The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > Hogan's Alley > Handguns: General Handgun Forum

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old October 14, 2021, 09:39 PM   #26
Shadow9mm
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 21, 2012
Location: Indianapolis, IN
Posts: 2,056
Quote:
Originally Posted by 44 AMP View Post
only in a semi auto, and now only thanks to stupid laws that define handguns with magazines out side the grips as assault weapons, (and as such prohibited in some states). Think of some Olympic match pistols and the classic C96 "Broomhandle" Mauser, which do not have magazines in the grip frame.

Or, for that matter, an AR "pistol". None of these has cartridge length limited by what an average person can get their hand around.

Also.


Some are bolt action and some are gas operated, I have examples of both, but they are not common and not what most people look for (and by most I mean volume of numbers). The standard service pistols for over a century have mostly been locked breech, not delayed blowback, but that is not for pressure reason, its for size and weight limitations.

The "roller lock" system used by H&K for 50K+psi rifle rounds is a delayed blowback. And the Astra 600 is a straight blowback 9mm Parabellum.

its not that a certain locking system can't/won't contain high pressure, its the PRACTICALITY of making one that will, small enough and light enough to not only work as a handgun, but also be acceptable to the market. (And, the govt).
I understand there are many types of pistols. However semi auto, magazine in grip, and revolvers still reign as the primary forms. The others are absolutely awesome and I have the utmost respect for them, but they are generally the exception to the rule based on what I have seen.

In relation to AR Pistols type. While I understand that they are technically pistols, I don't consider them to be. In GENERAL, I don't consider Rifles or Sub machine gun designs that have had their stock removed to be classified as pistols, to be pistols. This is my personal opinion on the matter, simply how I look at it, not trying to make waves, just trying to clarify the view point from which I am coming. I am happy for them and the people that like them. I think they need to abolish NFA.

In relation to the single shot and bolt action target type pistols, most follow the lines of precision bolt cartridges and wildcats in relation to cartridge development from what I have seen.
__________________
I don't believe in "range fodder" that is why I reload.

Last edited by Shadow9mm; October 14, 2021 at 09:45 PM.
Shadow9mm is offline  
Old October 14, 2021, 09:45 PM   #27
Dobe
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 28, 2004
Posts: 1,343
Quote:
Originally Posted by jackstrawIII View Post
You’re right, to say that I’m only interested in 3 pistol cartridges is a gross exaggeration. And people with different needs/interests (such as handgun hunting, “duty use” whatever that means, pocket guns, cowboy action shooting, and more) have a much broader set of interests than I do.

But, I guess that’s the point. With so many handgun shooters in the world with such a wide distribution of interests, and with the known shortcomings and limitations of the rounds that exist… why doesn’t “the industry” give us more new options on a regular basis? And again, the reason I ask is because they’re tripping over themselves to release new rifle cartridges, so they obviously are making money doing it. Why is there no money in new pistol development?

I have some theories, but I want to hear other people’s ideas.

Why? Physics. Rifle cartridges operate at much higher pressures and longer barrels. These two factors give a lot of flexibility for cartridge creativity.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Dobe is offline  
Old October 15, 2021, 08:59 AM   #28
wild cat mccane
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 22, 2011
Posts: 2,656
Armscor released the 22TCM. Armscor released more gun options than the 5.7 has right now. Federal still makes 5.7 ammunition to this very tight 9mm only manufacturing climate.

Gun options were/are the Armscor 1911 22TCM/9mm, MAPP full, MAPP compact.

22TCM is still cheap. 22TCM hollow point box of 50 can still be found for 9mm FMJ.

If gun buyers didn't buy that, there basically isn't going to be a new handgun caliber made in an serious level of production. Ever.

Prove me wrong.
__________________
My wife is a pulmonologist (respiratory Dr) and epidemiologist. If you have any questions on COVID, please reach out to me in PM.
wild cat mccane is offline  
Old October 15, 2021, 09:45 AM   #29
Jim Watson
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 25, 2001
Location: Alabama
Posts: 17,317
Quote:
Consider the .357 SIG cartridge, by all accounts it is a fantastic round which statistically duplicates the performance of the legendary .357 Magnum Law Enforcement loads, yet it has practically fallen completely out of the race when it comes to what Law Enforcement officers and civilians alike are carrying. Why?
Also it performs like a .357 Magnum revolver but it also shoots like a .357 Magnum, only moreso because the usual Glock is a lot lighter than a revolver. Loud report and hard recoil make it a demanding gun to shoot well, especially for "small statured officers" and low training budget departments.

Quote:
.44 Auto Mag was designed in the 60s and came out in commercially in 1970. Only chambered in the Auto Mag pistol, as far as I know
Cut the case down, say to 10mm length, work up loading data.
We discussed that in the ".44 Russian Auto" thread and I pointed out that the .44 Auto Mag has the same head diameter as .45 ACP, so shortening it for a .45 ACP or 10mm length gun would just mean more taper down to a .44 neck. That would get you a wide selection of .44 bullets but those are not shaped to feed in an auto.
Jim Watson is offline  
Old October 15, 2021, 11:39 AM   #30
Shadow9mm
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 21, 2012
Location: Indianapolis, IN
Posts: 2,056
Quote:
Originally Posted by Forte S+W View Post
Consider the .357 SIG cartridge, by all accounts it is a fantastic round which statistically duplicates the performance of the legendary .357 Magnum Law Enforcement loads, yet it has practically fallen completely out of the race when it comes to what Law Enforcement officers and civilians alike are carrying. Why? Because if you shoot it into a block of gelatin it just doesn't appear to do anything that the 9mm Luger cartridge cannot. But how can that be? It's just a more powerful 9mm, right? It's higher velocity and delivers more energy than 9mm Luger, so in must be better. Indeed it is, but without a proper testing medium to adequately showcase the advantages, it just doesn't look any better.
I would say that the .357 Sig was DESIGNED and INTENDED to duplicate .357 magnum performance. However Based on what I have seen it falls far short of the 357 magnum and perhaps only meets 9mm +P or +P+ loadings.
__________________
I don't believe in "range fodder" that is why I reload.
Shadow9mm is offline  
Old October 15, 2021, 11:54 AM   #31
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 24,279
Quote:
I pointed out that the .44 Auto Mag has the same head diameter as .45 ACP, so shortening it for a .45 ACP or 10mm length gun would just mean more taper down to a .44 neck. That would get you a wide selection of .44 bullets but those are not shaped to feed in an auto.
I don't understand what your concern about the taper is. Looking at the case drawings the .44 Auto Mag has exactly the same difference in size between the case head and the case mouth that the 9mm Luger does, 0.014"

Yes, shortening the .44 case back to 1" or even less would increase the angle of taper slightly, but I can't see where that would be a significant, let alone detrimental thing. Most of the time, a tapered case is an aid to feeding, not a drawback.

Other point, as a .44 Auto shooter, I can tell you with certainty that there are quite a number of .44 bullets that will feed just fine in an auto (or at least in mine). Virtually every jacketed .44 bullet common will work fine.

I've used jacketed bullets from Speer, Sierra, Hornady and Remington in my .44 autos and they've all done just fine, without any need for polishing, or otherwise tuning the guns to get them to feed a bullet. And those bullets are all I feed my Desert Eagle and Auto Mags in weights from 180-240gr.

Even the Remington "scallop jacket" 240 JHP, where the front 1/3 of the bullet is exposed lead fed just fine. And if any slug was going to hang up, I'd expect that design to be the one, but it doesn't, in my guns, anyway.

Fwiw, I have run a handful of (hard lead) SWC loads through my Auto Mag, and they fed fine, as well. SO, in my experience the jacketed .44 bullets are shaped to feed in a semi auto, even if that was not the designer's primary intent when they were created.

However, I cannot say with certainty that all would feed in a shorter .44 case. By necessity, the magnum length rounds must present flatter in order to feed in a pistol due to their length. They cannot make the "sharp turn" that short rounds like 9mm Luger and .45ACP do in some of the guns designed for them. And this might make a difference in whether or not a specific .44 bullet will feed well, or not. It will depend on the way the gun used to shoot it is made, I think.
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is offline  
Old October 15, 2021, 01:40 PM   #32
jackstrawIII
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 20, 2016
Location: Upstate NY.
Posts: 796
My first theory on why we don't see as much handgun cartridge development:

In the rifle world, there is the belief that "speed kills" and "speed beats armor." This phenomenon can be debated, but regardless, the terminal benefits of speed (disproportionate wounding beyond caliber size) don't really start to show up with small bore bullets until impact velocity reaches approx 2600 fps or so.

When you come to handguns (I'm talking self-defense type handguns, which are unquestionably the vast majority of the market)... that level speed is simply unattainable due to short barrels and other limitations of the platform, without turning to ridiculously small/light projectiles that would bring in their own set of issues.

So, we must rely on bullet size and mass to "do the work." That's why we've seen increasingly larger and more powerful revolver rounds come to market in the past. But here again, reality comes crashing in and the limitations of a handheld shooting platform that you can carry in a holster severely limit how big and heavy we can go.

What am I saying? Basically, the innovation window for the handheld self-defense handgun is relatively small due to physical constraints that won't be surmountable until the technology dramatically changes.

Ps. The 5.7x28 cartridge came close to beating these restrictions... but I'll discuss that cartridge when I post my next theory.
__________________
In God we trust.
jackstrawIII is offline  
Old October 15, 2021, 02:03 PM   #33
jackstrawIII
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 20, 2016
Location: Upstate NY.
Posts: 796
My second theory is more philosophical.

Here's the difference:
- In most circles (excluding military and LE) the vast majority of rifles/cartridges are designed/purchased with recreational purposes in mind. Hunting, target shooting, plinking, etc.*
- In most circles (excluding competitive shooting) the vast majority of pistols/cartridges are designed/purchased with self-defense purposes in mind. Civilian, military, LE, wilderness survival, etc.

Why this matters:
- Because our rifles are being used recreationally, we love to experiment, tweak, fiddle, mess with, innovate, etc. Since the stakes are low, we use our "rifle resources" towards a lot of UNNECESSARY "playing" which leads to constant innovation.
- Because our pistols are being used for defense, we focus our energy on training with something we know will work, instead of playing around trying to find something better. Since the stakes are so high, we use our "pistol resources" towards developing the NECESSARY skills needed to survive.

This pragmatic view towards handguns makes sense. Let's use 9mm as an example, (realizing that the same is basically true for 45 acp, 40sw, 38 spl, etc):
- 9mm is (relatively) cheap, therefor I can shoot more of it, to become more proficient with my chosen weapon
- 9mm is (relatively) slow, and won't punch holes through my steel targets
- 9mm is (relatively) quiet, and won't blow my eardrums out if I have to use it
- Etc.

Whereas, something like the 5.7x28 (which has been one of the more successful "new" handgun rounds since the 90s):
- is more expensive, so I can shoot it less
- is relatively fast and will ruin my steel targets (though still not over the approx 2600 fps needed to cause disproportionate to caliber wounding)
- is insanely loud and I would never want to shoot it without ear protection
- etc.

This is not a bash of the 5.7 (which is a cool little cartridge in its own right)... I'm just postulating that we (the consumer) approach pistol and rifle rounds from a different place philosophically, which impacts how the industry meets consumer desires.

Thoughts?

*Yes, I know many people purchase AR type rifles exclusively for self defense use. But that is a very small piece of the pie, as seen by the explosion of AR type rifles in various hunting configurations.
__________________
In God we trust.

Last edited by jackstrawIII; October 15, 2021 at 02:11 PM.
jackstrawIII is offline  
Old October 15, 2021, 10:22 PM   #34
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 24,279
Quote:
In most circles (excluding competitive shooting) the vast majority of pistols/cartridges are designed/purchased with self-defense purposes in mind.
Purchased, sure, the majority of rounds purchased are in the common self defense cartridges. Vast majority designed with self defense in mind? I'm not so sure. Majority, perhaps, but vast majority?

SO, help me out here, which rounds, (and lets just go from the end of WWII on up) do you feel have been designed with self defense in mind as their primary purpose (and I'll include LEO use in that).

I can think of the .40 S&W, and .357 Sig, possibly the 10mm but I don't see anything bigger being designed with self defense as the main focus. None of the magnum class rounds were intended for that. And I can think of several cartridges designed for advantage in different shooting games, which while they could serve as self defense rounds, (anything can, with pros and cons,) but they were not designed for that.

There have been a few new .32 cal rounds in recent decades, but none of them, even the most powerful, is generally considered to be a good self defense round.

And then there's the 5.7mm. Designed by FN to be an armor piercing round, able to go through helmets and Soviet body armor. However, those rounds are not legal for civilian sale in the US. What is available is pretty close to .22WMR ballistics. And both the gun and the ammo are comparatively spendy.

You are entirely right about the size and weight limits a handgun requires restricting variation more than in rifle rounds. Here's another point to consider, a LOT of the guns and ammo bought in the last few years has not been bought by "shooters". A lot of those people don't practice much, if any, they're not interested in "honing their skills" they just want a gun to have for emergency use, only. And those people, most who have little knowledge of firearms and ammo have very low interest in new (and unproven) rounds.

They are quite likely to have heard, and believe, the hoary old myths about different cartridges (and guns), OR they want what they saw used in a movie.

Consider also, that perhaps, the innovation you're expecting as new handgun cartridges isn't going into new cartridges, but into new improved BULLET designs for existing rounds.

People take reliable JHP bullets as a given today, but I remember well the days when that was not the case. I can even remember the days when the big ammo makers didn't even OFFER JHP bullets in anything other than one or two (magnum) cartridges. Regular revolver rounds were loaded with lead bullets and semi auto rounds were all FMJ. If you wanted something else, you got it by handloading, because the makers of bullets for handloading offered JHPs and other things the big ammo makers did not.

And I also remember the days when the big makers began offering JHPs and how it took some time (years in some cases) before they achieved reliable, dependable performance.

Another point to consider, is, wildcatters. There are still people who create new cartridges and do it just for their own satisfaction without plans to make them commercial items.

One fellow I knew loved small bores and created several cartridges on his own by necking DOWN .32 and .25ACP. One of his favorites was what he named the ".14 Flea" a necked down .25 acp case. Neat round, fun, too, but never intended for self defense or marketability.

Popularity and market success in only ONE way to measure the worth of a cartridge. Its the way ammo and gun makers, who sell those things for a living and a profit measure things, but its not the only way.

There are literally tons of good rounds (mostly rifle but not all) that did a fair, decent, or even a good job but didn't sell well enough for the makers to keep them in production. Remington alone created and then later abandoned lots of rifle rounds in the last 50 some years, and Winchester has done its share of that, as well.
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is offline  
Old October 15, 2021, 10:24 PM   #35
Sgt127
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 13, 2002
Posts: 992
I’m not sure what could be developed that hasn’t already been made, tried, found lacking or, found favor and is still around.

From .22 short to the S&W 500.

If you asked me to develop a new handgun cartridge, I have no idea what I could come up with. That’s hasn’t been done before.
Sgt127 is offline  
Old October 15, 2021, 10:24 PM   #36
JohnKSa
Staff
 
Join Date: February 12, 2001
Location: DFW Area
Posts: 23,921
Handguns exist because of the need for firearms that are small and easy to carry. Otherwise, no one would have invented them and we would only have long guns.

Some of that purely practical consideration is a bit blurred these days by legal definitions, but the bottom line is that handguns were born out of a need for compact, portable, light and potentially concealable firearms.

That places (admittedly vague) top limits on the size and weight of practical/traditional handguns.

People don't have an unlimited tolerance for recoil, so that's another limit--albeit another vague limit.

Recoil is related to performance--in the form of muzzle momentum which is the product of projectile weight and velocity at the muzzle. It's also related to the weight of the handgun by the principle of conservation of momentum.

Modern manufacturing and metallurgy, combined with practical size and weight limitations place top limits on the discharge pressure.

None of that applies so much to the "novelty" handguns like the super-magnum revolver cartridges (e.g. 500S&WMagnum, .454Casull) or handguns designed to shoot rifle cartridges--obviously if you are willing to stretch the size/weight constraints or tolerate really high levels of recoil and rifle pressure levels then you can push the performance limits much higher. What I'm talking about is more directed towards more traditional handguns in terms of size/weight/applications.

In addition, because traditional handgun applications are relatively short range, not all bullet design advantages that have benefited rifle cartridges are especially applicable to handguns.

Anyway, wrap all of that into one big package and the result is not only a practical top limit on the performance of handgun cartridges that are intended for traditional handgun uses, but also a limit that is relatively constant. I think that means that barring some sort of significant technology advances, or perhaps laws that push the basic limits around in some fashion, there's unlikely to be a lot of innovation in terms of new handgun cartridges. The ones we have cover the spectrum of reasonable handgun performance very well and you have to look really hard for gaps that can be filled in by new cartridges.
__________________
Do you know about the TEXAS State Rifle Association?
JohnKSa is offline  
Old October 16, 2021, 08:04 AM   #37
gbclarkson
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 4, 2014
Location: None of yer business, sonny
Posts: 412
Quote:
- is more expensive, so I can shoot it less
Economics, me thinks, is the limiting factor. Newly introduced handgun cartridges are more expensive than established; new shooters will exclude the new ammo because of the cost; high-volume recreational shooters (formerly me) will also; occasional budget shooters (like me) certainly will not buy a novelty round; manufactures hesitate to introduce guns for new cartridges because they will not sell initially. A huge chunk of the consumer market is priced out thus a new and expensive niche cartridge is destined from the start to become an permanent and expensive niche cartridge. So, why try to make a new handgun cartridge?

Glock still has .45 GAP advertised on their website. Did anyone else make a pistol for .45 GAP? Is Sig giving up on .357 SIG? The P226, their flagship pistol, has 4 options listed on the website, all 9mm. .357 is mentioned as an option at the bottom of the page.
gbclarkson is offline  
Old October 16, 2021, 02:28 PM   #38
jackstrawIII
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 20, 2016
Location: Upstate NY.
Posts: 796
Quote:
SO, help me out here, which rounds, (and lets just go from the end of WWII on up) do you feel have been designed with self defense in mind as their primary purpose (and I'll include LEO use in that).

I can think of the .40 S&W, and .357 Sig, possibly the 10mm but I don't see anything bigger being designed with self defense as the main focus. None of the magnum class rounds were intended for that.
44 AMP,

I’m surprised that you don’t think the magnums were developed for self defense. 357, 44 mag, etc. If not, then what were they created for? Genuinely curious.

As far as others since WW2 for self defense/military, besides the magnums, I can think of:
- 327 Fed
- 45 Gap
- 32 NAA
- 5.7x28

I’m sure there are more… but it’s certainly not many in the last 75 years.
__________________
In God we trust.
jackstrawIII is offline  
Old October 16, 2021, 03:50 PM   #39
74A95
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 26, 2016
Posts: 1,233
357 - LE, and possibly hunting. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.357_Magnum

44 - hunting. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.44_Magnum
74A95 is offline  
Old October 16, 2021, 03:59 PM   #40
ThomasT
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 22, 2009
Location: Texas
Posts: 2,732
My only wish is for someone to put a revolver rim on a 10mm and 40S&W case and chamber it in a 6 shot GP-100 or L-Frame S&W. No need for the goofy moon clips that I do not like. Just a real revolver round in a not so huge gun.

Make the internal case dimensions the same so you can use the already existing load data. I would like that better than the 5 shot 44 special Ruger makes. If they still make it.

Other than that I can't see another handgun round needed. And this isn't needed. I just want it. I thought the 40S&W was the best round ever given to LE. More capacity than a 45 and similar energy. I reload and like a gun that doesn't throw my brass all over the place.

Or just put a rim on a 10mm case. Then you can load to any power level you want.
ThomasT is offline  
Old October 16, 2021, 05:29 PM   #41
stinkeypete
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 22, 2010
Location: Madison, Wisconsin
Posts: 927
Thomas, just get a .41 magnum and be happy. Your Redhawk is waiting for you. Because if you’re going to load it up, at least really load it up!

You’re trying to invent the .41 Special.
__________________
I hunt, shoot bullseye, plink, reload, and tinker with firearms. I have hung out with the Cowboy Action fellas. I have no interest in carrying firearms in urban areas.
stinkeypete is offline  
Old October 16, 2021, 06:23 PM   #42
Jim Watson
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 25, 2001
Location: Alabama
Posts: 17,317
Too bad the .401 Herters was a flop.
Jim Watson is offline  
Old October 16, 2021, 06:49 PM   #43
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 24,279
Quote:
44 AMP,

I’m surprised that you don’t think the magnums were developed for self defense. 357, 44 mag, etc. If not, then what were they created for? Genuinely curious.
I'm surprised that you are surprised.

None of the magnums, including the.357 was intended as a personal defense arm. In fact, early S&W ads said the .357 was intended for outdoorsmen and law enforcement. it wasn't thought of as an everyone gun for self defense. And in 1935 law enforcement needs were different than "ordinary" self defense needs.

It has since been very successfully adapted for that, but self defense wasn't what they had in mind when they created it.

Elmer Keith who developed the .44 Magnum wasn't looking for a self defense round either. The point was to develop the most powerful pistol round practical, for hunting. There is simply too much recoil for cops (or anyone else, generally) to be able to shoot it well enough, FAST enough for it to be a satisfactory defense round. Power is not the issue, controllability, is.

Dirty Harry is FICTION. And even he admitted in one scene that he used .44 Specials, not magnums.

There have been other rounds that really only made "niche" status, and never caught on with the general public. .451 Detonics, .460 Rowland, .440 CorBon, intended to go in 1911a1 type guns. THose were all seeking to increase the power of the .45ACP, and those I would consider designed with defense use in mind.

There are more, "ultra mag" or "Maximum" revolver rounds, intended for max power for hunting and long range shooting. There have been a few "stretched" 9mm caliber rounds, 9x23, 9x25, intended for race gun speed shooting matches.

And none of the really big ones, .475, .480 and the .50s were ever thought of as self defense rounds.

I really don't see how you could have thought otherwise.
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is offline  
Old October 17, 2021, 08:49 AM   #44
jetinteriorguy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 28, 2013
Posts: 2,236
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThomasT View Post
My only wish is for someone to put a revolver rim on a 10mm and 40S&W case and chamber it in a 6 shot GP-100 or L-Frame S&W. No need for the goofy moon clips that I do not like. Just a real revolver round in a not so huge gun.

Make the internal case dimensions the same so you can use the already existing load data. I would like that better than the 5 shot 44 special Ruger makes. If they still make it.

Other than that I can't see another handgun round needed. And this isn't needed. I just want it. I thought the 40S&W was the best round ever given to LE. More capacity than a 45 and similar energy. I reload and like a gun that doesn't throw my brass all over the place.

Or just put a rim on a 10mm case. Then you can load to any power level you want.
You’re talking about a .41 special, brass is available from Starline. I too would like a GP100 chambered thus, although not quite sure you could fit six in this size cylinder.
jetinteriorguy is offline  
Old October 17, 2021, 09:38 AM   #45
Jim Watson
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 25, 2001
Location: Alabama
Posts: 17,317
A hundredth off the diameter with a 10mm Flanged might be the difference in a sixshooter and a five shooter.
Jim Watson is offline  
Old October 17, 2021, 04:31 PM   #46
ThomasT
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 22, 2009
Location: Texas
Posts: 2,732
Quote:
Thomas, just get a .41 magnum and be happy. Your Redhawk is waiting for you. Because if you’re going to load it up, at least really load it up!

You’re trying to invent the .41 Special.
No thanks. I have owned three 41 mags and it was OK but I just went on to the 44 mag. And i'm not looking for a magnum power gun.

Quote:
You’re talking about a .41 special, brass is available from Starline. I too would like a GP100 chambered thus, although not quite sure you could fit six in this size cylinder.
There ya go. Somebody who gets it. I want a mid size gun with 6 shots, not a Redhawk sized gun. If I were going to be limited to 5 shots in a GP-100 sized gun I would just get the GP in 44 Special and be done with it.
ThomasT is offline  
Old October 17, 2021, 04:51 PM   #47
JohnKSa
Staff
 
Join Date: February 12, 2001
Location: DFW Area
Posts: 23,921
You must really dislike moon clips. Your ideal gun is available from Ruger and S&W--you just have to either use moon clips or be willing to poke the empy cases out of the cylinder one at a time.
__________________
Do you know about the TEXAS State Rifle Association?
JohnKSa is offline  
Old October 17, 2021, 07:18 PM   #48
ThomasT
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 22, 2009
Location: Texas
Posts: 2,732
No I don't like Moon Clips but this does look good. I guess I would just have get over my moon clip dislike. But its what I had in mind. The right gun in the right size and weight range. I may have to ask my dealer if he can get one and how much will it run.

https://ruger.com/products/gp100Matc...eets/1775.html

I wonder if Starline could be persuaded to make me 500 10mm Auto Rim cases. I bet not.
ThomasT is offline  
Old October 18, 2021, 04:09 AM   #49
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 24,279
Quote:
I wonder if Starline could be persuaded to make me 500 10mm Auto Rim cases. I bet not.
only 500? No, I don't think they will. Order 10,000 and pay cash up front and it could be a different matter.

No idea what their minimum order would need to be for something they do not already produce. Might need to be much larger, bet if you called them, they'd tell you.
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is offline  
Old October 18, 2021, 08:18 AM   #50
Jim Watson
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 25, 2001
Location: Alabama
Posts: 17,317
Take a .30-30 case, shorten to 10mm length, ream for 10mm bullet.
Peen the rim to increase its thickness and reduce its diameter.
Voi la! A 10mm Auto Rim.
Jim Watson is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:47 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2021 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Page generated in 0.09936 seconds with 11 queries