New Handgun Cartridge Development

[44 AMP]

Take a .30-30 case, shorten to 10mm length, ream for 10mm bullet.
Peen the rim to increase its thickness and reduce its diameter.

Why would you need to increase rim thickness??? Turning down the rim to reduce diameter, I can see where that might be needed to fit 6 in a small (med size) cylinder. We're talking about a gun made for the ".40 Special", right? Not a converted 10mm. so there wouldn't have to be a space for moon clips that needed filling.

Also, not sure the ,30-30 is a good choice, to shorten and ream to .40cal.

Going by the drawings in my Hornady book, (and assuming I'm reading things right -do check for yourself), the .30-30 is a couple thousandths smaller at the case head than the 10mm is at the case mouth. And the case body tapers so its even smaller by the time you get from the head out to the point where you're going to make the new pistol case mouth.

SO, it seems to me that would require a multi step process to "blow the case body out straight" , and THEN ream the thick body brass down enough to take a 10mm bullet. And that's IF with the taper removed there is enough room to work with, because even straight the case would be about .002" too small in diameter to match book specs. AND add in the factor that the book specs are maximums and virtually all brass is slightly LESS than that, so its not impossible that the .30-30 case might actually be just a tiny bit too small in diameter to use in the ".40 Special" project.

A better starting point might be the .30-40 Krag case, its larger at the head than the .30-30 and still smaller in diameter there than the .30-06 family of cases. However, using the Krag case brings it own set of complications.

First , shortened to .998" (10mm case length) it would be a tapered round, not a straight body one. Not insurmountable, but I don't think that's what you're looking for.

Second, the large Krag rim would probably need to be turned down to reduce the diameter in order to get 6 (or even 5?) to fit in the cylinder.

And third, Krag brass isn't easy to find these days, and if Krag shooters find you cutting up their scarce (and expensive) rare cases, they would be very tempted to shoot you! (someplace non lethal, like your butt, hopefully...)

It might be cheaper, and I think easier work, to get some like minded investors and put up the cash to order 100,000 (or whatever they require) from Starline to get them to make the case you want, new.

And then, of course, the cash to get the gun you want, made in that cartridge. Spendy start up costs no matter how you go about it, from what I can see. Upside, if you have the money to do it, you're in a position to name it, and get in the gun history books, and sell it to other interested folks.

I do not think there is a rimmed "parent" case that is ideal for what you want, but if you've got the $$$ you could have them made. If you've got enough $$$ you can get anything made.

[Jim Watson]

I was thinking of a true 10mm Auto Rim with thick (thickened) rim for use in existing 10mm Norma clip guns from Ruger and Smith. .30-30 is within a thousandth of 10mm head diameter, correcting the rim and straightening the sidewalls is left as an exercise for the student.

If you want a real .40 revolver, Herter's did it.

These internet thought experiments, I always assume the OP has either equipment and skills or money and contacts to get the work done. Saying "they" ought to turn out a new product for his convenience does not count.

There was an old article about using .303 Savage cases to make .41 Magnum, including cylinder length shot shells. Talk about hurting somebody's feelings sawing off scarce brass.

[ThomasT]

Good thoughts on the case forming job to make a 40 caliber case to fit a 10mm gun. But I'll never do it. And I looked at the shop Ruger to see about extra clips. Then I found you need the special moon clip loading tool plus a special tool to remove the fired cases. And yo have to buy a mandrel that fits the case mouth for the clip loading tool.

The total for three extra moon clips and the assorted tools was $103 plus shipping and what ever taxes you have to pay now. So no thanks, it ain't gonna happen.

I guess if I wanted a mid size big bore gun I would just try to find one of the 44 Specials Ruger made on the GP-100 frame. In the end it was just an idea.

My 4 and 6 inch 357s look better all the time. Matter of fact I think they are about perfect.

[mrt949]

357 mag period

[Jim Watson]

My 4 and 6 inch 357s look better all the time.

When you study what can be done with 180 and 200 grain .357 Magnums, the urge for a .40, .41, or .44 non-magnum does not seem so strong.

[stagpanther]

How about a Glock 20 that can shoot a 9mm bullet at over 2400 fps and almost 900 ft lbs of energy? 9x 25 Dillon has been around a long time.

[44 AMP]

What 9mm bullet and barrel length is giving 2,400fps?

The info I found on the 9x25 is with a 6" barrel and says the 90gr hits 2,100fps and the 115gr 1800fps. So where's 2,400 coming from? 8"? 10??

If you're for the most speed from a .35 cal repeating handgun, I suggest you check the ballistics on a round that could be called the "9x33", but isn't.

[wild cat mccane]

Also, the logic of the most FPS in a round are the thoughts of yester years.

HST. Slow round. 9mm's best performing hollow point.

So...

[stagpanther]

The info I found on the 9x25 is with a 6" barrel and says the 90gr hits 2,100fps and the 115gr 1800fps. So where's 2,400 coming from? 8"? 10??

15.6 grs AA7 behind 65 gr inceptor out of my glock's 8" (actually slightly under since it was trimmed and crowned) 9 x 25 dillon barrel made for me by Lone Wolf.

[JohnKSa]

The total for three extra moon clips and the assorted tools was $103 plus shipping and what ever taxes you have to pay now. So no thanks, it ain't gonna happen.

Just like buying magazines for semi-auto pistols. Except that once you have the loading/unloading tools, getting more moonclips is way cheaper than buying magazines.

And, of course, since you have moonclips, you save money by not having to buy speedloaders.

[44 AMP]

The total for three extra moon clips and the assorted tools was $103 plus shipping and what ever taxes you have to pay now. So no thanks, it ain't gonna happen.

Do remember that here, you are talking about Ruger, and a proprietary item, and Ruger's recommendation about needed tools, which they also sell.

I have no personal experience with the Ruger 10mm or its clips, but I do have experience with the .45acp and clips for it, full moon, half moon, and even some 2 rnd clips I found at a gun show. And a tool for loading unloading those clips being an inexpensive item, and one not really needed as I can get cases out and ammo in without needing a tool of any kind. One needs to be a little careful not to bend the clips, but I have no trouble doing it.

Point here is, when you choose a niche item, expect to pay niche prices, and if those are too expensive, perhaps you should look in a different niche.

It would be nice if the uncommon stuff was as cheap as the common stuff, but it never has been, and likely never will be.

[micromontenegro]

What the world needs is a centerfire .22 LR, something like the inafmous Col. Askins' wildcat.

[jackstrawIII]

What the world needs is a centerfire .22 LR, something like the inafmous Col. Askins' wildcat.

That would be awesome.

[stinkeypete]

Centerfire .22 ... that's why some of us love the .32 long. All the advantages of a .22 while still being big enough to get the powder in without a magnifying glass.

[ballardw]

Originally Posted by micromontenegro

What the world needs is a centerfire .22 LR, something like the inafmous Col. Askins' wildcat.

Like this? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velo-dog

Of interest from that:

originally fired the 5.75 mm (.22 calibre) Velo-dog cartridge, although many of the Velo-Dogs produced after 1900 accepted .22 LR or .25 ACP rounds

I member an ancient article where the round was prohibited as a "center-fire" in pistol competition a long time ago. Think recoil advantage compared to .38 Special.

Or more recently 22 CCM, load data here
https://specialtypistols.infopop.cc/...8&s=9066056864

[44 AMP]

While a .22 Centerfire "LR" size is appealing, its not going to happen soon, if ever. First off, its only benefit is to reloaders, but more importantly, right now they aren't making enough regular primers to meet demand, so making a special new primer that would fit a .22LR sized case isn't going to happen anytime soon.

You MIGHT find a bit of a market for a .25 acp necked down to .22, but I think economic factors would work against it, as well as some tech issues.

I have a .22 Hornet rifle and handgun, I could create .22LR level loads but as long as I have (and can get) .22lr there's no point, and with today's shortages, even less reason than there used to be.

[micromontenegro]

What Askins did was take the Velo-Dog, tinker a bit with the case, and load it up to .22LR levels. He was famously disqualified from a centerfire competition he had easily won, LOL.

But his idea is a good one, even for non-reloaders. Centerfire reliability is miles ahead of rimfire.

[Pathfinder45]

I have long thought that if you cut a 30-30 case to a length appropriate for a single-action revolver and set up for bullets of around .375" or so, would work admirably in both revolver and lever-gun. 375 Colt Magnum, anyone? It should have already been done, but perhaps there in no real need that can't be filled by already existent calibers.

[Jim Watson]

Dan Wesson made some .375 Magnum revolvers.

[44 AMP]

but perhaps there in no real need that can't be filled by already existent calibers.

this is the thing that kills most of the new cartridge ideas. And its touched on in the OP, in the rifle world, we are almost constantly deluged by new cartridges that are just a little different in specifics but rarely do anything significantly different than existing rounds, yet people buy them.

The reverse is true with the general buying public when it comes to handguns. Unless you find a niche that hasn't been filled AND that niche is something the buying public now recognizes it wants filled, your new cartridge will get a look, and then a pass over.

I have long thought that if you cut a 30-30 case to a length appropriate for a single-action revolver and set up for bullets of around .375" or so, would work admirably in both revolver and lever-gun. 375 Colt Magnum, anyone?

first question, what is an "appropriate case length for a Single Action revolver?? We already HAVE SA revolvers that take full length .30-30 and even .45-70!

Next point, .375 has never been a popular handgun caliber in cartridge firearms. Our "38s" are actually 35s (just under .36 mostly) and the next stop up the caliber ladder has always been 40/41. Choose a 9mm/38 bore or a 40/41, 44, 45 caliber bore and there's well over a century of bullet designs to pick from right away. .375 pistol bullets?....(crickets chirping...) and that WILL matter to many prospective buyers.

And lastly (for now) Why COLT???

Colt hasn't exactly been a leader in coming up with new handgun cartridges lately. Off the top of my head, I can't think of any in the past hundred years or so. .38 Super, maybe, but that wasn't really a new cartridge, but a new (high pressure) loading for an older, existing round. Were I going to choose a "famous firearm name" noted for innovation. Colt would not be high on my list.

[Jim Watson]

Colt and Winchester commercialized the 9x23 Win.
Is that enough different from 9x23 Bergman Bayard or 9x23 CP Elite to count?
External dimensions are the same, but case construction and loading are very different.
Too bad it was a commercial flop and remains a niche round; a small niche.

[Pathfinder45]

....because Colt once had a reputation for revolvers of legendary proportions....And they need to pull something out of their hat. But it could just as well be a new caliber for Ruger, and now that Ruger owns Marlin, there could be some really innovative collaborations....
But, there's really no need to gamble on another probable commercial failure....
I am still surprised the 6.5 Creedmoor has done so well, so you never really know... The manufacturers just have to capture our collective imaginations in sufficient numbers to make it work.

[jetinteriorguy]

If you want to know what happens with a ‘new’ pistol caliber, just look up the .357ROF(Ring of Fire).

[JohnKSa]

Excellent example of what I was talking about in my post.

The size constraints of the handgun that the round was made to operate in and the operating pressure constraints worked together to ensure that the performance of the round was basically a duplication of existing rounds and offered no new benefits.

If the round had been made significantly longer, then it could have outperformed existing rounds, but the grip of a firearm designed to use the round would have to be quite large--effectively beyond the size of any practically sized handgun grips. In fact the gun the cartridge was made to fit in at its final design length is already one that draws common complaints about a grip that's too large.

Furthermore, if it could have been made to perform significantly better than already existing rounds, it's not clear that there would be much of a market for it given that recoil tolerance does create a practical (though inexact) top limit on performance. That's likely the reason that the rounds that it duplicated are not at all commonly used.

[44 AMP]

The size and power of handgun cartridges are governed by "laws". Some natural, some man made.

And, no matter what you do, somebody isn't happy with it. And that's a big part of the problem right there.

"Has to fit in an existing gun" (or frame size)
That's a biggie. And its the reason several of our cartridges are what they are.

The reason we have a .44 Magnum, and not a .45 magnum was that in the 50s when Elmer Keith was doing his loads to develop his desired power level, he had to use existing guns. What he discovered was his desired performance level created pressure too much for existing .45 caliber pistols. He blew up a couple doing it. (at least, some say 3)

He then switched to .44 caliber and was successful because the smaller caliber gun had more steel where it mattered most and was able to contain Keith's loads without failing.

Another one, in the opposite direction, sort of, is the .40 S&W. this time, it was not a matter of gun strength, but of user ability. And bureaucracy.

Because of the conclusions drawn from the Miami Shootout, the FBI wanted something "better" than the 9mm Luger. They chose the 10mm. However, both the round and the S&W pistol chosen were bigger and more difficult for enough of their agents to handle that qualification scores went down.

The FBI then went to a reduced power 10mm load, and while the "10mm lite" load had sufficient power to satisfy their requirements, the large 10mm guns were still a problem.

The solution came from S&W creating a short 10mm case, taking the "10mm lite" load and fitting in the existing 9mm frame size, which the majority of agents could handle well enough to meet qualification requirements.

remember that situation was an agency requirement, not an individual one. The problem could have been handled by allowing each agent to use whatever they chose and could qualify with. BUT, large govt agencies simply don't work that way. They require everyone to use the same thing and meet the same standards with it.

Other "laws" governing handgun cartridges are size, and fit in the hand. And the need for those to be within what average people can manage, in order to achieve commercial success.

The standard service rounds today, designed to fit in the grip magazine of semi autos are all approximately 1.3" (or less) loaded length. This works for the majority of people. Magnum revolver rounds (not originally designed to fit in the grip) run about 1.6" (+/-), and when those length rounds are put in the pistol grip they result in a grip that is too large for the MAJORITY of people. There are a lot of people who can manage the larger grip, but too many that simply are not physically big enough (hands) to do so. SO, the market for those guns (and cartridges) is limited by that.

Adding to that limitation is the LEGAL requirement (in many places) that the ammunition MUST BE in the pistol grip. Thanks to our politicians and various activists, today, pistols with magazines not in the grip are frequently classified as "assault weapons" and various legal restrictions, even complete bans in some places are the LAW, these days.

And another of the "laws" is the market. Popular opinion, along with physical characteristics drives the market. And popularity is a shifting sand, what was once popular no longer is, and some things that were never that popular now are. Very few people want a smaller, less effective round, though many want a smaller gun. Too much recoil, too big a gun, too heavy, in popular opintion, all restrict the market share. And this affects potential viability for any new cartrige (or gun) design.

Literally, there is no free lunch.

If you want it to be something other than a niche round, you have to provide something that is some level of significant improvement over what is available today. And that, isn't easy.