Armed_Chicagoan
New member
Davelliot said:
New Cartridge 357 Ring Of Fire
- Thread starter Davelliott
- Start date
stagpanther
New member
Errr--I've heard that a new request for sidearm design has in fact been issued by the military--is this not so?
Armed_Chicagoan
New member
But not because "Baretta M92 can't even withstand the 9mm".
stagpanther
New member
Ah--perhaps David is given to some personal hyperbole.
Davelliott
New member
All
Hi folks,
The information I passed on about the M9 came from an article in Military Officers Magazine. I wouldn't make this stuff up. These issues are too serious to take lightly or interject emotions to skew results.
The fact that so many changes are attempted with the nines to improve them, is self evident of their short falls...especially when they keep trying to turn it into a 357 magnum. I don't see anyone altering the 357 cartridge.
I am only trying to give the semi auto platform an equal to the 357 magnum.
The nine will never be more than a 38 spl. equivalent in regards to penetration. Just check out ballistic jel tests.
Of course the pistol is a secondary combat weapon...but when it is needed, the circumstances are indeed dire...so why not offer the best available in those worst moments, rather than something less capable? Yes, I know...NATO conformance. So I also need to convert NATO...
Yes! The 45-38 was an early attempt to get 357 performance from a semi auto. My design simply increases magazine capacity.
Don't worry folks...the pressure testing will be done before these are spilled to commercial sales. I am not advertising for sales, only letting you know something better is on the way.
From the Sierra loading manual, the 170 FMJ's only need 1050 fps in the 357 magnum, the 158's top out at 1250 fps. I am just curious as to how much I can push this cartridge. There is really no reason to exceed 357 magnum performance with this...so I'll curb my enthusiasm a little.
I will test some 357 in a model 60 which has the barrel and cylinder length the same as the Glock 29 for comparisons and make further adjustments to loads...probably reducing them.
Thanks everyone!
Dave
Hi folks,
The information I passed on about the M9 came from an article in Military Officers Magazine. I wouldn't make this stuff up. These issues are too serious to take lightly or interject emotions to skew results.
The fact that so many changes are attempted with the nines to improve them, is self evident of their short falls...especially when they keep trying to turn it into a 357 magnum. I don't see anyone altering the 357 cartridge.
I am only trying to give the semi auto platform an equal to the 357 magnum.
The nine will never be more than a 38 spl. equivalent in regards to penetration. Just check out ballistic jel tests.
Of course the pistol is a secondary combat weapon...but when it is needed, the circumstances are indeed dire...so why not offer the best available in those worst moments, rather than something less capable? Yes, I know...NATO conformance. So I also need to convert NATO...
Yes! The 45-38 was an early attempt to get 357 performance from a semi auto. My design simply increases magazine capacity.
Don't worry folks...the pressure testing will be done before these are spilled to commercial sales. I am not advertising for sales, only letting you know something better is on the way.
From the Sierra loading manual, the 170 FMJ's only need 1050 fps in the 357 magnum, the 158's top out at 1250 fps. I am just curious as to how much I can push this cartridge. There is really no reason to exceed 357 magnum performance with this...so I'll curb my enthusiasm a little.
I will test some 357 in a model 60 which has the barrel and cylinder length the same as the Glock 29 for comparisons and make further adjustments to loads...probably reducing them.
Thanks everyone!
Dave
Last edited:
Davelliott
New member
All
Yes, the military wants to buy @410,000 newly designed pistols to replace the M9. They want a modular design like the 1911 is.
They are also looking for @4-5,000 compact pistols...hence the tests with the Glock 29. Longer barrels will generate higher velocities with the same loads.
Yes, the military wants to buy @410,000 newly designed pistols to replace the M9. They want a modular design like the 1911 is.
They are also looking for @4-5,000 compact pistols...hence the tests with the Glock 29. Longer barrels will generate higher velocities with the same loads.
Last edited:
Sorry, but I am not going to be asking for a pistol chambered for an unknown cartridge when there is no more info about it than the originator saying "It's great"!
Without pressure data, I can't imagine any manufacturer giving it any consideration at all. How exactly would they know if it could be safely offered in one of their pistols?
Davelliott
New member
The continued comments about 9mm being ineffective are really hurting the little credibility you have here and anywhere else you post this. Millions of 9mm shooters with millions of 9mm guns have proven the reliability and effectiveness of the cartridge.
In the end this sounds like a nice little hobby project but it's a pipe dream to think anyone is going to adopt this cartridge let alone purpose it to the military. you are a long way from a real working prototype considering you don't even know the pressures of the round shot out of the gun in your hands.
Please explain why a major manufacturer or the U.S. Military would even consider this. Good luck but I have seen enough....
In the end this sounds like a nice little hobby project but it's a pipe dream to think anyone is going to adopt this cartridge let alone purpose it to the military. you are a long way from a real working prototype considering you don't even know the pressures of the round shot out of the gun in your hands.
Please explain why a major manufacturer or the U.S. Military would even consider this. Good luck but I have seen enough....
stagpanther
New member
The 10 is already jamming a whole lot a bang into a small case. Smallest pistol case I know of with a large pistol/magnum primer.
Davelliott
New member
All
I wonder how cartridge development was done by Mr. Browning, Kieth, Ricco or Rowland... does anyone know?
I imagined they did it by watching cases and primers. Just curious.
It sounds like a lot of folks have pressure gauges. Anyone want to lend a poor boy one?
Thanks guys!
Dave
I wonder how cartridge development was done by Mr. Browning, Kieth, Ricco or Rowland... does anyone know?
I imagined they did it by watching cases and primers. Just curious.
It sounds like a lot of folks have pressure gauges. Anyone want to lend a poor boy one?
Thanks guys!
Dave
Davelliott
New member
All
The cartridge is not a short 9mm casing. Those cannot contain the powder needed.
Dave
The cartridge is not a short 9mm casing. Those cannot contain the powder needed.
Dave
Jim Watson
New member
Mr Browning's designs were done in cahoots with gun and ammunition manufacturers. I am sure his ammunition was well standardized for its day.
Elmer Keith mostly just overloaded existing handgun cartridges to the most the guns would stand... or a bit more. I don't know what technical support the OKH rifle ammo had.
John Ricco had brass made by Winchester, maybe they did lab testing for him before they ripped off his design. 9x23 CP Elite brass I inspected was very soft, they were not putting a lot of effort into special order cases. 9x23 Win is different, it is rifle temper and the reason Colt could sell guns with conventional GM ramps.
I remember the old Johnny Rowland late night Shooting Show. Early efforts on the .460 were pretty much trial and error. His present products are standardized and rated.
Elmer Keith mostly just overloaded existing handgun cartridges to the most the guns would stand... or a bit more. I don't know what technical support the OKH rifle ammo had.
John Ricco had brass made by Winchester, maybe they did lab testing for him before they ripped off his design. 9x23 CP Elite brass I inspected was very soft, they were not putting a lot of effort into special order cases. 9x23 Win is different, it is rifle temper and the reason Colt could sell guns with conventional GM ramps.
I remember the old Johnny Rowland late night Shooting Show. Early efforts on the .460 were pretty much trial and error. His present products are standardized and rated.
sounds interesting. not sure if I like it or not since their are very little details. I personally think that Underwoods offerings of.357s 158gr HP's @ 1500FPS are a pretty impressive round, and if you can match or get close to that in a reliable semi-auto, that'd be pretty sweet. But my interest would only be piqued if it came from somewhat easily available components, since those facts seemed to be classified, i'll have to wait and see if it's for me or not.
Not sure if your just kinda playing around right now, or are seriously trying to sell us on your "product", but I would like to see some better testing. A 10% clear ballistics gel FBI block is 125$ and would really get people interested, a couple magazine dumps to show reliability and recoil and a ransom rest to show your round's inherent accuracy. I am not sure of what stage in your process your in, but if your still just figuring it out for yourself, it may behoove you to wait for a final unveiling after you get your loads down where your want and do some testing to show us where your round outperforms others and why it would be desirable. I am not being rude at all, I hope all this works out well and you can make/sell a new and exciting cartridge and conversion, I just think at the time it looks unprofessional. there may be some parts of your "inventing" process that may be better left unseen to your possible future customer base. Get it all figured out, save some coin for some tools/props and give a good solid showcase when it's ready, and i'll bet you would see a host of different types of comments than you are getting now......if it's as good as you think it is.
good luck. I know wht your doing is a lot of work.
Not sure if your just kinda playing around right now, or are seriously trying to sell us on your "product", but I would like to see some better testing. A 10% clear ballistics gel FBI block is 125$ and would really get people interested, a couple magazine dumps to show reliability and recoil and a ransom rest to show your round's inherent accuracy. I am not sure of what stage in your process your in, but if your still just figuring it out for yourself, it may behoove you to wait for a final unveiling after you get your loads down where your want and do some testing to show us where your round outperforms others and why it would be desirable. I am not being rude at all, I hope all this works out well and you can make/sell a new and exciting cartridge and conversion, I just think at the time it looks unprofessional. there may be some parts of your "inventing" process that may be better left unseen to your possible future customer base. Get it all figured out, save some coin for some tools/props and give a good solid showcase when it's ready, and i'll bet you would see a host of different types of comments than you are getting now......if it's as good as you think it is.
good luck. I know wht your doing is a lot of work.
stagpanther
New member
Best response yet IMHO
Davelliott
New member
All
I think you may be right Skizz. Those shows you mention are on the docket, but not in the pocket at this time.
It is very early in development. I just wanted to show folks what is on the horizon.
With metallurgy, powders and bullet making improved so much now, the possibility of the cartridge hundreds have tried to make over the last 80+ years is finally possible.
No magic powders, no mysterious bullets and no freaky barrels...just judicious applications of modern materials.
I'll look in to the Underwood info. Find out what kind of barrel was used for velocity tests... powder makers use all kinds of barrels from 6" vented to 12" unvented to get velocities...but it sounds doable.
Thanks for all the great comments!
Dave
I think you may be right Skizz. Those shows you mention are on the docket, but not in the pocket at this time.
It is very early in development. I just wanted to show folks what is on the horizon.
With metallurgy, powders and bullet making improved so much now, the possibility of the cartridge hundreds have tried to make over the last 80+ years is finally possible.
No magic powders, no mysterious bullets and no freaky barrels...just judicious applications of modern materials.
I'll look in to the Underwood info. Find out what kind of barrel was used for velocity tests... powder makers use all kinds of barrels from 6" vented to 12" unvented to get velocities...but it sounds doable.
Thanks for all the great comments!
Dave
WhatRecoil
New member
A heads up match
Between a 6 in barrel 357 mag vs 357 ROF chronied as well as 13 to 18 inches of penetration in FBI spec gel and 4 layers of denim, hogs head and meat/bone testing vs TRUE FULL HOUSE 357 factory loads would win me over.
It has to beat a full power 10mm with 16 rounds of ammo since the hottest 10mms APPROACH lower powered 41 magnum performance but don't quite fit that bill
Not trying to discourage you but if 357 ROF can be acquired cheaper than 10mm full power loads etc. is the real test nowadays, I've got a feeling ammo will be like gasoline from now on, get used to the price.
Between a 6 in barrel 357 mag vs 357 ROF chronied as well as 13 to 18 inches of penetration in FBI spec gel and 4 layers of denim, hogs head and meat/bone testing vs TRUE FULL HOUSE 357 factory loads would win me over.
It has to beat a full power 10mm with 16 rounds of ammo since the hottest 10mms APPROACH lower powered 41 magnum performance but don't quite fit that bill
Not trying to discourage you but if 357 ROF can be acquired cheaper than 10mm full power loads etc. is the real test nowadays, I've got a feeling ammo will be like gasoline from now on, get used to the price.