Why so much empty space?
- Thread starter Prof Young
- Start date
What was the original loading of the 9mm? When did it change?
Any references? I'd like to read up on it. Thanks.
According to the Standard Catalog of Luger (Davis 2007) the original load for the 9mm Luger was the 124gr bullet at 1050fps from a 4" (100mm) barrel.
Sometime before WW I the load was changed to a 115gr at 1150fps (4")
Today, you can still get 115gr @ 1150fps
And you can also get 115gr loaded above 1300fps. Think about that for a bit...
Sometime before WW I the load was changed to a 115gr at 1150fps (4")
Today, you can still get 115gr @ 1150fps
And you can also get 115gr loaded above 1300fps. Think about that for a bit...
jetinteriorguy
New member
I like this thought, could be something to play with.
According to the Standard Catalog of Luger (Davis 2007) the original load for the 9mm Luger was the 124gr bullet at 1050fps from a 4" (100mm) barrel.
Sometime before WW I the load was changed to a 115gr at 1150fps (4")
Today, you can still get 115gr @ 1150fps
And you can also get 115gr loaded above 1300fps. Think about that for a bit...
Thanks for that information.
And you can also get 115gr loaded above 1300fps. Think about that for a bit...
Am I supposed to be shocked by this? Selecting the right gunpowder will let you get this performance within normal pressure range. See Vihtavuori's data with 3N38. Using that data I get a 115 grain bullet to over 1300 fps from a 4" barrel.
What we don't know is the chamber pressure of the original load. It might or might not be the same as current SAAMI and CIP standards. Performance and pressures generated will vary depending on which gunpowder is used. Who know what they were using back in the old days.
Jim Watson
New member
The US Army bought 1000 of the 1900 .30 Luger for field trials; to test the Luger pistol and the idea of an automatic pistol in general.
In 1903 the Army bought 50 9mms for comparison with the smaller caliber.
They tested ammo with 8 gram (123.4 grains) bullets and two powder charges; .35 gram (5.4 grains) and .38 gram (5.9 grains), the brand or grade not specified, but DWM did make a smokeless powder identified only as "Parabellum."
Velocity was in line with current production. We can't know the chamber pressure, but DWM sure did at the time.
You can get pretty much the same performance with about that much Unique which was available at the time.
In 1903 the Army bought 50 9mms for comparison with the smaller caliber.
They tested ammo with 8 gram (123.4 grains) bullets and two powder charges; .35 gram (5.4 grains) and .38 gram (5.9 grains), the brand or grade not specified, but DWM did make a smokeless powder identified only as "Parabellum."
Velocity was in line with current production. We can't know the chamber pressure, but DWM sure did at the time.
You can get pretty much the same performance with about that much Unique which was available at the time.
Klaus-Peter König's book, 9 mm Parabellum, lacks ballistic details on the earlier versions but does say one of them was intended for carbines and produced 15% more pressure and was distinguished by having a blackened case. He also says (has a photo) the bullets were flat meplat bullets, later dropped for reasons that were unclear, with one claim being they were considered unnecessarily destructive, resulting in fear the Hague rules on "dum dum" bullets might be applied to them if they were adopted, and the other being they didn't feed well from accessory drum magazines in later tests. In any event, the bullet was replaced with the RN common today.
In QuickLOAD, with the Hornady 124-grain FMJ FP with its weight adjusted to 8.00 grams, I can get Vihtavuori N310 to give me just over that kind of pressure difference for 3.5 and 3.8 grains, and deliver about 1000 fps and 1050 fps, respectively. I cannot get any other powder past those velocities with those light charge weights without exceed the reported pressure ratio and shortening the cartridge, so I think we can assume "Parabellum" powder had characteristics similar to N310. But 100 mm barrel ballistics do not allow matching modern standard velocities without going to heavier charges of slower powders.
In QuickLOAD, with the Hornady 124-grain FMJ FP with its weight adjusted to 8.00 grams, I can get Vihtavuori N310 to give me just over that kind of pressure difference for 3.5 and 3.8 grains, and deliver about 1000 fps and 1050 fps, respectively. I cannot get any other powder past those velocities with those light charge weights without exceed the reported pressure ratio and shortening the cartridge, so I think we can assume "Parabellum" powder had characteristics similar to N310. But 100 mm barrel ballistics do not allow matching modern standard velocities without going to heavier charges of slower powders.
Umm, that was .35 and .38 GRAMS, not grains. The grain numbers given were 5.4 and 5.9.
Jim Watson
New member
I wonder if the change from flat point to roundnose was also the change from 124 gr to 115 gr bullets; or if there were 124 gr RN or 115 gr truncated cone in the transition(s).
Have to look on a cartridge collector site, I don't have the books I used to.
We went through the same thing all over again ca 1983.
The original USAF - Hornady 9mm was a 124 gr truncated cone for better "terminal ballistics." But we went back to the roundnose, I presume so we could supply ammo to our alleged allies that would feed in all their pistols and SMGs.
My memory is a bit foggy and I can't find a written reference right now, but if I remember right, the original 124gr bullet was a truncated cone shape and changed to the rather pointed round nose when they changed to the 115gr bullet.
Another point to think about when asking "why so much space" in the .38 case and looking at the 9mm for comparison, semi auto pistol rounds are designed from the beginning to fit inside the pistol's "handle". How long they are makes a big difference.
Revolver rounds are not under the same size constraints.
Another point to think about when asking "why so much space" in the .38 case and looking at the 9mm for comparison, semi auto pistol rounds are designed from the beginning to fit inside the pistol's "handle". How long they are makes a big difference.
Revolver rounds are not under the same size constraints.
Mike Irwin
Staff
"IIRC, the 38 Special was developed with the idea it would be a black powder cartridge but it was late enough to the game that no manufacturer ever produced black powder 38 Special ammunition."
Sorry, Unclenick, but you are WAY wrong about that.
Black powder loaded .38 Special rounds were available from multiple manufacturers through at least the 1920s, and I think at least one manufacturer offered one black powder loading almost to 1940, or when the great "line cleansings" began to make way for ammunition orders related to World War II.
EDIT IN: In the 1930s Remington was cataloging .38 S&W Special black powder cartridges on the same catalog page as black powder .38 Colt Special cartridges.
Same cartridge, different name. The only real difference may have been bullet profile. OK, I'm seeing some indications that there were also primer differences between the two rounds, as well.
Hard to tell from the resolution of the PDF of the catalog, but they may have also been offering the rounds with company ID'ed head stamps. That's hard core bowing to the rivalry between the two big handgun manufacturers.
IAA has PDFs of manufacturer catalogs and price lists on their site. Lots of interesting stuff.
The .44 Special was introduced even later, in 1907. It was the last cartridge that I know of that was developed and offered commercially loaded with black powder.
It was also developed with smokless powder at the same time.
Sorry, Unclenick, but you are WAY wrong about that.
Black powder loaded .38 Special rounds were available from multiple manufacturers through at least the 1920s, and I think at least one manufacturer offered one black powder loading almost to 1940, or when the great "line cleansings" began to make way for ammunition orders related to World War II.
EDIT IN: In the 1930s Remington was cataloging .38 S&W Special black powder cartridges on the same catalog page as black powder .38 Colt Special cartridges.
Same cartridge, different name. The only real difference may have been bullet profile. OK, I'm seeing some indications that there were also primer differences between the two rounds, as well.
Hard to tell from the resolution of the PDF of the catalog, but they may have also been offering the rounds with company ID'ed head stamps. That's hard core bowing to the rivalry between the two big handgun manufacturers.
IAA has PDFs of manufacturer catalogs and price lists on their site. Lots of interesting stuff.
The .44 Special was introduced even later, in 1907. It was the last cartridge that I know of that was developed and offered commercially loaded with black powder.
It was also developed with smokless powder at the same time.
Mike Irwin
Staff
"When Wesson developed the .357 Magnum..."
Douglas Wesson actually didn't do much of the development of the .357 Magnum. He was, in fact, very cool to the project, thinking it would be a huge money suck for a company trying to survive in the face of the Great Depression.
Most of the development credit for the .357 goes to Elmer Keith and Phil Sharpe, but Sharpe was the one who really sold the concept to Smith & Wesson and worked closely with Winchester to arrive at the final ballistics.
The extra case length was NOT chosen as a way of keeping people from sticking the new cartridge in an old gun, it was done to achieve the ballistics that they wanted at pressures that were acceptable to long-term use of the cartridge.
Remember, all of the manufacturers were loading .38 Special High Velocity rounds at the time and, at best, the boxes would carry a printed warning that they weren't to be used in older guns.
Back then there was a much different attitude toward people doing stupid things and ignoring warnings.
Douglas Wesson actually didn't do much of the development of the .357 Magnum. He was, in fact, very cool to the project, thinking it would be a huge money suck for a company trying to survive in the face of the Great Depression.
Most of the development credit for the .357 goes to Elmer Keith and Phil Sharpe, but Sharpe was the one who really sold the concept to Smith & Wesson and worked closely with Winchester to arrive at the final ballistics.
The extra case length was NOT chosen as a way of keeping people from sticking the new cartridge in an old gun, it was done to achieve the ballistics that they wanted at pressures that were acceptable to long-term use of the cartridge.
Remember, all of the manufacturers were loading .38 Special High Velocity rounds at the time and, at best, the boxes would carry a printed warning that they weren't to be used in older guns.
Back then there was a much different attitude toward people doing stupid things and ignoring warnings.
Savvy_Jack
New member
Also note that "Magnum" powders were "mid-range" or smaller caliber rifle powders long before Magnums ever existed.
Kevin Rohrer
New member
The OP needs to choose a bulkier powder. I use Unique, and it fills the case nicely.
I disagree. I believe the extra length of the .357 was to prevent it being chambered in .38 Special guns. Actual .357 ballistics can be achieved in .38 Special cases.
Case length difference is 0.135" but the difference in loaded length is only 0.04" (1.550 vs 1.590") So the largest possible difference in the powder space is the magnum is 0.04" longer, and that's not very much at all.
I don't think the .04" longer powder space hurt anything as far as getting the desired performance at the desired pressure level but I doubt it was the primary reason for making the .357 case .135" longer than the .38 case.