simonrichter
New member
What I wanted to epitomize with the thread title: While there was surely some progress from the first mass-produced pistols of around 1900 to todays super small, poly, double stack and-what-not-else pistols, imho the calibers did not greatly improve from there.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not talking bullet technology here, but strictly calibers as a whole. Most popular are still 9mm and .45 acp - both introduced over 100 yrs. ago. The same is true for the minor calibers (.32 acp, .380 etc.) that reentered the stage due to the increased popularity of pocket guns during the last decade. One of the few newly invented calibers that made it to mass market was the .40 S&W which basically builds on the same principle: A relatively heavy and slow bullet (compared to a rifle caliber) out of a straight cartridge. The .357 SIG is maybe an exception, but its performance is still close to other major calibers.
There where a lot of approaches into making the pistol kind of a "mini-rifle" instead of the common "spitting slugs" technique, consider e.g. the 5,7 x 28, 6,5 x 25 cbm, 5,45 x 18 etc. The advantages are obvious: Less recoil, more penetration, higher capacity, less ammunition weight, stretched trajectory and thus longer range.
Still, few of those new-approach-calibers made it into mass market (the 5,7 as the only example maybe), and none came even close to the popularity of 9mm, .40 s&w and .45 acp. Even in the military arsenals of the world these calibers are maybe not as uncommon as in the civil sector, but still a niche product.
Why is that?
The cost factor?
No need for something new? (which seems, given the pressure to innovate in our fast modern business world, quite unlikely to me...)
Restrictions? (all these new calibers could be built without being actually armor piercing, though...)
Looking forward to your thoughts!
Don't get me wrong, I'm not talking bullet technology here, but strictly calibers as a whole. Most popular are still 9mm and .45 acp - both introduced over 100 yrs. ago. The same is true for the minor calibers (.32 acp, .380 etc.) that reentered the stage due to the increased popularity of pocket guns during the last decade. One of the few newly invented calibers that made it to mass market was the .40 S&W which basically builds on the same principle: A relatively heavy and slow bullet (compared to a rifle caliber) out of a straight cartridge. The .357 SIG is maybe an exception, but its performance is still close to other major calibers.
There where a lot of approaches into making the pistol kind of a "mini-rifle" instead of the common "spitting slugs" technique, consider e.g. the 5,7 x 28, 6,5 x 25 cbm, 5,45 x 18 etc. The advantages are obvious: Less recoil, more penetration, higher capacity, less ammunition weight, stretched trajectory and thus longer range.
Still, few of those new-approach-calibers made it into mass market (the 5,7 as the only example maybe), and none came even close to the popularity of 9mm, .40 s&w and .45 acp. Even in the military arsenals of the world these calibers are maybe not as uncommon as in the civil sector, but still a niche product.
Why is that?
The cost factor?
No need for something new? (which seems, given the pressure to innovate in our fast modern business world, quite unlikely to me...)
Restrictions? (all these new calibers could be built without being actually armor piercing, though...)
Looking forward to your thoughts!