN wins this battle as well. While the Smith & Wesson can also mount a large range of optics with the included parts, many of these parts are plastic. The FN system appears to be more robust, which is important when you’re talking about the 10mm Auto cartridge. The options for the Glock are more limited, but the included plate is also metal. The Sig and the Springfield suffer from a lack of options, though at least with the Sig you can mount a Romeo out of the box.

This is by far the most important category in this showdown. You can get used to bad ergonomics (just ask Glock owners). Wonky sights can be compensated for, and a bad trigger can get better with wear and practice. But if the gun doesn’t go bang when you need it to, nothing else matters.

I’m pleased to report that, under normal range conditions, all five of these guns ran like sewing machines with both FMJ and hollow point ammunition. I ran rapid fire tests, and none had issues. I loaded up each mag to the top, since mag-fed firearms will sometimes jam with topped-off magazines–no troubles there.

The only gun that had any problems, at least initially, was the Glock. On the first few mags, it locked open on the second-to-last shot when there was still one cartridge in the magazine. But I chalked this up to the gun needing a break-in period since I never experienced that problem again after those first few magazines.

Most modern semi-automatic handguns function well at the range, but you might need it to work in less-than-ideal conditions–like, for instance, sub-zero temperatures. Spring has sprung here in East Texas, so I dropped all five guns in the deep freeze overnight (loaded mag, none in the chamber) and took them out the next afternoon. This isn’t a perfect test, but it’s the best I could do.

Despite a coating of ice on both the guns and the cartridges, all these handguns ran perfectly.

Next, I wanted to see how the pistols handled getting a little dirty. Some of the torture tests you see online are a little over the top–every semi-auto handgun will fail if it’s dragged through a scummy pond. But my butterfingers have definitely dropped a gun or two in the mud, so I made my own mud pie in a bucket, dropped each gun on both sides, and fired off five rounds each.

This test proved to be more of a challenge. The Smith & Wesson loaded the first round but failed to return to battery under its own power on subsequent rounds. The Glock had the same issue. The FN and Springfield had to be racked several times before they would load the first round from the magazine, but then they ran after that. The only gun that took the mud without issues was the Sig. It loaded that first round, shot all five in succession, and locked back on the last.

Of course, this wasn’t what you’d call a rigorous scientific test. I dropped each gun from waist height, and none of them appeared to have significantly more mud on them than the others. But it’s possible an especially large piece of grit got caught in the slide rails on some of the guns and not others. On the other end of the spectrum, some of these handguns may have had oil in just the right places to overcome a little dirt and mud. This makes it less about the gun design and more about whoever is caring for it.

But, whatever the reason, the Sig was the only gun to complete each test without issue, which is why it earns the top spot. Because the others performed well until the mud, and none did markedly better or worse, I’m giving them all a three.

You can no doubt find each handgun at slightly higher or lower prices than those listed at Scheels, but the relative costs will be about the same. The Glock, Smith & Wesson, and Springfield all live in the $600 range, the Sig will cost $100-$200 more, and the FN will run another $100-$200 over that. It is worth noting that if you opt for the non-threaded barrel on the FN, the price will be more comparable to the Sig but still a little higher.

A good trigger won’t turn you into Dan Horner, but it can improve your accuracy. All of the triggers on these handguns functioned safely, but they certainly weren’t all the same.

You can see the poundages in the chart at the top of this article. The Sig and Springfield were the lightest at 5.5 pounds, the FN was next at 6 pounds, and the Glock and Smith & Wesson weighed in at 6.5 pounds. A heavy trigger isn’t necessarily a bad thing, especially on a handgun. What matters is how the trigger press feels as you pull it through.

The Sig had the least amount of “takeup”—the distance the trigger travels from where it rests to where it hits the wall of resistance. You want this takeup to feel smooth until it hits a firm wall, and then you don’t want it to move at all until the wall breaks.

All five triggers suffered from some amount of “mush,” the technical term I use for that slight bit of movement right before the break. The Sig and Springfield were the best in this regard. The takeup was smooth, and they moved just a small fraction of an inch prior to the break. The takeup on the Glock required a fair amount of force compared to the Sig and Springfield, and it was even mushier.

The FN and Smith & Wesson produced almost no mush–meaning, the breaks on those triggers were clean. But they both suffered from extremely creepy takeups. Pulling each trigger to the wall felt gritty, and the takeup distance was long, to boot.

The bottom line is that none of the triggers blew me away. The Sig earned the top spot because it lacked an annoying trigger safety, and there wasn’t anything particularly offensive about pulling it. The Springfield was a close second, but the grip safety in addition to the trigger safety made it less appealing. Creepy triggers can be fixed, which is why the FN and Smith tied for the third spot. The Glock trigger was on par with other Glocks I’ve pulled, but the good news is that there are tons of aftermarket options available.

Accuracy testing handguns is both less important and more subjective than accuracy testing rifles. Less important, because whether you hit or miss a charging grizzly at 20 yards has far more to do with you than with the mechanical accuracy of the handgun. More subjective, because even from a rest, shooting a handgun with iron sights is less precise than a rifle with a magnified optic.

Still, as I’ve said many times before, I need all the help I can get in the field. A more mechanically accurate handgun will increase the odds of hitting my target, which is why I wanted to test these firearms.

All handguns were shot from a Ransom rest positioned 15 yards from the target. Five, five-shot groups were fired with Sig Sauer’s 180-grain full metal jacket loads as well as their 180-grain Elite V-Crown hollow point loads.

As you can see, the Springfield emerged at the top of the chart, followed closely by the Sig Sauer. The Glock and FN were evenly matched, and the Smith & Wesson took up the rear. But as you can also see, none of the handguns shot wildly better or worse than the others. Most groups were between 1.5 and 2 inches, which in my experience is acceptable for a semi-auto at 15 yards.

With 26 points, the Sig Sauer P320 X-Ten barely beat out the Springfield XDM Elite to win the top spot. The FN landed in the middle of the pack, and the Glock and Smith & Wesson tied for fifth.

• Sig Sauer: 26 points
• Springfield: 25 points
• FN: 20 points
• Glock: 17 points
• Smith & Wesson: 17 points