9mm Federal introduced in 1989 for the Charter Arms Pit BullIs there a 9mm autorim ?
9mm Federal introduced in 1989 for the Charter Arms Pit BullIs there a 9mm autorim ?
It's obvious you like the 9mm over standard revolver cartridges, I do not. I guess that's why both are still in production.It isn't a matter of how long it was a loaded with BP, it is that the case capacity was designed around being loaded with BP. When I load 3.3grs of Clays under a 160gr RN bullet for IDPA, it barely looks like there is any powder in the case...I can even triple charge in. It reminds me of when a standard PPC load was 2.7gr of Bullseye under a 148gr WC
Actually I don't. I much prefer the .38Spl in a revolver because:It's obvious you like the 9mm over standard revolver cartridges
Instead of making the mountain (the gun) come to Mohammed (the ammo), why not design a new cartridge in conjunction with a gun maker? Instead of having the entire concept be driven by the desire to load with moon clips and carry reload lumps, wanting to utilize the cheapest commercial ammo, have the gun come with two cylinders or be offered with or without MC cutout for rimmed catridges. Keep in mind that revolver cartridges with any real power need to have a roll crimp, i.e. the bullets need a crimp groove. That could be a real issue when the the cylinder is shortened to match the ammo and bullets otherwise creep out of the cases under recoil.I didn't mean in my last post that sticking with 357, 44, or 45colt was clinging to tradition, or even if it were that were that it would be a bad thing as long as it doesn't impede forward motion in design evolution. My favorite all-around handgun cartridge is the 45colt, so I'm not much of a modernist. I can't imagine a revolver I could enjoy more, shoot better, or like as much as a S&W N-frame or SAA in 45colt. However, if every revolver for the next 100 years is based on the cartridges these guns come in and follows their basic design, it would seem like a stall in the flow of innovation. I sorta feel like we are sitting in a similar time to the 1870's or 80's when a flood of new designs are about to be developed and I find it exciting. I think it's more a matter of stepping back from the standard or "traditional" constraints that currently dictate a gun's key dimensions, required strength, and basic functions, and look at it from with fresh eyes.
Love em or hate em, Glock was a step in this kind of direction. Not the first striker fired gun, not the first to use plastic, but one of the first to unashamedly embrace both concepts and come up with something different enough to inspire intense hatred form traditionalists. I wouldn't even pick one up for 24 years. Thought they were the devil's spawn. When I finally was convinced to handle and shoot one I kicked myself for being a damn idiot and missing out on a good thing for so long. Not the best gun by a long shot, but a great gun nevertheless.
So, what would the 9mm look like if it were unencumbered by the constraints of an autoloader? 165gr wide-meplat hardcast bullet at lower velocity maybe. Enormous hollow-point cavity in a jacked hollowpoint that no autoloader would ever feed reliably. Full wadcutter rounds for competition. All of those should be possibilities in the L and N frame Smiths now. What if the same freedom were given to a revolver design. Design the ideal sized revolver with the optimum parameters and then design the cartridge to fit that gun. Just a thought. Now we can argue over what the optimum parameters would be.
Round count is what they are after, and then picking the frame with a big enough cylinder capacity. It's all about shooting games, since there are quite adequate choices for about everything else. Ruger is the one with the obvious hole in their line up, because they have nothing for larger bores in DA 5-shot, always moving to the the monstrous Redhawks, better left for hunting cannons.I don't understand not scaling down the revolver .. there's clearly way too much there for a 9mm and that giant gap is nutty.
A modern .38 S&W AKA .38-200?What I'd really like is if they would shorten the case (20-23mm) with an internal volume to efficiently contain a common power charge and chamber it in a cylinder properly sized for minimal jump...in something like a Rhino (low bore; striker fired; DAO)
Instead of making the mountain (the gun) come to Mohammed (the ammo), why not design a new cartridge in conjunction with a gun maker?
That is what i was thinking tooA modern .38 S&W AKA .38-200?
Whether it is a good thing to do is a different discussion than the chances of it happening. Talk of fantasy guns does not really need a cold shower. I think the 9mm Federal was on the right track, but there again the interest should be in whether that made a good firearm possible rather than why the cartridge never got traction in the industry.That's a lofty goal to try to achieve. But how successful have new handgun cartridges been in the past few decades?
With all the existing cartridges out there, it is difficult to design something new that offers substantial improvement in performance (cartridge size, velocity, energy, recoil, ease of use, availability, etc. etc. etc.) over cartridges that already are available.
I would guess the margins in gun manufacturing are pretty low and bringing out a substantially new platform is a fairly high risk
investment. Without the lure of a lucrative contract, there is not much incentive for the manufacturers to branch out. Evolutionary changes are relatively inexpensive versus revolutionary changes.
On the other hand, I do not feel the gun manufacturers introduce new products well. The supply chain fills too slowly for demand and frequently the quality control of the new product is just not there souring the interest of the buying public.
We can always hope though.
why not design a new cartridge in conjunction with a gun maker?
They make the M327 which weighs 21oz. but it is slightly wider being an N frame but in turn does hold 8 rounds of .357 Magnum.As much as I love S&W Revolvers, I need to question the "Intent" of this one. I'm thinking that anybody with the fortitude to carry the weight and bulk of an L frame revolver would rather be armed with 7 rounds of 357 mag vs 9mm.
Personally, I think they would have a better market if the made a similar 686 with a scandium frame and 357 clambering.
A gun like that is better for conversation than for shooting or even investment. Seriously? You can only go so far from the original platform of a 6 shot N-frame with a 6" barrel. Even the ammo industry has cut back on loading, trying not to be the guy that is "too hot to handle".They make the M327 which weighs 21oz. but it is slightly wider being an N frame but in turn does hold 8 rounds of .357 Magnum.
It wasn't. 9x19mm wasn't always cheaper than .38 Spl, I remember when it was quite a bit more expensiveI thought the main point of a 9mm revolver is the lower cost of 9mm ammo.
Personally, I think they would have a better market if the made a similar 686 with a scandium frame and 357 clambering.