How are cartridges defined as obsolete?

I have no experience or fascination with 9mm DA revolvers. The one "niche" that comes to mind is police supply chain. If the police are using DA revolvers (which WERE the standard) then some officers are carrying 9mm Autos, a common ammo may be desirable.
And,moon clip ammo may make for fast reloads. I can't think of any more good reasons for a 9mm DA revolver. 38 SPL and 357 Mag will do whatever a 9mm will do.
 
The Smith & Wesson Model 940 was a DAO Centennial in 9mm.
I have read it was a response to Police Organizations that wanted a 9mm back up for their service Semi Auto Pistols. And for some reason wanted a revolver.
It was a J frame that took a 5 shot moon clip. Good little gun, it was the most accurate J frame 2in I ever owned.
They got discontinued because they didn't sell very well. Good idea just no market.
They are odd ball collectable now.
 
Shadow9mm said:
Having a conversation in the comments on youtube in which 45auto was deemed obsolete. Got me to thinking as to what obsolete is, and how it is applied to the cartridge world.

Many cartridges that are in common use are quite old. The newer cartridges are based on similar technology. According to this article these are the 7 most popular handgun cartridges. https://backfire.tv/7-most-popular-handgun-cartridges-pros-and-cons/

22lr, 1884, 138yrs old
9mm Luger, 1901, 121yrs old
40 S&W, 1990, 32yrs old
45 Auto, 1904, 118yrs old
38spl,1898, 124yrs old
357 magnum, 1935, 87yrs old
380 auto, 1908, 114yrs old

So I cannot believe age alone is a factor.

So by what criteria is a cartridge defined as obsolete? how does one define or quantify "in common use".
Click to expand...
Often it is said or written by someone that doesn't know what they are talking about. I often hear this about .380 and .38 Special; both are lethal rounds. There may be a case for .25 ACP, but it's a belly gun, and I don't know anyone that wants to be shot with one.
 
What has kept the .25 auto going is that with the traditional 50gr FMJ it is very reliable. Much more so than any .22LR which is actually slightly better in terminal performance, but less reliable feeding.
 
44 AMP said:
What has kept the .25 auto going is that with the traditional 50gr FMJ it is very reliable. Much more so than any .22LR which is actually slightly better in terminal performance, but less reliable feeding.
Click to expand...
I have a 950 Jetfire, a nice little backup. However, it will not feed hollow points.
 
I have a 950 Jetfire, a nice little backup. However, it will not feed hollow points.
Click to expand...

Which is why I specifically mentioned the 50gr FMJ. This was the only factory load most people ever saw, or used for literally, generations. None of the older pistol designs was made to feed hollow points. Some might, but you can't count on it.
 
Originally posted by natman
A finer definition is that a cartridge is obsolescent when no production firearms are chambered in it and obsolete when no production ammo is produced in it.

So the 250 Savage is obsolescent, while the 30 Remington is obsolete.
Click to expand...

This is generally the definition I use. There are a lot of cartridges which are obsolescent like .32 S&W or .32 Short Colt and others on the edge of obsolescence like (much as it pains me to say it) .32 Auto and .25 Auto (guns are still made, but only by a two or three makers). By and large, to truly be obsolete, a cartridge probably wasn't terribly popular to begin with or is so old that nearly all the existing guns chambering it are antiques, .41 Action Express would be an example of the former and .41 Rimfire would be an example of the latter.

Honestly, I think that sometimes people are too quick to pronounce a cartridge to be obsolete, especially when cartridges sometimes make a comeback. I heard 10mm labeled as obsolete or obsolescent for years and now it's arguably more popular than it's ever been. .480 Ruger and .327 Federal Magnum were predicted to become obsolete but then made something of a comeback. I even hear people now predicting the .40 S&W to become obsolete in the near future, something I doubt given the sheer number of existing guns in that caliber.
 
I see quite a few here have said one of the checkboxes for obsolescence is when no new firearms are produced in the caliber and I think there's some truth to that, but it's not a hard and fast rule because stuff like .45 GAP is clearly obsolete even tho Glock still makes pistols in it and ammo is still produced for it. In this case I would say the concept of the .45 GAP is obsolete and the choice of purchasing one simply to have a .45 in a 9mm sized frame is a poor one.

Even tho I'm considering buying a used .45 GAP, but that's for personal interest, not personal defense.

So, obsolete cartridges, I'm going to stick to handguns here because there are way too many rifle calibers to discuss.

.32 S&W (not Long) would probably fit as there are no longer any manufacturers producing a gun in the chambering, however Remington and I think Magtech are still making ammo for it. It's not cheap, it's not easy to find, but it's around and the small 5 shot top breaks that lots of companies made for this cartridge a century of more ago are still so small and light they could have a role as a backup gun today. I would say the same for the .32 ACP in small pocket pistols like the Kel Tec.

.25 ACP is one where again I have to bring up the original concept of the caliber, like .45 GAP, comes from a time long past. It's not 1905 anymore, we've reached a point where larger, more effective calibers can be made for pistols not much bigger than a Baby Browning. While Beretta, Taurus, and Phoenix are still making .25 caliber pistols and ammo is still plenty available (just saw a new video on a 60gr Buffalo Bore load that did really well), I think the .25 ACP is obsolete.

I'll give a quick rundown of what I feel are obsolete cartridges today, but my grading scale is more to do with these factors

- Is factory ammo available?
- Is the concept of its inception still valid today?
- Are the firearms it was chambered for still useful today?
- Is there any "buzz" around the cartridge generating interest in it?

IMO Obsolete:

.22 Long
.25 ACP
.30 Mauser and Luger
7.62x25
.38 Super
.41 Magnum
.44 Special
.45 GAP

ETA: I was close to putting .357 Sig on the list because the concept of it's introduction is no longer valid and there's no buzz around the caliber anymore, but like .45 ACP and .40 S&W it still works and the firearms are still useful.

.40 is one that may not have the buzz it did in the 90s, but it seems every month there's a new "Is .40 dead yet?" topic posted somewhere, so it still has people's attention, but the concept of it being an enhanced pistol caliber to 9mm is still true. Forget the recoil or slightly higher price tag, the .40 is a better caliber than 9mm and it's just as street proven.

The .45 ACP checks all 4 of my criteria, but I think in general it's a poor choice compared to other calibers.
 
Since so many of us are using different definitions of obsolete, I'll go even further and say a cartridge is obsolete if I can't find affordable ammo for it on a regular basis wherever ammo is sold.

So off the top of my head, some of the most unobtainable ammo would be .38 S&W, .32 S&W, .32 S&WL, .32 H&R Magnum, .327 Fed., but all of these are allegedly still in production somewhere by somebody.
But I haven't seen any on the shelves in years.
 
"From the 1890's until 1972 it was virtually unused by anyone."

Bannerman's and other surplus dealers did a brisk trade in selling surplussed Trapdoor Springfields in .45-70 for many years.

They were cheap, the ammo was cheap, and yes, the cartridge was popular, and remained popular, but with declining popularity, through most of the 20th century.

Perhaps the biggest reason why the .45-70 regained interest and popularity?

The centenary of the Civil War, the Indian Wars, and the Battle of Little Bighorn.
 
here's a thought, these days of internet everything, I think people declare a cartridge obsolete when they want to increase their "web hits"...(or whatever the proper term is...)

Declare something dead or obsolete and you get people looking at your stuff when they agree and when they don't.

Old tactic, commonly seen in gun magazines particularly in caliber "wars" and X vs. Y articles. Say something outrageous people read it, whether they agree or disagree, they still read it...

As to the .30 Super Carry, I always felt it was a solution in search of a problem....:D
 
44 AMP said:
here's a thought, these days of internet everything, I think people declare a cartridge obsolete when they want to increase their "web hits"...(or whatever the proper term is...)

Declare something dead or obsolete and you get people looking at your stuff when they agree and when they don't.

Old tactic, commonly seen in gun magazines particularly in caliber "wars" and X vs. Y articles. Say something outrageous people read it, whether they agree or disagree, they still read it...

As to the .30 Super Carry, I always felt it was a solution in search of a problem....:D
Click to expand...
Nah, 30 Super Carry was a solution to a very real problem: Getting people to buy more micro-compact pistols since the buzz around the double-stack micro 9's was starting to die down, and most people who wanted a P365 or Hellcat had already bought one, often only a few years after buying a single-stack micro-9 when that was the big fad.
 
30 Super Carry was a solution to a very real problem: Getting people to buy more micro-compact pistols ...
Click to expand...

Not a real problem in my world.

Never cared much for reealy small pistols, and especially those made with a lot of plastic.

I generally go by a couple of primary points for a defensive pistol. First, in a worst case scenario if all other options fail, the pistol becomes an impact weapon, and if it comes to that, I'd prefer something with a bit of heft to it. Steel, preferably.

Second, I am always leery about any new cartridges, not because of doubts of performance, but doubts about longevity. And, especially when the new round cannot be made or made easily from common long established and widely distributed cartridge cases.

There are a LOT of rifle and some pistol rounds created in the past 50-60 years that have been dropped by their makers and in many cases dropped by ammo makers as well. Remington was infamous for it, and some of us still remember the 5mm Rem Mag eventually became something where a single box of ammo was worth more than the rifle.

SO, maybe they have warehouses full of .30 Super, plenty...FOR NOW...what happens if down the road the makers decide its just not making them enough money to keep in production? If I can't get, or make ammo, a gun is just an awkward club or a piece of metal sculpture.

Thanks, but no thanks, I'll stick with what I know will be around and live with what it does, and doesn't do just fine.
 
"Obsolete" is not the right term IMHO. When the military declares something to be "obsolete"-the M-1 Rifle, the M-1 Carbine, the M-1 Submachine gun, e.g. all issued items are turned in, new equipment is issued, the old ones no longer supported, manufacture discontinued.
No longer manufactured, commercially unviable, unprofitable, too difficult to manufacture are better descriptions IMHO. AFAIK rimfire rounds larger than 22 were discontinued decades ago, no demand for them means they are unlikely to be revived, nor can they be easily made with home kits.
"Obsolete" implies ineffective, outmoded, a poor choice. Can we say the 5.56 is obsolete
because it is a poor choice for deer, can we say the 30-30 is obsolete because the .308 has greater range and power, a flatter trajectory ?
 
SIGSHR said:
"Obsolete" implies ineffective, outmoded, a poor choice. Can we say the 5.56 is obsolete
because it is a poor choice for deer, can we say the 30-30 is obsolete because the .308 has greater range and power, a flatter trajectory ?
Click to expand...

No. The 5.56 is not obsolete because it's a poor choice for deer, because it's still useful for varmints.

Besides the real meaning of obsolete in cartridges has more to do with availability than whether it can still be used for something.
 
Obsolete has a dictionary definition, and a slightly different one, or with different emphasis depending on who is using the term in what context.

The commercial market says things are obsolete when profit no longer justifies production and production ends. IT has NOTHING to do with the functionality of the item.

The Military uses obsolete for equipment that no longer meets first line issue standards. It may be scrapped, or sold, or given away (as military aid) or it may be retained in service for some time as a secondary standard or to equip National Guard and Reserve units.

Are muzzleloaders obsolete? Absolutely, by many standards, but production continues because they are still popular with many people.

Bows & arrows? Military hasn't used them for a VERY long time, but lots are made and sold every year because they still have a real world utility.

The Buggy whip is obsolete,,unless you have a horse and buggy...:D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top