I propose a 7.95 X 19 cartridge. (.327 Auto Mag.).
Don't be so quick to dismiss this idea; I'm not "reinventing the wheel", either.
Advantages:
a) .312" bullet dia.. This is common and available in various and sundry bullet weights.
b) Capable of very high velocities (1400-1600 fps).
c) The platform is prolific. The 9mm is omnipresent!
d) Large capacity.
e) Low recoil.
f) Excellent penetration capabilities.
g) At these barrel lengths, hollowpoints (up to 135 grains) will likely expand.
h) A standard bullet weight of 98 grains would provide a marvelous "compromise" between penetration and expansion.
i) A barrel exchange with a stock 9mm Parabellum pistol would immediately convert it to the new cartridge; no other alterations are necessary.
j) Brass can be formed from the 9mm Parabellum.
k) The .32 NAA is good in shorter-barreled pistols. This cartridge will be better served in as "service-sized" handgun.
l) Georg Luger laid the "groundwork" in 1905 (110 years ago) by creating the .30 Luger. While the .30 operated at much lower pressures, the .30 Tokarev (7.62 X 25) paved the way for this concept as well.
This idea came from the idea of the .32 NAA and using the 9mm as a "parent cartridge" as opposed to the .380. THIS IS NOT TO BE USED AS A "POCKET PISTOL" CARTRIDGE! So many shooters will seek to "test their manhood" (read: recoil tolerance) by putting this cartridge into a pocket-sized pistol, then compain because it; didn't yield the desired velocities; was too loud and was too abusive to shoot. Tough. "Stupid is as stupid does".
I'm seeking superior penetration, mushrooming, (on upset of hollowpoint bullets) and accuracy. (.32 caliber bullets in both revolvers and autoloaders are well-known for their pinpoint accuracy).
This is just a notion that's been bouncing around inside my head for quite some time.
Since this is a 10mm forum, I gotta ask...Why not go full monty for a 7.95X25 based on 10mm?
I have a Model 20 and four other handguns in 10mm Auto. I want to see something done for the 9mm crowd as well.
Quote from: sqlbullet on October 09 2015 03:04:11 PM MDT
Since this is a 10mm forum, I gotta ask...Why not go full monty for a 7.95X25 based on 10mm?
This. However, 10 to 7.95mm may be too far a stretch, unless significant case neck work is planned.
The .32NAA is a poor performing "pocket pistol" round, due almost entirely to the very limited case capacity. Basing it on 9mm will improve that unavoidable factor very little, if any. Chamber and action designs are a much greater player than case design, in the pressure tolerance equation. .38 Super would be a better base candidate, if you are set on that chambering.
[edit]
Add to that, the 9mm case is tapered, while the .38S (as well as other similar size autos) is not. This may or may not present additional issues.
I am surprised LWD hasn't released a barrel chambered in the 7.62 x 25 Tokarev, with all the surplus ammo...
Quote from: The_Shadow on October 09 2015 04:53:17 PM MDT
I am surprised LWD hasn't released a barrel chambered in the 7.62 x 25 Tokarev, with all the surplus ammo...
Novel idea. I'll ask the next time I'm on the horn with them.
The COAL (Overall length of 34.0 mm / 1.34") is on the long side for the magazines so that may be the issue with a conversion for factory ammo, but loaded shorter could be a great adaptation and a perspective.
But then again a 10mm case necked down to the to accept the 7.62 Tokarev would be a nice wildcat. But the issue would be bullets to be able to load...
Quote from: The_Shadow on October 09 2015 05:28:16 PM MDT
The COAL (Overall length of 34.0 mm / 1.34") is on the long side for the magazines so that may be the issue with a conversion for factory ammo, but loaded shorter could be a great adaptation and a perspective.
But then again a 10mm case necked down to the to accept the 7.62 Tokarev would be a nice wildcat. But the issue would be bullets to be able to load...
No problem with the bullets. Plenty of .30 Carbine to choose from. The last lot of Tokarev's were pretty short, 1.255", although the max spec. is 1.350". 85 gr, non-corrosive. I never had a pistol to shot them, but they were ultra-cheap fun in the Mosin-Nagant.
Standard 0.308" bullets would be small, if they go with the 0.310" but it might offer some uses...
Pretty sure they're .308, same as the .30 Mauser.
I own a Yugo M57 in 7.62 X 25 (.30 Tokarev) and it is a WONDERFUL pistol! The only problem is with it's "battlefield" sights. They can be augmented to improve the sight picture.
The only reason I hadn't suggested using the .38 Super as a platform for the new cartridge, is because it isn't as popular as the 9mm Luger Perhaps it would be a better platform. As accurate as the .32 caliber bullets are, the round would serve rather well in both the field and at home.
You should have a 7.62x54R to compliment that pistol. Get your hands on some adapter bushings, and shoot the x25 rounds through both. Lots of fun, cheap, and really effective on varmints w/o the mule kick and noise.
Quote from: DM1906 on October 09 2015 06:41:23 PM MDT
You should have a 7.62x54R to compliment that pistol. Get your hands on some adapter bushings, and shoot the x25 rounds through both. Lots of fun, cheap, and really effective on varmints w/o the mule kick and noise.
This is all well and good, but the "thread drift" means it is losing it's direction.
Back to the main topic, please.
Captain O
Quote from: DM1906 on October 09 2015 05:17:52 PM MDT
Quote from: The_Shadow on October 09 2015 04:53:17 PM MDT
I am surprised LWD hasn't released a barrel chambered in the 7.62 x 25 Tokarev, with all the surplus ammo...
Novel idea. I'll ask the next time I'm on the horn with them.
Cheap surplus for that dried up several years ago. There has been some more to come in recently but it ain't that cheap
Sorry about that Captain O...7.95 X 19 cartridge. (.327 Auto Mag.), What if you used the 22TCM as your parent case then necked it up? The COAL of Overall length of 1.265 in (32.1 mm) to fit the magazine and still have enough space for powder and bullet. The 22TCM could be a platform case to have strength and longevity.
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.22_TCM#/media/File:22tcm_prm.jpg)
Another thought would be to neck down a 357Sig casing which fits the 10mm breech face and magazines. I have loaded the 357Sig and 9x25Dillon and shoot them from my Glock pistols with nothing but a barrel swap. Therefore either of those casings could bring you closer to the (.327 Auto Mag.) you seek fairly easily.
The thing is getting barrels with that bore and cut to the firearm you intend to shoot it from. Reamer for the chamber specifications for the cartridge when you finalize the design. Custom set of dies made to you cartridge specs as well.
Quote from: The_Shadow on October 10 2015 08:12:09 AM MDT
Sorry about that Captain O...7.95 X 19 cartridge. (.327 Auto Mag.), What if you used the 22TCM as your parent case then necked it up? The COAL of Overall length of 1.265 in (32.1 mm) to fit the magazine and still have enough space for powder and bullet. The 22TCM could be a platform case to have strength and longevity.
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.22_TCM#/media/File:22tcm_prm.jpg)
An excellent suggestion. I am simply attempting to replicate the .327 Fed. Mag in an autoloading cartridge, I'm certain you understand the concept.
Quote from: Captain O on October 10 2015 11:40:03 AM MDT
......I am simply attempting to replicate the .327 Fed. Mag in an autoloading cartridge......
This describes the .38 Super. Side-by-side, they are very similar. The difference is the bore, and pressure range needed to get the lighter bullet up to the power level. The 9mm as a base case is too small. You can't get there at pistol level pressures. It isn't likely you can get there with any 9mm size frame pistol. You could, with a .357 Sig base, but the neck reduction is too much for a short pistol cartridge. You are dealing with a .312" bore (not ".327", which is just an obscure number, essentially .30 caliber).
Quote from: DM1906 on October 10 2015 12:42:24 PM MDT
Quote from: Captain O on October 10 2015 11:40:03 AM MDT
......I am simply attempting to replicate the .327 Fed. Mag in an autoloading cartridge......
This describes the .38 Super. Side-by-side, they are very similar. The difference is the bore, and pressure range needed to get the lighter bullet up to the power level. The 9mm as a base case is too small. You can't get there at pistol level pressures. It isn't likely you can get there with any 9mm size frame pistol. You could, with a .357 Sig base, but the neck reduction is too much for a short pistol cartridge. You are dealing with a .312" bore (not ".327", which is just an obscure number, essentially .30 caliber).
I believe you are correct. The 9mm
is too small. The .327 moniker is, of course, incorrect. i know that we are dealing with a .312" diameter projectile. The object is to arrange for an FMJ bullet to excel at long distances, while permiting the use of a bullet of up to 124 grains. It would make a good carbine round, and a 'hot rock' defense pistol. Light (98 grain) Speer Gold Dot bullets would be a great varmint/SD load.
I am becoming intrigued (like I really need another project). The ".327" is an excellent caliber of choice, as the selection of commonly available bullets is enormous. I think it's, at least, doable, and just may have legs.
Quote from: DM1906 on October 10 2015 02:14:02 PM MDT
I am becoming intrigued (like I really need another project). The ".327" is an excellent caliber of choice, as the selection of commonly available bullets is enormous. I think it's, at least, doable, and just may have legs.
Let's "take it for a walk". ;) ;D
Quote from: Captain O on October 10 2015 03:02:41 PM MDT
Quote from: DM1906 on October 10 2015 02:14:02 PM MDT
I am becoming intrigued (like I really need another project). The ".327" is an excellent caliber of choice, as the selection of commonly available bullets is enormous. I think it's, at least, doable, and just may have legs.
Let's "take it for a walk". ;) ;D
So I did. Step 2 (of a thousand)........
[attachment deleted by admin]
Quote from: DM1906 on October 11 2015 08:46:12 PM MDT
Quote from: Captain O on October 10 2015 03:02:41 PM MDT
Quote from: DM1906 on October 10 2015 02:14:02 PM MDT
I am becoming intrigued (like I really need another project). The ".327" is an excellent caliber of choice, as the selection of commonly available bullets is enormous. I think it's, at least, doable, and just may have legs.
Let's "take it for a walk". ;) ;D
So I did. Step 2 (of a thousand)........
Outstanding! I can imagine that it would not only be a marvelous varminter, but the pistol could put a terminal case of "hurts" on someone in short order. thanks for the visualization, my friend.
OK. This is your baby. How do you want to proceed? (it doesn't get easier, from here....) This cartridge had potential. You have my attention........
I still see the 98-grain bullet as the "standard" JHP load for the cartridge. This would provide ample bullet weight, thus avoiding bullet deflection if one strikes a bone (or bones). The lightest possible practical bullet for the cartridge would be a 71 grain FMJ.
Imagine how controllable this would be in a SMG, Power? No problem! With a cyclic rate of about 800 rpm you could tear the living daylights out of anything that manages to get in the way. Short bursts of 3-5 rounds could be used as suppressive fire, or killshots with plenty of room for error. Pointed Soft Points wold be a definite plus for the round.
A 4" barreled auto that a woman can handle, with a magazine capacity of 12 could hold some real promise! The light recoil, guaranteed penetration, accuracy and the ability to "blossom" as it it were a daisy on a spring morning are all excellent selling points. The "bottleneck" cartridge virtually guarantees excellent feeding!
Now, to whom should we sell the idea?
I was thinking 100 gr. XTP. It's rated above 1800 FPS, while most other JHP's are only about 1400. Not an issue for a 4" barrel, but it should really excel in longer bores.
Recoil should be around the level of the 9mm or .40SW, perhaps +P. Probably not the best candidate for a (sub) compact or "lady pistol". You said yourself, "no belly gun", and I agree. A shorter version could be developed later for smaller frame pistols, but you're getting away from the original concept, and we already have .32 autos in nearly that power range.
It could work well in a SMG or short-stroke AR. Potentially with a cyclic rate around 1200. 3-5 bursts would be like single-shots, and nearly recoilless. I like that Idea for a breach weapon. A 14" bbl should easily approach the 1800-2000 FPS area. Long way to go before we see that, though.
Sell? It's your concept. Run with it. It's too early, and some other yahoo would just screw it up!
Looks nice...based on the 38Super casing would place you looking at guns designed for it or the 9x23 Winchester.
Finding someone to cut barrels and make reamers and dies will be a challenge...but could be done.
Clymer will cut custom reamers for ya, and Redding, Lyman and RCBS will make dies based on the reamer drawings.
Quote from: The_Shadow on October 12 2015 09:41:43 AM MDT
Looks nice...based on the 38Super casing would place you looking at guns designed for it or the 9x23 Winchester.
Finding someone to cut barrels and make reamers and dies will be a challenge...but could be done.
The OP's goal is full-size. Not pocket/belly guns, and I agree. We already have options in the the "light" department. However, that's not to say a "special" won't be developed in the process. A "mini-me" with about a 1.200" MOAL wouldn't be too puny.
Not really a challenge. Dozens of options available. Not my first time. TCC barrels aren't expensive, and neither are Ruger caliber-bored cylinders. Both offer .32 caliber bores, and can be ordered w/o chambering. Prototypes are almost always more costly than production products, but there are lots of ways to keep the expenses to a minimum.
Quote from: sqlbullet on October 12 2015 10:27:32 AM MDT
Clymer will cut custom reamers for ya, and Redding, Lyman and RCBS will make dies based on the reamer drawings.
Expensive stretches for developing a prototype, but that's ultimately what happens. Re-do's are even more costly, but that's how it works. This is why the Ruger (or whatever revolver) caliber-bore cylinder is the best way to get it done. 6 chances, while TCC only allows one.
You could look at the 30 Badger. Manson Reamers already has a reamer print for it. 38sp necked down to 30 cal. Uses one grain less load data to the 32/20 for plinking loads. I am not suggesting the 30 Badger as a replacement, but as a design starting point.
The .30 Badger is a .38 Spl wildcat, intended/designed for single-shot, long barrels. How does that compare to this .327FM-like autoloader cartridge discussion (as a "design starting point")? Just curious what you mean by that.
Order a 30 badger reamer and short ream the chamber. 30 badger dies and trim the bottom. The difference will only .005" in diameter.
Or not. I think Pinsnscrews was just trying to find a shortcut, which could save you money.
I'm not opposed to short-cuts, but the .30 Badger isn't close (enough), and the reamers are still just as custom as any custom reamer. The 7.62x25 is about the same (the dies can be used to size the brass), but still too small. .005" is HUGE, in this regard. It isn't too costly to have a reamer made from a chamber drawing, which I can do at any time. It would be nice if another cartridge had similar dimensions, but there isn't one. At the same time, if there was another similar cartridge, it wouldn't be all that "original" (which isn't appealing, to me). Designing the chamber and cartridge drawings is the current stage. At this time, it's all still theoretical. The actual physical process (the expensive part) is still quite a ways forward. This isn't my concept (thread). I'm only offering my input and opinion as to what I would do, given the goals of the original concept, and what may be practical/possible. I've done this before many times, and I know what needs to happen. But this isn't my baby.
I may have had the "germ" of the idea, but not the engineering capabilitiy to put it together. The idea is to use an existng cartridge, the .38 Super(+p) and neck it down to accept a .311" -. 312" bullet. The .32 caliber bullets are well known for their exceptional accuracy. The lightweight bullet (71-100 grains) have the ability to penetrate deeply (hard cast lead) or expand explosively (SJHP). The longer the body of the bullet, the greater it's ability to penetrate, while expanding.
The platform has been around for more than 86 years and the lighter bullets can be driven to the higher velocites without battering the frame. I am firmly convinced that a flat-bottomed firing pin retaining plate will slow the slide as it reaches it's apex of rearward travel so that excessive frame stress cannot possibly occur. (Lessons learnd from Colt's re-engineering of their Delta Elite.
A full 5" barrel would not be out of place with this caliber, as the extra barrel length would permit the bullet to gain extra velocity in order to:
a) attain the power to increase penetration,
b) increase range, and
c) enhance the performance of hollow point bullets (upon impact) within the weight range.
Keep on chooglin' kid, you're doing fine!
I agree with the 5" (plus) barrel for the reasons you list (and more). But, the lighter bullets are too light, in that, they are not designed for the potential velocities. I used the 100 gr. XTP as a starting point, as it is rated (by Hornady), at 1800+ FPS. We don't need to discuss the history or capabilities of the XTP bullets. (do we?)
The "overbuilt" pistol won't be necessary, necessarily. Being .32 caliber, the violent recoil forces that were the reasons for beefing up the 10mm's in a 1911 design, just aren't there (even at higher pressure). It's likely already "overbuilt", merely with the slide mass, as it is. The cross-sectional area and volume (length) of the bore determines the "violence", not the pressure alone. The 5.7x28FN is a prime example of that. I suspect there will be no significant frame battering concerns.
Initial firing platform(s) will/should be either a single shot (such as TC Contender), or a heavy cylinder revolver, for a number of reasons. Case support concerns not being the least. A stationary machine test platform is also possible, which as other advantages (industry standard format barrels can be pressure tested). Any 6-shot full size Ruger or Taurus in .327FM should do well. The frames are already designed to handle the .327 at 45K PSI. The case head diameter of the .327 is smaller than the .38 Super, so that's an advantage with force distribution (reduction).
The first prototype-production pistol should be a Glock (G20, of course), due to the simplicity. Only a barrel and RSA is needed to get it going. Barrels are relatively inexpensive (even custom), and RSA selections are abundant. A 1911 type pistol will require significant smithing.
Yes sir, I wholeheartedly concur. The Glock 20 is a perfect platform with which to work. Better yet, a Glock 40 with the 6+ inch slide already in place. An additional inch of barrel (increasing the length to about 7.2") would permit the 100 grain bullet to truly scream from the unit! It may be in the best interest of the shooter to stick with jacketed and/or semi-jacketed bullets, due to the velocities that may be attained. Polygonal rifling would be a great asset because it would "squeeze" every foot-per-second produced by this "fire breathing" cartridge! I can imagine that a single-shot 16" barreled rifle would be an excellent proposition for a light-recoiling varmint rifle that would make the old .32-20 pale in comparison.
Quote from: DM1906 on October 14 2015 03:10:18 PM MDT
The .30 Badger is a .38 Spl wildcat, intended/designed for single-shot, long barrels. How does that compare to this .327FM-like autoloader cartridge discussion (as a "design starting point")? Just curious what you mean by that.
Sure, it was intended to use 38spl rimmed brass, but nowhere does it say you can't shorten the die to use 38Super brass, or better yet, the better rim of the 38 Super Comp from Starline. The parent die is cut at .334 at the neck, so no problem reaming it the extra .003 to achieve your .337 per your drawing (and specs for .327Fed). When you order the reamer, just ask for it to cut a .337 neck. This would allow you to use 38super mags in a 1911 platform. Having the barrel made could be an issue.
Now where I can see a big issue is in your pressures. The .327Fed is rated at 45,000, and the 38super is rated at 36,500 in +P form. I am not seeing much brass that fits your shoulder/base diameters rated that high.
What you're describing is "extra" work, time and expense, initially. I can bore bushings to any size needed for prototype case forming. Chamber reamers are for the finished product, before actual production. There are much better ways, especially since modifications may likely be necessary during development. Pressure is a concern, of course, but well within working safety limitations, even at 45K. The pressure alone isn't the issue, but how it's applied. I suspect the goal can be achieved well below that. But, that's much later in the process.
DM1906:
It seems as if you have everything all "doped out". There are so many 1911-type platforms that will handle the cartridge rather well. Could you imagine what fun this cartridge would be in a 6-7" steel slide/barrel combination? Flat shooting, high velocity, excellent penetration, low recoil and superb accuracy. Properly loaded, this cartridge would be capable of taking Whitetail deer at reasonable ranges. 150-200 added feet per second over a 7.62 X 25 Tokarev is what would set the cartridge above the older round.
Do you think this would be worth it?
Worth it? Perhaps. Some wildcats work, some don't. The .357 Sig is widely successful, the 9x25 Dillon, not so much. It's a crap shoot. It helps to pick up sponsorship from big names, such as Sig, Winchester, etc. A lot of the success can be attributed to a catchy name, with a popular brand attached to it (even if it's less than an actually good concept). If the 9x25D had a different name from the onset, like 9mmDRT, 9mm Ultra, or something like that, it may have caught more interest and popularity. Having your name on something doesn't help, unless you're already known. Until a big brand actually produces a pistol in that caliber, it isn't worth much. I like it on paper, but I haven't sent a single pill down a bore yet.
Bless you, sir! I know of some great concepts that should have "zoomed to the top" but haven't. (.41 Special, anyone)? I understand the need for support by large ammunition manufacturers is important. Lots of cartridges launched never make it. If we don't "noodle" and consult with people, where are we to get our next great cartridge?
I know that the .32 caliber handgun cartridges were popular at the beginning of the 20th century. The .327 Federal Magnum is holding on by it's fingernails. (I still think that it is a great idea). If we could see a resurgence in the .312" revolver cartridges, perhaps a .312" self-loading Magnum-level cartridge isn't out of the question.
Happy new year.
I like it. I think a lot of women would love a high power.32. Maybe get/use Lehigh Defenders with it?
I had a similar idea using 0.308 bullets and 9mm Magnum brass loaded to 45/10mm length. There are some 30 Carbine bullets that would work. You could also resize 0.312 bullets down to 0.308.
.
OK, a 357 SIG is just a .40 cal S&W necked down to 9mm. I wonder what kind of velocities you could get if you necked down a 10mm to 9mm? Would it actually approach or exceed a .357 Magnum?
Quote from: gandog56 on July 12 2017 10:57:30 AM MDT
OK, a 357 SIG is just a .40 cal S&W necked down to 9mm. I wonder what kind of velocities you could get if you necked down a 10mm to 9mm? Would it actually approach or exceed a .357 Magnum?
Pretty sure you would get 9X25 Dillon velocities, since that is what a 9X25 Dillon is. :P
Quote from: gandog56 on July 12 2017 10:57:30 AM MDT
OK, a 357 SIG is just a .40 cal S&W necked down to 9mm. I wonder what kind of velocities you could get if you necked down a 10mm to 9mm? Would it actually approach or exceed a .357 Magnum?
http://10mm-firearms.com/wildcats/357-sig-long-neck/
.
Quote from: gandog56 on July 12 2017 10:57:30 AM MDT
OK, a 357 SIG is just a .40 cal S&W necked down to 9mm. I wonder what kind of velocities you could get if you necked down a 10mm to 9mm? Would it actually approach or exceed a .357 Magnum?
A 357 SIG is 23mm and a 40 S&W is 22mm, the 357 SIG round came from the 10mm.
Then why are the no longer than my .40 cal S&W's? I use the same magazines for both when I swap out the different caliber barrels for my SIG P229.
Brass length is not COAL length.