357 Ring Of Fire Update

Some might like to try one, but if you can't afford pressure testing, there is no way you could afford the product liability law-suit that's sure to follow when folks get damaged guns or body parts as a result. :cool:
 
I think some of the nay-sayers are not familiar with handloading some of these cartridges, i.e. 38 Super and 9X23 Winchester, to high performance levels. There is published load data and articles on the web that will be useful for some members to read.

It appears that some members are interested in playing ‘dog pile’, without considering all potential information in addition to lacking hands-on experience with these cartridges. It’s one thing to quote pressure information from this source or that, but there is often more to it than meets the eye based solely on those resources.

Just because the 9X23 has a pressure limit of 55,000 psi does not mean that you have to push loads to that pressure to produce its hallmark velocities. You don’t. In fact, Winchester’s own load data shows you can get there at substantially lower pressure (46,000 psi) with WAP (Silhouette). That is briefly reviewed at this link:
http://www.shootingtimes.com/ammo/cartridge-review-9x23-winchester/


Also, it is possible to achieve 9X23 ballistics in the 38 Super with the right selection of components - and stay within 38 Super pressure limits (36,500 psi). This has been demonstrated at this link:
http://www.shootingtimes.com/reloading/super-powders-for-the-38-super/


For these reasons, I can imagine that the OP can achieve his goals, if he chooses his components carefully, and has a well designed chamber, and remain within acceptable, safe operating pressure for a pistol. We’ll have to wait and see.
 
74A95, thanks for sharing the link to the shootingtimes article.

One thing that it clearly shows is that Dave's new cartridge offers nothing over what can be done with the 9 x 23mm. thanks for sharing it.
 
If this "new" cartridge is to fit into 1911s, the limit for C.O.A.L. is 1.300 inches. And that's where both the .38 Super and the 9x23 Winchester already are. But .38 Super typically ends at bullet weights around 150 grains, and the 9x23 at 125 grains. Dave wants to use up to 200-grain bullets. Since the bullets can't get any fatter, and the nose of the bullet can't be loaded any longer than 1.300 inches, the extra mass has to be located inside the case -- further reducing case capacity.

Less capacity ==> more pressure.

Personally, I'll stick with .38 Super. It appears the OP is more interested in name calling than he is in having a legitimate conversation about this concept, so I think I'll do what I should have done some time ago ... tune out of this discussion.
 
...I can imagine that the OP can achieve his goals...
Click to expand...
Since one of the stated goals is to outperform the 9x23 and the ROF is limited to more or less the same external cartridge "package size" as the 9x23 it's not really possible to do so without going to higher pressure.

It is true that typical 9x23 performance is less than the absolute maximum possible with the cartridge. If the OP were trying to come up with a cartridge that duplicates the absolute maximum performance of the 9x23 but using .357" bullets, then your point would be well taken. But the OP started out to make a cartridge that outperforms all other 9mm/.357 cartridges that would fit into a .45ACP/10mm magazine.

Davelliott said:
The 357 ROF is more powerful than 38 super, 9x23 etc...
Click to expand...

https://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=566062

No matter how you slice it, it comes down to one of two possibilities.

Possibility 1: The ROF outperforms the 9x23 in a similar size cartridge "package" and therefore operates at pressures higher than the 9x23--higher than 55,000psi.
Possibility 2: 9x23 performance duplicates or exceeds the ROF performance which could mean that the ROF pressures are safe but also means that the ROF provides no performance benefit over cartridges that are already available.
 
Let's try one more way to look at this. The OP has stated that his goal is to achieve "real" .357 Magnum performance in a semi-auto cartridge that will fit into a 1911. The overall length for a cartridge that will fit an unmodified 1911 is 1.300 inches. Most commercial 1911 ball ammo is loaded closer to 1.250 inches.

The case length for a .357 Magnum is 1.290 inches.

'Nuff said.
 
Since one of the stated goals is to outperform the 9x23 and the ROF is limited to more or less the same external cartridge "package size" as the 9x23 it's not really possible to do so without going to higher pressure.

It is true that typical 9x23 performance is less than the absolute maximum possible with the cartridge. If the OP were trying to come up with a cartridge that duplicates the absolute maximum performance of the 9x23 but using .357" bullets, then your point would be well taken. But the OP started out to make a cartridge that outperforms all other 9mm/.357 cartridges that would fit into a .45ACP/10mm magazine.
Click to expand...



He doesn't have to outperform the absolute maximum that the 9X23 can achieve to reach his goal since the 9X23's absolute maximum could be 100 fps faster than what is typical 9X23 factory ammo.

All he has to do is outperform typical 9X23 factory ammo. If he's pushing 125 grain bullets to 1500 fps from the same barrel length as used with a 9X23, he's already met his goal since the published velocity of 9X23 for that bullet weight is 1250 fps.

There are lots of cartridges that can achieve more than their typical factory load if they are pushed to their absolute maximum with the right selection of components. For example, the 38 super shoots a 125 grain bullet around 1250 fps in generic factory loads, and to 1350 fps by boutique loaders. (SAAMI lists the nominal velocity with 125 grain bullets at 1230 fps.) But that same bullet can be pushed to 1450 fps (matching the 9X23) by selecting the right components and still stay within 38 Super pressure limits (36,500 psi) (see the link I posted). Now imagine the velocity you could get if you raised the 38 Super's pressure limit to 55,000 psi.
 
If you reduce charge weight you reduce performance and you can't meet your design goals.
Click to expand...

Please read my post again.

You have to reduce charge weight when going from light bulelts to heavier bullets. You can't use the same weight of powder for high performance 125 grain loads and 180 grain loads. You'll blow up the gun.

Let's try one more way to look at this. The OP has stated that his goal is to achieve "real" .357 Magnum performance in a semi-auto cartridge that will fit into a 1911. The overall length for a cartridge that will fit an unmodified 1911 is 1.300 inches. Most commercial 1911 ball ammo is loaded closer to 1.250 inches.

The case length for a .357 Magnum is 1.290 inches.

'Nuff said.
Click to expand...

You can achieve the same performance with a shorter cartridge if you increase the pressure.

SAAMI pressure limit for 357 magnum = 35,000 psi.

SAAMI pressure limit for 9X23 = 55,000 psi.
 
Please read my post again.
Click to expand...
I understand your post.

What you're missing is that the OP claims that his cartridge outperforms the 9x23 without unsafe pressures. Yes, you can reduce the powder charge when you load heavier bullets and keep the pressures safe, but you can't do that if your design goal is to outperform another cartridge of the same basic dimensions without exceeding its pressure. If you reduce the powder charge to stay safe then you reduce the performance to below or equal the other cartridge and you don't meet your design goal.
You can achieve the same performance with a shorter cartridge if you increase the pressure.
Click to expand...
Yes, of course you can, but that's not especially relevant to any of the OP's claims.

You need to read through this thread from the start, and when you see the links to the original thread, you need to read it too.
Now imagine the velocity you could get if you raised the 38 Super's pressure limit to 55,000 psi.
Click to expand...
It wouldn't be the .38Super any more because it is operating out side the 38 Super's pressure limits. Ironically, the .38 Super came to be precisely for that reason. It is dimensionally identical to the .38ACP BUT since it operates outside the .38ACP pressure limits it is NOT a .38ACP and had to be given a new designation with a new pressure specification.

A cartridge with .38 Super dimensions operating at 55,000psi might be called the .38 Super +P+ or something similar, or it might be given a totally different name. But it wouldn't be called the .38 Super because if it were people would buy it and blow up their .38 Super guns with it and that's unacceptable.

But yes, obviously you can increase the performance of any cartridge by increasing the pressure. At least until the pressure gets so high that it's impractical.
He doesn't have to outperform the absolute maximum that the 9X23 can achieve to reach his goal since the 9X23's absolute maximum could be 100 fps faster than what is typical 9X23 factory ammo.
Click to expand...
Somehow we're talking past each other.

The ROF absolutely DOES have to outperform the 9x23 absolute maximum because:

1. That's what the designer stated the ROF cartridge does.
2. The designer claims that the ROF cartridge does something no other cartridge does and if it can be duplicated with the 9x23 (either typical 9x23 or absolute maximum 9x23--it doesn't matter) then that claim is incorrect.

If the goal is to come up with a new cartridge (A) that outperforms another cartridge (B) then the goal is not met if cartridge (A) doesn't outperform cartridge (B) because cartridge (B) can be loaded hotter than cartridge (A) without exceeding its dimensional/pressure specifications.

If one claims that cartridge A is more powerful than cartridge B but cartridge B can be loaded to duplicate or exceed cartridge A without exceeding its specifications (COAL/pressure) then cartridge A is NOT more powerful than cartridge B.

If the claim is that A>B and it turns out that B=A or B>A then the initial claim is incorrect.

What you're saying is the equivalent of Bill and Bob talking together and Bill telling Bob that his car is faster than Bob's.

So they make a bet and go out for a race and it turns out that Bob's car can actually go 5mph faster then Bill's. They get back home and Bob tries to collect the bet because Bill's claim was wrong. Bill then states that he's not going to pay. He says that his car is really faster than Bob's because he wasn't talking about absolute maximum speed, he was talking about typical speed and he usually drives about 5mph faster than Bob does when they're not racing.
 
If you're offering to help, I'd welcome it, but money is the drawback at this time.
Click to expand...

I'm in no place to help, either with funds, expertise or geography but IMHO you still need to make getting real world pressure figures a financial priority in your experiment.

A test pilot might well design a plane, but I doubt we'd advise flying it until he's also bought the parachute.

Those lab values are your parachute.

It's probably cheaper than buying a new gun...

If that is still not an option in you mind, can you not find an engineer to fabricate a simple gun vice with trigger release mechanism?

Heck, it could even be a vice, a block of wood and a length of string, but at least it removes you from the danger zone when your Glock fires at unknown pressures....
 
Last edited:
JohnKSa, only geeks like us are going to nitpick the absolute maximum performance issue. The rest of the world will just look at published factory ballistics. If the OP can produce a ‘factory’ load that outperforms the 9X23’s ‘factory’ load, he’s met his goal. Those are the numbers people will look at. Your criteria will be less important than the average consumers’ criteria. Consumers will compare factory ballistic data and make their decision based on that. They're doing that now and they will continue to do so.
 
If the OP can produce a ‘factory’ load that outperforms the 9X23’s ‘factory’ load, he’s met his goal.
Click to expand...
If the OP had said he was going to produce a cartridge that outperformed the common/typical loadings of the 9x23 then that statement would be correct.

Since he said that his cartridge was more powerful than the 9x23 and also claims that it does what no other 1911/10mm sized autopistol cartridge could do, there's no way that statement can be correct.

If you read back through the OPs statements, he has no trouble differentiating between what a cartridge is capable of vs. what common factory loadings for a cartridge are capable of. For example, he talks about duplicating the performance of common factory/major manufacturer loadings for the .357Mag when that's what he means. His comment about the 9x23 was pretty clear and was not qualified in the same manner as his comments about the .357Mag.

Unless you have some special insight into the OPs thought processes beyond what's been posted here on TFL, I don't understand how it would make sense for you to tell us that he doesn't mean what he said.
The rest of the world will just look at published factory ballistics.
Click to expand...
The rest of the world probably won't even go to that much trouble--they'll just listen to whatever their favorite gun writer or gun store clerk tells them and leave it at that.

That said, it's not really relevant since we're not talking about what the rest of the world thinks.
Your criteria will be less important than the average consumers’ criteria.
Click to expand...
Nor are we talking about my criteria or that of the average consumer. We're talking about the OP's own statements and claims. There's no need to consult public opinion to determine what he means or to use any criteria that I come up with, or to discuss what makes sense to the average consumer--his claims regarding the performance of his cartridge have been very plain and easy to understand. And even if the world was, or I were, for some reason, convinced that he didn't really mean what he said, it wouldn't change reality.
 
74A95 said:
JohnKSa, only geeks like us are going to nitpick the absolute maximum performance issue. The rest of the world will just look at published factory ballistics. If the OP can produce a ‘factory’ load that outperforms the 9X23’s ‘factory’ load, he’s met his goal. Those are the numbers people will look at. Your criteria will be less important than the average consumers’ criteria. Consumers will compare factory ballistic data and make their decision based on that. They're doing that now and they will continue to do so.
Click to expand...
That's because "people" (consumers) can buy factory ammunition with confidence that factory ammunition runs at safe pressures, has been tested to ensure that it runs at safe pressures, and won't that factory ammo won't kaboom their guns. Reloaders are people, too, and reloaders DO look at pressure data and worry about exceeding safe pressures when working up a new load.

But ... Dave's stated goal is not just to outperform the 9x23 cartridge. His stated goal is to equal .357 Magnum performance in a 9x23 sized package. That's not easy if the parameters also include keeping the pressure within safe limits, and that's why there are skeptics among us. And certainly no commercial ammo maker will even consider making the stuff unless they know the pressures are well within safe limits.
 
I am one of those "average consumers", well, maybe slightly above average, and I think most everyone has the same concern about pulling the trigger on an instant detonating hand-grenade.

I think what most people are reacting too is that given the parameters of what Dave has revealed thus far, they seem to defy physics for a reasonable safe cartridge that performs significantly better, or even maybe a little better

On the other hand, I don't rule out the possibility that Dave has come up with some new modifications to the base glock platform (which given the 10's rather "portly" dimensions I don't quite get if the quest is for greater capacity, I would think more power in a compact profile makes sense--but we'll leave that one alone) which handles the pressure/dimensions of his cartridge.

I think if Dave revealed some kind of rigorous "stress testing" in which tens of thousands of cartridges were pushed through it--as well as how far outside the boundaries it can be pushed before failing, that would at least allay some of the "time bomb" concerns (I'm guessing he doesn't want to reveal the "proprietary" performance measurements for fear of copying, who knows). I've had my share of strange loads get the bullet jammed back into the case on their way into the chamber--or conversely had the bullet separate from the case altogether. In that regard, I think Dave (no offense) has brought a lot of the criticism upon himself. Or lifted his own kilt, whatever that means. : )
 
I'm still curious about the patent pending information. Once sent to the patent office, it's public domain, if unique, protected from infringement. If not unique, then .... not protected. His "kilt", thus has already been lifted. I searched the USPTO database for issued and filed patents finding 207 items from "David Elliot" none of which relate to firearms, ammo or similar.

Also, waiting for international patents is silly. Total costs for a comprehensive international patent protection package is a multi-million dollar investment with ongoing high expenses to monitor competition. Actually enforcing the patents offshore is a nightmare. Maybe his idea is the next I-phone and it's worth it... but i doubt it. Additionally, he has already disclosed to the internet and has had numerous individuals test it. Hopefully, he has had signed NDA's in place before he contaminated the water with partial to full disclosure.
 
74A95, All

Thank you for your great research and links.
I have read and researched so many articles, I cannot recall where I read them.
You're absolutely correct in your analysis of the variables and their importance, where others have called red herrings and moot.
After the last modification to the barrels, loading the same charges as last year, some velocities dropped a bit...and with others, the velocities went up...and I was able to breach 1500 fps with the 125's.
I'm not sure just how fast I can get these projectiles. I'm a bit nervous to go much higher without real pressure data...but I'll go cautiously into the void of discovery.
As far as initial goals, I feel they've been met. I'm just curious about upper limits.
All,
The 9x23 guys, how many times can you reload your cartridges at those high pressures? What powders do you use per bullet weights?
I recall hearing 38 super folks discussing the life of their brass being only 2-3 loadings, while others only used the brass once...is this common?
I've asked for help before, but replies were all over the place...is there anyone seriously interested? Do you have Quick Load?
Yes, I'm concerned from the technical questions asked, and remarks, about theft. I have a patent pending, but no international protection yet. I'll wait to see if it's needed...it's expensive too.
I've looked in to a contender barrel in 9mm which I could adapt to this Ring Of Fire...for making a pressure barrel. It'll come with time.
Thanks guys,
Dave
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top