357 Ring Of Fire Update

mavracer, you are correct. If the cases are not bottlenecked, and OAL cannot be more that about .275" or so as to fit in large frame Glocks and 1911s,etc., case length doesn't matter. Seated to the same overall length and using the same bullet weight and powder charge, pressure will be the same whether the case is 19mm, 21mm, 21.5mm, 23mm,or whatever. IIRC Major George Nonte experimented with, and others since have commented on, chambering 9mm semi-autos in 38 Super, then seating the bullets deeply to achieve the same overall length as the 9X19mm so as to fit in the 9mm magazine and function in the 9mm size actions. This, believing that because the case says 38 Super they are somehow achieving ballistic performance exceeding 9X19mm. Not so of course.

Anyway, Mr. Elliot and I have corresponded reference some experimenting I did with Col. Cooper's "Super 9" cartridge years ago. I confess that while still skeptical, I remain interested as to where Mr. Elliot's efforts may lead. I sure can't predict. After all, I'm the guy who back in the mid '80s was sure that some weird plastic pistol, Glock I think it was called, would never be a success;)
 
I converted a 20 sf to 9 x 25 dillon and have actually grown to prefer it over the 10--bit less recoil and I seem to be able to get better accuracy out of it.It sends those .355 bullets out screaming fast and I actually like the funky neck-down case.
 
Radny97 said:
Why all the haters? This group should be encouraging wildcat cartridge development, not discouraging it.
Click to expand...
But a wildcat cartridge is supposed to fill a need (or a niche) that hasn't already been filled. I'm still having a very hard time seeing how this "new" cartridge fills any spot that hasn't already been occupied by .38 Super or 9x23. Since there are already so many cartridges that this overlaps, I find myself wondering how Dave expects to get a patent on it.

Everyone should pursue their dream, but some dreams don't invite others along for the ride.
 
Based on this thread and the OP's statements in the original ROF thread, the design goals are:

1. Cartridge must operate via a conversion barrel in currently available autopistol platforms sized for the .45ACP/10mm.
2. Cartridge should be suitable for concealed carry.
3. Cartridge must duplicate the ballistics of factory .357Mag loadings from major manufacturers in bullet weights from 140gr to 170gr. (OP specifically states it is to be more powerful than .357SIG, .38Super or 9x23)
4. Cartridge must use .357", not .355" bullets.
5. Cartridge must use a straight-walled (not bottlenecked) cartridge so that the nominal capacity of the resulting firearm is the same as it would be in a 9mm pistol of roughly the same size.

Requirement 1 limits the ROF overall length to about 1.3" which is, not coincidentally, the maximum COAL of the 9x23. Not coincidentally because the 9x23 was designed to operate in 1911/10mm platforms.

Requirement 3 demands (among other things) that the ROF must outperform 9x23. Since the 9x23 is operating at up to 55,000psi with bullet diameters within a couple of thousandths of the ROF and a COAL that is the same, or longer than the ROF, the only way for the ROF to outperform the 9x23 would be to operate above 55,000psi. Currently the only handgun rounds operating above that pressure level are the .221 Remington Fireball, the .454 Casull, the .460S&W Magnum and the .500S&W Magnum. Note that none of those cartridges are designed for or used in autopistols, nor are they sized to fit in any handgun remotely suitable for concealed carry (Requirement 2).

Conclusion 1: The ROF must operate at pressures above 55,000psi to achieve the design goals.

Conclusion 2: If the ROF operates at safe pressures it can not improve on 9x23 performance.

Conclusion 3: The ROF design requirements can not be achieved at safe pressures.
 
All

Thanks guys for your support.
Just wanted to make another report concerning signs of pressure...
The last set of 250 rounds fired...the cartridge brass didn't even expand enough not to slide back into the chamber.
When most other cartridges like 40, 10, and 45 are fired, they expand slightly and usually require full length resizing before reloading...so I don't think I am at top end yet...
 
Just wanted to make another report concerning signs of pressure...
Click to expand...
There's no need for that kind of report. It's clear what the pressure must be from your other statements.

Given two cases with essentially equivalent capacities and shooting essentially the same diameter and weight bullets, if one of them outperforms the other, then the one that performs better must be running at higher pressure.

We know that the 9x23 and the ROF have to be essentially equivalent in terms of case capacity because they're both more or less straight-walled cartridges of the same COAL and shooting the same bullet sizes and weights. Therefore if the ROF outperforms the 9x23 (one of your stated design requirements) it must be running at higher pressure than the 9x23. Since we know the pressure of the 9x23 is 55,000psi, we know that the ROF must be running higher than 55,000psi to meet the design requirements.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but anyone who needs that explained to them has no business reloading, let alone trying to develop new cartridges.
 
I am going to bet that he is using cut down .223 remington brass for his cartridge, which may explain why it hasn't blown up yet......yet. 223 is thicker at the head and base, which should provide a slight degree of insurance against high velocity spontaneous disassembly of his Glock

that being said, pressure issues in straight walled cases are very, very hard to spot before you reach the point of failure.
 
Thanks guys for your support.
Just wanted to make another report concerning signs of pressure...
The last set of 250 rounds fired...the cartridge brass didn't even expand enough not to slide back into the chamber.
When most other cartridges like 40, 10, and 45 are fired, they expand slightly and usually require full length resizing before reloading...so I don't think I am at top end yet...
Click to expand...
Are you inferring from this that pressure is lower than 40SW? See johnksa's notes on the laws of physics.

TCB
 
I recall an old old article in which a gunsmith discussed, tongue in cheek, means for increasing chamber pressure without pressure signs... until the gun exploded. He advised shooting with your mouth open to equalize the shockwave like old pictures of artillerymen.
 
I am going to bet that he is using cut down .223 remington brass for his cartridge, which may explain why it hasn't blown up yet......yet. 223 is thicker at the head and base, which should provide a slight degree of insurance against high velocity spontaneous disassembly of his Glock.
Click to expand...
If he's using thicker brass then the case capacity is reduced compared to the 9x23 and therefore the pressures would have to be even higher.

Assuming similar brass (as I did in my previous post), the pressures have to be over 55KPsi. With thicker brass the pressures are almost certainly off the charts. Off the charts in the literal sense--higher than any rifle or pistol cartridge currently available.
 
I think he's inferring that the pressure is even lower than 45 ACP...

Just because the brass springs back and can be inserted into the chamber doesn't mean anything other than your under 80,000 PSI. Any handgun brass will slip back into the chamber it was fired from. How do you think the brass gets pulled out when it's ejected?

You resize handgun brass to ensure it will work in any gun and so that you get proper neck tension.
 
All

JonSka,
All your conclusions are based on supposition, therefore are actually assumptions.
If any one of them were correct, I would've had trouble long ago.
I can't fathom why people on a so called pro gun site would make such horrible misstatements about innovations.
Some think that all that can be invented, has been invented...very 18th. century of them...
Another shows multiple examples of attempts to do what I am doing, as evidence it can't be done, when the fact of the matter is this cartridge is so desired, hundreds have attempted it and failed to fulfill the intent.
Some misunderstand the importance of proof of concepts. Autocad is only a theoretical guess. How many are aware of the fact that a dreamed up concept must be proven or disproven by intrepid individuals, not by those sitting behind a computer? If those theoreticals were so reliable, then why would we need engineers, techs or inventors?
There've been some good input here, but there's also been quite a bit of hyperbole from those who seem quite conservative in research and knowledge of practical application, yet liberal with opinions and misstatements, if not plain insults.
Get over it. I've achieved success as intended.
Maybe one day, those who've downed this will understand the importance and effectiveness of a heavy bullet will always outweigh the light bullet...and again, it's self-evident.
So far:
125gr 1500+fps
140gr 1385+fps
147gr 1365+fps
158gr 1300+fps
170gr 1150+fps
200gr 1000+fps
Improvements in velocities still being researched...more to come.
Pre-orders are available for those interested.
Thanks guys,
Dave
 
I'm looking at these figures and have a totally non-confrontational question and am genuinely interested--what will this cartridge bring to the table that something like the 10mm doesn't already do?
 
stagpanther said:
...what will this cartridge bring to the table that something like the 10mm doesn't already do?
Click to expand...
The OP wants the cartridge to be similar enough in diameter to the 9mm that it won't cost the capacity penalty of going to a .40 caliber cartridge casing. That (and direct statements by the OP) is how we know it is not a bottlenecked case.
Davelliott said:
All your conclusions are based on supposition, therefore are actually assumptions.
Click to expand...
They are based on:
1. Statements from your posts.
2. The physical limitations of the pistol(s) you are using.
3. The physics of firearm operation: pressure, case capacity, etc.

Davelliott said:
I can't fathom ...
Some think that...
Another shows...
Some misunderstand...
Autocad is ...
How many are aware...
If those theoreticals...
There've been some ...
Get over it...
Maybe one day...
Click to expand...
I can't help but notice that in all that typing there is not even one single attempt to point out anything that's wrong with any of the conclusions I have posted.
Davelliott said:
If any one of them were correct...
Click to expand...
If any one of them is incorrect, point it out and explain how/why it is incorrect.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top