So I want to know if this is too memetastic for words, or if its the next Uzi level awesome.

As a competitor to the 10mm, is the .400 corbon. You can get completed 1911 slides for it; maybe halfway between 10mm auto, and 10mm magnum, I think? So, lets say one were to build a cetme pistol in a pistol caliber? Granted it would be lacking something without a giggle switch, but imagine for a moment, an MP400, burning through ammo, liquefying the shooter's shoulder, and doing a decent number on the target's cover, too!

This is one of the places to point out that in WA, the term fully semi automatic assault rifle has been validated by the state laws, supposedly backed by sixty percent of the people.

Your marlin 60? assault rifle.

>>631379

I have an older version of QuickLoad. It recommends Alliant POWER PISTOL, but technically there are slightly better choices if you use powders you've never heard of.

Here's a reasonable estimate: (remember, this is a piece of software, not a range test)

165gr Speer TMJ bullet, seated normal OAL, on top of 9.7 grains of PwrPst out of an 11" barrel, will burn 97+% of the powder (no setting your cover on fire), have a muzzle velocity of 1550fps for 883 ft-lbs, and have a lock time of 0.85ms (for accuracy's sake, from the time you smack the primer until the bullet isn't touching anything anymore, is less that 1/10000th of one second)

Or, out of a 16" carbine barrel, and allowing a guestimated 33,000PSI max pressure, you can consider Rottweil's P806, 13.8gr charge, same bullet, to just-kiss 1700fps, less that 1.1ms lock time and muzzle energy of 1075 ft-lbs.

Or Accurate #7, 12.65 grains to just kiss the SAAMI pressure specs, same bullet/OAL, 16" barrel for 1650fps/995 ft-lbs, 92.7% powder burned (not much flash after 16" of barrel) and still under 1.1ms lock time.

That last load, from a 10.5" barrel, has burned 86% of the charge, reach 1540fps/875ft-lbs and .8ms locktime.

For %-burned comparison, seems to burn 99.7+% of its powder. For example, IMR 4198, 20.7gr charge, pushing a 70gr SSP also from Speer, reaches 2460fps/944 ft-lbs in .624ms

Does any of this conjecture facilitate more accurate considerations here?

>>631698

>seems to burn

proofread to make sure youdon't any words out.

That's 556-NATO estimates, for the 70gr bullet. Also, I seem to have typed 'that' when I meant 'than' – blame the cat, who is helping me type.

>>631744

Those loads are the result of asking for a list of suggested powders.

Input is: the caliber, of course, the bullet, the barrel, and some variables like "fastest powder you'd consider" and likewise the slowest. Not sure what the consequence of that is – mostly if you consider all the powders, it takes longer because it has to systematically say "nope that exceeds pressure limits" or it puts BMG-50 at the bottom of the list because it would limp out the bullet at 415fps.

You also can specify any of a few radio boxes for critical limits, I've always used "limit by pressure and capacity" with a maximum of 103% of available (very slightly compressed) and I usually don't know about the PSI limit, but figure SAAMI are probably pretty conservative. For the 10mm, it's listed at 32,400PSI I think? For 5.56 NATO I'm sure 63,000PSI is within expectation of the components of the gun.

I doubt you could pressure the 10mm brass up to 55,000, but out of an AR-platform it would be less unreasonable. Out of a glock, no that will break something.

It IS possible there are some powders my software doesn't know about, but honestly I don't expect that to be the limiting factor. It's always possible the ammo vendors are overstating their claims, of course. But at the very least, you should be able to compare loads from the same software against each other, since the limitations would be spread & repeated evenly.

>>631744

>buffalo bore 180gr does 1k

Looking up Buffalo Bore, I see a mention in Shooting Illustrated, Not sure if its factory hyperbole or tested fact, but their +p+ 9mm reaches 1350fps. Going back to my software, I find Alliant Bullsye (isn't that a shotgun powder?) out of, again it remembered from before, a 10.5" barrel, would need 4gr, which for the 115gr Barnes X-Tac bullet I didn't spend too much time finding, will reach 1350fps muzzle velocity, passing 39220PSI to get there – about 10% above SAAMI spec of 35,000PSI limit for the round.

Using that 10% figure, and going back to the 10mm Auto round, again Power Pistol, a 10.62gr charge behind the same Speer 165gr bullet as before, now reaches 1650fps out of a half-inch shorter barrel, peak pressure of 39000PSI which can be dealt with if the parts are selected for it (probably) and yes, 995ft-lbs of energy.

>>631755

>in order to minimize muzzle flash,

No, it sorts by muzzle velocity, and pistol brass needs pistol powder. I've looked into it – you can't drastically change the burn rate just because "I'm using a longer barrel" – there's a range of powders that are good choices based on the ratio of volume of powder to bore of bullet. Rifles shoot faster because they have necked brass, thus huge (proportionately) volumes of powder; pistol powder will break something so you need slower "rifle'' powder.

>seeing the burn rate for IMR4198

I'll see if I can look that up / post it. My "fancy" keyboard may not have been programmed with a print-screen button (err, I built/programmed my keyboard myself).

>>631759

>Its 37500 SAAMI or 33k

32,750PSI suggests my software, and is probably right.

>>631768

>You have longer barrel so you can have slower burn rate

Nope, sorry. False. Believe me I'd love for it to be true, but by and large it's not. This is a common question that gets repeatedly smacked down in serious forums by engineers and experienced handloaders. The viable burn rate is decided by the brass, before it's put into a chamber.

I'd love for it to otherwise, for the same kinds of reasons you're looking for "more performance" but if you want to take the most advantage from a longer barrel, you're going to need more, not slower or faster powder.

>>631778

That's what that word means, yes. And despite what your "common sense" meter tells you, the range of burn rates suitable for a cartridge are decided by the brass, not the length of the barrel.

Here's some screen shots of what we're talking about: 10mm load trying to shove IMR4918 into it. Then choosing 556 instead, and then switching to H335, always relying on the pressure peaks to be the limiting factor. Also, the same H335 load fired out a 24" barrel instead.

Couldn't this be solved by bigger clips and longer magazines? Humor provided.

Really a shame we can't get the parts to make 5.45 at home. This graph shows what happens with just a hair too much Accurate 1680 is put behind a Sirocco 75gr (resized to .221 so the software will stop complaining) and a 20" barrel. Before 21" the powder is burned completely, so while this shows a muzzle velocity of 2600fps (and implied energy of 1125ft-lbs) a nice "sniper" layout of 26", same load, comes out at over 1,200 ft-lbs (2720fps). Smokin'!

>>631786

>I'm not a handloader

Yeah, I can tell. So, in my previous post, that first graph showing a 10mm sort of flopping out at transonic velocity with a compressed load? (IE there's more powder in the brass than using that bullet, at that depth allows for, so you're shoving the powder down, spiking pressure in somewhat unpredictable, shot to shot, amounts).

That load is using IMR4198, which is suitable for the 556 and related intermediate rounds. It's a bit too fast for a good .308 Winchester round though – again, brass chooses what burn rates the powder should have.

Here's the 1680 in a hypothetical .308 – huge pressure spike, and less than ideal muzzle performance, even with a 28" hunting rifle.

>>631793

>Might be worth shoveling out the shekels for it.

Yeah, it's not that spendy. Not if you're interested in wildcatting, which is what's most fascinating to me about handloading in general.

>>631794

> It's a bit too fast for a good .308 Winchester

Okay I feel the need to point out I was pretty wrong. For that 150gr bullet, in a run of the mill .308 shell, the best powder my copy knows about is … 1680.

But to be fair, Hogdon 4198 was right behind it, and that's what I bought all those years ago when I first started handloading (literally, with my hands and a hammer. Good ol' Lee one-caliber reloading kits.)

>>631798

Wrong again; didn't let the software "consider" the slower powders.

Hodgdon CFE223 49.0gr 2718fps 96.5% 62000PSI

Winchester 748 46.4gr 2710fps 98.3% 62000PSI

Hodgdon BL-C2 48.3gr 2704fps 97.3%burnt 62000PSI peak

Okay, I have to get to bed now …

>>631799

I know I'm not explaining it well; I don't know the full technical explanation but I've read it more than once. The burn rate that is "ideal" is ideal because of the ratio of powder volume to barrel bore. So again, the powder is chosen before barrel length is considered.

Oh, there's a little leeway, mostly because of the absolute glut of powder choices on the market.

Here's a few pages that touch on the subject, since I can't find the reloading thread that finally set me straight.

http://www.hodgdonreloading.com/reloading-education/tips-and-tricks/does-shooting-pistol-caliber-rifle-change-reload-data

https://dillonprecision.net/are-pistol-caliber-carbines-shooting-rifle-like-velocities/

https://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2017/03/31/frankly-pistol-caliber-carbines-dont-make-lot-sense-heres/

Good luck and as I said, good night.