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

Status
Not open for further replies.
7.62×38mmR
300px-76238comparison.jpg
Commercial production 7.62×38mmR (right) in comparison with .32 Smith & Wesson Long and .32 H&R Magnum
Type Revolver

7.62×38mmR (also known as 7.62 mm Nagant and Cartridge, Type R) is a unique ammunition cartridge designed for use in the Russian Nagant M1895 revolver.
...
The 7.62 mm caliber was chosen, in part, to simplify the tooling used in barrel making and manufacture of projectiles — the Russian service rifle of the time, the Mosin–Nagant M1891 featured an identical bore diameter, being chambered for the 7.62×54mmR rifle cartridge.

This is why I think 6.8mm could have some legs, with the military moving to this caliber soon.
 
And furthermore, just think if they developed a "6.8mm magnum" cartridge (6.8mm x 22) for their full size service pistols. Think ~22 rounds, at 1,500+ fps, in something the size of the Glock 17.
Then, you could fire the 6.8mm x 19 in that gun in a pinch, like you can with .380 in 9mm, or .40 in 10mm. Or maybe even both of those could somehow be fired in their new 6.8mm AR platform (single shot).

76391002.jpg
 
When did the military (which military) adopt the 6.8mm Rem SPC as it's primary cartridge? Definition of primary cartridge? I would make to be sure of that claim as people in the know may write you off quickly if its not 100% accurate.

I don't think you'll get that many more rounds in a mag. Have you tried to be sure?

Projectiles may be an issue. If none are made in that caliber at the correct weight for the load that is a hard sale.
 
I like the idea. I have long thought something like the a resurrection of the 7.65x20mm French Long /Pedersen or a lengthened rimless .25 Auto would be a great basis for a high capacity pocket gun. This 6.8 round would kinda split the difference.
 
When did the military (which military) adopt the 6.8mm Rem SPC as it's primary cartridge? Definition of primary cartridge? I would make to be sure of that claim as people in the know may write you off quickly if its not 100% accurate.

I don't think you'll get that many more rounds in a mag. Have you tried to be sure?

Projectiles may be an issue. If none are made in that caliber at the correct weight for the load that is a hard sale.

https://www.militarytimes.com/news/...cs-will-make-soldiers-marines-a-lot-deadlier/

The Army published a prototype notice in October showing that the Army and Marines will be evaluating 6.8mm light machine gun and rifle/carbine designs, keeping the same calibers within the squad, as is the case with 5.56mm today.

To those not closely tracking ammunition developments, the 6.8mm caliber, which falls between the 5.56mm and 7.62mm calibers, may appear to have come from nowhere.

But a round in that caliber proved its mettle nearly a century ago, and ongoing analysis of the 6.5 to 6.8mm caliber range has been key among a subset of experts for more than a decade.
....
ARDEC evaluation deemed the caliber “very effective” in an assault rifle platform, Kowal said.

Roberts wrote in his presentation that testing to develop the 6.8mm looked at bullets including 6mm, 6.5mm, 6.8mm, 7mm and 7.62mm.

The 6.8mm offered the best combination of “combat accuracy, reliability, and terminal performance for zero to 500-yard engagements in an M4-sized package.”
 
I like the idea. I have long thought something like the a resurrection of the 7.65x20mm French Long /Pedersen or a lengthened rimless .25 Auto would be a great basis for a high capacity pocket gun. This 6.8 round would kinda split the difference.

Yep. I figured .25 caliber punched a hole that was a bit too small; and that .32 caliber didn't allow for quite the capacity I'm aiming for. For example, only 7+1 in the P32.
Then I took into consideration how popular 6mm to 7mm is becoming for hunting because of the superior ballistics, and how that size is sort of in-between .25 and .32.

The military going to 6.8mm cinched it. I'm telling you guys.... I think this is, or could be, the next big thing.

I just hope I get a tiny bit of credit for it... if it does become a thing.
 
What I imagine is 10+1 rounds in something the size of, or maybe a hair larger than, a P3AT/LCP. Then an additional 2 or 3 rounds in something like a PF-9. Then, what, 20 rounds in a Glock 19-sized frame. Remember, the FN Five-Seven holds 20, and the base diameter of its cartridge is 7.95mm (16.5% larger).
 
Maybe someone can shorten .30 Carbine in the same way S&W .40 came out of 10 mm. Just make it as long as .45, don't go a complete 22TCM 9R on us, or what the heck... maybe even that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: HB
They have not adopted the 6.8 as a primary cartridge. They are evaluating it. They do this constantly and even if they did adopt a 6.8 rifle cartridge it doesn't mean people will want that as a pistol caliber suddenly.

Good luck with this but I would ponder it more before spending energy on it.
Sure seems like a done deal to me.

https://www.armytimes.com/news/your...oth-fire-this-more-accurate-and-deadly-round/

Fire-Shot-Capture-103-The-Army-s-SAW-and-M4-replacements-wi-https-www-armytimes-com-news-you.png

And I think, for the reasons I've outlined, many people WILL want a pistol chambered in this caliber; and for the same reason people like the Five-Seven, or the Kel-Tec PMR-30, or the Sig P365... capacity.
 
Last edited:
Maybe someone can shorten .30 Carbine in the same way S&W .40 came out of 10 mm. Just make it as long as .45, don't go a complete 22TCM 9R on us, or what the heck... maybe even that.

I figured it would be wise to keep the overall length of the cartridge equal to that of 9mm: 19mm. Hence 6.8mm x 19. My reasoning is that it would make it easier to adapt existing magazine/ grip/chamber designs to this cartridge by keeping one dimension the same.
 
Good luck with it.
Well, unfortunately there's likely nothing at all in it for me. I'd be lucky to even have a blurb with my name on it on the wiki page if my idea ever becomes a reality.
Such is the life of an idea man with zero connections.
 
.327 Federal Magnum filled a hole that existed for revolvers, and people clamor for it because of the +1 capacity and less blast and recoil relative to .357mag.

There is definitely a glaring hole between .25/.32 ACP and .380/9mm in terms of capacity and power ... but nobody wants to take the initiative to start filling it.

Let's fill this hole.

327 FM isn't exactly setting the world on fire in the revolver world. S&W doesn't even build a revolver for it anymore. The cartridge is similar to the 30 carbine and the muzzle blast is still substantial because its supersonic (1400 fps). It would make a nice carbine cartridge but they already did that in 1942. Capacity isn't an issue for most people who carry revolvers. If it were they would just carry some type of 9 mm +P in something like a p-239 or a p-229. The answer to capacity is an auto loader.
 
“There’s no replacement for displacement.”

The 25 and 32 fit a lot in short magazines because they’re small diameter - a lot stack up without getting very tall. They are pitifully weak because they are small diameter and short - no case capacity. If you add case capacity, you have to either get fatter, which means less rounds in the mag, or get longer, which only works for the diameter of a grip the human hand can actually hold. Ever held a Desert Eagle, Coonan, or PMR-30? The grips are huge to fit their over length cartridges.

Long, skinny cartridges just don’t work well.

And then we can move from internal to external ballistics, and terminal ballistics. Handguns don’t kill in the same manner as rifles, so extra speed doesn’t do much for performance. Just adds recoil. The skinnier rounds will lose penetration because they lose frontal area and bullet weight, and lose stopping power because of reduced momentum transfer. If you increase bullet weight, they get long and steal case capacity, then still don’t stop as well as a slower, larger dia bullet because that extra weight just yields penetration, not momentum transfer.

Then there are market influences - like component availability. What bullet supply are you going to draw from for this? When the 32H&R came back, there weren’t many (any) good bullets for it. It took a long time to get market support for a handful of good bullets for it. Then the 327FM happened - same deal. Look at how few bullets do anything in .357sig which they don’t do in 9mm - because they are 9mm bullets crammed into a larger case which pushes them too fast. When the 6.8 SPC came out, there were a lot of .277” bullets on the market, but they sucked for 6.8SPC because the jackets were designed to expand at 270win velocities. What source of .277” short ogive, round nose, hollow point, soft point, FMJ 80-100grn bullets are you going to use for this low velocity, short case cartridge? Your doodle in the OP shows a truncated long ogive rifle bullet, who’s going to start making that bullet for this ONE pistol cartridge in this ONE pistol?

Using the PMR-30 and Five-Seven as evidence to support a novelty pistol like this. I would venture more Glock 19’s are sold every year for the last 30yrs than the entire volume of PMR-30’s and 5-7’s combined EVER. They’re niche market toys with incredibly low market access.

This is all REALLY BASIC ballistics. It sucks when you realize your idea just won’t work, but it happens far more often than anyone invents something novel and innovative. Sucks your namesake won’t pan out, but dust off and come up with something else.

Kel-tec also isn’t an ammunition developer. They produce some niche firearms, and do so at very low prices, and at reasonable qualities. Ruger commands a much, much higher market penetration, and has collaborated on numerous cartridge development processes in the last ~20yrs. If anyone was going to bring a new cartridge to life, it wouldn’t be Kel-tec.

Your boat is sunk at the bottom of the river, quit rowing. Swim up, build a better boat, try again.
 
Yep. I figured .25 caliber punched a hole that was a bit too small; and that .32 caliber didn't allow for quite the capacity I'm aiming for. For example, only 7+1 in the P32.
Then I took into consideration how popular 6mm to 7mm is becoming for hunting because of the superior ballistics, and how that size is sort of in-between .25 and .32.

There's a whole lot more to the performance of .244-.284 cal rifle rounds than bullet diameter, and not one bit of it translates to puny pistol cartridges.

Handgun bullets incapacitate by tearing tissue they come into direct contact with. This is why expanding bullets are better, and big expanding bullets are best, so long as they penetrate adequately. There have been a number of .30 caliber pistol rounds with a lot more velocity than your .27 cal proposal, and they didn't exactly earn a reputation as man stoppers.

In short, good for you trying to think outside the box, but this concept is a non-starter.
 
Then, you could fire the 6.8mm x 19 in that gun in a pinch, like you can with .380 in 9mm, or .40 in 10mm.

I don't know anybody who would shoot 380 acp in a 9x19 para. Both head space on the case mouth and that clearly won't work. Those aren't rimmed cartridges. You truly need to do some more research because it's obvious you don't shoot a lot.
 
Please stop - this isn’t a thing. Not dying isn’t a measure for “it works.”
I don't know anybody who would shoot 380 acp in a 9x19 para. Both head space on the case mouth and that clearly won't work. Those aren't rimmed cartridges. You truly need to do some more research because it's obvious you don't shoot a lot.

Plenty of videos and online discussions about shooting .380 in 9mm, and .40 in 10mm (in Glocks); and from what I gather they "headspace on the extractor". It appears perfectly safe to do this, though in the case of .380, it often lacks the energy to fully rack the slide, ergo 'single shot'. I also understand that after doing this a lot, one should remove chamber fouling that results from it. Anyway... I only mentioned that as an aside. It's not my focus here.
 
A European company was showing a concept prototype similar to your concept at SHOT in 2010. .

Actually, it was done twice, or actually 2 1/2 times because one scheme had, like the OP, short and long versions.
One was in cahoots with STI. Just think how many .32s you could get in a 2011 magazine if you could solve the stacking arrangement.
The programme was driven by European police policy. Lots of shots, good penetration, not much recoil. It also followed the Fife Plan of gun control; guns and ammo to be issued to Authorized Personnel only, no private purchase.

I would be more interested if the OP said he was going to start trimming brass and bending metal.
"Ideas" have low viability; prototypes are hard enough to sell.
 
Plenty of videos and online discussions

Saw a video online a while back of kids “piercing” their cheeks by shooting through with a CO2 powered BB pistol. Lots of videos of people riding shopping carts down hills and running into stuff. You can find instructions online how to make meth, or napalm, or nitroglycerin...

You have a lot to learn about firearms.
 
“There’s no replacement for displacement.”

The 25 and 32 fit a lot in short magazines because they’re small diameter - a lot stack up without getting very tall. They are pitifully weak because they are small diameter and short - no case capacity. If you add case capacity, you have to either get fatter, which means less rounds in the mag, or get longer, which only works for the diameter of a grip the human hand can actually hold. Ever held a Desert Eagle, Coonan, or PMR-30? The grips are huge to fit their over length cartridges.

My assumption, as I've mentioned several times, is that one could narrow a 9x19 down to 6.8x19 and still have the case capacity to push an 85 grain projectile to 1,000fps and achieve 200 ft/lbs. Is this an accurate assumption? I don't know. That's one of the reasons I'm here. My hope is that some pro handloader could run the numbers and give me some parameters.

Long, skinny cartridges just don’t work well.

And then we can move from internal to external ballistics, and terminal ballistics. Handguns don’t kill in the same manner as rifles, so extra speed doesn’t do much for performance. Just adds recoil. The skinnier rounds will lose penetration because they lose frontal area and bullet weight, and lose stopping power because of reduced momentum transfer. If you increase bullet weight, they get long and steal case capacity, then still don’t stop as well as a slower, larger dia bullet because that extra weight just yields penetration, not momentum transfer.

I'm under no illusion that this isn't, essentially, a puny round. My goal was to rival the energy of .380, with better penetration, but giving up some 'stopping power' in the smaller diameter in exchange for 3 more rounds in the mag.

Then there are market influences - like component availability. What bullet supply are you going to draw from for this? When the 32H&R came back, there weren’t many (any) good bullets for it. It took a long time to get market support for a handful of good bullets for it. Then the 327FM happened - same deal. Look at how few bullets do anything in .357sig which they don’t do in 9mm - because they are 9mm bullets crammed into a larger case which pushes them too fast. When the 6.8 SPC came out, there were a lot of .277” bullets on the market, but they sucked for 6.8SPC because the jackets were designed to expand at 270win velocities. What source of .277” short ogive, round nose, hollow point, soft point, FMJ 80-100grn bullets are you going to use for this low velocity, short case cartridge? Your doodle in the OP shows a truncated long ogive rifle bullet, who’s going to start making that bullet for this ONE pistol cartridge in this ONE pistol?

I understand that it's logistical nightmare because, basically, the brass and the bullets don't exist for this. I've already acknowledged that. It's obviously the case. But if it's worth it to pursue, if it's a good idea and demand will be there for the product, then it's worth at least talking about.

Kel-tec also isn’t an ammunition developer. They produce some niche firearms, and do so at very low prices, and at reasonable qualities. Ruger commands a much, much higher market penetration, and has collaborated on numerous cartridge development processes in the last ~20yrs. If anyone was going to bring a new cartridge to life, it wouldn’t be Kel-tec.
I chose Kel-Tec as sort of a 'model' because I like what they do. They're innovative; and heck, maybe they want their name on a cartridge like the Big Boys have.
 
My goal was to rival the energy of .380, with better penetration

It won’t. Because “there’s no replacement for displacement.” The .277” compatible case will not be able to hold enough powder to push the bullet fast enough. As I said, very basic firearms knowledge here.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top