New Cartridge 357 Ring Of Fire

you don't have to look into what underwood uses for their velocity. just look up underwoods ammo and watch the tests on youtube. find trustworthy youtubers(they exist), like shootingthebull410, tnoutdoors9 and others.

this is from a member of the forum. I can't say whether trustworthy or not. but shows a 158gr Underwood XTP @ 1,490 from GP100
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bJk_YHO6hDk

I can't recall the exact video, but one has over 1500 from their full size revolvers. i'll try to find it.
 
Interesting--unless I misunderstand--the Underwood can be pushed too fast through a lever carbine--giving up retained weight and penetration?
 
All

Thank you Skizz for the link. It was very real and clear.
1500 fps is what many manufacturers have told me their pistol bullets are rated for.
As far as the 10mm, I do not reach to pass that powerful round. I intend to simply fill the gap between 9's and 10's like the 357 fills between the 38 and the 41 magnum.
Yes, the 158's will be the game changer. I don't know if 1500fps is practical or safe in this cartridge, but 1250+ is well within reach and will also offer the advantages of fast reloads with high capacity mags...don't get me wrong...I love revolvers and their versatility! I'd just like to see something with real 357 bullets in a hi cap pistol...so I will continue to work on this project.
Thanks Guys
Dave
 
I'm sorry, I'm sorry. I know I'm late to the party, but you said, " I don't like 9mm due to its origins".

What is that supposed to mean?
 
All

The origin of the 9mm is European. Georg Luger of Germany for WW1. 9mm Parabellum means prepare for war.
He took the 9mm Kurz and lengthened it to add more powder to make it more powerful.
I'd like to see our troops equiped with American developed equipment...better equipment.
 
daveelliot said:
I'd like to see our troops equiped with American developed equipment...better equipment.
Click to expand...

What I got from wasting 10 minutes reading this thread:

1) You don't like 9mm Luger.

2) You're jacking up the pressure on something the size of the 9x23 Winchester (already at 55,000 PSI) to unknown levels.

3) The thing requires a large frame to accommodate it's length.

4) It'll recoil like a .357 magnum.

I'd say that either #3 or #4 (much less both) pretty much make it dead in the water for any serious consideration by anyone.
 
The origin of the 9mm is European. Georg Luger of Germany for WW1. 9mm Parabellum means prepare for war.
He took the 9mm Kurz and lengthened it to add more powder to make it more powerful.
Click to expand...

I hope your ammo production is better than your firearms history.
Ol Georg, with considerable help from DWM, based the 9mm P on the original 7.65 Parabellum (which was itself a shortened 7.63 Borchardt) necked up and shortened. This around 1902-1903, well before WWI.

9mm Kurz is the German term for the John Browning designed .380 ACP which first appeared in the Colt Pocket Hammerless in 1908 and the 1910 FN in 1910.

Then we get into such technical trivialities as the fact that the 9mm P and the 9mm K share NO dimension other than bullet diameter. So there was no design development the other way around, either.
 
And this^^ proves that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.

Thanks Jim for correctly relating the history of the 9p cartridge.

As to the OPs cartridge design.... I dont see a large niche for it as a defensive round, Civilian, LE or Military. Too big, too much recoil, prob too much blast and flash. All for no REAL benefit to the shooter.

As a woods gun/ hunting package.... Maybe. But I think that area is already covered fairly well by the 10mm, 357mag, 41mag and up.

By ALL MEANS, play with the cartridge. Enjoy the development process. But dont expect it to take off. It just doesnt offer any advantage to todays defensive shooter

IMHO at least
 
Sounds like the op's testing process involves a whole bunch of "Hold my beer and watch this" moments
 
And 9 years after the Field & Stream article the OP cites, we are still issuing 9mm handguns to the few US troops who carry one... yeah, those magazine writers know all. :rolleyes:
 
All

Thanks for the info on the 9mm. I guess Wikipedia has it all wrong.
Yes, it requires a frame like the 45 acp and the 10mm. These are still selling very well.
This new cartridge offers a bit more magazine capacity in the same space and more rounds for the same weight.
Depending on the powder used, the flash can be reduced the same as any other round.
With variations in loads, recoil can be reduced greatly and still maintain 357 performance with heavier recoil springs.
As far as pressures go, small pistol primers are not recommended for the pressures some are imagining. These will show signs of over pressure long before I ever risk the casing or pistol.
There is more to managing pressures than cartridge issues.
No. I do not know it all. This is why I look at a problem and ask "What if I do this?" Now I learn a little as I go along, rather than follow the lead lemming.
Isn't this how we progress?
I figure some folks are trying to goad information. I will not entertain them...:)
As long as we don't shake the status quo, no one criticises you...the way I see it, I must have shaken the hell out of something!!!:)
Thanks guys
Dave
 
9x19

Did you not find the June 2015 article in Military Officers Magazine? Same story...again.
But I see your point...if you're stuck at sea with only a life vest, you don't throw it away because it isn't the best for the circumstance...but if a raft was seen, I would be going for it, rather than sticking with something less...and I still wouldn't toss the vest...:)
 
On testing for pressure. For over 100 years handloaders have had access to pressure testing equipment. (I'll leave aside mathematical methods of calculating pressure that have been around for a long time.) the Gun shops and smith used to have the equipment on hand and outfits like Speer, Lee, and others allowed serious wildcatters to send in ammo to be tested at their facilities for a low cost.

The old timers like Keith, Ackley, and others mentioned earlier in this thread, were serious and made sure they had access to all what was available to them. They were not cavalier about it.

For decades reloading supply houses like Sierra, Lee and the others have published manuals which go through how to look for signs of excessive pressure. Lee's "Modern Reloading: Second Edition" does this in chapter 8 as do many other books and pamphlets. They also discuss the equipment on sale for testing at home.

Any of the handloading web sights also offer reviews and opinions on the home testing kits. They may not be perfect that they get very close. You can also rig some up at home.

Here are links to a few and more are available:

http://www.oehler-research.com/custom/indsysix.html

https://www.shootingsoftware.com/pressure.htm

http://www.ktgunsmith.com/straingauge.htm

https://www.pcb.com/Aerospace/Explosive_Gun_Impact/Ballistic/Conformal.aspx

There is also a good deal more. Both home made (that works) and the gamut up to professional grade. At varying price points.

Serious re-loaders and wildcatters generally invest in one or another of these, or build one, especially if they are interested in seeing a new round widely adapted.

tipoc
 
Wikipedia gave the same information as Jim Watson:confused: I don't think the military would want anything this high strung in a hand gun. Sporting use may be a better fit for it.
 
Dave,

First I appreciate you posting here about your experimentation. Just a couple of small points

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.
Click to expand...

The 1911 is not a modular design. At least not in the modern usage of that term.

A modular weapons design is a term and concept that came to us from rifle and carbine design. Where entire parts of the weapon can be changed out quickly and easily. The grip frame, optics mounts, lasers, barrel length, grenade launchers etc. can be swapped out from off the shelf parts. A carbine can become a rifle, etc. without gunsmithing and in the field.

This concept has been adapted to pistols in various degrees. Current efforts are underway to accelerate that process in military searches for a possible new handgun.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modular_weapon

The talk was of possibly going to the .40S&W caliber. We'll see what happens.

The G29 is a compact 10 mm pistols that holds 10 rounds of that caliber.

https://us.glock.com/products/model/g29

While some special forces units and individuals may use the 10mm G29, it will not be issued as a general issue standard service sidearm.

There have been complaints and gripes about every service side arm ever adopted by the military. The M9 has it's share. For 29 years it's been the horse in the stable. It'll hit it's 30 year mark next year. Only the 1911 was there longer. Neither is a modular design.

tipoc
 
So, if I read all this right, you are developing a round that requires the use of a frame sized for 10mm/45ACP, yet delivers less performance than 10mm, but gives you 1 -2 additional rounds? Why wouldn't I just stick with my 10mm which I can load light to match your new cartridge, or load hot to surpass your new cartridge?

You said in an earlier post that you would rather have the more powerful .357than a 9mm as your chances of a one-shot stop are better with the .357, because it's more powerful. Well using your own logic, there is no reason for the .357ROF round to exist when 10mm already exists and offers the same performance (talking about velocity for a given bullet weight only, since no ballistic tests have been completed) in lighter loads and better performance in hotter loads.

If you think there is a market for this round, then by all means, keep on keeping on, but from the info you have provided and the lack of real test data (pressure, terminal performance, etc), it's not for me unless you can prove otherwise to my points...
 
I'm just not understanding the niche that this round is supposed to fill. I would think if people wanted it, the 38 Super would still be popular.
 
All

I understand the 10mm concepts. They're good, I am only trying to develop a cartridge which will provide better ballistics, with more rounds available per pound.
I was doing the same with 10mm until I found everything is now ready to produce this new round.
Imagine 357 magnum performance in a semi auto platform with higher magazine capacity than the 10's, with 158 grain bullets. I am not saying this would negate the 10mm!!! The 10mm cartridge has a definite niche to fill!
I was wondering...has anyone ever seen ballistic gel tests with different caliber and weight bullets which carry the same energies? For example, a 115 fmj at x velocity giving 350 ft-lbs of energy, and 357 with a 158 grain bullet traveling at y velocity delivering the same 350 ft-lbs, and a 45 acp with the 230 grain bullet traveling at z velocity delivering 350 ft-lbs, etc.?
I am curious if they all would penetrate the same depth.
Thanks everyone!
Dave
 
Tipoc

Oh!
I am old school...I was considering the ease of replacing parts in the 1911 as being modular due to the ability to make generic parts for the pistol called drop ins to get them back in service quickly. We would have speed contests to see who could completely break down the 1911 into a string of parts, then reassemble back to the complete weapon. We began doing this blindfolded to keep it interesting...
this is why I called the 1911 modular. We could swap parts and still make a functioning pistol...but the armorer gave us fits when he heard about it...:D
Dave
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top