357 Ring Of Fire Update

The same way some claim high pressures with the exception that I have all the facts,
Click to expand...

But you don't have all the facts.... You have no pressure data.

All you have is access to more variables, namely details of the case construction as far as I can see but the cornerstone of shooting: pressure, is only being guessed at. You too, then, have supposition.

I can say this despite my lack of knowledge in reloading because I have been on this forum long enough to know what some of the contributors on here know and between them.... they know A LOT!

So in other words you're saying "Just trust me on this: it'll all work out."

Genuine Reply
Click to expand...

You are not in any debt to me and so don't owe me a reply but the one you gave was not really enlightening...
 
158, 170 and 200 grain bullets...unless those others also fire them...but I haven't seen any data for it.
Click to expand...
Since case capacity of 38 Super, 9X23 and ROF are all basically the same any bullet that works in one will work in the others within the pressure allowances of the cartridge.
One caveat with regard to loading a 200 gr bullet to a 1.29 OAL pushing that to higher pressure is a recipe for disaster as now you're powder column is so small that small variations will make very large pressure differenced.

Have your friend run your 200 gr load thru QL and just seat the bullet .050 deeper and see what happens to pressure.

And velocities for 158?
Click to expand...
As I said earlier I've been running 150gr SWC @ 1200 fps for years.

At substantially lower pressures than 9X23?
Click to expand...
then it'll be lower velocity than the 9X23, your point?

What's your real beef about?
Click to expand...

Probably could just let it go but I kinda take exception to being called rainman by someone who shows an extensive ignorance of the subject at hand.
 
All

Hey guys!
The latest test data guestimates from Quickload have been sent to me by a great friend.
I'll post them here, with two purposes,
1. I'd like to update the potential velocities with current available propellants.
2. I'd like details of other cartridges you may have with equal or superior velocities with equal bullets in a 5-5.5" barrel.
Thanks guys!
Starting load:
125 gr 8.7 gr Power Pistol 1475 @37,000 psi
Max load:
125 gr. 9.4 gr. Power Pistol 1581 @45,000 psi

Start load :
140 gr. XTP 7.5 gr Power Pistol 1342 @37,000 psi.
Max load :
140 gr. XTP 8.1 gr. Power Pistol 1436@45,000 psi.

147 XTP
Start load:
6.7 gr. Power Pistol 1265 @ 37,000 psi
Max load:
7.3 gr. Power Pistol 1354 @45,000 psi

158 DCHP
Start load :
6.9 gr. Power Pistol 1242 @37,000 psi
Max load:
7.4 gr. Power Pistol 1327 @45,000psi

170 JHC
Start load
5.6 gr. Power Pistol 1113 @37,000 psi
Max load :
6.0 gr. Power Pistol 1189 @45,000 psi

200 gr LRN
Start load:
4.1 gr. Power Pistol 917@37,000 psi
Max load:
4.4 gr. Power Pistol 976@45,000 psi

All loads at 1.280 COAL to accommodate 38 super mags and conversions.

Better velocities could be obtained with
ReloadSwiss RS 24, Rottweil P806 or Norma R123 powders except I have no idea where to get these powders...still checking for sources.
Still...not bad performance with Power Pistol, would you say?
Dave
 
Dave the 125 thru 158 loads look pretty impressive but the 170 and 200gr loads are close to a warm 40cal. Not all that impressive. Im not sure what the point is with heavier bullets because undoubtedly your pressures are high. How high is anyone's guess and that's not good when your body parts are at stake. If I was trying to accomplish what your wanting I'd get a 38 Super and a 10mm to cover the gambit of weights and stay safely within the pressure limits and your Glocks will have a long happy life.
 
Last edited:
I'd like details of other cartridges you may have with equal or superior velocities with equal bullets in a 5-5.5" barrel.
Click to expand...
See if your friend will run the same numbers through the program for the 9x23.
 
All

t45,
Thank you. Yes, the main goal was the 158 grainers...but I didn't want to be so singular in purpose, so I also tested others.
The 170+ bullets require extra work to fit...but I had to try...very customized.

Yes, 40 and 10mm will equal or better this cartridge by the numbers, but this cartridge offers higher magazine capacity over those. Just another thing to consider. We each have our own preferences which are equally important to us, and I respect each decision.
I just have a very warm spot in my heart for both the 357 magnum and 1911...and wanted to see if it was possible to use modern materials with available technology to make a cartridge which fires heavier bullets in .357 caliber at respectable velocity levels...and I've done it.
I've also shortened the COAL to accommodate and simplify 38 Super conversions.
In theory, one could custom load to fit their magazines and maybe crank this up a notch, safely...but that's another personal choice...like hot rodding the 9's and 38 supers...be most careful guys!
John,
I'm not going to impose on my friend's freetime for a different cartridge...but I welcome anyone to show what they get doing this with the 9x23...and to be fair, would they be limiting pressures to a 45k max, or going top end? I went top end, I'd like them to go to the 55k top end with the 9x23 too...but keep in mind, at this point in time, my cartridge exceeds printed data from manufacturers on loading the 9x23...at lower pressures...providing current data is close to accurate.
Only real pressure testing will put this to rest. I'll get that done as soon as I'm able.
Anyone know 2,000 guys wanna pitch in a dollar to help?
 
If you're looking for comparison data, Buffalo Bore sells some 9x23 loadings that they claim are all loaded to 50Kpsi or under. They provide velocity numbers from a handful of firearms to go with each loading.

Admittedly "50Kpsi or under" is not very precise in terms of the pressure numbers, but it gives you some real-world information that's in the general ballpark. And, to be fair, it's probably no less precise than pressure estimates from Quickload.

Of course, that's taking the long way around. To answer the question, one need only compare the usable powder capacity* of the ROF case with the usable powder capacity* of the 9x23 case. This will result in three possible outcomes:

1. They have identical usable powder capacity*. This outcome means that the two cases will perform the same at the same pressures and the 9x23 will be able to outperform the ROF because it can be loaded to higher pressures.

2. The 9x23 has more usable powder capacity*. This outcome means that the 9x23 will be able to outperform the ROF when both are loaded to the same pressure, the 9x23 will be able to provide ROF performance at lower pressure, and, of course the 9x23 will significantly outperform the ROF at maximum pressures for the 9x23.

3. The ROF has more usable powder capacity*. There's some ambiguity in this case. This would mean that the ROF would outperform the 9x23 at the same pressure levels, but unless the usable powder capacity* advantage of the ROF is significant the 9x23 will still probably outperform the ROF since it is capable of operating at about 10Kpsi higher pressure than the ROF parent case.

*usable powder capacity = how much space there is for powder with the bullet seated.
 
JohnKSa, your criteria don't matter, because that information will not be listed in ammunition manufacturers catalogs.

All that will matter is the bullet weight and speed that is listed in the catalog.

If the ROF lists a higher velocity than the 9X23 with the same bullet weight from the same barrel length, it will be deemed more powerful. 99% of buyers use a catalog as their guide to differences between cartridges. That's just reality.

That's what we use to judge the power of a 38 Super compared to the 9X23. The 9X23 produces more speed with the same bullet weight, so it is more powerful. However, as handloaders, we can load the 38 Super to equal the speed and power of the 9X23, and still remain within 38 Super pressure limits. This has been demonstrated at one of the links I posted earlier. But that does not factor into what manufacturers list in their catalog. There, the 9X23 is still king.

If the ROF offers more bullet weights than is offered in the 9X23, it will appeal to a broader audience than the 9X23.
 
If the ROF offers more bullet weights than is offered in the 9X23, it will appeal to a broader audience than the 9X23.
Click to expand...

Confessing up front to being far from a firearms expert, I can't remember the last time I saw a new (or even used) gun discussed in detail on here that was chambered in 9x23.
Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe there are hundreds of models available on 9x23 and I just keep missing those posts...

Even 10mm is touted more of a niche chambering and most people recognise its strengths even if they don't own one, and I can think of a few of those.

A new cartridge, be it ROF or any other, will have to offer something truly ground-breaking to occupy any notable market share outside the usual suspects of auto cartridges.

Let's not forget that most pistol shooters are not those on here. They are single gun owners that may not even carry.
What is the statistic, again? 100 million gun owners and about 70% of all the guns in the US are owned by 10% of that gun-owning population? Something like that...
So most of those are not die-hard affecionados like TFL members...

Don't mistake this for wishing the ROF project failure. It is not. I hope it is a success.
My only soap-box, as with most other critics on here, has been that it be developed safely. However, based on the evidence and speaking purely from a marketing-prognosis perspective, it's going to be a really hard sell, regardless what it delivers.
 
All

Thanks guys,
All points well understood.
As I've stated before, this cartridge is not something I ever intended to mass market. It was only done to see if it could be done for personal use...that being said, I decided to show others what I'm doing. Interest gathered...so I decided not to keep it to myself, but offer it to those interested. Just to supplement my retirement, that's all.
The guys who know me, also know this is a labor of love...not a scam...and I don't lose a thing if I never sell one.
However there is genuine interest, so I continue testing and showing results to let folks see for themselves.
Some folks realize the versatility in a cartridge which can deliver excellent performance in bullet weights from 110-200...just like the 357 magnum.
Some folks know the ballistic numbers from bullet weight and velocities doesn't tell the whole story, and heavier bullets are needed in certain circumstances which the 9's can't deliver.
Just another option available...that's why we have more than one pistol cartridge, more than one manufacturer and more than one style...that's America!
Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year!
 
JohnKSa, your criteria don't matter, because that information will not be listed in ammunition manufacturers catalogs.
Click to expand...
Come on, let's try not to be ridiculous.

1. The ROF's designer says those criteria matter. His statement is that the ROF outperforms the 9x23 (shoots the same weight bullet at higher velocity) at lower pressure. There's no way to talk about pressure without talking about pressure and there's no way to talk about performance (as defined by higher velocity) without talking about velocity.

2. The criteria aren't mine, the post you're referring to is a simple statement of the basics of interior ballistics. Since that's precisely what the ROF's reason for existence is, according to its designer, it's ludicrous to say that the relationship between pressure and velocity doesn't matter.
That's what we use to judge the power of a 38 Super compared to the 9X23.
Click to expand...
So the power is important but the REASON for the power difference doesn't matter? How does that make any sense? Especially in the context of a discussion about pressure which came about as a direct claim of the cartridge designer's claim about pressure?
If the ROF offers more bullet weights than is offered in the 9X23, it will appeal to a broader audience than the 9X23.
Click to expand...
Theoretically yes, practically no. How many people are shooting heavy weight bullets in the .357Mag? Given that no major ammo manufacturer catalogs a 200gr loading for the .357Mag and there are only a couple of commercial loadings of that weight from any manufacturer, a realistic assessment suggests that the "broader audience" doesn't amount to a hill of beans. Even Buffalo Bore, which has made a niche for itself offering heavy bullet loadings for various calibers doesn't go above 180gr in .357Mag and stops at 147gr in 9x23.

Now, on the other hand, if the ROF could actually provide superior performance to the 9x23 at lower pressures, THAT might appeal to enough of a broader audience to attract some purchasers. But the idea that simply offering more bullet weights is going to make a practical difference doesn't hold water.
 
Come on, let's try not to be ridiculous.
Click to expand...

I'm not. You tell me how the average person determines which cartridge has more power.

Do they consult a ballistics expert on pressure, case volume, type of powder and if they can get a little more performance by using a different powder?

If they did, they would learn that Remington 38 Super cases have 12.7% more case volume than Winchester 9X23 cases, then they would conclude that the 38 Super can produce the same power as a 9X23 but at a lower pressure, or that the 38 Super can produce more velocity than the 9X23 at the same pressure because the 38 Super has more case volume than Winchester 9X23 brass. But they don't do that, do they?

No. They go to a catalog and look at the numbers.

You're the one being ridiculous to think otherwise.
 
You tell me how the average person determines which cartridge has more power.
Click to expand...
What has that got to do with anything other than your attempt to prove a point that isn't relevant to my comments and isn't consistent with the current thread of discussion?

The ROF designer has made very specific performance claims about the ROF and therefore it makes perfect sense for the discussion to address those performance claims. That's exactly what I was doing when you tried to misinterpret my comments as being applicable to what the average person thinks about cartridge performance or what is listed in ammunition catalogs.
You're the one being ridiculous to think otherwise.
Click to expand...
Except I never made any claims about what "average persons" think about cartridge performance or how they measure it. You're the one who is trying to push the discussion in that new direction.

If you want to continue along the main thread of the discussion, it would make sense to take your cues from the ROF designer who is clearly interested in discussing the technical aspects of the cartridge's performance, to include things like pressure, powder type, case volume, etc.

Of course, there's nothing preventing you from branching off into a sub-discussion of what the average person will think about the ROF--but it's not really kosher to do so under the pretense that it's what everyone else has been talking about all the time.

For example, rather than saying: "JohnKSa, your criteria don't matter because..." it would make sense to say: "JohnKSa, your criteria don't matter to the average person because..."

The former is ridiculous because the criteria clearly do matter to most of the people in this discussion, including the ROF designer and also including you, based on your earlier posts on this thread. The latter is probably true, although the relevance is somewhat questionable given that this is hardly a cartridge for the average person--even the designer states that it was never intended for the mass market--the average person, if you will.
 
With reluctance I venture a few inexpert layman's opinions.:)

I agree that Dave has made specific performance claims using the existing cartridges as a parameter. Perhaps that was a mistake if his actual goal was "let's see where I can go with this" which is what I'm sure lots of wildcatters started out with.

I agree with John--when I start looking at a new prospective cartridge I go first thing to ballistics programs and look at the anticipated performance to see what new things that cartridge brings to the table. All other things being equal--if it's a cartridge that runs at higher pressures; that's one that i'm going to wait around on and let others be on the bleeding edge of new adaptations and development.

While velocity, trajectory and kinetic energy are definitely the primary things I personally look at--there is a 3rd "unknown" that for lack of better description I'll call "ergonomic efficiency" that might be a factor in a new cartridge's success. Some designs, given the bullets they'll use, just seem to work better and more reliably than others in terms of over-all efficiency at arriving in the chamber in battery after being stripped from the magazine. I've learned this the hard way after years of AR-mania. :) I've run a couple of conversions off of my glock 20--which is what Dave is using I believe (or the 29?)--and it too can be "touchy" depending upon the cartridge design, power etc--I've had cartridge designs that if they even minutely changed their seating in the magazine--that could easily result in a feed/cycle malfunction.

I periodically google "gun kabooms" just as a way of "keeping it real" to remind myself how easily and unpredictably they can happen when one piece of the equation goes out of whack. I've been shooting, building ARs and hand-loading long enough to know that I've probably come close a few times myself without knowing it. There's no shortage of gun kabooms on the net using factory guns and ammo either.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top