New Cartridge 357 Ring Of Fire

I always thought the 125gr 357Mag was a pretty stout load, more so than the 158's and much more than the 110's. Those old refridgerator compressors were pretty tuff. Also had a rounded surface on them.
 
"Those old refridgerator compressors were pretty tuff."

Even new ones are because of the pressures that are developed in the compression cycle.
 
Getting back to the original subject, I'm still in the dark as to what the OP is trying to accomplish with his "new" cartridge, or if we have been "pranked."
 
Watched the 960 Rowland video. Initially, I wondered how a cartridge with 23MM (38 Super, 9X23 Win, etc. length case) case could work in the 9MM envelope of the Glock 19. Then saw the bullet is seated deep so it works in the 9X19MM size gun. So, the 960 would appear to be a cartridge with the diameter and overall length of the standard 9X19MM cartridge. So how are ballistics of 1600+ FPS obtained with a 115 grain projectile? There is no free lunch, higher operating pressures. Only thing gained is that Mr. Rowland has a proprietary cartridge with, with at least initially, no SAAMI specs to adhere to. Thankfully the 23MM case insures that the 960 won't chamber in a standard 9X19MM firearm. Interesting, just like the 357 Ring Of Fire, but 9MM +P+, 38 Super and 9X23 Winchester are enough for me in non bottle necked 9MM pistol cartridges.......ymmv
 
It's pretty much the same difference you see when comparing .40S&W guns to similarly sized 9mm pistols. You usually lose a couple of rounds.

The Glock 17 and Glock 20 have similar grip lengths and overall gun heights. The Glock 17 holds 17+1 and the Glock 20 holds 15+1. To be fair, grip length and gun height isn't exactly the whole story in a size comparison between the G20 & G17. The grip circumference is a good bit larger in the Glock 20 than the Glock 17.
 
Dave, I personally don't have all that much interest in your cartridge, but I am interested in your development process. I sincerely hope that you can ignore the haters and detractors and continue posting your results. Even if you fail to develop a viable new load, the effort itself will be a great experience.

I'm somewhat disappointed in the piling-on, including by some mods, that has taken place in this thread.
 
I'm somewhat disappointed in the piling-on, including by some mods, that has taken place in this thread.
Click to expand...
It's distressing to see that the main points of many of the "negative" comments have been missed.

First of all, most of the OP's reasons and rationale for producing the new cartridge are based on incorrect information and misconceptions. As I said in one earlier post, that's not really a big deal. People with misconceptions can still have great ideas. However, one should assume that if someone posts incorrect information on TFL, those who know better will likely correct them and provide citations to shore up those corrections.

Second, and most importantly, the sketchy information provided by the OP conclusively indicates that his new cartridge is likely operating in a pressure range that is well beyond what is considered safe in the class of cartridge he's experimenting with.

People with knowledge have a responsibility to speak up when they see someone doing something that could unwittingly injure themselves or others. Especially here at TFL where the forum's purpose is the "the discussion and advancement of responsible firearms ownership." It's not responsible to keep quiet when someone posts about doing something with firearms that's clearly dangerous.

You see "haters" and people "piling on" and I won't deny that there are some posts that could be accurately described that way on this thread. But I think if you look closely, what is more prevalent is a desire that TFL is not used to propagate incorrect information and a stronger desire that the OP not injure himself or others in the process of pursuing his goal.

Who's really on the OP's side here? Those who point out that pushing the limits of cartridge performance to extremes can be dangerous if pressure isn't monitored carefully? Or those who know the danger and stand by silently while the OP engages in very risky behavior without fully understanding the danger?
 
-one should assume that if someone posts incorrect information on TFL, those who know better will likely correct them and provide citations to shore up those corrections.
Click to expand...

I count on this forum to do just that. I've learned a lot here just because many of the members take the time to do this.

JohnKSa-I think your post is right on the money for this thread even including the part about some 'piling on' going on.
 
I think it's possible that the OP is purposefully "withholding" info on his cartridge--perhaps out of fear that someone may "steal" his idea and "hit the jackpot." I get a feeling that a lot of the motivation behind this is the notion that the new design will be embraced in a huge contract(s) for replacing sidearms among military and LE--thus the dialogue (whether well-founded or not) regarding the shortcomings of existing cartridges.

I do admire and encourage Dave to develop a new cartridge. On the other hand--there are obvious safety and performance aspects which I think invite others to "pile on" wanting more info about--and if left unanswered will encourage doubt. There are real experts here--though I personally am not one of them.
 
Last edited:
Long story short I doubt anything other than an armor piercing round from a high-powered rifle will penetrate an engine block.
Click to expand...

A friend was the gun nut at his agency. When they got a tip that there was to be a drug shipment unloaded from boat to car, they set up a roadblock just up the road from the pier. He was the stopper... his .30-06 loaded with AP. He didn't have to use it, but if he had, the vehicle and its driver would have been in trouble because he was a fine shot and unflappable.
 
I sincerely hope that you can ignore the haters and detractors and continue posting your results.
Click to expand...

So injecting a dose of reality, gets labeled hater and detractor?

The reality is the 9X23 and 960 Rowland already exist and you're not going to exceed their performance with a case that fits the OAL of a 1911 and the diameter of a 9mm case without increasing pressure beyond that of the 55,000 psi of the 9X23.
If Dave keeps ignoring these facts he'll find the point where he exceeds the limit of what the gun will contain;). I would strongly advise that pointing those facts out would not be a hater, but quite the opposite, IMHO the hater is the one encouraging him to do something that will very likely get him hurt.
 
Last edited:
Nobody is going to get rich by inventing a new cartridge. That was probably over with the Mauser Brothers, and they had cutting edge rifles to go with it.
 
dragline 45-hold back the tears

Sorry to break the news of the 92 Beretta.
The 9 mm gun is not strong enough to pass the original longevity test.
Clinton was the president then and had to, for some reason Im sure you can think of, make that model pass the test and be chosen. Beretta refused to make the gun stronger as it would reduce their profit margin.
That left clinton with one out and somehow got the maker of NATO 9 mm ammo to reduce the strength of the 9mm so the gun would pass the test and they did and it did so it was passed.
Think of what I just said. It was every where, imagine defending yourself with ammo under 1000 fps.
They had the nerve to try it again recently without making it stronger.
Before your mouth and brain say anything LOOK IT UP!
 
:rolleyes:

I lived through the selection process, both the early tests conducted by the USAF and the final tests completed by the Army.

I even wrote a paper about the tests for a USAF leader-ship course in the late '80s, and nothing you just wrote happened during the selection process.

While none of the submitted examples passed the USAF run tests, the criteria was re-written and more pistols were tested the second time (by the Army).

Down-loaded ammo was not a part of the second set of trials.
 
I fell into a burning ring of fire,
I went down, down, down as the flames went higher
And it burns, burns, burns,
The ring of fire, the ring of fire....

I cannot believe this thread has gone on so long... LOL
 
Knowledgeable posters have a responsibility to not only point out the danger to OP, but also to anyone who might find this in a google search and get ideas.

Frankly, as far as I can tell, what OP is doing is probably the most reckless of anything I have seen allowed to continue in a thread on this forum.

I was part of a paintball community once where posting "action pictures" without proper face/eye protection was prohibited. It wasn't a bad idea.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top