New Cartridge/Pistol Idea -- "6.8mm Kel-Tec"

6.8KT · Jan 19, 2019

481 said:
Well, maybe. You still need to produce a center fire pistol cartridge with the correct internal design/dimensions that can support the performance you are suggesting. Not saying that it cannot be done, but that that task is a big one, not to be taken lightly.

I'm pretty confident about that given what they were producing over 100 years ago. [See post #84 above]
If you take the average of the two, we're looking at .32x21mm (~1.16 overall length, about like a 9mm)... and they were pushing ~82 gr over 1,100fps.
So you figure, with a case that length or a bit longer, with modern powders, it would certainly outperform that.

thomas15 · Jan 19, 2019

Another small point, when you read just about any current article on 9mm (for example) as a carry caliber or self defense the writers almost always state that in recent times the cartridge has evolved into a better man stopper simply due to improvements in technology. 9mm has been around for over 100 years and there are millions of firearms chambered in that caliber. Love it or hate it, it is a proven caliber. Same can be said for 380 and 32 acp, I think that if the market starts clamoring for more capacity or better ballistics then the easiest and most cost effective way would be to improve existing calibers rather than introduce something new that has a real good chance of laying a big giant egg. I doubt that adding 1 round capacity will get any firearms manufacturer to take the financial risk of doing all the R&D then put something on the market. Unless of course it has something spectacular about it.

Varminterror · Jan 19, 2019

Having killed game with 32 H&R’s for the last ~15yrs and 380’s and 9mm’s for the last 20, I can tell you the estimates for stopping potential are dramatically overstated for a 90grn bullet at 1100-1200 FPS vs. a 115-124 at the same speeds, and much more in line with a .380acp. As an engineer, I live in numbers, but rely upon empirical results more than theoretical projections, and I’ve already gone down that road you’re imagining - trying to increase velocity and expand a bullet to get more done. It just doesn’t pan out for handgun rounds. The 9mm will put them on the ground faster than your imaginary round, and the advantage over the 380 is largely overstated.

You’re also assuming you’re getting that work done in a pocket pistol - again neglecting good advice you’ve already been given about expansion ratio and bore efficiency. Those numbers simply won’t happen in the same barrel length and pistol size as a 380, and you’ll struggle to reach the same velocity as an equivalent length 9mm. You’re ignoring pressure implications to reach those “well I bet modern powders can do better” numbers, and considering nothing yet for internal ballistics and structural and mechanical capacity of the pistol itself.

Your next step really should be running Quickload projections, then start working on the chamber and bore requirements, before you ever get to mechanical design for slide weight and recoil spring tension, mag dimensions and feed angles, etc.

But again - you’re still ignoring your market factors for the product as well. I think your pulled-out-of-somewhere projection of 10% niche market access is grossly overstated, likely by an order of magnitude. Consider this: when Ruger launched the LCP, they already were a cartridge developer, and were the market leading domestic firearms manufacturer. They chose an existing cartridge, knowing the market interest in something novel just wasn’t there, and knowing the market appeal has to be HIGH to cover the costs of developing a new pistol design, let alone a new cartridge design and standardization costs. The cost in these development processes is not trivial. Look at the novel cartridges released in the last couple of decades - they aren’t targeting small niche markets, they are targeting the mass markets within our industry. Similarly, look at the MILLIONS of dollars wasted by Glock on the 45GAP. It was going after the second most popular handgun cartridge in the market, with the same theoretical advantages you’re discussing here. But the market tolerance for less availability and higher cost ammunition just wasn’t there, and the cartridge floundered, even despite its theoretical objective advantages. Further, consider where the market has gone in the last decade - the day of the 380 pocket pistol is largely over. Glock dropped the 42 too late in that market cycle, when the consumer had already been living with the P3AT, LCP, and Bodyguard for long enough to realize they really wanted a 9mm... Glock chased the 42 with the 43, Ruger spent their development money pushing the LC9s and LC380 (and note how the LCP II has largely floundered), and Sig ultimately released the P365. Glock has responded with the 48 and 43X - why this shift? Because the consumer market has realized they want more stopping power than the 380, and more grip purchase than the LCP. For YOUR cartridge, you’re 3-5yrs out from market drop, even if it were a serious contender and had huge stakeholder (investor) support to fasttrack the development... your fight has already been lost in 2018, why do you think the market is going to go back to 2005 consumer-thinking while you’re sitting in 2022?

Run Quickload and at least some Solidworks cycles, you can get that done very cheaply. If it grows some legs by some stroke of accident, have some single shot Encore barrels cut and work up some performance tests. Send them off for pressure testing... only then will you have any chance of marketing this thing, and you still run the risk of the professional ballistic engineers and experimental gunsmiths who do this every single day, 12hrs a day, week in, week out, running past you and building a better version and killing your market access (consider 224 Valkyrie which effectively killed the 22 Nosler on the Nosler’s first birthday...).

481 · Jan 19, 2019

6.8KT said:
I'm pretty confident about that given what they were producing over 100 years ago. [See post #84 above]
If you take the average of the two, we're looking at .32x21mm (~1.16 overall length, about like a 9mm)... and they were pushing ~82 gr over 1,100fps.
So you figure, with a case that length or a bit longer, with modern powders, it would certainly outperform that.

Okay, so at this point (using your ''0.32-inch x 21 millimeter'' design pushing a 90-grain projectile at 1,150 fps), you've basically reproduced the .30 Luger, which slightly out-performs your proposed cartridge with a .308''-diameter, 93-grain projectile @ a nominal 1,220 fps. Predicted BRL incapacitation is 60.44%.

Varminterror is very much 'spot on' with his assessment that the proposed round doesn't have anything more to offer than the .380 already does; the BRL incapacitation equations (as coded against 7,898 wound data in the WDMET database) bear that out in my prior responses and analyses. Folks seem to want what you are pursuing (that is, they want greater terminal performance than the .380 in an ''easier-to-handle'' package), but I am almost certain that the course that you are pursuing has already been attempted (approximating the .30 Luger) is not going to achieve that result as it has already been tried and abandoned for less than successful results. I am sure that you've devoted considerable time researching the matter, but I also believe that you are still very far from "bridging the gap between 'tiny & weak' and 'too big and too little capacity' " with the course that you have chosen.

If we were to assume that you would load your design with a 0.3125''-diameter, 90-grain JHP @ 1,150 fps that expands to 1.5x its initial diameter (thinking Hornady XTP here

), its probability of incapacitation increases to 66.7%; barely surpassing that of the 9mm 115-grain FMJ (65.97%) evaluated in an earlier post. Penetration decreases to a much more desirable predicted range of 13.36 inches (MacPherson model) ― 14.55 inches (Schwartz model), but the modeling still suggests that the 9mm 115-grain FMJ beats the best that the ''0.32-inch x 21 millimeter'' design can optimistically promise. I think that the best answer that we've seen to date is the Sig P365 and it uses a cartridge that already exists, can be purchased very inexpensively that has established quite a long track record with both expanding and non-expanding projectiles that will probably not be surpassed by the proposed design.

6.8KT · Jan 19, 2019

Varminterror said:
Having killed game with 32 H&R’s for the last ~15yrs and 380’s and 9mm’s for the last 20, I can tell you the estimates for stopping potential are dramatically overstated for a 90grn bullet at 1100-1200 FPS vs. a 115-124 at the same speeds, and much more in line with a .380acp. As an engineer, I live in numbers, but rely upon empirical results more than theoretical projections, and I’ve already gone down that road you’re imagining - trying to increase velocity and expand a bullet to get more done. It just doesn’t pan out for handgun rounds. The 9mm will put them on the ground faster than your imaginary round, and the advantage over the 380 is largely overstated.

You’re also assuming you’re getting that work done in a pocket pistol - again neglecting good advice you’ve already been given about expansion ratio and bore efficiency. Those numbers simply won’t happen in the same barrel length and pistol size as a 380, and you’ll struggle to reach the same velocity as an equivalent length 9mm. You’re ignoring pressure implications to reach those “well I bet modern powders can do better” numbers, and considering nothing yet for internal ballistics and structural and mechanical capacity of the pistol itself.

I don't doubt any of that. I think rivaling or surpassing .380 performance in a slightly larger/longer but still pocketable pistol, with an extra round or two in the magazine is a really good start though.

Your next step really should be running Quickload projections, then start working on the chamber and bore requirements, before you ever get to mechanical design for slide weight and recoil spring tension, mag dimensions and feed angles, etc.
...
Run Quickload and at least some Solidworks cycles, you can get that done very cheaply. If it grows some legs by some stroke of accident, have some single shot Encore barrels cut and work up some performance tests. Send them off for pressure testing... only then will you have any chance of marketing this thing, and you still run the risk of the professional ballistic engineers and experimental gunsmiths who do this every single day, 12hrs a day, week in, week out, running past you and building a better version and killing your market access (consider 224 Valkyrie which effectively killed the 22 Nosler on the Nosler’s first birthday...).

I was hoping some gunsmith/engineer would see the value of this idea and do those things because I don't have the skill or means to do it myself. I just want to be a footnote in its historical development.

But again - you’re still ignoring your market factors for the product as well. I think your pulled-out-of-somewhere projection of 10% niche market access is grossly overstated, likely by an order of magnitude. Consider this: when Ruger launched the LCP, they already were a cartridge developer, and were the market leading domestic firearms manufacturer. They chose an existing cartridge, knowing the market interest in something novel just wasn’t there, and knowing the market appeal has to be HIGH to cover the costs of developing a new pistol design, let alone a new cartridge design and standardization costs. The cost in these development processes is not trivial. Look at the novel cartridges released in the last couple of decades - they aren’t targeting small niche markets, they are targeting the mass markets within our industry. Similarly, look at the MILLIONS of dollars wasted by Glock on the 45GAP. It was going after the second most popular handgun cartridge in the market, with the same theoretical advantages you’re discussing here. But the market tolerance for less availability and higher cost ammunition just wasn’t there, and the cartridge floundered, even despite its theoretical objective advantages. Further, consider where the market has gone in the last decade - the day of the 380 pocket pistol is largely over. Glock dropped the 42 too late in that market cycle, when the consumer had already been living with the P3AT, LCP, and Bodyguard for long enough to realize they really wanted a 9mm... Glock chased the 42 with the 43, Ruger spent their development money pushing the LC9s and LC380 (and note how the LCP II has largely floundered), and Sig ultimately released the P365. Glock has responded with the 48 and 43X - why this shift? Because the consumer market has realized they want more stopping power than the 380, and more grip purchase than the LCP. For YOUR cartridge, you’re 3-5yrs out from market drop, even if it were a serious contender and had huge stakeholder (investor) support to fasttrack the development... your fight has already been lost in 2018, why do you think the market is going to go back to 2005 consumer-thinking while you’re sitting in 2022?

My understanding is Ruger just copied/stole Kel-Tec's P3AT. But anyway, I wouldn't say the days of small .380s are over necessarily. Lots of people still carry them and smaller. It's true that the big waves of people rushing out to buy them have long since crested.

However, add in some severe and prolonged economic turmoil (undoubtedly coming). Throw in some civil unrest. See a profound uptick in crime... then what do we have? Another huge wave of demand for small concealable pistols, particularly those which might be a bit softer-shooting than 9mm.

I understand the very problematic logistics/market forces for this, as you and others have noted. I get it. That's a bridge that can be crossed after a really good idea is in hand.
Let's ignore the lack of available ammo for a second, and assume it was just as available and cheap as 9mm: If you took a P365, slimmed it up a hair for the slightly-smaller cartridge, added a half-inch to the barrel if necessary, and double-stacked ~ 12 or 13 rounds of this proposed .32 Super in it... you really don't think anyone would buy it?

6.8KT · Jan 19, 2019

481 said:
Okay, so at this point (using your ''0.32-inch x 21 millimeter'' design pushing a 90-grain projectile at 1,150 fps), you've basically reproduced the .30 Luger, which slightly out-performs your proposed cartridge with a .308''-diameter, 93-grain projectile @ a nominal 1,220 fps. Predicted BRL incapacitation is 60.44%.

Varminterror is very much 'spot on' with his assessment that the proposed round doesn't have anything more to offer than the .380 already does; the BRL incapacitation equations (as coded against 7,898 wound data in the WDMET database) bear that out in my prior responses and analyses. Folks seem to want what you are pursuing (that is, they want greater terminal performance than the .380 in an ''easier-to-handle'' package), but I am almost certain that the course that you are pursuing has already been attempted (approximating the .30 Luger) is not going to achieve that result as it has already been tried and abandoned for less than successful results. I am sure that you've devoted considerable time researching the matter, but I also believe that you are still very far from "bridging the gap between 'tiny & weak' and 'too big and too little capacity' " with the course that you have chosen.

If we were to assume that you would load your design with a 0.3125''-diameter, 90-grain JHP @ 1,150 fps that expands to 1.5x its initial diameter (thinking Hornady XTP here ), its probability of incapacitation increases to 66.7%; barely surpassing that of the 9mm 115-grain FMJ (65.97%) evaluated in an earlier post. Penetration decreases to a much more desirable predicted range of 13.36 inches (MacPherson model) ― 14.55 inches (Schwartz model), but the modeling still suggests that the 9mm 115-grain FMJ beats the best that the ''0.32-inch x 21 millimeter'' design can optimistically promise. I think that the best answer that we've seen to date is the Sig P365 and it uses a cartridge that already exists, can be purchased very inexpensively that has established quite a long track record with both expanding and non-expanding projectiles that will probably not be surpassed by the proposed design.

Understood, but my cartridge adds another cartridge or three to the mag (depending on pistol size), while [presumably] having less blast/recoil, while sacrificing nothing stopping-power-wise versus the .380.
A lot of people feel like .380 lacks sufficient penetration. This would remedy that with it's better sectional density.
I'm convinced my idea has merit and that we can, together, refine this into something optimal.

Texas10mm · Jan 19, 2019

6.8KT said:
Let's ignore the lack of available ammo for a second, and assume it was just as available and cheap as 9mm: If you took a P365, slimmed it up a hair for the slightly-smaller cartridge, added a half-inch to the barrel if necessary, and double-stacked ~ 12 or 13 rounds of this proposed .32 Super in it... you really don't think anyone would buy it?

That's not going to happen. In order for it to happen you would need MILLIONS of firearms out there that used your cartridge. You would need a .mil contract somewhere. There's a reason 9mm is so inexpensive.

10's of millions of firearms chambered for it. NATO standard cartridge. No other round comes close. Not .40 S&W, which till very recently was the LEO choice in most of the US. Not .45 ACP, mainly due to increased cost of components. Not .38 SPL, which used to be the "dirt cheap" centerfire handgun cartridge.

6.8KT · Jan 19, 2019

thomas15 said:
Another small point, when you read just about any current article on 9mm (for example) as a carry caliber or self defense the writers almost always state that in recent times the cartridge has evolved into a better man stopper simply due to improvements in technology. 9mm has been around for over 100 years and there are millions of firearms chambered in that caliber. Love it or hate it, it is a proven caliber. Same can be said for 380 and 32 acp, I think that if the market starts clamoring for more capacity or better ballistics then the easiest and most cost effective way would be to improve existing calibers rather than introduce something new that has a real good chance of laying a big giant egg. I doubt that adding 1 round capacity will get any firearms manufacturer to take the financial risk of doing all the R&D then put something on the market. Unless of course it has something spectacular about it.

Well, let's take what we've [collectively] learned from the development of these cartridges and apply it to this one.

Look, I understand the defeatist attitude many of you have about trying to introduce a new cartridge out of thin air. It's perfectly rational in light of the dubious track record of so many previous attempts at this.
But you have to think... what, are we just never going to have any new cartridges ever again? Are we stuck with .32ACP, .380ACP, 9mm etc... forever?

6.8KT · Jan 19, 2019

Texas10mm said:
That's not going to happen. In order for it to happen you would need MILLIONS of firearms out there that used your cartridge. You would need a .mil contract somewhere. There's a reason 9mm is so inexpensive.

10's of millions of firearms chambered for it. NATO standard cartridge. No other round comes close. Not .40 S&W, which till very recently was the LEO choice in most of the US. Not .45 ACP, mainly due to increased cost of components. Not .38 SPL, which used to be the "dirt cheap" centerfire handgun cartridge.

9mm is great as a happy medium or middle of the road for all handgun calibers in terms of cartridge diameter, capacity, stopping power, and so forth.
But what's missing is a middle of the road for pocket pistols -- .32ACP being too underpowered and .380/9mm not really offering sufficient capacity for their size.

Single and double-stacked .32 Supers are what's needed.

PapaG · Jan 19, 2019

I've got two ideas, one is a revolver with open chambers taking a triangular cartridge fed from a magazine in the grip. I think I'll call them "trounds". Oh, shoot. Someone already has that. How about a jet propelled cartridge, or solid fuel with angled ports in the back of the case. Whole thing goes out the barrel. Hammer swings up, hits the nose of the cartridge and drives it back against a fixed pin to ignite the primer. Angled holes in the base cause it to rotate. Dang, missed that one too. Dardick for the first, MBA GyroJet for the second. Cant win for losing.

481 · Jan 19, 2019

OK, so now we have a name for it... .32 Super.

6.8KT said:
Understood, but my cartridge adds another cartridge or three to the mag (depending on pistol size), while [presumably] having less blast/recoil, while sacrificing nothing stopping-power-wise versus the .380.

Those are some fairly broad presumptions, KT ―

1.) Capacity? Is it 'one' or 'three' additional rounds that we're getting for all of this effort?
2.) Muzzle blast and recoil are unknowns that will be dependent upon what type of propellant and barrel length is used.

― that, even with allowing that an expanding projectile would be loaded as noted above, increases its incapacitation probability at 66.7%, which is not that much greater than that achieved by a .380 ACP 90-grain JHP at 900 fps that expands to 1.5x caliber for an incapacitation for an incapacitation probability of 61.2%. 'Best case scenario' that we can make is that you now have a cartridge that might allow for three additional rounds in the magazine and might provide a 5.5% greater probability of incapacitation. I still don't believe that any manufacturer is going to be inclined to take on such a project with such a narrow window for improvements. There is simply too little return for the risk being asked.

6.8KT said:
A lot of people feel like .380 lacks sufficient penetration. This would remedy that with it's better sectional density.
I'm convinced my idea has merit and that we can, together, refine this into something optimal.

For those who use the .380ACP and want greater penetration, there is the option of using an FMJ which decreases the probability of incapacitation from 61.2% (with the JHP) to 56.6%, which is not that much of change given the caliber.

481 · Jan 19, 2019

6.8KT said:
Well, let's take what we've [collectively] learned from the development of these cartridges and apply it to this one.

Look, I understand the defeatist attitude many of you have about trying to introduce a new cartridge out of thin air. It's perfectly rational in light of the dubious track record of so many previous attempts at this.
But you have to think... what, are we just never going to have any new cartridges ever again? Are we stuck with .32ACP, .380ACP, 9mm etc... forever?

No 'defeatistism' here, KT, just a sense of 'realism' in trying to keep this grounded in reality. I don't know that we are necessarily 'stuck' with any of those calibers you mention as they all do a reasonable job of doing what they are supposed to do given their abilities. There might be room to improve, but I suspect that that 'room' is a pretty narrow strip of real estate that is best dealt with, as suggested by thomas15, by improving the calibers extant with better JHP designs much like the Gold Dot, HST, PDX1 and many others.

JohnKSa · Jan 19, 2019

But you have to think... what, are we just never going to have any new cartridges ever again? Are we stuck with .32ACP, .380ACP, 9mm etc... forever?

1. New cartridges have to provide a benefit over existing ones to have any chance at all of taking off.
2. Semi-auto handgun cartridges, in particular, have somewhat tightly constrained dimensions due to the fact that the cartridges need to fit inside the grip and the range of hand size does not allow tremendous leeway.
3. Handgun cartridge performance is constrained by a combination of recoil tolerance and handgun size/weight on one end, and by lack of terminal performance on the other.
4. Propellant technology has not made anything other than incremental performance improvements since the introduction of smokeless powder.

Put all that together and it becomes obvious that there's not a lot of practical "design space" to work with when developing semi-auto handgun cartridges.

That's not to say that there will never be any new ones--but it does mean that it's not super likely that someone's going to come up with a semi-auto handgun cartridge that will take the world by storm.

But what's missing is a middle of the road for pocket pistols -- .32ACP being too underpowered and .380/9mm not really offering sufficient capacity for their size.

It might be possible to come up with something in .32 caliber and a 9mm length case that would offer superior terminal ballistics to a .380, and one or two additional rounds of capacity compared to 9mm/380 (depending on whether the gun is a single- or double-stack design). It's going to have to run at a higher pressure than either .32ACP and .380ACP and the gun will need to be closer to 9mm size/weight than to the .380ACP if .380ACP ballistics are surpassed. We're also probably talking about a design that is restricted to locked breech guns--although that's probably not an issue.

The question then is will people buy gun in this new caliber in sufficient numbers to make it viable given a 1 or 2 round of capacity improvement, a relatively small decrease in performance compared to 9mm, increased price over 9mm, and questions about future availability? So far no gun or ammo company has been willing to bet their money on that racehorse...

I carry a compact 8 shot 9mm that is very shootable--in fact, I could go smaller but I didn't because I don't want to sacrifice shootability and because this particular gun points very naturally for me. If that capacity limit worried me, I could switch over to an almost identically sized/weighted 9mm that offers 11 rounds of capacity. If that's still not enough, I could add another 2 rounds to that with a magazine that extends the grip length of the gun perhaps another half inch.

All that and I don't have to sacrifice anything from 9mm ballistics or 9mm practice costs. There's no practical concern about current or future availability for either of the two guns and no chance at all that the round will stop being available.

Jim Watson · Jan 19, 2019

Well, SHOT Show is next week, wait and see if anybody is brave enough to bring out a new cartridge.

Me? I have two .32s, one a Keltec for small pocket carry and a Colt because it is so pretty.
I have two .380s, one a CZ, more an heirloom than a working gun, and a Colt set up for original format side match IDPA BUG.
My hideout guns are 9mm Ruger and Glock for large pocket carry, and a .38 revolver for medium pocket carry.

Texas10mm · Jan 19, 2019

6.8KT said:
9mm is great as a happy medium or middle of the road for all handgun calibers in terms of cartridge diameter, capacity, stopping power, and so forth.
But what's missing is a middle of the road for pocket pistols -- .32ACP being too underpowered and .380/9mm not really offering sufficient capacity for their size.

Single and double-stacked .32 Supers are what's needed.

Yet the .32 Super ammo is going to be like .327 Federal Mag ammo. Expensive and hard to find because you don't have millions of pistols out there that use it.

In the handgun area, especially in the auto pistol realm, there's not a lot of demand out there for new cartridges. What we have pretty much covers all the bases. Witness the success of the new handgun rounds in the past 50 years.

.38 Casull, dead
.400 Corbon, dead
.40 Super, dead
.45 Super and .450 Short Magnum, hanging on by a thread
.32 H&R Magnum, .327 Federal Magnum, niche cartridges at best, the .32 H&R comes very close to what you're proposing, pushing a 85 gr bullet at 1100 fps.
.401 Herter's PowerMag, dead
.357 Sig, if not for the few LEO agencies using it it would be dead. It's on life support now.
.45 GAP, dead, even though there were some LEOs using it.
.25 NAA, who? What?
5.7x28 Niche cartridge
.32 NAA, see .25 NAA
.22 TCM, interesting cartridge, still a niche cartridge
.40 S&W, dying fast. Once the bright and shining star of the LEO world they've moved back to 9mm. More capacity and less recoil.
10mm, once almost dead, enjoying a comeback. Basically .357 performance in an auto pistol. Some fanboys will tell you it's equal to the .41 Remington, they're drinking the bong water.
.357 Maximum, niche at best, mostly dead.

That's a short list, not by any means complete. You'll notice there are very few of those that are less than .355 bullet diameter.

6.8KT · Jan 19, 2019

It would give +1 in P3AT (or equal to the P32 which is only a tad smaller than P3AT), maybe +2 in something the size of a PF-9 and at best +3 in a P365. When you get up to Glock 17/19 sized guns, maybe +4. The FN 5-7 holds 20 at the equivalent cartridge diameter (but not sure how its magazine compares to that of a G17).

481 said:
No 'defeatistism' here, KT, just a sense of 'realism' in trying to keep this grounded in reality. I don't know that we are necessarily 'stuck' with any of those calibers you mention as they all do a reasonable job of doing what they are supposed to do given their abilities. There might be room to improve, but I suspect that that 'room' is a pretty narrow strip of real estate that is best dealt with, as suggested by thomas15, by improving the calibers extant with better JHP designs much like the Gold Dot, HST, PDX1 and many others.

JohnKSa said:
1. New cartridges have to provide a benefit over existing ones to have any chance at all of taking off.
2. Semi-auto handgun cartridges, in particular, have somewhat tightly constrained dimensions due to the fact that the cartridges need to fit inside the grip and the range of hand size does not allow tremendous leeway.
3. Handgun cartridge performance is constrained by a combination of recoil tolerance and handgun size/weight on one end, and by lack of terminal performance on the other.
4. Propellant technology has not made anything other than incremental performance improvements since the introduction of smokeless powder.

Put all that together and it becomes obvious that there's not a lot of practical "design space" to work with when developing semi-auto handgun cartridges.

That's not to say that there will never be any new ones--but it does mean that it's not super likely that someone's going to come up with a semi-auto handgun cartridge that will take the world by storm.It might be possible to come up with something in .32 caliber and a 9mm length case that would offer superior terminal ballistics to a .380, and one or two additional rounds of capacity compared to 9mm/380 (depending on whether the gun is a single- or double-stack design). It's probably going to have to run at a higher pressure which would restrict it to locked-breech designs, and the gun will need to be closer to 9mm size/weight than to the .380ACP if .380ACP ballistics are surpassed.

The question then is will people buy gun in this new caliber in sufficient numbers to make it viable given a 1 or 2 round of capacity improvement, a relatively small decrease in performance compared to 9mm, increased price over 9mm, and questions about future availability? So far no gun or ammo company has been willing to bet their money on that racehorse...

I think there is room to squeeze one more caliber in the current line-up.
The main selling points would be -- fits in front pocket, more capacity, powerful enough, and hopefully a tad more controllable.

6.8KT · Jan 19, 2019

Texas10mm said:
Yet the .32 Super ammo is going to be like .327 Federal Mag ammo. Expensive and hard to find because you don't have millions of pistols out there that use it.

In the handgun area, especially in the auto pistol realm, there's not a lot of demand out there for new cartridges. What we have pretty much covers all the bases. Witness the success of the new handgun rounds in the past 50 years.

.38 Casull, dead
.400 Corbon, dead
.40 Super, dead
.45 Super and .450 Short Magnum, hanging on by a thread
.32 H&R Magnum, .327 Federal Magnum, niche cartridges at best, the .32 H&R comes very close to what you're proposing, pushing a 85 gr bullet at 1100 fps.
.401 Herter's PowerMag, dead
.357 Sig, if not for the few LEO agencies using it it would be dead. It's on life support now.
.45 GAP, dead, even though there were some LEOs using it.
.25 NAA, who? What?
5.7x28 Niche cartridge
.32 NAA, see .25 NAA
.22 TCM, interesting cartridge, still a niche cartridge
.40 S&W, dying fast. Once the bright and shining star of the LEO world they've moved back to 9mm. More capacity and less recoil.
10mm, once almost dead, enjoying a comeback. Basically .357 performance in an auto pistol. Some fanboys will tell you it's equal to the .41 Remington, they're drinking the bong water.
.357 Maximum, niche at best, mostly dead.

That's a short list, not by any means complete. You'll notice there are very few of those that are less than .355 bullet diameter.

Yes but most of those you listed have no everyday practical utility aside from home defense weapons, hunting, sporting, etc.
Others are bottlenecked, which doesn't maximize hole-punching diameter versus capacity.
But everybody will want a relatively high-capacity and easily controllable pocket pistol with sufficient stopping power (even if marginally so) as this country becomes more and more like Latin America.
Even if you only consider women, many of whom find the 9mm to be a bit too much in a small gun... What percentage of women carry today? Very small right?
What percentage of women will want to carry if muggings and robberies skyrocket in the face of severe economic turmoil?
There are not enough small guns out there to fill this potential demand.

Varminterror · Jan 19, 2019

6.8KT said:
That's a bridge that can be crossed after a really good idea is in hand.

What you have here isn’t a good idea. Let alone a really good one.

JohnKSa · Jan 19, 2019

I think there is room to squeeze one more caliber in the current line-up.
The main selling points would be -- fits in front pocket, more capacity, powerful enough, and hopefully a tad more controllable.

I can see what you think.

Selling points need to be evaluated relative to what's already available, and can't be evaluated individually, or while trying to ignore other aspects pertinent to the topic since it's almost always true that there are tradeoffs.

Thomas Sowell has a list of three questions that are an excellent starting point for constructively evaluating ideas:

Compared to what?
At what cost?
What hard evidence do you have?

For example, when I look at your list of selling points, I can see that many people would say that .32ACP already fills the bill. But you say you want to go more powerful than .32ACP. Well, that costs in controllability. Does it need to be more controllable than the 9mm or than both the 9mm and .380ACP? Given a size/weight package, controllability is pretty tightly related to the product of bullet weight and muzzle velocity. So if you want to meet or exceed .380ACP controllability, you probably won't be able to do it in a given size/weight if you want it to be as powerful as the .380ACP.

So you want something that is as controllable as a .380ACP with the capacity of a .32ACP and the power of a .380ACP. So, now tell me why people wouldn't prefer to solve that problem by buying a .380ACP with a grip that is 0.4" longer to accommodate an extra round (or two in a double-stack)?

To my way of thinking, this round is going to have to obviously outclass the .32ACP and be the equal or superior of the .380ACP in every way (except for bullet diameter) before anyone is going to consider buying a gun for it. And when I say, "in every way" I mean, availability, cost, availability of firearms, etc. Actually "in every way".

This is why, especially in semi-auto handgun cartridges, new calibers don't take off unless they are pretty obviously superior in performance to all common semi-auto handgun cartridges. The obvious superiority prompts buyers to take the risks related to future availability, to accept the complications due to initial firearms/ammo availability, and to bear the burden of additional costs and lack of accessories.

6.8KT · Jan 19, 2019

Texas10mm said:
Yet the .32 Super ammo is going to be like .327 Federal Mag ammo. Expensive and hard to find because you don't have millions of pistols out there that use it.

.32 H&R Magnum, .327 Federal Magnum, niche cartridges at best, the .32 H&R comes very close to what you're proposing, pushing a 85 gr bullet at 1100 fps.

Yes, .32 H&R is a good analogue in terms of performance. .32 Super would be its autoloading brother.
And as I mentioned previously, .327 Federal is also analogous in terms of how increasing the capacity of an existing platform (.357) while nearly matching its performance results in something people want.
See, what we have here is sort of a negative feedback loop that probably happens with all new calibers absent some sort of government subsidy. People do want it, but they're not willing to take the plunge because it's expensive and hard to find, which results in low demand, which keeps it expensive and hard to find.

I'd gladly trade my .38 Special (or a .357 if I had one) for a .327 Federal if ammo cost/availabilty were comparable.

JohnKSa · Jan 19, 2019

Yes, .32 H&R is a good analogue in terms of performance. .32 Super would be its autoloading brother.
And as I mentioned previously, .327 Federal is also analogous in terms of how increasing the capacity of an existing platform (.357) while nearly matching its performance results in something people want.

Keep in mind that design constraints on revolver cartridges are much more relaxed than for semi-auto handgun cartridges for a number of reasons. It's not reasonable to assume that the kind of thing works in the revolver world can be pulled of in the world of semi-auto handguns.

Case capacity is much more limited in semi-auto handguns and slide velocity issues place limits in muzzle momentum figures and therefore on ballistics.

That said, even with the relaxed limitations, it's worth paying attention to how the .327Mag still didn't exactly take the handgun world by storm.

Focusing on an improved power .32 semi-auto handgun cartridge that still fits into a pocket pistol and offers more capacity than a .380ACP might be worthwhile. It's not nearly the dead end that a ".277ACP" would be, at least. It's definitely not a big niche, but it might be enough of one that someone who really takes the time to hammer out the issues and maybe also comes up with some innovations along the way might be able to make it work. It's going to take a lot more work than just some high-level "spitballing" to come up with a workable concept though.

6.8KT · Jan 19, 2019

JohnKSa said:
I can see what you think.

Compared to what?
At what cost?
What hard evidence do you have?

I've pretty much covered those points at length, and acknowledged that the cost would be great. How great? No clue. I mean, .32 brass already exists, though it would have to be cut to a novel length. .32 projectiles already exist in what I imagine is a multitude of lengths and weights. The pistol frames already exist, although new chamberings and barrels would need to be made. I'd say more than half the work is already done.

For example, when I look at your list of selling points, I can see that many people would say that .32ACP already fills the bill. But you say you want to go more powerful than .32ACP. Well, that costs in controllability. Does it need to be more controllable than the 9mm or than both the 9mm and .380ACP? Given a size/weight package, controllability is pretty tightly related to the product of bullet weight and muzzle velocity. So if you want to meet or exceed .380ACP controllability, you probably won't be able to do it in a given size/weight if you want it to be as powerful as the .380ACP.

Yes. I figure, as others mentioned, the pistol weight/frame would have to be intermediate to .380 / 9mm; and pushing a projectile with a similar mass to .380 at 10-15% higher speeds... well that would mean slightly more recoil, but perhaps mitigated by the slightly heavier frame and/or slightly longer barrel compared to .380.
In any case, certainly more manageable than 9mm.

So you want something that is as controllable as a .380ACP with the capacity of a .32ACP and the power of a .380ACP. So, now tell me why people wouldn't prefer to solve that problem by buying a .380ACP with a grip that is 0.4" longer to accommodate an extra round (or two in a double-stack)?

I'd counter that that eats into its ability to fit in the pocket, as the grip length is often the determining factor.

To my way of thinking, this round is going to have to obviously outclass the .32ACP and be the equal or superior of the .380ACP in every way (except for bullet diameter) before anyone is going to consider buying a gun for it. And when I say, "in every way" I mean, availability, cost, availability of firearms, etc. Actually "in every way".

Given comparable performance, I think it only has to equal the .380 in terms of ammo costs and availability (admittedly the hardest part), and people [particularly the 90%+ of people out there who do not yet own a pocket firearm] would choose it every time.

This is why, especially in semi-auto handgun cartridges, new calibers don't take off unless they are pretty obviously superior in performance to all common semi-auto handgun cartridges. The obvious superiority prompts people to take the risks related to future availability, to accept the complications due to initial firearms/ammo availability, and to bear the burden of additional costs and lack of accessories.

Federal obviously thought it was worth it in the .327. Maybe their only failure in that was not offering the round up cheaply enough to gain market share?

Varminterror · Jan 19, 2019

6.8KT said:
32 H&R is a good analogue in terms of performance.

32 H&R had been around a VERY long time, and did not require any development when Ruger revitalized it in 2000. Their market was cowboy action shooters and small gamers who wanted more from their wheelguns than 22mag had in the tank. When they launched it into the SP101, it was a tremendous flop. Bring out the 327Fed Mag did not cost any tooling development for ammunition, simply drawing longer brass, and did not cost any significant firearm development to roll out the Single 7, LCR, or SP101 in the 327... but they have all largely remained market flops...

But by all means, try doing the same thing in a brand new pistol design and brand new cartridge design... I can’t understand the lack of logic when some folks ignore negative objective aspects of their “baby” ideas.

You can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make them think.

6.8KT · Jan 19, 2019

JohnKSa said:
Keep in mind that design constraints on revolver cartridges are much more relaxed than for semi-auto handgun cartridges for a number of reasons. It's not reasonable to assume that the kind of thing works in the revolver world can be pulled of in the world of semi-auto handguns.

Case capacity is much more limited in semi-auto handguns and slide velocity issues place limits in muzzle momentum figures and therefore on ballistics.

It's a sure thing, as shown by the century-old 7.65 Longue / 7.65 Mannlicher. My proposed design tacks on another millimeter or two of case length (if necessary) over those two.
As for slide velocity and whatnot, I'd guess it would be intermediate to .380/9mm, just as I'd now assume, after reading everyone's input, the pistol frame would probably have to be.

Focusing on an improved power .32 semi-auto handgun cartridge that still fits into a pocket pistol and offers more capacity than a .380ACP might be worthwhile. It's not nearly the dead end that a ".277ACP" would be, at least. It's definitely not a big niche, but it might be enough of one that someone who really takes the time to hammer out the issues and maybe also comes up with some innovations along the way might be able to make it work. It's going to take a lot more work than just some high-level "spitballing" to come up with a workable concept though.

I think it would be a home-run if a couple big names got behind it, and I think the technical feasibility is assured at this point.

Just need someone to make brass in the realm of .32x20 to 32x23mm, some projectiles (actual projectile diameter .308" because that seems to be most common) of various lengths and weights, and try a variety of charges -- to find the sweet spot of performance and overall cartridge length (ideally 1.2" or less).

Any takers?

6.8KT · Jan 19, 2019

Varminterror said:
32 H&R had been around a VERY long time, and did not require any development when Ruger revitalized it in 2000. Their market was cowboy action shooters and small gamers who wanted more from their wheelguns than 22mag had in the tank. When they launched it into the SP101, it was a tremendous flop. Bring out the 327Fed Mag did not cost any tooling development for ammunition, simply drawing longer brass, and did not cost any significant firearm development to roll out the Single 7, LCR, or SP101 in the 327... but they have all largely remained market flops...

But by all means, try doing the same thing in a brand new pistol design and brand new cartridge design... I can’t understand the lack of logic when some folks ignore negative objective aspects of their “baby” ideas.

You can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make them think.

Regardless of all your legitimate misgivings, there is a 'hole' in the small pocket pistol world that needs to be filled.
What's missing is something with equal capacity to .32 and equal power to .380.
Then when you consider something like a slightly-smaller-than-P365-like pistol, double-stacked in .32 Super, holding 12 or 13, it gets really interesting.

New Cartridge/Pistol Idea -- "6.8mm Kel-Tec"

member

Member

Member

Member

member

member

member

member

member

Member

Member

Member

Administrator

Member

member

member

member

Member

Administrator

member

Administrator

member

Member

member

member

Similar threads