Modern firearms technology, computer aided design, and computer aided manufacturing, subcompact firearms chambered for the 9MM seem to be rising to dominate the category of CCW handguns. Some of these mighty midget handguns have 3" barrels and tip scales at 16 oz and less. A few accommodate mags that hold 10 rounds. What will these mighty midget handguns do to demand for .380 Auto handguns?. The advantages the .380 Auto had over the 9MM was smaller size and lighter weights. Those advantages have been obliterated.
I'm surprised that the 10MM has lingered after Jeff Cooper abandoned it and returned to his beloved 1911-A1 .45 ACP. Cooper was the father of factory production of the 10MM and carried one for a few years before returning to his 1911-A1 .45 ACP.
Cartridge predictions can be a dicey game. Due to shrinking production of 10MM handguns which reflects weakening demand, the 10MM is living on borrowed time. Mighty midget handguns chambered for the 9MM might put the .380 Auto on life support.
What's your theory? How would you defend it?
I was told that CAD(computer aid design) and CSC machining have improve the reliability of handguns and the size becomes smaller. I was definitely interested in smaller lighter guns in 9mm. But then I start doing research, watching youtubes. I don't trust any particular youtube video, BUT I look at collectively how many bad reviews, report of malfunctions and just take it as numbers rather than what they say. You can definitely see the trend that
1) the bigger size guns definitely improved in reliability.
2) the smaller size guns have issues of feeding, particular ejecting.
I emphasize this is only my opinion. I read articles talking about recoil springs and it makes a world of sense. The major issue is the weight of the slide. The smaller the gun for say 9mm(as the subject here), the lighter the slide. To compensate the lose of weight, they need to put a stiffer recoil spring to prevent the slide from slamming onto the frame too hard( causing huge recoil and more importantly, stressing the frame and the components inside). That is where the problem comes in.
You can design using computer, and mill out the components more precise using CSC machining. But it is harder to control the spring. With a heavy slide, it is a lot more forgiving on the spring variation. But on a light slide, the spring serve a more major role to balance between too stiff where the slide cannot even travel all the way to eject the shell and strip the next round. If it is not stiff enough, then it can cause really bad recoil and crack the frame( small and thin also).
Then if the gun is small for the big bullet, the feed ramp path is very steep because you don't have space to let the bullet slowly rise up from magazine to the chamber. The steeper the path, the more likely you have FTF. Yes, CAD can optimize this.........BUT, it all based on the consistency of the size of the bullets AND the force of the slide pushing the new round into the chamber( again back to the recoil spring).
As the result, some people swear by the small guns when they happen to get one that is everything is just right. Or you have people that keep having problems. Everything is more critical when the gun becomes smaller and it show from the statistics.
This is my point of view as an engineer and from the recent research. I notice before, FTE are mostly
stovepipe where the extractor, ejector angle or the eject port problem. Now when you watch youtube videos, a lot of what looks like double feed or the empty shell not even pull out all the way and looks like the shell and the next round stack together. That's more likely the slide was not traveled back far enough to pull the empty shell all the way to hit the ejector to pop the shell out and slam back stripping the new round out. Ending up the shell and the new round stacking in PARALLEL and stuck together.
As for myself, I am more set on Ruger LC380, bigger one, still 4 oz lighter than my Walther PPKS 380. More importantly, it's easy to convert LC380 to LC9. So I can always try it, if it fails, I just go back to the 380!!
I ruled out Kahr, if I really want to deal with it, I think I can solve the issue. If it fails, I can work on changing the recoil spring to a little lighter and see, or polishing the ramp and work on the ejector to make it work. But I really don't want to, because spring can change with time as it ages and bullets might be out of spec in length or something. I rather play it safe.
EDIT:
matter of fact, even the bigger ones like between Glock 19 and the Glock 26 that I just bought. There are a few more yourtube on Glock 26 failure. You really don't see much failure with Glock 19 and Glock 17. I can tell you the recoil spring on the 26 is stiffer than my S&W659 full size 9mm. I am going to test the Glock 26 with some of my old reloads I bought that are known to be lighter charged and see whether it is still reliable. Glock 26 is nowhere small by any means with 3.5" barrel. Still, you can see the statistics. The recoil spring is 16lbs, if all else fails, I might consider changing to 14lbs spring. I would love to see a 15lbs spring on the market.
