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

Status
Not open for further replies.
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.

Well, first came the idea. The next step for me -- since I don't have any real knowledge or experience or tools for handloading -- is to come to a place like this and refine the numbers and the math (namely, with respect to the question of sufficient case capacity)... and then, with a viable cartridge on paper ... find someone who sees its value and who would help prototype it.

This bullet, or one like it, could serve as a starting point -- even if a little bit needed to be ground off the top.
68mm-90gr-ppt-bonded-solid-baser-bullet-100ct-721.jpg

The brass? I don't know. I haven't really looked around to see what's out there.
A test barrel that would fit in, say, a Glock? A Glock .22lr conversion kit could make a good donor, then just enlarge/bore out as necessary.
That could be the prototype and proof of concept.
 
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.
Ok, it would be helpful if you could give me some hints then as to what velocity I would be likely to achieve, if not 1,000 fps? From my cursory use of 'handloading calculators', it seems like 2-4 grains of powder would be necessary.

9mm x 19 Overall length 29.69 mm (1.169 in)
A copper 115gr 9mm bullet is 0.69" (so I reckon lead bullets are shorter)
That leaves roughly .5 inches by 9mm in the case for powder.
So my question is, will .5 inches by 6.8mm, or ~450 cubic mm, be enough room for propellant to make 1,000fps with 85gr.
 
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?

No. It’s not accurate. The 380acp, aka 9x17mm just barely clears that bar, and doesn’t reach 1,000fps in most “LCP sized pistols” you’re mentioning. Consider the bullet will be longer in .277”, penetrating relatively deeper into the smaller diameter case, so the height of the powder column will be similar to the .380acp, but the 380acp has 64% more crossectional area - aka, 64% larger volume. Just taking a ratio of case volume and potential energy from shrinking the powder charge accordingly, you’re talking about around 750fps with an 85grn bullet, good for about 115ft.lbs. With that heavy - long - of a bullet, you’re really talking a VERY similar case capacity to 25acp, which only gets a 50grn bullet up around 750fps and delivering So being away from home and Quickload to do more advanced predictions to prove your idea doesn’t hold water, that would be my bet - IF YOU MAGICALLY SOURCED .277” pistol bullets, that 85grn bullet would be trucking somewhere at a paltry 750fps, lagging FAR behind the 380, which is already a very low compromise for stopping power. You’ve made something almost too weak, weaker.

Also, an 85grn bullet at 1,000fps isn’t 200ft.lbs. of kinetic energy. Grns * mv * mv / 450380, an 85 at 1000 is only 189ft.lbs.
 
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.

It is not perfectly safe to do this.

9X19 para is a tapered case. 380 acp is a straight wall case. Both were designed to headspace on the case mouth, not the extractor.

If you want to shoot 380 apc in a 9x19 knock yourself out. I wouldn't believe all of the information you glean from the internet.
 
Last edited:
9mm x 19 Overall length 29.69 mm (1.169 in)
A copper 115gr 9mm bullet is 0.69" (so I reckon lead bullets are shorter)
That leaves roughly .5 inches by 9mm in the case for powder.

Again, you have a LOT to learn about firearms. This is rookie stuff...

That 0.69” solid copper bullet is very long. A Hornady 115 FMJ 9mm is 0.549” long, almost .15” shorter than the copper solid.

1.169 - 0.549 = 0.62” from the exterior base of the case to the base of the bullet inside the case. There’s a lot of stuff between the exterior base and the powder column: A primer is 0.12” tall, if I spitball 1mm flash hole thickness (0.04” including the 2-4thou bogey for primer seating below flush to the case head), we’re talking about ~0.460 of powder column between the caseweb and the bullet base. Good for about 747cubic mm... playing that game...

Now - a 6.8mm 85 grn bullet is going to be LONG. That Nosler 90grn is listed at 0.785”. That has to come out of the powder volume to keep the same COAL. So 1.169 -0.785” = .384, minus 1mm (0.04”) flash hole depth in the web and .120” primer depth = 0.225” powder column. At 6.8mm, that’s 221 cubic mm... 336% more powder capacity in the 9mm - the 6.8 isn’t getting anywhere NEAR as much power out.

Comparatively... the Hornady 90 XTP is .450” long seated in a .984” cartridge, less .16” for flash web and primer depth, leaves .374” powder column depth, which comes out to 370 cubic mm... I estimated 164% more powder capacity for the 380acp above, here the actual math comes out to 167% more powder capacity in the 380acp than your imaginary cartridge... see the difference here? A fat case with a fat bullet means plenty of room for powder. A skinny case with a long, skinny bullet means not much room for powder...

Then consider the relative efficiency of the pressure generated. Same pressure capacity, but smaller operating surface = less overall force exerted on the bullet, so you’ll need a considerably longer barrel to get the same bullet weight to the same velocity, even if you COULD get enough powder behind it - which you can’t...
 
No. It’s not accurate. The 380acp, aka 9x17mm just barely clears that bar, and doesn’t reach 1,000fps in most “LCP sized pistols” you’re mentioning. Consider the bullet will be longer in .277”, penetrating relatively deeper into the smaller diameter case, so the height of the powder column will be similar to the .380acp, but the 380acp has 64% more crossectional area - aka, 64% larger volume. Just taking a ratio of case volume and potential energy from shrinking the powder charge accordingly, you’re talking about around 750fps with an 85grn bullet, good for about 115ft.lbs. With that heavy - long - of a bullet, you’re really talking a VERY similar case capacity to 25acp, which only gets a 50grn bullet up around 750fps and delivering So being away from home and Quickload to do more advanced predictions to prove your idea doesn’t hold water, that would be my bet - IF YOU MAGICALLY SOURCED .277” pistol bullets, that 85grn bullet would be trucking somewhere at a paltry 750fps, lagging FAR behind the 380, which is already a very low compromise for stopping power. You’ve made something almost too weak, weaker.

Also, an 85grn bullet at 1,000fps isn’t 200ft.lbs. of kinetic energy. Grns * mv * mv / 450380, an 85 at 1000 is only 189ft.lbs.
6-8-9.png
I made this to show that case capacity would only be lost in one dimension-- albeit an important one -- and that an 85gr bullet need not seat deeper in the case than a 9mm does.

My calculations show 800 cubic mm remaining in the 9mm case, a bit over 600 cubic mm in .380, and 400 cubic mm in the theoretical 6.8mm.

So maybe you're right that it would only push ~700fps; and if you are, that means I'd have to go with a lighter projectile to get the ideal 1,000+ fps that I have in mind.

I'd still like to see some legit calculations though before I change tack.
 
Last edited:
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.
I understand the reasoning. It's exactly why the 22 TCM had to re-worked as 22 TCM 9R. However, the overall length of 9mm Luger is 29.7 mm, not 19 mm. That bullet is very long. If you shorten a 30 Carbine, you can use one of those 327 magnum bullets and have a longer case for more powder.You need every bit you can get. Define the cartridge to use blunt-nose bullets only, like in .40 S&W.
 
But which one gives me 10 rounds in an LCP-sized gun, but which isn't too weak like .22LR, .25ACP, or .32ACP?

That's all I'm trying to do here: make the ultimate pocket gun.

One sad caveat is you can make, what, for you, is the "ultimate pocket gun". But people have a
way of deciding for themselves what they feel is the "best" or "perfect" pocket gun for their own needs.
I can't imagine why Kel-Tec would be your first choice, as a manufacturer. But that's just me, IME, KT
makes nice range toys and novelty guns. But nothing I would want to depend upon.
 
I understand the reasoning. It's exactly why the 22 TCM had to re-worked as 22 TCM 9R. However, the overall length of 9mm Luger is 29.7 mm, not 19 mm. That bullet is very long. If you shorten a 30 Carbine, you can use one of those 327 magnum bullets and have a longer case for more powder. Define the cartridge to use blunt-nose bullets only, like in .40 S&W.

I misspoke when I said "overall length of cartridge" and 19mm in the same sentence. I realize 19mm is the length of the case only. I like your idea and think it's a good one: basically a .32ACP magnum.
I'm just stuck on the 6.8mm and the extra magazine capacity it offers.
 
Again, you have a LOT to learn about firearms. This is rookie stuff...

That 0.69” solid copper bullet is very long. A Hornady 115 FMJ 9mm is 0.549” long, almost .15” shorter than the copper solid.

1.169 - 0.549 = 0.62” from the exterior base of the case to the base of the bullet inside the case. There’s a lot of stuff between the exterior base and the powder column: A primer is 0.12” tall, if I spitball 1mm flash hole thickness (0.04” including the 2-4thou bogey for primer seating below flush to the case head), we’re talking about ~0.460 of powder column between the caseweb and the bullet base. Good for about 747cubic mm... playing that game...

Now - a 6.8mm 85 grn bullet is going to be LONG. That Nosler 90grn is listed at 0.785”. That has to come out of the powder volume to keep the same COAL. So 1.169 -0.785” = .384, minus 1mm (0.04”) flash hole depth in the web and .120” primer depth = 0.225” powder column. At 6.8mm, that’s 221 cubic mm... 336% more powder capacity in the 9mm - the 6.8 isn’t getting anywhere NEAR as much power out.

Comparatively... the Hornady 90 XTP is .450” long seated in a .984” cartridge, less .16” for flash web and primer depth, leaves .374” powder column depth, which comes out to 370 cubic mm... I estimated 164% more powder capacity for the 380acp above, here the actual math comes out to 167% more powder capacity in the 380acp than your imaginary cartridge... see the difference here? A fat case with a fat bullet means plenty of room for powder. A skinny case with a long, skinny bullet means not much room for powder...

Then consider the relative efficiency of the pressure generated. Same pressure capacity, but smaller operating surface = less overall force exerted on the bullet, so you’ll need a considerably longer barrel to get the same bullet weight to the same velocity, even if you COULD get enough powder behind it - which you can’t...

If you're right and there is no way that this wouldn't be weak as hell with these dimensions, no matter what powder... then it's either make it longer, or use lighter bullets -- in the 70 grain range like .32ACP.
 
You need to go big and invent a centerfire .22 for PMR-30.

Well that's sort of what I'm trying to do -- except as centerfire .277 for a "PMR-26" or similar. But mainly for a pocket gun. That's where the huge demand is. Everyone wants a pocket gun.

Just thinking here...
Overall length of .22WMR is 1.350 in (34.3 mm) --- too long
Overall length of 9mm is 1.169 in (29.69 mm) --- insufficient

So what is the minimum length of a 6.8mm cartridge to push an 85grain projectile to 1,000+ fps out of a 3" barrel?
Could it be done at less than 34mm?
 
I really think you need to go slightly larger in diameter- more capacity, more viable bullet designs, and you can use shortened .30 Carbine for brass. You're really not going to lose much magazine capacity.
 
Now - a 6.8mm 85 grn bullet is going to be LONG. That Nosler 90grn is listed at 0.785”. That has to come out of the powder volume to keep the same COAL. So 1.169 -0.785” = .384, minus 1mm (0.04”) flash hole depth in the web and .120” primer depth = 0.225” powder column. At 6.8mm, that’s 221 cubic mm... 336% more powder capacity in the 9mm - the 6.8 isn’t getting anywhere NEAR as much power out.

Comparatively... the Hornady 90 XTP is .450” long seated in a .984” cartridge, less .16” for flash web and primer depth, leaves .374” powder column depth, which comes out to 370 cubic mm... I estimated 164% more powder capacity for the 380acp above, here the actual math comes out to 167% more powder capacity in the 380acp than your imaginary cartridge... see the difference here? A fat case with a fat bullet means plenty of room for powder. A skinny case with a long, skinny bullet means not much room for powder...

Then consider the relative efficiency of the pressure generated. Same pressure capacity, but smaller operating surface = less overall force exerted on the bullet, so you’ll need a considerably longer barrel to get the same bullet weight to the same velocity, even if you COULD get enough powder behind it - which you can’t...

So... using your methodology, if I lengthen the cartridge by 4.7mm for an OAL similar to a .22WMR, I end up with 377 cubic mm -- on par with .380ACP.
Which then adds another quarter-inch to the grip/chamber of the weapon, on top of the extra quarter-inch for the 3" barrel (over the P3AT's 2.75" barrel).

Basically we're up to the length of a PF-9 now (5.85"), with a deeper grip. Still doable I guess. Not ideal though.
 
I really think you need to go slightly larger in diameter- more capacity, more viable bullet designs, and you can use shortened .30 Carbine for brass. You're really not going to lose much magazine capacity.

It's looking that way...
Maybe .32 Super is the way to go.
 
So... using your methodology, if I lengthen the cartridge by 4.7mm for an OAL similar to a .22WMR, I end up with 377 cubic mm -- on par with .380ACP.
Which then adds another quarter-inch to the grip/chamber of the weapon, on top of the extra quarter-inch for the 3" barrel (over the P3AT's 2.75" barrel).

Basically we're up to the length of a PF-9 now (5.85"), with a deeper grip. Still doable I guess. Not ideal though.

Even if you make the case longer, the smaller bore won’t burn powder as efficiently as the larger bore, so you’ll have to add much more barrel length to get the same power out of the smaller diameter case. Even reaching the same kinetic energy, you’ll be giving up the things handgun bullets NEED to do their job, in favor for a few extra rounds in the magazine.

And of course, the long reach grip on the PMR-30, Desert Eagle, etc with long rounds like this is the worst part of the pistol. So you’re working deeper into a hole where you wanted to improve upon the .380, but your bad idea has now made a larger, heavier, less ergonomic pistol, with lesser stopping power. Every step you take on this idea is digging a hole into worse and worse reality... stop digging.

Also recognize, the current market has 1) determined low capacity 380’s are more than sufficient, or 2) a larger pistol in 9mm with a little more grip length for better purchase in hand is an advantage (aka, P365, Glock 48 and 43X, extended LCP/P238/LC9/P938 mag baseplates). Capacity is nice, but grip length is what really turns people off from the pocket 9’s and 380’s.

Look at the 327Fed vs. 357mag. The 327 holds more rounds and nearly matches the energy of the 357. It’s also more expensive, and harder to find. In the case of 327’s, bullets were already available, and tooling for the brass was already on hand, unlike your 6.8 idea. Despite the easier logistical launch 327 is a niche cartridge with little more than a small cult following. But for the same size revolver, the 38spcl and 357mag are better stoppers, and more readily available, less expensive for ammo. The capacity doesn’t mean as much as market availability and stopping power.

Your idea: I want more rounds with the same energy as a 380 (ignoring for a second the reduced stopping power). I created this niche wildcat round which matches the 380’s energy, but yeah, it needs a larger pistol and longer barrel to get there. But hey, the grip is still short, but yeah, it’s also now long and blocky, making the pistol really difficult to hold. But I think everyone should buy this instead of their smaller, lighter 380’s with better stopping power. And buy this instead of the same sized 9mm pistols with better grips and FAR better stopping power, despite the fact the 9mm is the worlds most available, least expensive ammo, and this one has no bullets on the market and worse performance. —> can you not see how EVERY turn you make here is a bad step, both in ballistic performance and product marketability?

I’m an idea man for a living. I come up with ideas and evaluate ideas of others, then determine which products/processes have actual opportunities in the market to decide with investors which we should develop and commercialize. At every turn, this cartridge falls on its face. It’s dead on arrival, and wasting time continuing to hash out details is exactly that - wasting your time.
 
ideal 1,000+ fps that I have in mind.

This is a silly, arbitrary target. A lighter bullet will lose momentum and kinetic energy, penetration potential (SD)... all around bad... handgun bullets rely upon weight to do their job. Running a lighter bullet to get to 1,000fps just to say it runs 1000fps is just a waste of time. The round isn’t viable. Plain and simple. That’s why we haven’t seen any firearm or ammunition developer produce one.

The engineers and product designers at these companies do this for a living, every day, 2080 hours a year. Your idea has been thoroughly evaluated at some point - smaller diameter, higher capacity - and it’s been passed over because it just doesn’t work. They didn’t waste their time with it. You shouldn’t either.
 
6.8KT, I applaud your effort in thinking out of the box. I'm not sure it would work with the parameters you have set so far. Dont seem it would have enough case volume but i could be wrong. Good luck coming up with something that works to suit you.

Alot of snarky comments and replies to you in this thread. I guess it's too much to say, "I don't think it will work and here's why ....... but good luck." There's tons of forums to find that kind of behavior, I thought I came here to get away from that nonsense.
 
Alot of snarky comments and replies to you in this thread. I guess it's too much to say, "I don't think it will work and here's why ....... but good luck." There's tons of forums to find that kind of behavior, I thought I came here to get away from that nonsense.

That's been said many times in 3 pages. Those of us who actually build guns and do wildcat cartridges, who understand the internal and terminal ballistics, keep explaining why, but the OP isn't listening. He's clearly not familiar with the 6.5mm Bergmann and 7mm Nambu, both of which used bottleneck cases longer than 19mm and still delivered paltry performance. The 7.65 Mannlicher and 7.65 MAS were basically .30 cal versions of what the OP is proposing, and they barely manage to produce his 85 gr. @ 1,000 FPS numbers from their larger cases.

Metallic firearm cartridges are a very mature technology, have been for some time. OP doesn't even understand what it is about 6mm, 6.5mm and 7mm caliber rifles that makes them such a good balance for hunting and target use. I hinted at that, but instead of asking, he just continues obstinately down the same path, believing he has some revolutionary idea, seemingly unaware that there have been numerous cartridges in the class of his proposed which are obsolete for a good reason. There's a long list of high velocity, small caliber centerfire pistol cartridges that didn't make it, from the 5mm Clement & .30 Borchardt to the much newer .25 NAA & .32 NAA. There are a few reasons .25 ACP & .32 ACP have managed to hang in there, firm entrenchment in the market with myriad tiny guns so chambered, many of them very well made and aesthetically pleasing, being the most salient.
 
Bullet diameter matters, I don't want a 6.8mm handgun.

I don't think your proposed dimensions would hit the velocity goals due to the case capacity and the sectional density of the bullet compared with traditional pistol bullets. The narrower you make the bullet the less area there is to be affected by the chamber pressure. So if you have two different bore sizes with the same weight bullet and same powder capacity, the larger bore will generate a higher muzzle velocity at a lower chamber pressure. You might be able to match 380 muzzle energies in a high pressure (40K psi) locked breach pistol because a 380 is a really low pressure (21K psi) cartridge, but its still going to be shooting a tiny little projectile that will rely on expansion. Using existing 6.8spc projectiles is not realistic as they will not expand at subsonic velocities.
 
Kel Tec won't even make anything in .45ACP, let alone invent a new cartridge.

The issue with centerfire mouse calibers is that the ammo is more expensive than 9mm, making them non-cost effective. Invent a cartridge the size of .25ACP with .38 Special muzzle energy, and priced at or below 9mm and then we'll talk.

The muzzle energy of Armscor's 22TCM is impressive, but the case is big and it's not a cheap round.
 
Even if you make the case longer, the smaller bore won’t burn powder as efficiently as the larger bore, so you’ll have to add much more barrel length to get the same power out of the smaller diameter case. Even reaching the same kinetic energy, you’ll be giving up the things handgun bullets NEED to do their job, in favor for a few extra rounds in the magazine.

And of course, the long reach grip on the PMR-30, Desert Eagle, etc with long rounds like this is the worst part of the pistol. So you’re working deeper into a hole where you wanted to improve upon the .380, but your bad idea has now made a larger, heavier, less ergonomic pistol, with lesser stopping power. Every step you take on this idea is digging a hole into worse and worse reality... stop digging.

Also recognize, the current market has 1) determined low capacity 380’s are more than sufficient, or 2) a larger pistol in 9mm with a little more grip length for better purchase in hand is an advantage (aka, P365, Glock 48 and 43X, extended LCP/P238/LC9/P938 mag baseplates). Capacity is nice, but grip length is what really turns people off from the pocket 9’s and 380’s.

Look at the 327Fed vs. 357mag. The 327 holds more rounds and nearly matches the energy of the 357. It’s also more expensive, and harder to find. In the case of 327’s, bullets were already available, and tooling for the brass was already on hand, unlike your 6.8 idea. Despite the easier logistical launch 327 is a niche cartridge with little more than a small cult following. But for the same size revolver, the 38spcl and 357mag are better stoppers, and more readily available, less expensive for ammo. The capacity doesn’t mean as much as market availability and stopping power.

Your idea: I want more rounds with the same energy as a 380 (ignoring for a second the reduced stopping power). I created this niche wildcat round which matches the 380’s energy, but yeah, it needs a larger pistol and longer barrel to get there. But hey, the grip is still short, but yeah, it’s also now long and blocky, making the pistol really difficult to hold. But I think everyone should buy this instead of their smaller, lighter 380’s with better stopping power. And buy this instead of the same sized 9mm pistols with better grips and FAR better stopping power, despite the fact the 9mm is the worlds most available, least expensive ammo, and this one has no bullets on the market and worse performance. —> can you not see how EVERY turn you make here is a bad step, both in ballistic performance and product marketability?

I’m an idea man for a living. I come up with ideas and evaluate ideas of others, then determine which products/processes have actual opportunities in the market to decide with investors which we should develop and commercialize. At every turn, this cartridge falls on its face. It’s dead on arrival, and wasting time continuing to hash out details is exactly that - wasting your time.

I get it now. I've conceded defeat. That's why I came here -- to ask people who know more than me about this, to see if my idea was good, and if not, why not. I've now seen the math and gotten a satisfactory explanation for why it's not a good idea.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top