9x23 Winchester from a Glock 20

[The_Shadow]

The 10mm extractor provides more reach than the 45, The 9mm extractor may not work like you think!
The slop is because of the way the breech face is cut for each cartridge...using the smaller diameter case head than it's cut for adds to the slop.

[awp101]

Yeah I figured that out but it was late and I think my post ended up more stream of consciousness than technical!

[my_old_glock]

I like the idea of a hot, flat shooting 9 and I sure wish the .960 Rowland didn't sound like it's running at a super high pressure.  Isn't it basically duplicating the 9x23 but with the 9x19 COAL?  That's got to be some hellacious pressure.

9x23 Winchester maximum pressure is 55,000 psi (rifle pressure). I doubt the .960 has higher pressure. You might be able to use a regular 9x19 case and just load it to 9x23 length, but you would have to use a bullet that doesn't hit the rifling lands at that length.


.

[sqlbullet]

460 rowland is 40,000 PSI, well below the 9X23.

If brass is scarce and you are a scrounger, you could cut and ream 5.56 brass.  But reduce a good bit and work up.

[DM1906]

In regards to (original) slide caliber, extractors, case heads, and slide breach channels, it isn't too complicated, but it isn't straight forward, either. There are a few variables that hinder, and some that are dead-ends. This in response to the question of using a G21 vs. G20 for various conversion considerations.

Case heads matter. There is little difference between 9mm (Luger or x23) and .40/10mm case heads, but the .22TCM is more significant. The "rimless" 9mm case head is technically rimmed, in that, the head (.394") is greater than the wall (.3911"). The .40/10mm case wall to rim relation is "straight", meaning they are the same (.425"). The .22TCM case head is technically rimless/rebated (.370"), vs. the wall (.372"). The difference between 10mm and 9mm case heads are close enough to be insignificant; the difference between 9mm and .22 TCM are close enough to be insignificant; BUT, the difference between 10mm and .22TCM is significant. The case head diameters are relatively stepped evenly between the calibers, but the difference between the extremes is double, and therein lies the problem. A case head difference of ~.030" is easily dismissed, while a difference of .055" is a game-stopper for the 10mm slide.

Extractors matter. 9mm extractors won't fit 10/.45 slides, so existing available extractors are the only option, short of custom fabricated parts. A 9mm extractor, of any series, will physically fit in the larger slides, but the FP safety button will NOT engage the extractor correctly, WILL initially fit and feel "correct", but WILL eventually work loose, sending the extractor to lands-unknown, and the safety button WILL foul the action against the trigger bar cam (and may actually break some parts). This WILL occur within about 4-20 firings, typically. All extractors, even within the same calibers, are not equal. In regards to extractor effectiveness, which (correct for slide-caliber) extractor that is used depends on the extractor series and the desired case head use. Original non-LCI extractors should ONLY be used for their designed case heads (no case-head-different conversions), while LCI extractors are 100% effective within one-step case head reductions. The reason is the LCI extractor functional design, and it works by accident. The LCI extractors have a longer reach, and a greater travel allowance. If used within a one-step case head diameter reduction, the extractor to extraction groove engagement remains the same. The ONLY difference being the level of "indication". For example, using the correct-caliber-slide and case head, the LCI extractor begins with the "indicator" button flush with the slide (recessed extractor), and is pushed outward by the case head outer diameter (against the extractor shoulder, not the extractor hook) to the "indicated" position, with full extractor engagement into the extractor groove. Interestingly, the amount of LCI extractor travel for caliber-correct use is about the same as single-step case head difference (the accident). This means, stepping down the case head diameter by one step (.020-.031"), still leaves the extractor 100% effective, and it will operate exactly as a correct-for-caliber non-LCI extractor. Inversely, a non-LCI extractor begins flush with the slide, and remains so with caliber-correct case heads (the extractor remains static during normal operation). This means that chambering reduced case head diameters leaves the corresponding case head diameter difference as less extractor engagement (the case head diameter does not engage the extractor shoulder). Also note, if you have a non-LCI extractor, NO reduced diameter case head conversion should be considered before upgrading to the LCI extractor (and required spring-loaded bearing).

The last component of case head departures is the slide breach channel. The rule is basically the same as the extractors: One-step only. The problem isn't the "slop", because while a round is chambered, it WILL center to the chamber. The problem is the transitions from magazine to chamber, and chamber to extraction/ejection. Using a non-LCI extractor with a two-step departure is a dead-end. Using a LCI extractor with a two-step departure is possible, butl reduces effectiveness, increases premature extractor hook wear/breakage, and greatly reduces reliability.

In conclusion, simply, one-step case head reductions are advised, while two-step reductions are not. .45 to 10mm OK. 10mm to 9mm, OK. .45 to 9mm (or .22TCM), not OK. I'm not saying you can't do it or it won't work. Only that the variables depart too greatly, disqualifying it as a candidate. None of this takes into consideration of the respective slide's mass, which is yet another variable that won't be ignored.

[awp101]

my_old_glock, for whatever reason I didn't even think about the 9x23 pressure.   I did find an article saying Rowland claims 40-45K PSI and the author's estimated loads in Quickload were running 43-50K.

DM1906, thank you for the detailed info!  It really explains and clears up a bunch of things I didn't even know I needed to ask about!

[my_old_glock]

When I first decided to try the 9x23 conversion I only had my G21 (45ACP) slide. I bought an older style G20 (10mm) extractor off eBay (I think it is called a 90/0 extractor), and removed some metal from the inside (see red arrows) to allow it to grab the smaller diameter 9mm case better. I bought the older style extractor because it was only $5 shipped which was a lot cheaper than a new extractor.

The green arrows in the picture are polished corners. I polish all my extractors like that so the brass rim moves smoothly into the breach. A sharp corner may bite into the brass rim under certain circumstances and cause a jam. I start with 400 grit sandpaper, then go to 600, and 800. The extractor has been refinished with Birchwood-Casey cold blue.

I now just use a G20 slide with the stock G20 LCI extractor.

[NavyVet1959]

9x23 Winchester maximum pressure is 55,000 psi (rifle pressure). I doubt the .960 has higher pressure. You might be able to use a regular 9x19 case and just load it to 9x23 length, but you would have to use a bullet that doesn't hit the rifling lands at that length.

That might be difficult with some bullets.  I loaded a Lee 358-105-SWC to max OAL in a 9x19 and this is what I got:



The unloaded bullets look like this:



As you can see, there's not much of the bullet sticking in the 9x19 case if you do this, even though it conforms to the 9x19 max OAL (1.169").  The 9x23 increases the max OAL to 1.300".  I doubt this bullet would even be *touching* the case if you placed the nose of it 1.300" away from the base of the brass.

[RJM52]

The .22TCM is based on the .223 Rem, but it's not only that simple. Whether using .223 brass for the .22TCM or 9x23, the neck has to be turned (quite a bit, you can't just "polish" it). Unless you ream the chamber for only that brass, they won't fit. If you do ream it, standard size won't fit.

I'm not really concerned about whether commercial ammo works since I'm a cheap bastard and I cast my own bullets and reload my own ammo.

I've managed to acquire a mid-size double stack RIA .22TCM/9mm combo and a full-size single stack one.  I'm still waiting on some parts to be available to finish the conversion of both of them.  The barrels that I decided to go with were the .38 SUPER barrels, but I will be making my brass from .223 brass.  I think that this means that my conversion is not a 9x23 or a .38 SUPER, but rather a .38 SuperComp.

Have you tried making .38 Super/9x23 brass from .223 brass yet?  I did this back in the 1980s when I first started shooting .38 Super after reading Cooper's article. It is a lot of work and the body of the brass has to be expanded to accept 9mm bullets.

Not sure if there is any left on the market but a few months ago Winchester released a batch of 9x23 brass onto the market. It can take pressures that Starline brass can not..

Bob

[kilibreaux]

The 9x23's max pressure of 55K is impressive and worth noting!  As potent as the Dillion 9x25 appears it's WEAKNESS is the bottleneck case!  Bottleneck cases will ALWAYS have a problem holding the bullet in place during feeding and this could be catastrophic.  The 9x23 Winchester is the right answer even if the fickle American public never got it.  It has a super thick case wall that can hold when fired in non-ramped barrels - the reason for it's invention.
The current factory loads offered by Winchester are "mild" to say the least.  The cartridge can be fired from a Super chamber without issue and since tempered 4140 gun steel is good for over 120K pis, the factory .38 Super barrel will handle the round just fine.

[my_old_glock]

9x23 Winchester maximum pressure is 55,000 psi (rifle pressure). I doubt the .960 has higher pressure. You might be able to use a regular 9x19 case and just load it to 9x23 length, but you would have to use a bullet that doesn't hit the rifling lands at that length.

That might be difficult with some bullets.  I loaded a Lee 358-105-SWC to max OAL in a 9x19 and this is what I got:



The unloaded bullets look like this:

...
As you can see, there's not much of the bullet sticking in the 9x19 case if you do this, even though it conforms to the 9x19 max OAL (1.169").  The 9x23 increases the max OAL to 1.300".  I doubt this bullet would even be *touching* the case if you placed the nose of it 1.300" away from the base of the brass.

I have that exact same Lee bullet/mold.

I was refereeing to to the longer 147-151 grain 9mm/38-Super plated/jacketed bullet offerings. I got some Rainier 151 grain RN plated bullets, and they are 0.700" long. They are suppose to be good up to 1500fps. I might try the Lee 358-158-RF lead bullet. I have used it in a few 9x19 guns with limited success. I also might try the C358-158-SWC bullet with and without gas checks, but I am fairly certain it won't work with a gas check. A few years ago I sent LEE and email asking them if they can make a gas checked 130-135grain 9mm bullet mold as a standard item. I suggested they take their 356-125-2R mold and extend the base to accept a gas check and a second lube groove, and to cut the top flat to give it a little meplate. They said they would think about it.



.



.

[The_Shadow]

You might want to try the Lyman 125 grain Devastator cast HP, that mold is still available...

http://www.opticsplanet.com/lyman-pistol-bullet-mould-9mm-hollow-point-356637-2650637.html

[my_old_glock]

Buffalo Bore now sells 9x23 ammo, but they are below max pressure.

https://www.buffalobore.com/index.php?l=product_detail&p=427

All four of these loads are well under the industry max. average pressure of 55,000 PSI. These loads are operating at or under 50,000 PSI, so they have lots of safety wiggle room. We've chosen propellants that produce a slightly compressed powder charge once the bullet is seated. We do this so bullets cannot be driven substantially deeper into the casing via the cycling/feeding process which is quite violent to the loaded cartridge. Driving bullets deeper into a case that is already withstanding 50,000 PSI, will raise pressures and is not safe, so we have remedied that possibility with a compressed powder charge. Additionally, we are under-sizing the portion of the case that grips the bullet shank, to create tension/grip on the bullet in order to better hold the bullet in place. ...

[The_Shadow]

It is likely because there are so many older 9x23's that lack chamber support, so to be safe, the hold the pressures down.
This is why we handload for our best results! 

[my_old_glock]

It is likely because there are so many older 9x23's that lack chamber support, so to be safe, the hold the pressures down.
This is why we handload for our best results! 

I thought it might be because they used Starline brass (because Winchester Brass is hard to get), and Starline 9x23 is not as strong/thick as Winchester Brass.

It sounds a little odd that a gun manufacturer would design a gun/barrel that could not be used with a full power load in the caliber it was designed to shoot.



.