Davelliott
New member
Jim Watson
Thank you Jim for the info.
I will look in to these.
Thank you Jim for the info.
I will look in to these.
New Cartridge 357 Ring Of Fire
- Thread starter Davelliott
- Start date
Davelliott
New member
JohnKSa
The information you ask is on the web.
I did not say a rimless blackpowder cartridge. I referred to the blackpowder cartridges which parent all 355 and 357 modern cartridges, when cap and ball revolvers were being converted to cartridge guns.
The 960 Rowland is also online for your questions.
Thank you John,
Dave
The information you ask is on the web.
I did not say a rimless blackpowder cartridge. I referred to the blackpowder cartridges which parent all 355 and 357 modern cartridges, when cap and ball revolvers were being converted to cartridge guns.
The 960 Rowland is also online for your questions.
Thank you John,
Dave
If you're suggesting that a rimmed blackpowder cartridge was the "parent cartridge" to all .355 modern cartridges, you're using a definition for "parent cartridge" that's pretty unusual. There are significant differences in the designs of autopistol/rimless cartridges and revolver cartridges beyond the obvious external differences which make it inaccurate to call a revolver cartridge the "parent cartridge" of a rimless autopistol cartridge.
Actually, the questions I have are for you and can't be answered by the available information. That's because the question relates to an apparent disconnect between the available information on the 960 Rowland and your comments about it.
Specifically, I'm curious about the improvements you claim were made to the cartridge and the chamber to develop the 960 Rowland from the 9x23.
As far as I can tell, there are no differences between the 9x23 case and the 960 Rowland case and no differences between the 9x23 chamber and the 960 Rowland chamber. The bullet is seated more deeply to allow the loaded rounds to fit into a 9mm magazine, but that doesn't affect the case or chamber dimensions and I can't see how that could be called an improvement in design in terms of performance.
So I'll ask the questions again. You can consider it an opportunity for you to provide some special insight about the cartridge that does not seem to be available from any other sources.
What aspect of chamber design was improved to allow the 960 Rowland's development from the 9x23?
How was the cartridge design of the 960 Rowland improved over the design of the parent cartridge, the 9x23?
Davelliott
New member
JohnKSa
Hi John,
Thank you for your persistance.
The 960 is an improvement over the 9mm, not 9x23.
The 960 has a larger bore, more free bore and offers higher performance than 9mm.
Rimless pistol cartridges were developed to perform better in automatics because early rimmed cartridges were finicky feeders due to their rims, when early attempts were made to design a pistol which reloaded faster than revolvers, while attempting to equal existing revolver cartridge performance from older black powder cartridges.
Smokeless powder was better developed, and some sharp guys thought to combine their ideas with this new powder.
36 caliber cap and ball revolvers preceded development of cartridges. Cartridges were developed for modified cylinders to speed reloading. Differences in gun maker designs caused some bores to be 355-363.
We know where these bores stand today, yes?
Thanks guys,
Dave
Hi John,
Thank you for your persistance.
The 960 is an improvement over the 9mm, not 9x23.
The 960 has a larger bore, more free bore and offers higher performance than 9mm.
Rimless pistol cartridges were developed to perform better in automatics because early rimmed cartridges were finicky feeders due to their rims, when early attempts were made to design a pistol which reloaded faster than revolvers, while attempting to equal existing revolver cartridge performance from older black powder cartridges.
Smokeless powder was better developed, and some sharp guys thought to combine their ideas with this new powder.
36 caliber cap and ball revolvers preceded development of cartridges. Cartridges were developed for modified cylinders to speed reloading. Differences in gun maker designs caused some bores to be 355-363.
We know where these bores stand today, yes?
Thanks guys,
Dave
Last edited by a moderator:
So I read all three pages and I'm still puzzled here. Like many, I'm not convinced that the OP isn't just developing a different version of an already existing solution. I own both a custom 6" Glock 20/21L I developed some 11 years ago. It's the basis for all of Lone Wolf Distributor's current Glock longslide conversions. I use it for both 10mm and recently also with 45 Super and with over 9,000rds of hot 10mm, I understand it's capabilities very well.
In addition, I have a couple 357mag revolvers and two 357mag leverguns all with thousands of rds through them too. As I handload for everything I shoot, I custom tailor my loads for my firearms to gain maximum performance. My custom 10mm produces 165grn velocities well above 1,500fps (as high as 1,589fps for my 'nuclear' loads) and it's much more controllable than the G29 based Ring of Fire rounds as shown in the videos.
Everyone who's shot it has been surprised at it's lack of fierce recoil and muzzle rise agreeing that it fires with more of a stout push than a snap meaning muzzle rise is minimal allowing for controlled second shots with only a bit of practice. My wife, all 5'0" and 105lbs of her can manage my custom Glock just fine. She doesn't like to shoot it but can (she just likes smaller sized pistols more her size).
As a CCW license holder for over 15yrs, I know that concealment issues aren't with the barrel length but rather the buttstock so a longer barrel and slide makes no difference for the wearer, however, they do make a difference in performance as the longer barrel and slide give better balance, better sighting, and better recoil control for heavy recoiling weapons.
Most people find the G29 with stout 10mm loads too heavy recoiling to use effectively so I'm not convinced that this newest version with even more recoil will provide anything one can't already get.
In addition, I have a couple 357mag revolvers and two 357mag leverguns all with thousands of rds through them too. As I handload for everything I shoot, I custom tailor my loads for my firearms to gain maximum performance. My custom 10mm produces 165grn velocities well above 1,500fps (as high as 1,589fps for my 'nuclear' loads) and it's much more controllable than the G29 based Ring of Fire rounds as shown in the videos.
Everyone who's shot it has been surprised at it's lack of fierce recoil and muzzle rise agreeing that it fires with more of a stout push than a snap meaning muzzle rise is minimal allowing for controlled second shots with only a bit of practice. My wife, all 5'0" and 105lbs of her can manage my custom Glock just fine. She doesn't like to shoot it but can (she just likes smaller sized pistols more her size).
As a CCW license holder for over 15yrs, I know that concealment issues aren't with the barrel length but rather the buttstock so a longer barrel and slide makes no difference for the wearer, however, they do make a difference in performance as the longer barrel and slide give better balance, better sighting, and better recoil control for heavy recoiling weapons.
Most people find the G29 with stout 10mm loads too heavy recoiling to use effectively so I'm not convinced that this newest version with even more recoil will provide anything one can't already get.
I understand the problem (assuming you are not a troll), you can't give us details until you legally "own" the idea.
But you've said what guns it fits in, its bore size, IIRC straight case? so we look at all the things done by everyone previously, and don't see how yours can be both new and different AND meet the details you have already given us.
A bit of a tease, really.
I'm done here, come back when you can discuss some significant facts and we'll talk.
I do wish you good luck, I just can't do more than that without more specific information.
But you've said what guns it fits in, its bore size, IIRC straight case? so we look at all the things done by everyone previously, and don't see how yours can be both new and different AND meet the details you have already given us.
A bit of a tease, really.
I'm done here, come back when you can discuss some significant facts and we'll talk.
I do wish you good luck, I just can't do more than that without more specific information.
44 Amp said:
It's actually pretty easy to do what he's doing.
You just jack the pressure up to stupid levels and hope that the engineers that designed the gun used a high enough factor of safety to cover your ignorance.
Then when it explodes like a bomb one day, he'll claim he was using factory ammo and sue the gun maker and whatever innocent ammo manufacturer has their headstamp on the brass he's using for the loss of his hand and eyes.
Last edited:
Some of y'all are just pestering Dave.
Let the wizard work. If you insist on peeking behind the curtain I know what you will see, and you will regret it.
Leave the man do his work and I'm confident that in a short time all will be revealed...or at least he'll have some clothes on.
tipoc
Let the wizard work. If you insist on peeking behind the curtain I know what you will see, and you will regret it.
Leave the man do his work and I'm confident that in a short time all will be revealed...or at least he'll have some clothes on.
tipoc
How do you figure that? It’s based on the 9x23, not the 9x19 cartridge.
The bore dimensions are identical between the 9x23 the 9x19 and the 960 Rowland as all three cartridges use the same bullets. It may be possible to find some 960 Rowland barrels (and some 9x19 barrels as well) that measure larger than the nominal .355", but that’s just due to manufacturing variance.
Some of that is correct, some of it is not really accurate, but it's all irrelevant. None of that has bearing on my comment or on your assertion that you are designing a rimless cartridge based on a parent cartridge that used blackpowder.
The term “parent cartridge” is used to refer to the cartridge from which the case was modified to create the current cartridge. Similarities in bullet diameter don't imply that two cartridges share a common ancestry or that one is the parent cartridge of another. It would be very odd, indeed, for someone who knew what they were talking about to state that a rimmed revolver cartridge was the "parent cartridge" of a rimless autopistol cartridge.
Davelliott
New member
All
JohnSKa,
Research Shotgun News 960 review dated July 16, 2015. You are wrong.
This post is about my new cartridge and progress made.
I will not reply to any further "half fast" questions from those who will not nor cannot adequately research for themselves.
Some of us have had a great deal of laughter from some of the ridiculous "answers" to the ridiculous questions received on this post, while others clearly aren't intelligent enough to separate chaff from grain.
As usual, honest interest is welcome and appreciated. I'll answer questions about the cartridge as I can.
New tests will begin in January, after huntin' season is over, and I get the longer barrel.
BTW, Midsouth Shooting Supply had Blue Dot powder onhand. I now have 4 cans. Maybe they still have more in stock for those who need some.
Thanks Guys
Dave
JohnSKa,
Research Shotgun News 960 review dated July 16, 2015. You are wrong.
This post is about my new cartridge and progress made.
I will not reply to any further "half fast" questions from those who will not nor cannot adequately research for themselves.
Some of us have had a great deal of laughter from some of the ridiculous "answers" to the ridiculous questions received on this post, while others clearly aren't intelligent enough to separate chaff from grain.
As usual, honest interest is welcome and appreciated. I'll answer questions about the cartridge as I can.
New tests will begin in January, after huntin' season is over, and I get the longer barrel.
BTW, Midsouth Shooting Supply had Blue Dot powder onhand. I now have 4 cans. Maybe they still have more in stock for those who need some.
Thanks Guys
Dave
Last edited:
Davelliott
New member
All
45 auto:
Unlike the jerks you seem to be associating with, I am an honest man.
I have already sent the folks at Glock the link to my youtube videos.
They also thought I was one of those folks you seem to be familiar with...and I told them straight out... I have NO INTEREST IN FALSIFYING A CLAIM WITH THEM...I ONLY WANT TO SHOW YOU WHAT IS POSSIBLE.
I certainly hope you do not reload...you don't have the equipment to do it safely.
Good by,
Dave
45 auto:
Unlike the jerks you seem to be associating with, I am an honest man.
I have already sent the folks at Glock the link to my youtube videos.
They also thought I was one of those folks you seem to be familiar with...and I told them straight out... I have NO INTEREST IN FALSIFYING A CLAIM WITH THEM...I ONLY WANT TO SHOW YOU WHAT IS POSSIBLE.
I certainly hope you do not reload...you don't have the equipment to do it safely.
Good by,
Dave
Yeah, I read that article some time ago. I assume you're talking about the fact that the particular barrel they tested had a 0.357" bore.
If you read my last post, you will note this statement: "It may be possible to find some 960 Rowland barrels (and some 9x19 barrels as well) that measure larger than the nominal .355", but that’s just due to manufacturing variance. "
If you poke around a little, you will find that it's pretty common to find that 9mm barrels are actually a thousandth or two larger than the nominal diameter.
http://www.shootingtimes.com/reloading/handloading-960-rowland/
"While .357 caliber bullets might seem oversized for the 9mm caliber, some folks use them in their 9mms. Many 9mm bores are larger than 0.355 inches. In fact, both the 960 Rowland barrel and the Glock’s original 19C barrel slugged at 0.357 inches, making oversize bullets an ideal fit, and 0.357-inch jacketed and 0.358-inch lead bullets were included in load development."
http://www.reloadersnest.com/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=12565
Nominally, the groove diameter of a 9MM is .356" but every 9MM handgun I've slugged the barrel on has had groove diameters of .357" to .358".
If you read the article you quoted from, you will notice that they were loading 0.355" jacketed bullets (or 0.356" lead bullets) for the round which are standard size for a nominal 9mm bore.
Rowland's website makes no mention of any difference in bullet or bore diameter, something that one might think was important for people who would buy a conversion and then reload for it. https://www.460rowland.com/product/960-rowland-impact/
Do you have some evidence of your claim that the nominal bore diameter of the 960 Rowland is larger than 9mm or were you basing it exclusively on the fact that you read an article where one of the conversion barrels slugged out at 0.002" over the nominal diameter?
A couple of things.
The question wasn't simply for general information about the cartridge, it was about the accuracy of information you volunteered. You made the claim that the 960 Rowland's performance was based on design improvements to the cartridge and chamber when in reality there's no difference between the chamber or cartridge of the parent cartridge (9x23) and the .960. Let's not even get into the fact that you apparently also incorrectly believed that the .960 was developed from the 9x19. Being asked to provide evidence for a claim that you made is hardly the same thing as being asked to research a topic for someone who's just curious about something.
If you don't want to have to provide evidence to support claims, then don't make claims. If you make claims that don't seem to square with the facts then you shouldn't be surprised when you are called on them nor offended to be questioned about them.
Finally, I sincerely hope you can appreciate the astounding irony of accusing others of inadequate research after the impressive string of erroneous information you've posted to this thread.
stagpanther
New member
Now that you mention it--why don't you whip up a batch of them new cartridges with H110/win 296 and top em with xtp's or deepcurls and take out some deer--that would get some attention ; )
Davelliott
New member
All
Stagpanther:
Yes! I have this planned for later...probably next season.
I am still developing loads, and using less expensive projos for now, but the XTP's will be primary for use later.
I also bought some 147 grainers for testing. Never did this before, but I'm curious what they'll do.
I did test 296, H110 and Lil' Gun. These did not perform as well as Blue Dot. Maybe the barrel was too short? I will test again with the longer barrel...see what happens.
I've noticed in other cartridges the same thing in short barreled firearms. These pistols do better with powders which burn a bit faster.
All:
I traded my. 454 for a Glock 20SF this weekend! New tests will be with this pistol. I have also ordered correct recoil springs and guide rods for the conversion.
This is real. It is coming to fruition.
I recently made an agreement with a premier barrel maker for conversion units...Made In The USA BABY!!!
I apologize to those with sincere questions and concerns, if you got lost in the sauce so to speak.
JohnSKa:
I sent out ridiculous info to those questions I deemed equally ridiculous...to those who were too lazy to do their own research, and occassionally gave some reference to where to go for details.
The original post is accurate.
Some folks understood this...some did not or were on a witch hunt looking for reasons to minimize or ridicule everyone else to make a name for themselves. Small minded, petty, unhappy individuals with their own agenda. I don't care what these folks do. They are evidence of educating an idiot, only gives you an educated idiot who still cannot use their knowledge for anything other than stupidity.
Thanks Guys!
Dave
Some men wonder what would happen if we do this, while experts proclaim we'll sail off the edge of the earth...
I say let the "experts" stay in the house with the women and children where it's safe, while men do men's work...just have dinner ready for us when we return.
Stagpanther:
Yes! I have this planned for later...probably next season.
I am still developing loads, and using less expensive projos for now, but the XTP's will be primary for use later.
I also bought some 147 grainers for testing. Never did this before, but I'm curious what they'll do.
I did test 296, H110 and Lil' Gun. These did not perform as well as Blue Dot. Maybe the barrel was too short? I will test again with the longer barrel...see what happens.
I've noticed in other cartridges the same thing in short barreled firearms. These pistols do better with powders which burn a bit faster.
All:
I traded my. 454 for a Glock 20SF this weekend! New tests will be with this pistol. I have also ordered correct recoil springs and guide rods for the conversion.
This is real. It is coming to fruition.
I recently made an agreement with a premier barrel maker for conversion units...Made In The USA BABY!!!
I apologize to those with sincere questions and concerns, if you got lost in the sauce so to speak.
JohnSKa:
I sent out ridiculous info to those questions I deemed equally ridiculous...to those who were too lazy to do their own research, and occassionally gave some reference to where to go for details.
The original post is accurate.
Some folks understood this...some did not or were on a witch hunt looking for reasons to minimize or ridicule everyone else to make a name for themselves. Small minded, petty, unhappy individuals with their own agenda. I don't care what these folks do. They are evidence of educating an idiot, only gives you an educated idiot who still cannot use their knowledge for anything other than stupidity.
Thanks Guys!
Dave
Some men wonder what would happen if we do this, while experts proclaim we'll sail off the edge of the earth...
I say let the "experts" stay in the house with the women and children where it's safe, while men do men's work...just have dinner ready for us when we return.
stagpanther
New member
Wish you had told us--I've already been down that path and would have sold you mine : )
IMHO the base polymer frame is a bit on the light side and snappy when going to hot loads--you're going to have a lot of fun switching out rods, springs and connectors. If you really want a modern 10 for full power I would look elsewhere--just a suggestion.
PS--was your trade like an Alaskan revolver?
Last edited:
daveelliot said:
No one ever claimed you weren't honest. There are lots of honest jerks out there who aren't very smart.
daveelliot said:
The reason Glock thinks that you are one of "those folks" is because you sent them links proving that you are.
Glock already knows what is possible by increasing pressures beyond design limits. Glock has no need of videos from a bunch of internet yahoos whose knowledge of the terms "safety factor" or "margin of safety" extends only to the fact that Glock's application of those engineering principles will generally save the yahoo's fingers and eyes from injury.
daveelliot said:
Hope in one hand, take a dump in the other, see which one fills up first. I'm not a big fan of your "hoping" something works philosophy. Post a pic of your equipment, then I'll post a pic of mine and we'll let the forum members decide who has the "equipment" and knowledge to reload safely.
Davelliott
New member
Stagpanther
It was a Taurus Raging Bull.
Hind sight...
Thanks,
Dave
It was a Taurus Raging Bull.
Hind sight...
Thanks,
Dave
Pond James Pond
New member
Seems to me, you may be onto something, you may not but one thing seems evident to me with even my limited knowledge of the reloading game.
You've done some backyard testing, you've got impressive figures. Great.
Stop there for a second and find an engineering firm who has the equipment to measure chamber-pressure. Get them to test your most potent rounds.
From there you'll know how many PSI your actually generating. The guns you are shooting are designed to chamber ammo that fits certain specs laid out by SAAMI, if I'm not mistaken.
Even if the gun handles the hotter loads, if used consistently over the pressures it was designed, metal fatigue will surely ensue. If or rather as that is the case, the risk of a catastrophic failure can only increase with every shot.
It is a step that will need to be taken at some point, if nothing else so that a manufacturer can design a chamber for it, so why not just get that step out of the way.
You may be pleasantly surprised by the results or you may realise you've been playing Russian Roulette all this time.
Either way, the results need to be known. Ultimately velocity comes from pressure and if the velocities are high (which they are), then the pressure too must be high.
You've done some backyard testing, you've got impressive figures. Great.
Stop there for a second and find an engineering firm who has the equipment to measure chamber-pressure. Get them to test your most potent rounds.
From there you'll know how many PSI your actually generating. The guns you are shooting are designed to chamber ammo that fits certain specs laid out by SAAMI, if I'm not mistaken.
Even if the gun handles the hotter loads, if used consistently over the pressures it was designed, metal fatigue will surely ensue. If or rather as that is the case, the risk of a catastrophic failure can only increase with every shot.
It is a step that will need to be taken at some point, if nothing else so that a manufacturer can design a chamber for it, so why not just get that step out of the way.
You may be pleasantly surprised by the results or you may realise you've been playing Russian Roulette all this time.
Either way, the results need to be known. Ultimately velocity comes from pressure and if the velocities are high (which they are), then the pressure too must be high.
"They are evidence of educating an idiot, only gives you an educated idiot who still cannot use their knowledge for anything other than stupidity."
And what's the term for an uneducated idiot? Contrary to what many laymen may believe, engineers rarely lack the ego of doctors or lawyers who too often expect others to blindly follow their recommendations. We'll spend the time to actually explain why something is dangerous, how it is dangerous, what will likely go wrong, and how the danger could be mitigated through responsible redesign.
And then the customer will tell us we're either full of it, or to "make it work"
If you're gun hasn't KB'ed yet, it probably won't, simply because fatigue is unlikely to crack the barrel or breechface before other stuff gives out more progressively. I'm not super familiar with Glocks, but I'd expect whatever stops the slide's travel will become rapidly battered (as with 1911 Rowland conversions that omit the brake) and possibly see some peening at the locking and camming lug surfaces. The gun simply wasn't design to operate with as much recoil & breech pressure as you are forcing it to, so the parts responsible for handling and directing these forces will wear and/or break faster.
Let me form a hypothesis;
-Glock sized frame (max cartridge length of 45acp or 10mm)
-Likely crazy high pressures that aren't blowing the brass in a gun notorious for this foible (extra-thick case head rifle brass)
-9mm straight wall brass (likely 9mm case head)
I posit that you've taken 223/5.56 brass, cut it down & reamed/sized it for 9mm pistol bullets that will fit in a 45acp mag. Then loaded it up to or slightly beyond rifle pressures (who knows?) Possibly the reason you were single-loading the cases in the video, is because the breechface of your pistol slide was cut for a 45acp or something, or other aspects of the gun have not yet been 'converted' over for your wildcat round (or the diligent chamber support needed for your high pressure ammo has made it impossible to feed properly off the magazine). No expert, but I suspect something so straightforward has already been done, and either not caught on or been found impractical.
"Some men wonder what would happen if we do this, while experts proclaim we'll sail off the edge of the earth...
I say let the "experts" stay in the house with the women and children where it's safe, while men do men's work...just have dinner ready for us when we return."
Some men actually know what they are talking about. Some men "know all about this here dynamite" (do watch the video in its entirety without skipping ahead; it's probably the funniest long-tale joke ever recorded
). Some men have to have their wives feed them dinner since they don't have any damn fingers or eyes left.
And what's the term for an uneducated idiot? Contrary to what many laymen may believe, engineers rarely lack the ego of doctors or lawyers who too often expect others to blindly follow their recommendations. We'll spend the time to actually explain why something is dangerous, how it is dangerous, what will likely go wrong, and how the danger could be mitigated through responsible redesign.
And then the customer will tell us we're either full of it, or to "make it work"
If you're gun hasn't KB'ed yet, it probably won't, simply because fatigue is unlikely to crack the barrel or breechface before other stuff gives out more progressively. I'm not super familiar with Glocks, but I'd expect whatever stops the slide's travel will become rapidly battered (as with 1911 Rowland conversions that omit the brake) and possibly see some peening at the locking and camming lug surfaces. The gun simply wasn't design to operate with as much recoil & breech pressure as you are forcing it to, so the parts responsible for handling and directing these forces will wear and/or break faster.
Let me form a hypothesis;
-Glock sized frame (max cartridge length of 45acp or 10mm)
-Likely crazy high pressures that aren't blowing the brass in a gun notorious for this foible (extra-thick case head rifle brass)
-9mm straight wall brass (likely 9mm case head)
I posit that you've taken 223/5.56 brass, cut it down & reamed/sized it for 9mm pistol bullets that will fit in a 45acp mag. Then loaded it up to or slightly beyond rifle pressures (who knows?) Possibly the reason you were single-loading the cases in the video, is because the breechface of your pistol slide was cut for a 45acp or something, or other aspects of the gun have not yet been 'converted' over for your wildcat round (or the diligent chamber support needed for your high pressure ammo has made it impossible to feed properly off the magazine). No expert, but I suspect something so straightforward has already been done, and either not caught on or been found impractical.
"Some men wonder what would happen if we do this, while experts proclaim we'll sail off the edge of the earth...
I say let the "experts" stay in the house with the women and children where it's safe, while men do men's work...just have dinner ready for us when we return."
Some men actually know what they are talking about. Some men "know all about this here dynamite" (do watch the video in its entirety without skipping ahead; it's probably the funniest long-tale joke ever recorded
). Some men have to have their wives feed them dinner since they don't have any damn fingers or eyes left.