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.


.