10mm guns could be chambered in 9x23 win?

[Radny97]

Now that 10mm is the new hotness, with lots of manufacturers releasing new handguns chambered in that cartridge and building strong enough actions to handle the 10mm, l wonder if any of these manufacturers have thought of also chambering these guns in 9x23 win?

The OAL of the two cartridges is nearly identical, so the slide action would not have to be changed. And although the 9x23 is higher pressure, it’s thinner so a 9x23 barrel would have added bulk to deal with that. Plus the casing itself is rated for the pressure of the 9x23.

Seems to me that with some testing a manufacturer could pretty much just swap out the slide on a 10mm gun to 9x23 and have a subcontractor like MecGar do a run of magazines where you just take a 10mm mag and adjust the magazine lips, put in a 9mm follower, and you’d be set.

I have to say that having 9mm capacity in a gun that can shoot 124 gn. bullets at 1500 fps would be pretty attractive to me.

Seems to me that one of the reasons 10mm is getting so popular is because people like a high powered round in a regular sized semiauto (i.e. not a Coonan or Desert Eagle). Chambering guns in 9x23 in the same platform that runs 10mm seems like a good idea to me. Thoughts?



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[CDW4ME]

Delta Elite and Glock 20 been around since early 1990's.

[TruthTellers]

Doubtful because it's not as popular as 10mm is. Even during the last 20 years when 10mm was about obsolete, there was still a large enough following to keep it alive to the point Glock and a few others were making 10's. I know of no manufacturer today who makes a 9x23 and if they do make it, they make it for countries that ban civilian ownership of guns in "military calibers."

.357 Sig gets the same results in a smaller frame. PITA to reload, but the bottleneck design is a reliable feeder.

[Radny97]

Originally Posted by TruthTellers

Doubtful because it's not as popular as 10mm is. Even during the last 20 years when 10mm was about obsolete, there was still a large enough following to keep it alive to the point Glock and a few others were making 10's. I know of no manufacturer today who makes a 9x23 and if they do make it, they make it for countries that ban civilian ownership of guns in "military calibers."

.357 Sig gets the same results in a smaller frame. PITA to reload, but the bottleneck design is a reliable feeder.

True, but 357 sig can’t do the heavier bullets that 9x23 can, has limited bullet profiles, and you have the exact same capacity as 10mm.

I know it’s probably a pipe dream, but i would still love to see a 9x23 double stack gun in production.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[disseminator]

I have to say that having 9mm capacity in a gun that can shoot 124 gn. bullets at 1500 fps would be pretty attractive to me.

357 SIG all day long.

The smaller guns that can shoot the 357 SIG are widely available right now and most 40 cal pistols simply swap the barrel and your good to go.

9x23 is going to offer no advantage whatsoever since the brass will be even more rare than the 357 SIG, and the 357 SIG is 100% with bullets up to and including 147 grains.

Hand-loading has shown my M&P and my SIG 226 are accurate and reliable with the 147 (Speer TMJ and Gold Dot HP) from 1250 to 1300 fps.

What advantage is the 9x23 going to provide over that?

I'm not knocking your dream, but why pine for a fantasy when you can have that performance in the 357 SIG today?

[Dan-O]

Pretty sure lone wolf distributors made a conversion barrel for a while. IIRC, they stopped making them because people refused to follow their instructions on altering 10mm mags to ensure proper feeding.

[stagpanther]

9 x 25 dillon has been out for many years and it's a direct neck down of the 10mm case to hold a 9mm bullet. I have one for my 20SF. It can shoot the 9mm bullet faster than any other conventional based pistol cartridge that I know of. Only drawback I can think of is a relatively short neck for holding the bullets.

[Ben Dover]

Another vote for the 9X25 Dillon.

It's,like you know, man, like totally awesome!

[JohnKSa]

The advantage of the 9x23 over the 9x25Dillon would be increased capacity since the 9x25 is basically a necked down 10mm. That would probably account for another two or three 9x23 rounds that would fit in a 15 round 10mm magazine compared to 9x25 Dillon rounds. In a single-stack mag, it might only be one round extra.

The downside of the 9x23 is that magazines would need to be altered to deal with it while 9x25 rounds will feed out of unaltered 10mm magazines.

[stagpanther]

This is what Mike McNett of Double Tap has to say: [Quote dated in 2005]

"I have more than 25,000rds. through one of my BarSto barrels in 9X25. It looks like it is new. The myths about eroding the throat or the chamber are exactly that....myths. I like both the 9X25 and the 9X23, but the ballistic edge definitely goes to the 9X25. They are both loud and neither of them really have much recoil. DoubleTap Ammunition is the only manufacturer** to ever load the 9X25 commercially and it will remain a permanent fixture of our lineup. the 9X23 may make it into the lineup, but not until the end of the year.
-Mike"

**please note that since McNett made that quote, at least one other manufacturer has begun making and selling 9 x 25 Dillon cartridges.

[74A95]

Here is an article on a Glock 10mm conversion to 9X23.

http://www.shootingtimes.com/gunsmit...23-winchester/

[agtman]

The advantage of the 9x23 over the 9x25Dillon would be increased capacity since the 9x25 is basically a necked down 10mm. That would probably account for another two or three 9x23 rounds that would fit in a 15 round 10mm magazine compared to 9x25 Dillon rounds. In a single-stack mag, it might only be one round extra.

'Capacity advantage'? Huh?

With a single-stack magazine, a 1-round difference in capacity is a wash. No advantage to either cartridge ...

But with the Glock 20's double-stack mag, if you can load 15 rounds of 10mm in the unmodified factory mag, you can load 15 rounds of 9x25 Dillon in it too, the Dillon being merely a 10mm case necked-down to .355/9mm.

So advantage ----> 9x25 - because you don't have to modify a 10mm mag to be able to shoot it (only a barrel swap is needed), and capacity will be the same as what the mag would hold of 10mm rounds.

The downside of the 9x23 is that magazines would need to be altered to deal with it while 9x25 rounds will feed out of unaltered 10mm magazines.

That's correct. So advantage ----> 9x25 Dillon.

[Nanuk]

If I need more power than a 357 Sig or a 357 magnum I have several 44 magnums.

[agtman]

If I need more power than a 357 Sig or a 357 magnum I have several 44 magnums.

In an autoloader? ... for which you need only swap in a barrel to run it?

By the way, the 357Sig isn't even in the same ballpark, ballistically, as the 9x25 Dillon.

[JohnKSa]

'Capacity advantage'? Huh?

With a single-stack magazine, a 1-round difference in capacity is a wash. No advantage to either cartridge ...

A 1 round capacity advantage is a 1 round capacity advantage. It may not be a significant advantage, but it's there. Where it might start to be significant is in a double stack mag where you can gain up to 3 rounds (20%) increase in capacity in a 15 round 10mm mag.

But with the Glock 20's double-stack mag, if you can load 15 rounds of 10mm in the unmodified factory mag, you can load 15 rounds of 9x25 Dillon in it too, the Dillon being merely a 10mm case necked-down to .355/9mm.

Correct, that's why I said that "the advantage of the 9x23 over the 9x25Dillon would be increased capacity". Clearly there's no advantage of the 9x25Dillon over the 10mm in capacity because they both have cases the same diameter.

...9x25 - because you don't have to modify a 10mm mag to be able to shoot it...

Correct, that's why I said that the "downside of the 9x23 is that magazines would need to be altered to deal with it while 9x25 rounds will feed out of unaltered 10mm magazines.

So advantage ----> 9x25 Dillon.

From my perspective, I would agree--I don't have any interest in bending perfectly good magazines. But someone who really wants the extra capacity might see it differently. That's why I provided both sides of the story.

[Nanuk]

In an autoloader? ... for which you need only swap in a barrel to run it?

Did I say that? If I want an auto loader 357 magnum I will get a Coonan.

By the way, the 357Sig isn't even in the same ballpark, ballistically, as the 9x25 Dillon.

I never said it was.

https://www.underwoodammo.com/produc...=7865908887609

https://www.underwoodammo.com/collec...=7865900957753

It is a lot closer than 38 VS 357 which many people disagree with.

https://www.underwoodammo.com/collec...=7865902465081

But the 357 magnum is.

We don't all need hicap auto loaders.

[Red-5]

For a 9x23, just use a 38 Super mag which are plentiful.

[tipoc]

For a 9x23, just use a 38 Super mag which are plentiful.

Typically the way to go if you want 9x23 is to have an extra barrel made for a 38 Super. The Super is the parent cartridge, so to speak, of the 9x23. So same OAL and same diameter. The latter works at higher pressures though.

tipoc

[74A95]

Originally Posted by tipoc

Typically the way to go if you want 9x23 is to have an extra barrel made for a 38 Super. The Super is the parent cartridge, so to speak, of the 9x23. So same OAL and same diameter. The latter works at higher pressures though.

tipoc

No. The two cartridges are different. The 9X23 Winchester is just a long 9mm Luger (9X19), though with strengthened case walls. Both are rimless and tapered with the same head and case mouth dimensions.

The 38 Super is straight-walled with a semi-rim, and has different head and mouth dimensions.

[tipoc]

Yes I said that the two cartridges are different. But the 9x23 derived from the 38 Super and not the 9mm. It was changed to make it stronger and to handle higher pressures.

You are incorrect about the development of the 9x23. You can read more about that here and I encourage you to do so...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9%C3%9723mm_Winchester

https://pistolsmith.com/9x23mm/9127-...23-advice.html

http://www.bobclevenger.com/9x23Win.html

https://bearingarms.com/bob-o/2015/0...istol-caliber/

tipoc

[RickB]

I see the 9x23 as a useful step between 9mmP and 10mm, and I actually bought a 1911 chambered in 9mmP just to convert it to 9x23, but someone wanted that gun more than I did, so the project never really went anywhere.

357 SIG appears to have come a ways from its one-trick-pony origins, but I'd prefer 9mm capacity with my 9mm bullets (while acknowledging a single stack anything doesn't hold a lot of bullets).

But the 9x23 derived from the 38 Super and not the 9mm.

9x23 is a tapered, rimless round like 9mmP, not a straight-walled, semi-rimmed round like .38 Super, so I'd say 9x23 was intended to improve upon Super, but the only similarities are length and the bullet itself.

[tipoc]

9x23 is a tapered, rimless round like 9mmP, not a straight-walled, semi-rimmed round like .38 Super, so I'd say 9x23 was intended to improve upon Super, but the only similarities are length and the bullet itself.

Once again, the cases are different, but the 9x23 was born from the Super. Same length and diameter with a slight taper to the case to ease in extraction of the round.

The Super ruled the roost in compensated guns. John Ricco developed the 9x23 to make a round stronger than the Super. He named the round the 9x23 Super. In those days the 1980s, a competitor easily made major power factor with the Super (175 was major) but there was a danger of overloading the round. The Super dominated competitive shooting from the late 1980s to the the early years of this century.

Ricco brought the round to Winchester. When Winchester developed the 9x23 for sale they made a slight change to the cartridge and called it the 9x23 Winchester. They tried to cut Ricco out of the picture as the developer of the cartridge and introduced it in 1992. Ricco sued.

Ricco developed the cartridge to operate at higher pressures than the Super, though it has lower case capacity by a small bit. It easily made major without the danger of overloading. It was designed to beat, or improve on, the Super at the game the Super was winning at. This is why it's generally acknowledged that the 9x23 derives from the Super.

The 9x23 has a case the same length as the Super, .900" But where the Super has only a .001" taper the 9x23 has a neck diameter of .380 and tapers to a base diameter of .390". A taper of .010"

In contrast the 9mm has a neck diameter of .380 and tapers to .392 over it's shorter length of .754"

From here the story is pretty well known as to why it did not take off. Though if folks don't know the connection between the Super and the 9x23 they may also not know why the 9x23 did not take off. That's another story.

tipoc

[rock185]

I like the 9X23 Win., and I'd be all for it. But, surprised if a major manufacturer did it. Magazines are no problem, at least in 1911 type pistols. I've just used 38 Super magazines without issue. FWIW, if starting with a 10mm/.40 breech face, a dedicated 9X23 slide is not required. I've used 9X19mm, 38 Super, 38 Super Comp and 9X23 Win. in Kimbers with .40/10mm breech faces. There were no reliability issues............ymmv

[74A95]

Reading Ricco’s patents (5,187,324 and 5,277,119) it looks like he is clearly describing his round based on the 9mm cartridge, and refers specifically to the 9mm Nato (9x19), 9x21, and 9x23 (possibly Ricco’s own CP 9X23 Super +P), as mentioned in Layne Simpson’s book.

The patent describes it as: “An improved 9 mm cartridge casing having greater strength and reliability . . .”

It’s one thing to say that the 9X23 was designed to compete with the 38 Super, by offering a cartridge of the same length for guns of the same size but with stronger walls to handle the pressure required for its use in competition to make major pawer factor, which it most surely was. But the 9X23 shares critical dimensions with the 9mm Luger (9X19), both tapered cases with virtually identical rim, head and mouth dimensions (see below). The 9X23 sure as hell looks like a long 9mm, so that would be in most people’s minds the ‘parent cartridge’, and especially given how Ricco describes it in his patents, and not the 38 Super which is dimensionally a different animal.

Also, the 38 Super does not have a .001 taper. It is cylindrical, as noted below.

I’m not sure where tipoc is getting case dimensions, as some do not fit the SAAMI specs.

SAAMI specs — from: https://saami.org/wp-content/uploads...MI_CFPandR.pdf

9mm Luger
rim: .394
head (.200” from base): .3910
mouth: .380
length: .754
bullet: .3555

9X23 Winchester
rim: .394
head (.200” from base): .3911
mouth: .381
length: .900
bullet: .3560

38 Super
rim: .406
head (.200” from base): .384
mouth: .384
length: .900
bullet: .3560

[tipoc]

The dimensions come from "Cartridges of the World".

“An improved 9 mm cartridge casing having greater strength and reliability . . .”

Yes but as he describes not an "improved" version of the 9mm Parabellum. The Super is also a 9mm cartridge.

In the 9mm family we have the 9mm Styre which was a 9x23 (now obsolete but known) the 9mm Largo, 9mm Browning Long, 9mm Winchester Magnum, 9x21, 9mm Mauser, and others.

The argument here begins from the wrong place. The technical. Why another 9mm cartridge to add to the pile? The answer is provided here...

It’s one thing to say that the 9X23 was designed to compete with the 38 Super, by offering a cartridge of the same length for guns of the same size but with stronger walls to handle the pressure required for its use in competition to make major pawer factor, which it most surely was.

The origins of the 9x23 Winchester built by Ricco begin with the Super and it's role in competitive shooting at the time. Not in an exercise to produce a wildcat of the 9mm for the joy of engineering.

The 9X23 sure as hell looks like a long 9mm, so that would be in most people’s minds the ‘parent cartridge’, and especially given how Ricco describes it in his patents, and not the 38 Super which is dimensionally a different animal.

It does look like that and one could conclude that unless you know the story. It only looks that way in "most people's minds" if they are unaware of it's development. Then you know it was developed to beat it's daddy in terms of performance.

Simpson's 1992 book explains very well the role the Super played in the 80s up till the initial introduction of the 9x23, before it's release by Winchester was delayed.

The 9x23 or 9x21 did not dethrone the Super as Simpson speculated they might, that was eventually done by lowering the power factor to 165 to allow for the 9mm to make major. The 40 S&W was introduced in 1990 and that began a slow impact. The 38 Super lost it's place in competitive shooting shortly after the turn of the century except in the Bianchi Cup and a few other areas.

tipoc