What SMGs are actually good? Most modern models seem like simple plastic shit that's good only for getting money from mall ninjas. Post your favorite models, discuss mechanisms and features you like in them, etc. What calibers would you wants them in?
Also, how viable do you think bullpup SMG would be? It seems like bullpups go well with longer barrels, while is a compact package of an SMG they'd only add weight and make them bulkier, while collapsible/folding stock could work just as well.
Does SITES Spectre double action trigger offer anything to the design? What's its use and why don't any rifles have this?
polite sage for doublepost
You could get a bit of barrel length from that but you'd probably gain more bulkiness and weight from that. There feels like diminishing returns from using bullpup the shorter barrel you go. The closest thing you can do is locate mag in the grip(think UZI) instead of the back of the receiver like an MP5, though all it does is move the grip forward so you have less space for your left hand without extending receiver/handguard, still requiring a stock but having receiver closer to your face and limit your grip/mag choice to fit both(not a problem with 9mm but once we go to 10mm or even double feed things change).
So basically go with magazine in the grip for super compact options that take place of a pistol/sidearm(that uses pistol length barrel) and use a proper grip behind the magazine for longer barrel, proper double(or quad) stack double feed magazine and serve as the main gun.
>10mm auto
Good, though something more suitable for a paired handgun like 357sig(or improvement of it like 9dillon or similar) would be better in most cases.
>foldable stock
Sure, why not
>total overall length without stock of 12 inches
Will you cut the barrel to reach that?
>direct impingement or short piston system
Why? You could have virtually any system and you choose a gas one. Various blowbacks shine in SMGs, there's so much that can be done and you pick a gas operates system. Really?
>you can load the cartridge to it's proper norma magnum level now and forever
It's an SMG, man. A small rifle that shoots pistol rounds. How weak should you make a rifle to make it not able to withstand pressures that a handgun can?
>ballard cut
Why not polygonal?
>stair-step front sight
Front? Not rear? maybe i'm misunderstanding but how does this thing look? DDG shows me stairs.
>as far back on the upper as it can go
No reason not to.
>barrel should be ported 90 degrees from the sight
Is that really necessary? Why not get an appropriate muzzle device instead?
>Ashwood fore-end
That's kinda imo.
>hard-mounted to the upper
Ok
>barrel allowed to float
It won't with a gas system but most SMGs do have these, sure.
>Grip and trigger should be mounted in the first 3 inches of lower
Yeah, why wouldn't you do that?
>or mounted in the last six inches if bullpup config
Ok, though maybe you should leave a bit more space for a forward grip.
>set at 3.5lbs
Make the mechanism simple and modifiable enough to either make it adjustable or have options.
>the gun should be able to use glock mags
Hell no. Double stack single feed mags are cancer. Either use single stacks or use double feed, it's possible and the only reason it's not used is stupidity and laziness. If we care about actual characteristics instead of brand names and fanboyism then double feed mags are: easier to reload, cheaper to manufacture, more reliable, simpler, have more parts compatibility and easier to interchange. Do not support the magazine jew that inflates magazine prices.
>it should be easily field stripped
Ar-style push pins would be good enough. No need to turn it into fancy puzzle box with bells and whistles.
I appreciate the levels of autism in this post but some things are just out of place.
Go shoot yourself with your fully semiautomatic assault sporter rifle/15" barrel pistol with an arm brace, mr. ATF agent.
>SMGs are only good for police duty where you do want to limit your firepower
Only in case of most modern ones using 9mm. If we take a better round things change a lot and reveal how close to SMGs our modern rifles are in terms of power. For example, 10mm from 13" barrel matches 5.56 from 16" and .357 magnum in 16" barrel(i'm not using SIG because it falls behind in longer barrels, let's imply that we have it improved to magnum levels or at least take .357 magnum rimless and use a revolver with a moon clip to call it "pistol") matches many 5.56 loads from 20" barrel and all but(maybe) the hottest loads from 18"-. Sure, there's still BC to consider but this still shows something.
Paul Harrell has video on PCC where he shows that even 9mm ones can penetrate 3A body armor. Other than that, against level 4 your usual rifle rounds won't do either so unless you use a battle rifle with .308 AP(or does it stop even this?) you're out of luck and have to shoot someplace else, good thing the armor only protects his chest.
MP5K - 2kg
Sig MPX(gas operated) - 2.7kg
Beretta Cx4 Storm(16" barrel) - 2.5kg
Agram 2000 - 1.8kg
Jatmatic - 1.65kg
And these are not "machine pistols" that can easily weigh even less.
Type 79 also seems to use plastic receiver, compared to full metal ones in your examples. Its light weight might also cause durability problems(knowing chinks, especially) and paired with its EXTREME rate of fire at 1000rpm would be almost uncontrollable, limiting its use. Remember, most firearms are overbuilt and reducing fire rate is often done by increasing bolt weight.
> designed to fire from a closed bolt in semi and open bolt in full-auto
That's some high-level autism. If you can fire it from closed bolt in semiauto, go with it in full auto as well, it'll improve your accuracy and remove the need for this autism while the only disadvantage compared to open bolt would be a bit more heat but it's not a MG so who cares.
also, interdynamic MP-9 - 1.7 kg
Vityaz-SN - 2.9kg
Most of these guns are straight blowback that is the most straightforward and heaviest of blowbacks, to achieve ROF to matche type 79 we could have a polymer receiver thinned up open bolt gun with a lightened bolt and it'd prob weight almost the same if not less, using even lever-delayed would significantly decrease the weight required and gas-delayed blowback is the absolute lightest system you can get, though i'd better use it in pistols because of heat.
>Pistol cartridges are useless even at 200m
Heavier spitzer bullets. You can still use them in your pistol, albeit with more recoil, flash and drop and vice versa.
>they shouldn't be the main weapon of an infantry squad
Wholeheartedly agree.
>And if they aren't the main weapon, then you are just adding an other weapon to the mix for no good reason.
It's still better than the successful m1 carbine as you use the same ammo as your issued pistols while removing the need to fiddle with the main rifle to please those in need of PDW so that you have to balance between GPMGs, snipers and service rifles only which can be done a lot easier because of longer barrels they all use with 6-6.5mm cartridge.
>That's a problem with the modern idea of the assault rifle, it's just a glorified submachine gun.
Well, not quite but i do agree.
>take any weapon chambered
These guns are a bit too old and dated for modern use though and 9x25ME would have a hard time fitting in the grip of a modern handgun when even 10mm does. I've thought on it and even did picrelated autism and posted it one one of the previous threads but nobody r8ednotice me senpai.
Yeah, i've found on Belgian Wikipedia info on vbr-b and it's 1.5kg blowback.
He meant 6.5mm CBJ, it's a typo.
I've also digged in Russian SMGs and there are a few interesting ones. Most of them are lightweight too.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PP-91_KEDR - 1.54-1.57kg
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PP-2000 - 1.4kg
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bizon_SMG - 2.1kg, has 60% parts commonality with AKS-74
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SR-2_Veresk - 1.65kg
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PP-90M1 - 2.06kg
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OTs-02_Kiparis - 1.6kg
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PP-93 - 1.47kg
And also
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Br%C3%BCgger_%26_Thomet_MP9 - 1.3-1.4kg
It seems most modern SMGs have given up on controllability and just reduce weight with increase of ROF. Kind of feels like the symbol of the decay of the weapon class.
Yeah, that thread was the thing that pushed me to make this one, i wanted a bit more attention towards SMGs specifically but there's an overlap in the roles of the weapons, obviously.
>It's literally as long as 7.62 Tokarev
5.7 is even longer but it can pull this out because it's so thin. That's why there have been complaints about the size of 10mm double stack even though it's shorter. it's not as much about the design but about comfort and size - 10mm as a "full power" pistol cartridge in double stacks is fine(with proper design) but really stretching it, especially with double feed.
>The problem is that you'd have to make this cartridge, load it into a pistol, and do some tests to figure out what it can really do
Yeah, but i assumed that it'd be something inbetween 9x25 dillon and 357sig as it's almost perfectly in the middle in dimensions.
>You could actually do it if you had 10mm Auto brass and reloading tools for .357 SIG
Well, because of my flag you can see that i cannot, but there'd be issues with that - there's 9x25mm dillon that does exactly that - necks 10mm with a 357 sig die, while my cartridge requires to go beyond that as you lower the shoulder and prolong the neck and i'm unsure if you can even do this with 357 sig die. Can you push the die beyond that point?
That faggot's shitposting, don't go for the bait.
>I was thinking .30 Carbine
.357 magnum can shoot 158gr bullet at the same velocities as 110gr 30 carbine does, resulting in more energy. 144gr 30carbine does have 2" less drop at 200yds than 158gr 357, though 170+gr magnum can probably match that, i dunno. .357 magnum is really a great cartridge, my favorite as well, even if only in theory.
>It feels like innovation in SMGs ended with the P90
In Russia they make AP pistol rounds with a steel penetrator that is separated from the jacket by polyethylene layer so that it stays in one piece when entering soft tissue and probably even expanding and when it hits a hard barrier the core separates from the jacket and punches through. They are very velocity dependent and not very aerodynamic, though, but it's a lot better than creating a whole new cartridge and weapons for that purpose.
It feels like overly complicating things. Call anything that fires pistol cartridges and is longer than a handgun and/or capable of automatic fire an SMG and have subclasses like machine pistol for a pistol-sized or maybe with magazine inside the grip SMG and call a PCC any semiautomatic SMG. Other than that, just compare actual models and their traits to fit a special purpose. That'd simplify things a lot. I don't know where and how to push the term PDW in here, though.
If we're looking at the purpose of the weapons then take a look at APS stechkin and this one https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OTs-33_Pernach as they too have been viewed kinda for this role.
>has anybody ever put a .357 in a SMG
There was some Venezuelan abomination called "Tor" but that's it. Many attempts to copy it in rimless package have been made, with .357 sig being the most successful. There's also 357 magnum rimless and 357 maximum rimless that are made from 5.56 brass before it's formed and they fit into an AR and even sometimes called that way(.357 AR). Pistol caliber carbine manufacturers also slowly adopting 357 sig and i've heard that even some country wanted to issue it as their main cartridge, iirc.
>5.7 essentially feels like a more modern take on the same ideas and it essentially perfected balancing recoil, velocity, energy and AP potential
It's thinner and takes a lot less space in handguns that 30 carbine, has lower energy than 9mm, significant muzzle blast and either insufficient or overpenetration. It's main pros is weight, capacity and armor piercing ability, that's it, though i'd add the use of double stack and lever delayed as a personal preference because i really dig these engineering principles, despite their application. Paul Harrell has a great video on it and explains it a lot better and in more detail than me so if you're interested go watch it.
>it can also function as a pistol round
There's been pistols chambered in 30 carbine.
>The velocity dependence doesn't sound like a big issue in the sub-100m distances
Think of 30-50m instead, sub 100m are usually effective distances for 9mm and this one is basically an overpressured 9mm in one of the variants. There're also 9x21mm rounds that are more powerful and they boast penetration of 4mm of steel at 100m but there's not much data, lots of propaganda and even less info on how it'd translate into effectiveness so go figure, especially from an smg that turned out to be shitty. Overall, it's specialized ammo, not general purpose one and i'm still unsure if it's even capable of anything other than punching holes of at least its caliber and not icepick. It's a way to defeat body armor but i wouldn't put much faith into it beyond that point.
Ah, i found the info the very best 9x21mm AP bullet penetrates IIIA body armor at 50m. Barrel length - 4.9". If you're using smg add 25m, i guess. If you're using 9x19 then it's less than that. Again, this is AP ammo, first and foremost, it'll do some damage where other would do none but it will perform slightly better than flat nosed FMJ at best if i understand anything.
Also, the bullets are really light and seem to be pretty big and are seated deep in the casing because even the fancy 9x21mm has similar muzzle energy to your average 9mm load(no +p levels anywhere besides pressure).
>I had this in mind as a woods-gun
Not really a good idea to limit yourself by that. A more versatile weapon would fit this but other roles as well nicely.
>Alaskans already use the mighty ten against polar bear
They also use the mighty 357magnum, especially since heavier bullets would offer better penetration and longer barrel more energy than any 10mm handgun.
>Using a short, high compression strength spring
It'd work but it's easier to increase the size of the weapon a bit and use a normal spring that's cheaper and would work just fine but whatever you want, it's not like we can't have different designs in the same class.
>a telescoping bolt
I don't like this, it'd shift center of gravity too much reducing handling characteristics of the gun and making the blot more complex both to machine, maintain and repair.
>it is much easier to make a smaller and lighter and stronger action by using a gas system
It's not, read the thread.
>In order to deal with the amount of bolt-force from a properly loaded 10mm all day erryday, you would require a lot of tool-steel behind the chamber to not blow the gun the fuck apart
And a gas system on a short barrel would fuck everything good that was left in the gun.
>Because cast bullets don't like polygonal.
Ok, your choice.
> a windage adjustable sight and a front sight
Could you post a picture, please? i found the thing but i still don't get how it helps or even whether i found the right thing. I'd also prefer easily swappable(like they do on handguns, why the fuck that's not standard) fixed front sights and adjustable rear peer sights.
>With a gun this short, you need all the sight radius you can get
You'll still probably not mount the sights on the muzzle. You could probably mount it on the handguard, even.
>Adding a muzzle-brake means you're adding more length to a gun designed to be small, and slip on suppressors exist for being vewy qwiet.
You could just cut your barrel down and have the same OAL if you need to, or go even shorter and have it integrally suppressed under the handguard.
>It will if you mount it only a very short distance after the chamber.
It won't, it'll also ruin the barrel harmonics in lengths this short. That's all if you somehow even manage this ugly abomination cycle.
>Combine trigger-grip with forward grip for this.
You still need to get your support hand somewhere - it's a bad idea to use your main hand for that. Unless you want to hold it to the rear with your left hand or are left-handed you want 3 common points to hold the gun with - shoulder, cheek and support hand. If you need to get space that much just get a forward grip like P90.
>It is easier to sell a gun that uses existing parts than to add your proprietary magazines into place.
And it'll be a lot easier when they jam, need to be reload in stressful conditions and spend less money. Don't support cancer because it's convenient, if you do the industry will forever be stuck with stupid shit that's only good for making the jews money.
>>629164
Oh, fuck off you faggot. You're already shitting another thread with your m855a1 shilling and now you sperg about something "civilians can't comprehend" and "too dangerous".
>5.7 was designed to work in straight blowback guns
Any rimless pistol round is, you dipshit, and FiveseveN is not straight blowback.
>>629169
>Go ahead prove me wrong
>Supporting gun control
>Projecting your own degenerate retardation on gun owners
Prove yourself right, you jewish shilling piece of shit.
>Any rimless pistol round couldn't fullfill other PDW requirements of recoil and penetration
Except the requirements are rigged to only include your jewish shit. 9mm SMG penetrates all the body armor 5.7 does and recoil is just as nonexistent but they'll never mention it.
>Also there are pure straight blowback 5.7 guns.
>Pistol rounds have blowback firearms for them
Wow, what a fucking discovery
>>629177
Agains shill ate its shit. Fuck off to cuckchan, cunt.
>SMGs are kinda obsolete for most purposes these days
Only because of the usage of soyboy pistol rounds that don't do shit, but you're right, unfortunately. They are still very good options for home defense even on semi auto.
>The AR-15 is The One Rifle to Rule Them All
That's only true if you don't call it an SMG:^)
>9mm Parabellum and nothing else
That's your problem, anon. You could have so much more and you use a cartridge they would only come close to 357magnum from a whole lot longer barrel. Read the thread and you'll see the truth at last.
>I have an irrational preference
>is objectively better
That's now what objective means, anon.
This guy gets it. Unless Attacker has body armor(that'd only limit the effectiveness but would still fail unless its hard so it wouldn't matter) it limits overpenetration and longer barrel offers quite a step up in lethality and stock, greater sights radius and all these benefits of a long weapon grant a huge step up in firepower, precision, controllability and ease of usage, especially in stressful situations. You can also throw a red dot/holo sights in there as a great addition.
>Keep slapping my shit
I'd be right happy to
>A properly loaded 10mm subgun easily matches .357 mag in energy
Somewhat true. Based on the data i have 10mm is more limited from longer barrels than 357. 10mm reaches its max at 13" barrel at nearly 1kft-lbs(buffalo bore 180gr, the most powerful one i have data on), while 357 magnum reaches the same energy from 9" for 125gr and same 13" for heavier loads(140-158gr) while continuing to grow at least 100ft-lbs from longer barrels for heavy loads and 250ft-lbs more for lighter ones.
>advantages of three point mounting
What is this?
>higher ammo capacity for a similar form factor as a hunter's 8 inch barreled .357
Yeah, though i was thinking more along the lines of "357 in a semi auto form factor", otherwise it's out of competition despite all its goodiness. I've already mentioned this itt, be it 357magnum rimless, improved 357sig or something else. In both examples we have either a bit larger or similar capacity.
>any larger and you'd legitimately need it on a sling all the time, which makes it in the way if you need to do anything with two hands-such as if you were fishing and suddenly a hungry animal(s) likes the salmon you just hooked
Well, i like versatility more - you surely can cut down the gun for your required size but is this the only gun or its use you'll ever need? I'd sacrifice the bit of effectiveness for being able to use it in more ways and situations and it'd probably be at least good enough. In any case, we might just have different uses for the gun and so have different requirements, nothing wrong with it, just go with what you want and be objective about it. Nothing wrong with specialization as well it it is what you want.
>if you wanted to bullpup the gun
Yeah, that's true but i don't see much use for bullpup guns with barrel length of less than 16"(and even then it's about the point where they start being equally good options). Just compare P90 that has 10" barrel and MP5 that has 9" and then look at P90 but with 16" barrel and pretend MP5 with it and you'll understand what i mean.
>The simplest answer is that high pressure cartridges DO NOT use blowback because it would send the bolt clean through the chassis
And pistol caliber cartridges are not high pressure, unlike rifle ones that both operate at higher pressures(357sig is prob the highest at 40kpsi and 5.56 goes 55-62k) but extend the high pressure over time with slow burning powders. Just look up 10mm Hipont carbine if you want to see yourself.
>AR/AK pistols don't seem to have issues here
They have their gas port pretty far down the barrel, are overgassed, probably gas drainage impact performance, short action can cause problems(especially in ARs) and works less smoothly and most of all - they are FUCKING HUGE. Really, AK pistols are heavy AF as are AKs, while AR ones do have this stupid gas tube sticking out of the back. Interestingly, many AR platform pistol caliber conversions do put blowback action in there.
>>630093 (cont)
>Can do, though I admit it's a kinda shitty pic for purpose. Basically pic related.
Ok, i guess it's one of the things that are better to see once than told about 10 times. I'd prefer peep sights on the rear with that, though. Or just some red dot/holo/low powered scope with lots of drop adjustment for shooting at longer ranges. With that, 200m range would be pretty doable without such extreme measures.
>You want less radius so that you can pick off targets from a distance with the given sight setup
Putting on a heat shroud on a full fun gun would be a good idea anyway due to heat obstructing sights picture, especially on open sights. Also, easily replaceable sights are a thing i'd like to see on any gun and i don't like that only pistols and tacticool ARs usually have it. It just adds so much options" fiber optics, tritium, peep, open, backup, foldable, whatever you want sights all without any custom gunsmithing.
>survivalist's short gun
Hearing safe and comfortable to shoot as well as not alerting everyone at good 700m around you of your presence is never a bad thing, especially in survival situation.
>Provided you can mount the section of barrel that has the gas system to the chassis the rest of the barrel is not affected
Again, your gas system would either bulky, heavy, unwieldy, throw off the balance and mount on the barrel(adding all the messing required like drilling it, needing special tools for gas block, gas tube, all fouling and heat in the receiver) or all of these at once it's not a good option. They would probably be a lot more ammo sensitive than blowback as well, and more expensive and less versatile too. It'd be a lot easier to get a new barrel for a blowback SMG when SHTF then if you're using gas system. you could also just make it open bolt if something breaks as well.
>These two I am willing to simply fold on because furniture design can be played with
I'll go with it, as i'm not really interested in bullpup SMGs that much.
Also this. It's really something worth looking at. Make it out of better parts, give it a nice finish and mag release and you have a great and reliable weapon that's still cheaper than most equally nice options while still capable of getting shit done without much trouble and annoyance.
357SIG does not go that great out of longer barrels but i'd still give out 850ft-lbs out of 14" barrel, while 10mm maxes out at 13" and nearly 1000ft-lbs. 10mm does have substantially more recoil and power(from shorter barrel as well) but both are pretty good options so i'd go with the one you have handgun in - if you can handle 10mm go for it, if you CC or want a specific pistol then SIG would be a better option. 45 is only interesting for going subsonic, otherwise it's just an outdated alternative to 9mm.
And i keep telling you that it's not a good option, just like 357 mag rimless is not, only an example of solution that matches ballistic performance of my desired cartridge. It's also easier to remember, understand and describe 357MR than it is 9x25 that you have to search load data for.
Also, mr. Hungarian, i got that 9x25 Mauser is something you are fond of and i'm already aware of this cartridge so please, restrain your attempts to introduce this wonderful cartridge to other people that might be interested in it more than i am. Please accept this pic of a Hungarian SMG as a compensation for your inconvenience.
>I wonder, would the trigger pull be consistent and comfortable in semi-auto?
Yeah, i too mentioned that nicer finish, better mag release and parts would make it an amazing budget option that would rival ones costing several times as much.
>Would small sections of picatinny rail work for that on pistols?
They could but there's not much reason to. They are big, heavy, catch on things and any sights you'll be able to put on them would look autistic and have the same problems. Pistols already have that dovetail notch thing where the sights go. Revolvers should get this one too and it's a shame it's not standard yet.
>it's as long as a 7.62 Tokarev cartridge
And TT is by no means a small handgun and it uses single stack. There was double stack TT developed but i don't remember it seeing any use so eh. Double stack tokarev may be possible, but only because the cartridge is so thin.
There's actually Five seveN pistol that has even longer cartridges and even though it has quite a big grip it's fine for most for the same reason - it's thin so dimensions remain bearable. You probably could have double stack in your cartridge but i doubt that'd go well as 10mm double stack has had complaints about its size and i'd consider it the upper limit. You could improve the grip construction and bottlenecked cartridges might allow mags that are thinner in the front so you'd end up with a handgun that even though is not concealable would be comfortable to use and serve well. With an even longer cartridge - not so much. Unlike revolvers, we don't have much space for longer cartridges but can easily increase their capacity at the cost of slightly reducing magazine size which is not big of a problem because of easier reloads than a revolver and having advantages of bottlenecked cartridges.
>And that decreases the number of cartridges in the magazine, which is not a positive according to current trends.
Current trends use any excuse to stay with 9mm so i don't see how that'd help.
>You can make a superior one if you aren't held back by the inherent limitations of pistol cartridges.
If i wanted to have a separate cartridge i'd go with an intermediate rifle one in 6-6.5mm caliber. The whole point of "full power pistol cartridge" is versatility that it brings, along with actual handgun performance. Especially when we already have the perfection to strive for in handguns.
>It is only an issue for women and manlets
So basically the whole US military?:^)
>the root cause of the problem was poor grip of the firearm
Well, i'll believe your work on it and hope it's true. Still, i'd limit the length of the cartridge to 10mm as a standard "full size pistol cartridge", 9mm and lik as "medium length pistol cartridge" and stuff like .380 and smaller CC ones as "short length pistol cartridges". That'd aid universality of designs and conversions.
I've also just found out that Hues designed this Uru SMG with a single stack magazine. I'm slightly mad about this. So to add to the list of complaints: finish, quality of the parts, mag release, mag construction, maybe fire rate and weight. All probably fixable without serious alterations in the basic design to get sweet sweet makarov of SMGs in return. Hopefully.
>I want to make the 10mm a 50kpsi cartridge
Would be pretty interesting, do you have any data on some specific loads? Not many pistols to be able to withstand that pressures though. You could carry different loads for the pistol though.
>I meant just your average rifleman's stance of cheek shoulder and foregrip
Ok, thanks. I didn't get your comparison of a subgun vs revolver and don't know many "official" names of things in the firearm world.
>a leg-wearable weapon
I don't think we can get anything smaller than M3 without getting into autopistol category, with mags in grips, forward grips, short barrels and short thin foldable stocks. It's not a good place for hot 10mm, tbh, with its recoil in full auto removing their only advantage over handguns - fire rate and controllability.
>Traditionally, this has been held by the handgun and powerful large revolver
Wasn't it a revolver and a hefty matching carbine?
>True, but you can adjust for that with a gas screw.
Adjustable gas block are great but it'd add even more moving parts that would increase costs and need for maintenance. They are also almost a requirement as such sort gas system would be a lot more ammo-sensitive than blowback mechanism.
>SAAMI regulations
I'm not much into 10mm world that much so excuse my lack of knowledge on the topic.
>Managed to get a better pic for you.
I see, thanks for the effort. Pretty cool and useful but it'd be hard to use in low light. Is it possible to use tritium paint or something on every other "step" of the sights for better visibility? Something could also be done to match it with a peep sight better, like making it thinner and surrounding it with shielding aka MP5 sights, for example.
>None of this is really a problem with a muzzle mounted sight
Yeah, though you'd want to raise the sights a bit and i'd be more difficult to do with a barrel mount, while handguard pic rail would allow all the options the latest AR has, especially since we're probably adding such rail for optics anyway.
>None of this is a problem in a CNC lathe for manufacturing
I was talking more about handling characteristics - a gas tube/rod thick enough to withstand the pressures would add more weight to already not so light barrel and no full stock to couterbalance that. Gas system also makes the gun thicker and bigger, even if just a bit, possibly limiting options for handguards/requiring one where it wouldn't be needed. Also, complicated bolt with locking lugs would be more expensive to make and harder to replace, as well as complicating the whole design.
>I think we're slowly closing on a formal design recommendation, I'd say interchangeable barrels might be in order
Why not pick MP5 shape as a basic setup? It's got options for multiple barrels, has space for action, plenty of stock options, etc. Just the general shape, not necessary any other features.
We've got to decide operation system of the weapon and i still recommend blowback. I do have an an extreme case of hatred towards "average" solutions like gas systems in rifles, moving barrels in pistols, 9mm and 5.56 in cartridges so i'm against gas system even if it can be made to work. I don't think straight blowback is a good option for anything but a prototype as it's just not that effective and light. I don't think gas delayed blowback is a good option as despite its benefits it'd add parts that require more maintenance and is too hot for full auto. I'm unsure about roller-delayed blowback due to it's engineering complexity as despite it being great option it's the hardest to pull through. So we're left with lever delayed blowback that is easy to manufacture(prototypes as well), can handle the hottest 10mm and can reduce the weight of the gun without increasing fire rate or recoil significantly.
One thing to consider would also be the fire rate - how much is enough? I think around 500-600rpm would be good, though if we're going 10mm i'd lower it a bit more, maybe to 250-350, if possible without too much weight.
I still think that 10mm isn't "optimal" for being a universal general-purpose "large pistol cartridge" and something more manageable like 9x25dillon(or my aforementioned 357 auto) would be of better use but they are still the same length so it doesn't matter that much, i suppose.
>/k/ube woodsman (long
10-16" barrel PCC lookalike
>/k/ube kebab remover (short)
either 6-8" barrel grease gun/mp5 type or a complete new design as a machine pistol that wouldn't make that much sense though.
>The problem here is that you want a cartridge that seems to be too big and strong for a pistol to handle
Nah, i don't really think 10mm is a good choice for the reason of recoil and power and it certainly is a pistol caliber.
>A way out of this problem is to go with a carbine and a revolver
Kind of a way backwards. It was done but it can and should be done in semi-auto platform.
> pic related: it's basically a rimless supermagnum
I know about that but i talked about rimless magnum, not supermagnum. It's still too long to fit in a handgun but if we mate it with 357SIG that already copies the original in at least one load we're good to go. 9x25mm Dillon is already more powerful than 357mag, we just need to trickle it down so it won't blow up your eardrums when shooting from a handgun.
I also thought a bit about the design/specifications/requirements of the gun and i think that looking at MP5/10 and observing its cons would be a better way to go, as we already have a good working platform that way.
So, here it goes:
MP5/10
>non-replaceable sights
>max barrel - 9"
>no pic rail by default
>something was mentioned about mags
>fire rate - 800rpm for 10mm, which is a bit too much.
>not great ergonomics
>only collapsible stock that's not great from what i've heard
>bolt hold open device?
>costs moneys
>owned by HK
Last 2 are not a problem while we're talking theory but still.
I think we should make a list of most important features or something that'd help not only design something if we want to but maybe find good options already existing.
>this is meant as a large pistol able to fight at longer ranges in seconds
Ok, i'll address it later.
>A design of 12 inches overall leaves a lot of room for error
That's roughly the length of MP5K, and they have pistol length barrels(4.5"). As i have talked about it all - if going compact autopistol is the way to go if that's your intention. As i've said, i'd consider M3 bare minimum for MP5 form factor and even that is a bit stretching it due to compact size of grease gun.
>I'm talking about the weapons on your side
Ok, still, such a revolver is, even though good for hunting as a "main sidearm", doesn't fit our criteria very well due to inability to suppress it, rimmed cartridges and other flaws of revolvers, despite its great OAL that allows it such an application while retaining a longer barrel.
>You'd need to subdue the paint, or create a similar effect with tritium slits
Stair-step fiber optic sights? This seems like a pretty deep rabbit hole so i'm unsure about the use of any of these things, especially since our weapon would probably feature some kind of reflex sights and so irons would be backup anyway, so it makes sense to make them durable, unobtrusive and good enough to use. So this stair step design is pretty good, we only might increase the size of each "step", paint every 3rd or so white, combine with a peep sight below and we're good to go, though i'm unsure about adjusting rear sight for drop and windage beyond what front is capable of helping as i've had little experience with these.
>A peep sight would have to be made to instantly level with the steps
Probably white dots on each side of the ring would suffice.
>many guns already include a dovetail fitted sight riser between the barrel and sight proper where a rail would affect how you see it
Sure why not then. It'd still be additional parts compared to just handguard but that's not that important.
>I didn't think of lever delayed blowback at all
Happy to help bro.
>thinking out the geometry to accommodate standard and super hot ammo
I've had an idea of having an adjustable blowback mechanism. Basically, you have a screw that connects to the floorplate that compresses recoil spring and so turning it would either make it stronger or weaker, allowing the action to accommodate larger variety of ammo. That'd be more important for rifles but it wouldn't hurt this one too, as these actions seem to be pretty violent and so can manhandle the casings if you use brass. I've also just got an idea of push-buttons on the receiver that push weights in the bolt to achieve the same result, though i'd be difficult to fix them in place, i'll go try to paint it.
>360 rounds a second
Could be okay, though lower fire rate always means more weight and might limit CQB potential, potentially. M3 has 450 and it's got a pretty bad stock so 10mm at 400 would probably be fine. I'm okay with setting 300 as the lower limit if it's adjustable, as it'd be very helpful with a suppressor.
IIRC .400 corbon is pretty close in power to most lighter 10mm loads and was designed to mimic them. 45 super operates at higher pressures(than both 45 and corbon that is ~+P) and offers additional 100ft-lbs of power, getting close to full power 10mm. Both corbon and super have an advantage of fitting in a smaller form factor - the one most modern handguns use, though you get reduced capacity and most of the designs are unable to withstand the increased pressures. You could get to and maybe even beyond full 10mm levels if you combined 45 super and .400 corbon into .400Corbon-Super but it might have the same long barrel problems as 357SIG and you'd have to design new guns for it, as it'd require thicker chamber walls than even better material .45 ones, which in turn would require slide redesign and it might require pistol redesign in turn. If you do all that or find a model that won't blow up after some use and my doubts about long barrel effectiveness aren't true then good job, you've found a 10mm replacement that allows you to trade capacity for shorter grip.
>93R is one of the best concealable weapons in existence
Only after AK pistol:^)
>flawed SMG concept
ur flawed
>comes even vaguely close points is the PP2000.
>literally just another of the countless plastic UZIs that fires +P ammo, except this one is oversized and has more sharp angles
>the beretta 93R is the best concealable weapon, period
Try to re-read what you've just written and think about it. If the thinking isn't going that well, loo at the picture in this post, it's for emergency situations.
>bull barrel
>interesting
You like watching walls, don't you?
>the ammo
Eh, it's pretty cool but is really unrelated to the gun as its basically 9mm+P+ with a weird bullet. 9N21 doesn't go through IIIA, only 9N31 does, but so does liberty civil defense ammo so it's really nothing spectacular. 9x21 is a bit more interesting but still these bullets aren't really showing any outstanding results despite quite promising and sophisticated construction.
>93R can fire in semi-auto mode as well, how is your pic in any way superior?
I understand that mental retardation is a serious illness and is not your fault so i'll just tell you - look, pictures are sure interesting but sometimes you have to struggle and read the text that comes with them, try that more often and you'll have a lot less problems with your life.
>as its basically 9mm+P+ with a weird bullet that can penetrate IIIA armor
Yes, just unusual ammo, nothing spectacular, there's an ammo brand that does this without all the fuss about being "armor piercing".
>a bull barrel design that spits them out with more accuracy
Nah, it only works with longer barrels and on longer ranges. Your bullet will drop before you could ever notice any difference.
>assault rifle
Go back to where you came from
>Look I'm plain NOT GOOD at guessing what the fuck you're thinking, or what you meant to say. So how about you explain it?
Ok, admitting this is at least honest, so i'll explain. Beretta 93R is not a concealable weapon in any meaningful way and certainly doesn't fit its purpose - it's heavy, bulky, catches on things with its sharp corners and is just plain too big. The entire class of the weapons' purpose is to be easily wearable as a sidearm/PDW, not a concealable weapon in any way and probably never will be and arguing for such use of one is astonishingly stupid.
>And you don't find unusual things interesting?!!?!
As i've said. this ammo has little to do with the gun itself. It seems your memory is just as lacking as your reading comprehension. Seek help or find a gun and kill yourself.
>But are you sure those keep SMGs from being obsolete?
Partially. It's not just pistol calibers that have been reduced to over glorified pea shooters, but rifle calibers as well, as their efficiency is very close to those of full power pistol cartridges. 10mm, for example, has as much energy from 13" barrel as 5.56 has from 16" and its most advantage is better BC. If rifles are going to use these cartridges then SMGs will probably never return as these rifles are just a minor step up from them by removing handgun compatibility, while if we change to some ACTUAL general purpose intermediate cartridge(for example 6.5mmGrendel that almost copies the trajectory of the .308, not perfect but a good example) then SMGs could find their role as a PDW/CQB weapon once again. If you're interested in reading about 6-6.5mm GPC check this out http://abesguncave.com/category/general-purpose-combat-rifle/ or google "6mm optimum". As for .300 memeout, it's less powerful than 7.62x39 that nearly matches 30-30. Some .357 magnum loads can match the performance of the weaker 30-30 loads, aside from fatter bullets being slightly less aerodynamic. Given that 300blk is even weaker, you're better off using either .357 magnum rimless(that you could probably even get a revolver with moon clips) or even .357 maximum rimless that'll easily leave 300blk behind at ANY barrel length and also fits in an AR nicely. I've just looked at it, and in up to 12" barrels i think 10mm beats 300blk, though i'm unsure about that due to lack of info on blk and using only one 10mm load that might not be optimal for longer barrels.
>just with commercial parts you can get an AR with a 7.5" barrel down to ~19 inches OAL
It's still an AR, with its own problems. It has longer action, it has buffer spring and it doesn't fold, not even the stock. Now take a look at Kel-tec sub-2000 carbine and you'll see what can be done if you specialize a bit instead of stretching your rifle design all over for any purposes.
Famas isn't a very good example as it's french design that they fucked up, quite frankly. It has extreme fire rate, can't use brass cases due to problems with extraction and is really a letdown, but at least it's working. I much prefer citing TKB-517 as an example of the system, as it was lighter, more accurate, cheaper to manufacture, better ergonomics and milder recoil than AK. If only Soviets didn't fuck it up due to political games, PR and "established industry".
>I'm sure we can get it smaller so that we can squeeze a bit more barrel length out of it.
I still think that we should either go with a full sized main gun or a compact wearable autopistol, not a mix of these 2 as each one would hinder others purpose. I'd also not go with an autopistol for the reason of complexity of engineering and different materials, as well as doubts about 10mm fitting this role well.
>The interesting thing about the base-plate and screw assembly is that if the screw strips
You could add pins that go through the rod and stop the plate. It doesn't have to be operated from assembled state, as you mentioned.
>My solution to having a problem with screws would be to require disassembly to adjust fire rate instead of on the fly- change the spring
You'd have to have a set of different springs unless you repurpose them somewhere for the time being - that's bad. I want the gun to be able to be as self-contained as possible. Ideally, disassembly and cleaning should be possible using either bare hands or parts included in the gun(think M3 stock functionality) and only thing for the gun to be functional to be the ammo.
>your gun defaults to the lowest spring pressure
I'm unsure if this could be dangerous in lever-delayed blowback gun - could the case be extracted too early and explode due to lack of resistance of the sporing? I've a bit hard time understanding variables in such a complex operating mechanism with my lack of engineering knowledge.
>mouse fart loads
Just remove the lever, man. That could probably be done and also used for (possible) conversions in lesser calibers.
>you could also change the amount of resistance in the lever delay mechanism itself by applying a small friction wheel somewhere in the mechanism
Could be good, especially if it can use commercially available friction wheels. I added possible solution and thought out a fancy name for it - delayed lever delayed blowback.
You could also probably make the socket conical inside so that you adjust the delaying by moving the friction wheel along the rod. The positions could probably be set with ball detents so it sits in place.
>size class as 1911
Its not
>>ak pistol
>100% concealable
There's a ward sarcasm anon, try to learn what it means.
Actually, i'll clarify
>size class
Nice mental gymnastics, there's no such thing as "size class" so you just made this shit up to shill for your stupid gun, you ugly faggot.
>comes with holsters
As if it mattered at all, you lying faggot. Rifles come with holsters, yet no mentally ill piece of shit that found imageboard spergs about their concealability.
>clarify your arguments
>resorts to strawmanning
>you make your opinions clear
You fucking dense retard, you are so stupidly arrogant it should not be even possible, you can't read, you can't hold a thought in your empty head, yet you are so proud to demonstrate how much of a distilled piece of liquid shit all of you are.
You motherfucking inbred retard, kill yourself, your mother and all your family so that no possibility of such disgusting degenerate scum to walk this earth ever arise.
>I get the impression that you're comparing really hot pistol loads to regular intermediate loads
I'm using buffalo bore 180gr data from BBTI as an example of full power 10mm load, there's a more powerful one on wikipedia but there's only 1 data point and it may be false. I'm also using data from wikipedia on 300blk and it has ~1200ft-lbs from 16,5" barrel - quite a bit lower than 7.62x39. The 10mm load maxes out at 13"(which isn't great and could be improved in specialized loads from looking at 357mag that can get to 1240ft-lbs at 16") at ~1050ft-lbs so i assumed the performance of more long barrel-oriented cartridge would be in more steep decline from shorter barrel. I suppose my approximations can be wrong or you can find hotter 300blk loads but still, their capabilities are pretty similar. I could use 357mag instead as they match better at 1.2kftlbs from 16" instead but i chose 10mm because it has more potential to be powerful.
>I'd assume the cartridge with better case capacity and more aerodynamic bullets would have higher potential performance than a pistol cartridge if done correctly
Of course, when you're not hindered by fitting your cartridge in a pistol you can get something substantailly more powerful - like 458SOCOM. The problem is - do you want yet another cartridge to do what can be efficiently done by the one you already have? You end up getting slightly more specialized effective SMG still - not a proper rifle as can be seen with modern intermediate cartridges, where 5.56 needs 20" barrel to reach 300m effectiveness.
>if the SBR is already small enough to meet all your requirements (granted, you guys have gone pretty extreme in this thread so a compact SBR might be too fat for you), wouldn't it make sense to stick with the higher-power caliber?
It would, but only because our current militarizes use 2 cartridges when there could be only 1 that'd outperform both(i could explain how it can be done but you'd better check out the link in my previous post as it explains it much better than i could). For now, i'll just say that such general purpose cartridge would have 1 major hindrance - it'd require a full-length 20" barrel to be effective for multiple roles and optimized for that as well, so SBRing it would mean great power loss, ineffective powder burn, inaccuracy and overall things similar to SBR 5.56 AR. That's where SMGs come into play, offering effective (re)use of already-used(they should) in the military full power pistol cartridges that offer lower recoil, less flash, more energy and less size than using a dedicated 20" barrel cartridge for that could - all while you have 1 LESS cartridge to issue and supply to the troops than you do now. Ain't that beautiful?
Wait, want to correct myself - 300blk is around 1350ft-lbs for hotter loads(while 7.62x30 is at least 1500) so it is more powerful than 357mag and probably even long-barrel specialized(though i've not found one but 10mm is not that common to begin with) 10mm loads. It still would lose more from shorter barrel than a pistol cartridge, so my claims are still mostly correct.
Posting some more pics of Vbr-b from Belgium. It also seems to use rounds similar to Russian AP ones, though these seem a bit simpler. Does anyone have any info on fire rate or barrel length of this thing? There seems to be very little info, even kikepedia nuked the article about it.
part 2
Thanks, i'll look into it shortly.
>The problem with autopistols that I have is they are difficult to control
Indeed, though it's more of an issue when you have a moving slide instead of a bolt no stock and just a folding grip, so something like vbr-b or beretta with a stock would probably be fine. The stocks are usually pretty flimsy but i like the one on the vbr.
>Again, though, my biggest issue about reducing an SMG to an autopistol is controlability, that's why I shill for the SMG/PDW style weapons
There's a line where a gun can be carried as a sidearm on your hip or starts to require a sling and gets in the way. After that it doesn't make much difference how long your gun is - less weight is good but unless you go to extreme examples like 20" barrel it's not really that different. Kind of like issuing M4 vs MP5A4 - weight is the same and AR only gets in the way a bit more.
I've also got another idea of adjusting the delaying - why not have multiple positions for the lever so it can have different closed positions that adjust amount of leverage on the 2nd part of the bolt? It'd probably require a bit bigger bolt to be able to accommodate lever in multiple positions but it needs to be able to be disassembled anyway so why not have a few more holes for the pin?
>We might be able collab on a crossover at that length, what OAL were you thinking of?
>To carry it properly requires it to be shorter than, say, 15" collapsed?
I'm thinking that MP5K would probably be the upper limit overall and that's already a stretch. You can add a bit of length but make it thinner or only extend the barrel so overall dimensions stay mostly the same.
I do have doubts about going into compact wearable autopistol/PDW design, as it'd probably require use of polymers(to keep it light), more complex, detailed and sophisticated engineering and less room for error and safety. it's basically akin to designing a pistol - complex trigger groups with many functions, cramped space and need to contain and withstand pressure on the main parts, not to mention manufacture and prototyping costs even without the use of polymers that are almost unreachable for a common strelok.
>And yeah Hatcher's Notebook should be required reading on 8/k/, it's a great read
Already have it, just can't just get to it.
>what you're aiming for
I'm not so sure myself, it was Australia's idea first, i just kinda supported it.
>adjustable fire rate
Nah, adjustability is only required to accommodate wider variety of ammo in the ammo-sensitive action. If it can run it good without all this stuff, there's not much to gain from if the base FR is sensible.
>light
Ok, but not necessary. Manageable fire rate is more important.
>ease of manufacture [Stamped?]
I'd say it's more important in prototyping, unless we can get such a magnificent weapon that it beats commercialor smuggled options available to a strelok. Otherwise, at least you US guys could probably manufacture a good design.
>barrel shroud
No reason not to, really.
>concealable or nah?
Nah, definitely. Wearable, on the other hand is a lot better question, but unless you're a serious arms manufacturer with plenty of spare resources and are/have a good engineer i'd pick an easier option.
>Could be a slightly scaled down/altered pdfrelated, too.
I don't think bullpups in a gun with a barrel under 16" add anything to its value that'd compensate for all disadvantages it brings. This model is indeed interesting but i think it'd better fit a service rifle project.
>Otherwise, at least you US guys could probably manufacture a good design not hindered by the tools and materials required.*
>Barrel shroud only because in such a short weapon you want to protect the hands of the shooter but there are other ways of doing that.
I feel like it's the most useful solution. You could use wood handguard for aesthetics but it'd add more weight and won't help with barrel heat, as well as burn your hand with a wrong grip. They are better for a slow-shooting long gun, really.
>As for manufacture, if somebody in the thread has a mill, lathe, and press (not too much to ask) then prototyping the general idea might happen, would be cool
Yeah, though if end result is not the main goal then designing and projecting these unusual engineering solutions might be more viable. Longer gun would still be simpler to work with and we've had a few interesting ideas that can be tested but in this case you could think of something within autopistol type too, if you want to.
>But I like the idea of the bullpup SMG just because the added barrel does effect ballistics
I've already discussed the utility of bullpup SMGs ITT. I can just point out to my post >>630093 , specifically the part about bullpup barrel length.
This is all pretty interesting but the options you presented seem rather underpowered. Could it be that these loads are optimized for all powder burn within the barrel and not most of to keep the pressures high throughout the entire thing? The only load that is remotely powerful is 1075ft-lbs one, though its from 16" barrel and buffalo bore 180gr does 1k out of 13". Also wikipedia has 135 gr (9 g) Controlled Expansion Doubletap Ammunition that has 768ft-lbs from 4.6" barrel, that's close to what buffalo bore has at the same length. Either they're using more powerful powders to get plain better results or the loads aren't optimized for their purpose.
I see. I've never used any of such software so that's pretty cool. So, did you pick the slowest powders? Could you compress the slower powder because it has lower pressure spike?
> For the 10mm, it's listed at 32,400PSI I think?
Its 37500 SAAMI or 33k another something.
Oh, okay, but you won't get best performance with fast-burning powders from a long barrel, only quieter one. Aren't we trying to push the limits here?
Vid related.
Nuh un, you don't. Magazine inside a pistol grip only makes sense in a compact autopistol - if you go full size you're better off just having the grip on the back of the receiver, like MP5 does. You don't gain much by moving the grip because you still need space for bolt to move and end up with something like UZI that would only hinder the gun's handling characteristics and complicate engineering for the gain of a bit shorter overall profile. You still need a stock, place for support hand and a barrel shroud so it's really not a great decision, especially with how problematic can using double feed mag be in this configuration.
>Buffalo Bore
Here http://www.ballisticsbytheinch.com/10mm.html
>No, it sorts by muzzle velocity, and pistol brass needs pistol powder
You have longer barrel so you can have slower burn rate. Whether it makes the powder "pistol" or not, this is the way to go to maximize performance.
>about 10% above SAAMI spec of 35,000PSI limit for the round
>32,750PSI suggests my software, and is probably right.
Wikipedia says its 37500 SAAMI and 33k CIP.
>not that anybody's against that particularly
You have to sacrifice something else for that. I remember watching a video where a guy experimented with fast powders in 44mag rifle - they'd burn completely before the bullet left the barrel so he basically had subsonic ammo without a suppressor. Safe to say, performance of such ammo would be pretty low even for subsonic loads.
Are you still going to make it wearable? Because if so, it's a whole another class of weapons, both in use and in design.
See picrelated - UZI only has 1" longer barrel and doesn't have a muzzle device.
>the range of burn rates suitable for a cartridge are decided by the brass, not the length of the barrel
I didn't intend to say that barrel "decides" how powder will burn, only what powder will be usable for a barrel. Fast-burning powder works great in short barrels because it burns through their length quickly enough, with burn rate itself independent from the medium in which it burns(not really but you get the idea). The same way loading slow burning powder in 5.56 and shooting it from short barrel leaves us with plenty of unburnt powder that leaves the barrel.
I'm not a handloader so it's a bit hard for me to grasp what all this data means, could you explain what happens if we load some standard .223 ball powder in 10mm? Or using blank powder in 5.56 cases?
>Correct me if I'm wrong (and I often am), but a powder has to have a slow enough burn to push the bullet down the barrel rather than just exploding in the chamber and blowing up the gun.
Indeed, blank powder(that's often used in nailguns too) is a very-very fast burning one so the pressure spike makes it unusable for propelling bullets in most cases.
This is rather interesting but i'd prefer if you answered my question. 5.45 is pretty cool and it's mostly underpowered because its data usually comes with 16" barrel compared to 5.56 20" but eh.
>again, brass chooses what burn rates the powder should have
Then why not use any powder in there? Why is the powder not great for .308? I see that necked cartridge allows to concentrate pressure and increase burn rate of a given powder. Still, there're different powders that have different characteristics that do influence the burn rate and so i assume they can allow more prolonged application of pressure that'd make a more long barrel friendly load, despite cartridge's basic limitations.
You keep mentioning different powders but i know nothing about any of them and googling each one is pretty tedious and overall is just making your point more confusing to understand.
Ok, thanks for clarification.
As we've started talking about ballistics and cartridge designs, i've tried to look why does .357 magnum perform so well out of long barrels, i've found out that .357mag has quite a bit more case capacity than 10mm(1.70vs1.56cm3), while being weaker in pistols, which leads me to the conclusion that .357 magnum case might be more optimized for slower burning powders and less for shorter barrels with which it's usually used. I'm not very knowledgeable on the subject of case construction so i'll just leave this as it is.
>So again, the powder is chosen before barrel length is considered.
Again, i'd like you to answer my question. I see that cartridges more often than not perform well with a specific powder while others severely change the burning rate like in your pic here >>631802 , but it doesn't mean that ALL powders that aren't the standard will have such a weird pressure curve. I believe there are powders that can allow more gradual powder burn without being in the same burn rate range that is acceptable for the cartridge. Therefore, i think that you =can= have a 5.56 load that uses a fast-burning powder while allowing proper burn and pressure distribution that would make the use of the cartridge with shorter barrels more bearble.
Also in your articles nobody explains shit
First one says that loads don't change depending on the barrel lengths - unlike velocities, without any argument for it. I'd counter it in that you still have some powder selection that does work in the cartridge and can still pick the slowest burning one from them and it'll likely yield slightly better long barrel performance. It might be small but adding 1-2" of barrel that can accelerate the bullet instead of slowing it down are possible, pretty sure and it'd prove my point.
Second article only talks about weakness of 9mm that never goes away even from longer barrels, which is pretty obvious to anyone interested in this stuff anyway.
And third article is a little shitty cunt from TFB talking shit about PCCs by cherrypicking both cartridges(only shitty pistol ones of today), guns(ar platform) and applications, like excluding SMGs and discarding advantages of an option based entirely on his personal needs and preferences. If you're posting this scummy worthless degenerate after you're read through this here you're a piece of shit, anon, quite frankly.
Okay, i'm basically stuck with casing engineering. It seems very complicated, has many variables and little info on the topic. From what i got i suspect that a cartridge is basically designed around 1 type of powder and is limited to it, the only thing adjustable being the hotness of the load. That'd mostly make handloading look useless and handloaders as people whose time costs less than a few cents but putting that aside, it seems my understanding of versatility of reloading in general and .357 magnum in particular was but a fantasy. Then, we need a cartridge that allows similar long barrel performance as 357 without sacrificing size, recoil and overall versatility that'd allow its use in both handguns and rifles efficiently. So i've got a question - can you reduce the pressure of a cartridge to gain more prolonged powder burn rate? I'm (re)thinking something like 357SIG but longer and with less operating pressure, but if that's not true a complete redesign might be necessary, up to the point of increasing maximum dimensions to .45ACP size, though i have no idea what to do with all these bottlenecks, angles, pressures and powder burn rates all mixed together.
though now that i think about it, it's not that bad. It seems like it comes more to case capacity then construction, at least in longer barrels. .45super has similar capacity to .357mag and performs slightly worse, comparable to difference in pressure. it doesn't explain how 10mm beats 357 though, might be larger caliber, 3kpsi more and hotter maximal loads observed. .357mag vs .357SIG could also be explained this way - less capacity is partially compensated by 5kpsi(or even 9, in case of CIP). Looks like more space results in better long barrel performance than hotter load, probably due to space setting the pressure distribution and hotness just increase it proportionally over the whole process. Still, these comparisons are kinda weird, as 9x25mm dillon, for example, is 1.48cm3 at 36kpsi is very close to 357mag that has more capacity(1.7) for the same pressure.
It would limit available materials, require more precise machining and would lose effectiveness pretty quickly with parts wear. There's already been invented a more practical variant of this operation system - gas delayed blowback. It's not as pressure sensitive and can be contained more easily.
I've done some more search and found out a few things:
There's a cartridge called .40 Super, which is basically a .45 super necked to .40 cal or .400corbon on steroids. The same thing we talked about earlier. It's considerably more powerful than 10mm(and 9x25corbon still falls ~100ft-lbs short) and wikipedia writes about plenty of flexibility with both bullet weights and powder selection, though no actual data is present. it's case capacity is presumable somewhat equal .45 and .357mag so the only clearly visible downside of it for now is reduced sectional density that would further limit the effective range, though it can be overcome. It also has reported problems with feeding due to its bottleneck akin to what 357sig had before glock redesigned its followers, so be wary if you're getting it.
I've also revisited the 7.62x25 tokarev cartridge - it's hotter loads offer ~500 ft-lbs, which is not very much compared to other monsters here but is still more than functional. The only serious problem that has been detected with it by multiple reviews both by soviets that dropped it and Paul Harrell's review is it's insufficient expansion that limits its performance compared to less powerful options, though it does retain great penetration capability. I think that lack of expansion can be overcome if ammo actually used modern soft point technologies that were unreachable for soviets and aren't used by those remaining manufacturers that still offer it due to unprofitability of development of good performing bullets in this caliber. It's also notable for continuous use in SMGs and so probably performs well from then by design. It's not perfect and falls behind a bit with range but its low caliber and proven design do make it something to consider. It also has base diameter 0.1mm smaller than that of 9x19, offering similar capacity. I'll be looking into additional data on it in the future, as it might be more promising than i thought of it.
Then there's .38 casull - it's a mysterious one, being something like .45 necked to 38 cal, all while performing really well, on levels similar to .40 super or so(~950ft-lbs, at least for that one load some guy posted being 977 and .40 being 971 on wikipedia). It was also noted to be loud, which could mean better performance from longer barrels, as well as being very accurate and heavy-recoiling(but not terrible). Was working fine with guns that used it too. There's also .38/.45 Clerke or .38/.45 Auto Pistol that is weaker, probably due to lower pressures and it certainly uses .45ACP cases, but at least their concepts are identical and its 445ft-lbs are not much but aren't complete failure.
There also were .38 super/9x23mm winchester/9x25mauser that are good performers with decent energy that does fall behind. .357mag but not by much. There's no info on their performance from longer barrels, only few requests, as well as info that Thompson SMG was chambered in it but again, no info on performance. If we accept that it's performance falls behind .357mag to a similar margin as it does from pistol(even though the case capacity is very different) then we've got a pretty good option that is still common enough today, as well as the one with a small case base diameter, aiding in both capacity and width of the grip, which are both good and latter even more important, especially for a double stack double feed magazine concealability which we'd need if we're ever going to get stuff done instead of wasting moneys on locally-made copies of the same shit over and over, they also are straight-walled so that might be a plus for reloading. Is it possible to CC a .45 double stack? Not the best choice of course, but we're picking the most extreme example in case we'll have to go to .45acp case base diameter. Overall these rounds might be an alright choice and certainly aren't terrible for this purpose.
Lastly, there is a weird one that's not really practical - .224BOZ which is 10mm necked down to .224 that takes 5.56 bullets. It's pretty interesting in that it fires 50gr bullet at 2500fps from 5" barrel, resulting in 650+ft-lbs, so it might be not a bad performer, even though it was designed to defeat body armor. It has 5.56 sectional density and from longer barrels can actually outperform its bigger brother, unless we go 15"+, i suppose. If anything, you can use it to troll 5.56 fanboys.
There's been 9×25mm Super Auto G but there's absolutely no info on it aside from dimensions on wikipedia, saying that 9x25dillon is the closest we have today but it might actually the thing we're looking for.
>>635911 (pt2)
There's a problem with 9x25 dillon and it's its loudness - it's hard to bear even with hearing protection. It was designed for slower powders and light bullets to generate lots of gasses and it does this quite well and these gasses might give a considerable boost in performance from long barrels. The problem is - it's mainly a pistol cartridge, still, so it should be optimized for faster burning powders, but not as fast ones as in 10mm - it does fall behind at longer barrels and stops gaining anything at 13". I don't know if .357mag powders are different or it's just its case capacity but if they are then it's pretty much the optimal thing. How can you change the effective burn rate of a cartridge? What things affect it's long barrel performance beyond case capacity? Are steep sharp shoulders more desirable to a narrow taper? Dillon does seem to have pretty steep shoulder angle and round edges so that might have something to do with its performance.
There doesn't seem to be any info on anyone using 9x25 dillon from longer barrels, which is frustrating, as it really seems like an obvious thing with all its gasses and loudness and compensators and power, but there are only few mentions of some problems and some people that were going to try it either in AR, along with some pics, but absolutely no data, which is really unfortunate.
Does anyone know how does a shoulder angle affect the burn rate? Or data on performance of any of aforementioned cartridges from longer barrels?
Damn, forgot pics, sorry
So i've looked into 7.62x25 data and found out that it roughly equals .38 super, falling behind 9x23 winchester that allows greater pressures and so is more powerful. The winchester does still have questionable long barrel performance but if it disproves the assumption then it might still be a viable option due to its reloadability, being the same all-purpose cartridge as .357mag in revolvers, while tokarev might be more specialized with its penetration, weight and recoil.
It also seems like the issue with expanding ammo has been somewhat solved and there are good expanding options that don't overpenetrate, so that's great. I never expected to get hard from seeing this sweet looking tokarev ammo, it's beautiful
I've crunched the numbers and found out that sectional density of 7.62x25 85gr bullet is similar to that of 115gr 9mm, so tokarev does have a substantially flatter trajectory while losing energy almost as slowly as 125gr .38 super loads, therefore outclassing the latter in recoil, size, weight, trajectory, velocity, penetration and losing only in reloadability and practical disadvantages like marker presence and cost. They mostly match in energy but tokarev does have a slight advantage. Only the hottest loads of the better 9x23winchester might give some advantage over tok but it wouldn't remove other drawbacks of the thing, though it is a viable choice, especially for reloaders. Max operating pressures of the tokarev seem to be around 38lpsi, though it's unclear if these apply to the more modern hotter ammo that goes from 380 to 500+ft-lbs, as there are some sources stating pressures up to 48kpsi, though it's probably somewhere inbetween. The cartridge case has also been reported to be pretty strong, so it can probably be "modernized" to withstand higher pressured and give the cartridge a bit more power. Overall 7.62x25 tokarev is an excellent powerful and fast cartridge. It can be a good choice for our project, offering at least 150(hopefully 200)m range with proper sights from 10" barrel, as well as being a readily available working solution that can grow and improve further. The only thing that is unclear is its performance from longer barrels, especially with hotter loads but we can safely assume that it's probably at least satisfactory. Effective range of soviet guns using it would also be only improved with hotter ammo and better sighting gadgets.
While 38 super does fall behind tokarev, 9x25dillon still stands strong, being almost a direct improvement over 7.62x25 in all categories, throwing bullets with similar SD at speeds equal to the hottest stuff, therefore resulting in a similar trajectory while delivering more than 50% greater energy with each shot, all at the cost of increasing the case base diameter by 1mm. This thing truly is a beast.
I added a pic of a nice Russian SMG chambered in this round.
Finally. i've found the final info on tokarev performance. It gains ~300fps from +6" barrel if using weaker Russian ammo and around 200fps when using hotter Czech stuff from about the same length. The latter is probably a specific load and so we can expect around additional 300fps from using a 10" barrel. Also the soviets might have chosen a weaker load to prevent Mauser pistols that were commonly used from blowing up immediately.
There's also been some guy that tested loads using a TT and a modified rifle with 20" barrel, gaining around 450fps with better loads, so the potential of the cartridge might not stop at 10".
And the cartridge's pressures are around 36kpsi with some loads reaching 39k so there's even more room for improvements.
Thanks strelok, there's plenty of information in this thread so if you wanted to help up you might want to read some of it. You can also ask questions if you need as they are pretty on-topic of SMG discussion. Or just post some good pictures or design elements. Whatever you feel like.
>That's the definition of an SMG
No, i was talking specifically about soyboy class of pistol rounds.
>we lack words for half the things that go into guns
Yeah, there are plenty of overly long, complicated terms that are often conflated and work poorly. We have a word with the literal translation of a "trigger" used as a hammer or striker, while calling the actual trigger a "triggering hook" or something, which is why they are often conflated.
>You gain nothing for that extra recoil that isn't made redundant by the existence of intermediate rifle cartridges
Only because soyboy rifle cartridges are used as a substitute of proper pistol ones. Actual intermediate rifle cartridges in 6-7mm caliber would be a lot more useful and even fix some of the logistical mess they've created.
>The reason 9mm Parabelum is the only cartridge worth considering in an SMG(or service sidearm) is because you get great ballistics in a very controllable cartridge and you don't need anything else.
Wew lad
>great ballistics
Even 9mm +p is barely tolerable in terms of muzzle energy and doesn't fly well past 100m, usually limited to 50-75 at best. And that's with all the power of modern technologies trying their best to keep a severely outdated cartridge afloat because some guys can't afford to spend much in one go.
>very controllable cartridge
Compared to what? 9x18makarov is even more controllable, it can actually be implemented in autopistols. It doesn't make it a first pick or even a good choice.
The only argument for muh 9mm is its price but the only thing responsible for it is that it was widespread and it seemed cheaper for someone to keep it around than improve stuff. Especially since keeping things around and slowly turning them into a money sink is what bureaucrats live off.
>Theoretically? Yes, not better than a semi-auto intermediate rifle, but very good
Intermediate cartridges suffer a lot from overpenetration, even the wimpiest ones. It's also notable that PCC are THE easiest type of weapons to shoot, which might be important for someone who doesn't spend much time training and having other stuff to do. There's also length, which can be a problem if you're using a proper 556 20" AR - it could be problematic to move around the house and especially around the corners, risking being disarmed too. On the other hand, if you shorten the rifle you've got yourself an extremely loud gun that will harm your ears, blind you and will be hard to control(AK74U is notable for being harder to control than a full sized variant, with its purpose being a PDW for personnel that'd spend less time training to shoot itfacepalm) as other anon has pointed out.
>Most people are pretty shit at controlling full-auto weapons
Yeah, that's a pretty valid concern but it doesn't have much to do with our options, as both of them do have it.
More information on 7.62x25. It's pressures are rated at 36kpsi CIP and no manufacturers make +p ammo, it seems. There's plenty of underloaded or weaker ammo compared to modern commercial loads and hotter surplus like the Czech ones, but it might mean that it's others that do use weaker than maximal loads. I'm positively sure that S&B has made ammo with 1600fps and it does show that in specs even now, clearly stating that it follows CIP standards and the ammo is not +p. This means that our best "normal" loads alone are capable of achieving 500ft-lbs of muzzle energy. All with pressure that's greater than normal 9mm by only 1kpsi. There have been mentions of loads that could achieve velocities over 1700fps, presumably reaching 38kpsi pressure that some mentions also suggest, which is an average 9mm+p pressure. There were also some mentions of the C.U.P. tests that determined the round's pressure limits at 42kpsi, which is substantially more but i'm unsure if they should be used or trusted.
So tokarev does indeed show great potential, especially with modern metallurgy and some modernized brass that would raise the pressure limits. Another thing that can be improved about it is the bullet selection - not only subsonic or low drag bullets can be interesting but most importantly hollow points, as they are at this point the determining factor of its efficiency and the issue with them has already killed it once. There are a few hollow point bullet choices on the market but their performance varies from limited to far from perfect, as they often have solid base and brass petals with little lead left on them, losing it in tissue. This round would probably be the one that'd benefit most from these new "bonded jacket" hollow points technology. It's still a viable choice with existing ones, as they do offer enough expansion to stop slightly beyond penetration requirement threshold so they do work and dump the energy pretty well but they could be much better.
I also wonder if it was used in any competitions - it shoots flat, produces low recoil and enough gasses to power a compensator and offers the same capacity as your 9mm and more energy than the 38 super they use. Is it ignorance or they aren't using energy as measure of power?
I've written down and compared the rounds we looked at before and i could find enough data on, so here's my conclusions:
7.62x25 tokarev - amazing for pistols, great gains in rifles but it still doesn't quite get to 556 energy levels, unlike others, whether it matters or not.
9x25dillon - problematic, loudness is compared to 7.5" AR. It does match 357mag power levels from 6" barrel almost perfectly with lighter bullets, being only few dozens fps faster. Little info on loads and no info on performance from longer barrels, mostly just usual forum trash. If fixed, could be the best option both as a powerful pistol and an SMG round.
10mm - while popular, powerful and almost adored, its performance increase from longer barrels matches only usual weaker pistol cartridges, resulting in similar % increase as 9mm or 40sw. BBTI blogs have provided some very valuable information on the topic of performance from longer barrels. Basically, there are pistol cartridges and there are magnum cartridges, with magnum ones being capable of gaining over 50% energy increase with barrel length. There are only a few such cartridges and they talk about almost none that fit in autoloaders. 10mm, while is a good choice and deserves more is not very suited for the role. Especially since it is a bit weaker than its bottlenecked counterpart.
.40 Super - amazing energy, most of the ones i've got data on and fit in common pistols(unlike 500AE). No data otherwise. Probably too powerful for being universal but it has a niche and deserves more fame along the 10mm.
45 Super - one of the rounds tested by BBTI that do perform well from long barrels. It actually gains quite a bit of energy, beaten by 357mag but still coming pretty close, offering more energy at the start. Its speed to SD ratio is not very impressive and would result in a pretty steep pressure curve and its recoil would too be limiting but it's another option, as well as something we can go to if we're unable to fix issues with dillon in 10mm case, as we can go to the greater capacity of 45acp's one.
Also, for streloks with access to guns and money out there - if you're interested in getting yourself a handgun paired with a PCC or just a powerful PCC you've actually got plenty of good options out there, that are if you choose to go with 45 Super cartridge. Not only does it offer a bit more power than 10mm, it also fits in many 45acp handguns that can withstand it and is one of the few cartridges that actually perform well out of long barrels so you won't be wasting your effort by using it. BBTI guy did shoot Beretta Px4 storm in this cartridge and it functioned well without need for any readjustments and signs of increased wear.
I organized data from BBTI and some other sources into a schematic-comparison. What i didn't expect is that 45 Super would beat the weaker(only 1 i have) 556 all the way up to 18" where the data ends, as well as most promising load of tokarev being almost on par with it at 10". Damn, why these office programs are so resource-intensive? My pc takes like 15 seconds to load the graph
Guise, pls help, i can't quite figure out the barrel length of the rifle in the vid. Is it 10" or 16"?
Thanks strelok, i updated the data so it should be a bit more correct. Gods bless BBTI, their job saved so much trouble it's hard to imagine. It's such a mess to look for such info on forums, with different loads in different situations, with manufacturers changing loads over time, there's so little things one can be sure about.
The mention seems like an overly generous estimate with no real data to back it up. Based on the information i have, cartridge dimensions of 9x25 and 38super are very similar, with mauser case being longer but OAL being the same and differing only in 1kpsi of max pressure. You won't get to magnum levels with this and 9x23mm winchester beats it hands down, while still lacking case capacity and power of the magnum.
>So, how many Joules does .45 Super deliver?
The vertical axis of the graph shows energy in ft-lbs, horizontal is barrel length. You can use that as a reference along other calibers for your desired barrel length. It's around 820ft-lbs from 6" barrel, slightly beating 10mm at this point.
Yes, i specifically picked the most powerful load available to see the whole potential of a cartridge, such as double tap or buffalo bore, which is used for 10mm load, for example.
Actually, i've got an update - i added 327 magnum, which performance is quite promising if we ignore the pressure difference between it and 357mag. 45Kpsi is a serious upgrade over 357 with its 35K. Other than that, it seems that 327mag does copy 7.62x25 tokarev ballistics minus the additional pressure, with a bit more power. Interestingly enough, 327mag does copy the energy of 556 pretty closely from 10+" while still operating at lower pressure even if my example load here is not the very best one, as well as being very close in SD to a 55gr bullet. Surely, it won't fly just as well because it uses flat-nose bullets and its trajectory would be quite steeper but still, it is pretty funny. I wonder is 10mm could be necked down to .312 to have similar performance. I'll look for the case capacity of 327 as there's none on wikipedia to compare.
Sure, though it'll be just a point, not a line as i'll only have single barrel length.
Thanks, i've looked it up and 357SIG has the same capacity so that's not bad.
I think i'll be using 30 carbine as a standard for now as it seems pretty viable and can have 450ft-lbs at 200m, with max range for M1 carbine written as 300m, which is overestimation but still better than 7.62x25 tokarev's 150m. 9mm case width does seem pretty limiting, with neither 38 super nor tokarev having nearly the same case capacity as any .40 rim width cartridge, aside from unusable in handguns monsters like 30 carbine itself.
Unfortunately, i only have data on 2 barrel lengths for 30 carbine so if you have any data on barrel lengths around 8-16" i'll be very grateful as i only have 18" and 6".
Picrelated is overview of common modern autoloder cartridges and it seems like 357SIG does offer only a little bit more power over 40SW that can be explained by their pressure difference so it seems like bottlenecked cartridges don't have any significant differences over just straight-walled ones using bullets of the same weight, aside from greater sectional density, of course. It might even lose a bit, though bullets this light would cause additional problems that would prevent that.
I added the +P ammunition from corbon and double tap. They all presumably use revolver barrel lengths so i added 1.6"(chamber length) to their declared test barrel length. Either Corbon tries to bullshit about the data or double tap does load weaker than they do.
I have to say, 10mm is quite a confusing cartridge. Paradoxically, it makes one cartridge that has most long barrel performance(9x25mm dillon) and the one that has the least(357SIG, on par with 3 other pistol calibers), all while retaining the same base diameter, taper, width, neck, shoulder length and angle and being different in only capacity, while resulting in completely opposite performance.
There's a guy that formed 10mm brass into 357SIG with longer neck, without otherwise changing dimensions.
http://10mm-firearms.com/wildcats/357-sig-long-neck/
I'd really like to see what a variety of powders can each of the three cartridges use and how does it change their performance.
An interesting note about bottlenecks - they offer an ability to use cartridges with different OAL the same way revolver rounds do, for example guns chambered in 22tcm(OAL of 38super) can accept 22tcm 9R that has OAL of 9mm. It can matter or offer options in rounds with longer bullets that extend outside of the case like tokarev. Or can your straight-walled rounds do that as well? Can you seat 9mm bullet deeper and use the round in 9x18 makarov if their cases were the same length?
I've looked into the cartridge and it's a trimmed down 10mm magnum necked down to 7.5mm. It does deliver great amounts of energy similar to 9x25 dillon with better SD but they use their own caliber. They also make a gun with it but they are the only patent owners and manufacturers of both. They seemed to try to dampen recoil in the gun instead of picking a weaker cartridge and it'd all be pretty interesting and promising if the whole story didn't smell like concentrated shit. They lied about designing the cartridge from the ground, used vague wording to make it seem like they got a contract from military, use a long cartridge that specifically doesn't fit any other gun and bullet diameter that only they manufacture, proprietary everything so they keep it all and 7K$ for the gun. This one cartridge does pretty well at range and is more powerful than dillon, having 80ft-lbs more at the same SD, with more velocity. I wonder how would necking the latter to the same caliber would compare, probably the energy gap would grow a bit but not by much. There's also no data on longer barrels so i guess into the trash this blatant money grab goes.
I've found an interesting cartridge from the guys that made the VBR-B PDW, it's called 7.92x24 and is basically a shortened 30 carbine that fits in either 45 or 9mm platform, depending on the configuration. It's not much in terms of power, being slightly stronger than basic 9x19 with 44Kpsi pressure(in the shortest configuration) but i kinda like it for being a better alternative to the 9x19. It is faster, thinner, can utilize AP bullets, has less recoil and might allow different platforms to be developed. Specifically, its smaller bolt face might allow it to run mild loads of it in blowback pistols, thus making it a solid "base" cartridge, unlike 9x19 that only hinders progress by being incompatible with both blowback(almost) and longer rounds like 38 super and 10mm.
Overall, i really start to think that 8mm caliber is the optimal choice, despite the availability and variety of 9mm bullets. 327 magnum shows great performance with just 19g H2O capacity, being on par with 30 carbine in most cases(beating it from shorter barrels and going slightly behind from longer ones, though it might depend on the loads in question as they are used differently), with its outer dimensions being not very dissimilar to tokarev, aside from the rim.
It seems that most handgun cartridges suffer from steep trajectory more than they do from energy loss, so i guess they could get more with lighter bullets and the only limiting factor to that would be bullet technology. That seems to be the case with things like liberty civil defense ammo that carries more energy than all its competitors but performs similarly at best due to its fragmenting bullets that they have to use instead of HPs. It does shoot flatter, recoils milder and weights less than other ammo still, which is all a good plus. So, if we can solve the problem with sectional density of the lighter bullets we can have a round that performs optimally on the whole desired range. It can be done by necking a cartridge up to a certain caliber so we have the same powder behind the light bullet but the bullet still has high sectional density, thus allowing proper expanding projectiles) and carries similar energy while flying flatter. We'd probably lose a bit of power if the neck is too small compared to the body but it can actually gain in energy due to freed case capacity from the use of lighter bullets, like it happens with 10mm/9x25dillon, 45acp/38-45 Clarke and(to less extent) 40SW/357SIG. Even 7.62x25 tokarev shows how much of a difference does it make when compared to 38 super, carrying same energy with better penetration, less recoil, flatter trajectory and similar energy retention downrange(yes, it is longer but their overall dimensions are pretty similar, even with latter being tapered and having less capacity while being longer). It really makes you wonder why has this not been done before as often as it should, as i really don't see why wouldn't anyone transition to bottlenecked cartridges, aside from butthurt reloaders and slightly increased production costs that'd be driven irrelevant over time. Rifles did that long time ago, so the only reason i see is lack of interest that has tuned the cartridge category into so much of a letdown.
I've come to think that the best design would be something like a 10mm necked down to .32 caliber, optimized for similar performance as 327 magnum. That'd give us formidable performance both from pistol barrels of many ranges and long rifle ones. Basically, we've already got an almost perfect autoloading pistol round characteristics in it, compared to 357magnum that is, while powerful and magnificent, suboptimal choice from my perspective, as its heavy recoil does lend itself better in revolvers with their small capacity and bad triggers, while autoloaders' configurations do allow for more rapid shots and reduce recoil. So, you still have 640(instead of 720)ft-lbs of energy from a 5" barrel and 1060ft-lbs from 18"(10 less than 30 carbine) instead of 1240. Sure, this does sacrifice some power, but it'd allow for a more comfortable to shoot handgun(327 can have 1/2 recoil of 357) and lighter and more controllable rifle as well as fly at slightly flatter trajectory too. Maybe we could get even more power out of this as 10mm case does have plenty of capacity to spare(9x25 dillon still has 22.8 compared to 19 of 327) so we could either move the shoulder down(which we probably will have to do to improve short barrel performance) and either extend the neck for better accuracy or shorten the case to allow the use of heavier bullets without increasing the OAL. 10mm case does have room to spare so even with fiddling over cartridge design we could probably achieve at least the same performance. That is, if we ever going to do that.
Oh, and we could also throw in some taper to aid extraction, that wouldn't hurt too, if we've got capacity for that.
Imagine picrelated that recoils less than handles like it does but delivers (almost) 10mm power with each shot.
>Imagine picrelated that recoils and handles like original does but delivers (almost) 10mm power with each shot.*
Fugg, i'm going sllep, sorry about that.
I don't really mind using .308 bullets, aside from the fact that going .312 caliber might be a little easier. Heavier bullets take up less space, necking up might require less annealing and fatter bullets can offer more capacity when using lighter ones if we're going with that one and so .312 caliber might be a better balanced spot, though i can't really see all the upsides and downsides of that. All of this is a bit too much for me to handle without any practical experience in either reloading or engineering. I'm really kinda confused as i don't really see downsides to using smaller caliber, aside from a bit more complicated production. 224BOZ does deliver almost 700ft-lbs from 5" barrel if they aren't lying, which comes with 2500fps velocity and sectional density comparable to 125gr .327. The only thing i can think of, outside of it being a lie, is that the cartridge sacrifices long barrel performance by being optimized for faster powders but i can't grasp how that works and how to fix that. I even torrented a few AGI DVDs as they seemed to have some info on topic of wildcatting but i've not found that one in there. Does anyone have any suggestions?
Interestingly, tokarev uses .308 bullets, unlike other Russian 7.62 cartridges.
https://www.shootersforum.com/wildcat-cartridges/70501-10mm-necked-down-32-caliber.html
I've found a mention of a wildcat that a guy was developing. It basically was 10mm necked down to .312 and it does look pretty nice. Has a longer neck, 35 degree shoulder, 19.7 capacity, which is inbetween 327 and 30carbine(though with seated bullet(no info on grains) it's 15.1 compared to 13.8 for the 327). 10mm(37.5K) does have 1Kpsi smaller operating pressures than 30 carbine(38.5K) and substantially smaller than 327 magnum(45K). My estimations are that it wouldn't be far behind, though i'm not sure. Does anyone know case capacity of 30 carbine with at least 100gr and 327mag with 113gr(115 will do too) and 85gr(or similar, it's not that important here) bullets to compare these 2 with bullets of similar SD and compare 327's capacity with different bullets as weight was not mentioned in the wildcat.
Well, that's great, even if i still don't get how it works. I'll keep searching but at least here we've got something feasible enough that someone can actually try to replicate instead of just plain theory. If anyone tries this, please tell us about your observations.
From what i dunderstand, steeper shoulder angle allows faster powder burn, so less steep angle might allow burn rate slower than 357SIG that only has 0.1gr less space empty, so it can be loaded with slower powder and not get SIG's piss poor long barrel performance. Still, even if everything else is perfect, i'd strengthen the case to allow pressures of at least 327 magnum levels. 10mm magnum cases could probably do that, how high is its operating pressure?
On the picture shown the bullet seems to be a 100gr one, so if case capacity is with this one then it's not all bad. What weight do you think it is? Pics related are - first is 85, 2 and 3 is 100 and 4th is 115gr.
I still don't get one thing - do bottlenecks increase or decrease case capacity with seated bullets? If it depends on the bullet, at what point does this equation change?
It seems like i've searched through most of the info i could find so now i'll either have to go looking for information on wildcatting or get into reloading software. The first on seems to be pretty hard to find so i'll start looking into all this magic stuff you make predictions with. Does anyone have any suggestions on which program i should pick? Hopefully not something rare, i'll have to torrent it as i can't find any spare money on purely theoretical opportunity within a single hobby for now.
Oops, wrong 2nd pic, here's the correct one
Damn, that's nice. How did it fit in? The cartridge seems to be almost as long as tokarev.
>even if they're considered a bit outdated
SMGs aren't outdated, just misplaced, along with other weapons.
>Within reason, a lot of SMG layouts are almost as concealable as pistols
No, only very few SMGs are wearable and absolutely none are as concealable and compact as all but the largest of pistols. Concealable SMGs are a dead end. Wearable, on the other hand, have their place even if they'd not be as effective as full-sized ones or rifles. It really depends on whether you want to carry it on a sling or on a hip.
>Maybe a more modern, closed bolt design
It was done in a few years after spread of UZI and was called MP5. It became so popular it still is very common despite more interest in short barrel rifles.
>I don't know a ton about the various, uncommon loads but how about just some hot 9mm AP?
It can work but the effectiveness is questionable. Check out the thread, there's some comparisons and examples. I'd prefer lower caliber(.308-.312) high velocity monomaterial pointed spoon tip bullet to have at least some lethality instead of just hardly punching through a piece of armor.
>There's just something that turns me off about using uncommon rounds
Bad idea, almost all rounds that are currenlty in use are horribly outdated. Unfortunately, spread of these rounds makes development and production of new ones a lot less sustainable unless some government agency starts using them.
On your picture it certianly is the cartridge, but i'm unsure if it'd fit in glock. All sources, even manufacturer, clearly state that it is incompatible with any pistols and magazines on the current market, which seems to be a feature they pursue.
Seems like a huge joke, really.
You can get it in 45 and shoot 45 super out of it. You'll get better than 10mm performance. even.
>I'm really hoping the market picks that up and we see caliber conversions/mags and ammo become more and more available
It's proprietary, comes from one manufacturer that also makes the only pistol for it and it costs 7500$. So no, kill it with fire and take its developers with it.
>rowland
The rowland guy is a lying faggot that makes worthless shit with an overpriced tag. His 460 round is nothing but your basic 45 super with lengthened case so that you can only get ammo from this fag. Oh, and he lied about its performance too, it's nowhere near that numbers, just you basic 45super. 960 is probably no different.
Ok, i counted numbers and it seems like lower-pressure 7.92x24 can run in a blowback pistol, it just may have to be loaded down a bit and will have energy similar to 9x18 makarov, the hotter ~300ft-lbs one, and not all blowback pistols might be able to handle it. Makarov more likely could and PMM could probably handle a proper load if it could accept it. It requires 1.5lb bolt for full power(355ft-lbs) load, while 9x19 requires 1.8(can be higher with hotter loads or +p, i used basic federal from wikipedia) and 380 needs 1.2lb. It's a bit unclear about 9x18 because most US ammo is pretty weak and russian sources often lie and contained contradictory information, but overall, it's either 1.4 or 1.5lbs bolt weight. I start liking this round even more, as it can fit in blowback, has variable sizes, good enough in power, has mild recoil and is thinner than 9mm, which can not only allow greater capacity(especially in smaller pistols), but allow double stack pistols to be more concealable.It could even be a proper double stack at that Oh, and it uses 30 carbine brass too, so it doesn't need much changes to implement production. And, as was mentioned it even has AP bullets. The only issue i have with it is its 46K pressure, though i don't know whether it could cause any inconveniences like making +P ammo or something.
Apparently, there's also 380acp length variant, not just 45/9mm ones. Also, my data is for the 9mm version, 45 length might be quite a bit more powerful.
Also, there seems to be very little info about this all VBR stuff(both PDW, round and glock conversion), and i've found a mention that it's because Belgian feds censored them really hard. Their information was quite a bit more informative before, with several sites, youtube videos and such, but almost all has been removed. Videos deleted, site down and even wikipedia pages deleted by someone who suggested they are "unimportant". These pages(that had not much info anyway) only remained in some rare languages like indonesian and in some wikis.
https://archive.li/kPcog
http://www.thefullwiki.org/7.92x24mm
http://www.thefullwiki.org/The_Glock-VBR_7.92_pistol
http://www.warriortalk.com/showthread.php?61774-New-PDW
Paralight that seemed to sell similar ammunition are also down. RIP, Belgian gun manufacturers, one day you'll be avenged with the blood of gun controllers and feds.
I've looked at common pistol calibers long ago and they seemed to divide in a few separate groups, so i took my time and summarized my data and that's what i've found out:
Modern pistol calibers can mostly be divided into three categories:
"From poor to barely enough", including anything from 380 to 9mm+P and up to around 450ft-lbs. I thought that that cited FBI research that found out that 9mm equals 40 and 45 has at least some merit but if it wasn't an outright lie, it was heavily rigged, as even the hottest 9mm+p doesn't reach the energy of 45(not even +P) or 40SW
"Alright" - here's your common defensive ammo, mostly 40SW, 45acp+P and 357SIG, being around 550-600ft-lbs. They are alright.
"Breddy good" - yes, here's your 10mm(though if you're not using hot loads look at 40SW instead) and 45 super, they are a serious step up over those above.
There's place for one more category - Holy smokes, Batman! - including 9x25dillon, 38 casull and 40 super but we're not talking about these
Also, in regards to the use of rounds in straight blowback issue, i've found that most 380 loads need 1.2lb bolt, not including +P(that runs up to 1.38lb), while heavy 9x18+P requires 1.51lb bolt(compared to 1.25 for standard load). It does run fine in makarov, though its life might be more limited. I suppose PMM that has a bit heavier slide and (unnecessary for me) spiral grooves in the chamber that increase friction would fix the problem and allow to run hotter ammo(Such as Russian PMM FMJ that runs 370ft-lbs and requires 1.52lb bolt, though very sharp heavy recoil does cause problems with the round). Our round, as mentioned, requires 1.54lb bolt in its basic configuration(with 360ft-lbs) and can either be downloaded to 330ft-lbs to match the 1.51lb of the not-extremely-terrible +P buffalo bore load, so it certainly can be used in blowback in at least some way. Standard or hotter loads, on the other hand, might require a heavier bolt, though adding 100grams to makarov slide(assuming we're not required to change bolt travel and grip size to accept longer cartridge) is not very hard to do, so this cartridge also has potential to have cheap pistols made for not just from Hi-point. Oh, and by the way, the bolt required to run basic 9mm is 1.9lb - 20% more than our cartridge.
I also really like the idea of backwards compatibility of variants of the cartridge - you can chamber the shorter variants in the guns with longer ones, simplifying logistics. That way, you can have you main pistol in 9mm length, smg in 45 length and staff have 380 length, and SMGs that use most ammo will be able to use all the stuff others use. Imagine if 380 used 9x19 case and pressures, differing only in the depth of seated bullet - you could have same cases, bullets and have compatible rounds, all while having a 380 that's superior to the one we have today.
I know it feels like i'm turning this thread into VBR praise but i honestly can't respect them too much. Not only they discovered an amazing caliber, AP ammo and a great SMG, they actually did research and developed their own FAMAS and G11. No, really. I know that's offtopic but check these out. It could actually be a non-shitty FAMAS, or not over-engineered Belgian meme magic? They had a handgun that was designed to look as a fucking revolver. Really, Belgian guns are probably my most favorite - FAL, FNC, VBR creations, Browning designs. Too bad FN kinda sucks nowadays and other companies are regulated into oblivion.
I basically moved the shoulder forward by the length of it, without changing other dimensions like the base or the rim. I also extended case length to match that of 10mm, so now it has longer neck. It's OAL is now that of 10mm as well, so it won't fit in 9mm frame. It was designed to give the case more capacity to actually match 357mag ballistics, at least from shorter barrels, as 357SIG uses hotter loads to match milder ones in its predecessor. The difference is not a lot but it's there.
Case head is unchanged, though it could be changed to accept other type of primers if that seems useful. The pressures are the same as that of 10mm, though it's possible to use tougher brass for higher pressures at the cost of some capacity. Given its generous amount, it could be an improvement. I didn't really look into 10mm magnum a lot, there's not much info.
>How long is the new cartridge compared to original .357 SIG?
It's larger and a bit more powerful due to greater capacity and ability to higher seat bullet. It could also possibly offer better than poor 357SIG's long barrel performance. I wanted it to be a middle ground between 357SUG and 9x25mm dillon, which is more powerful but generates too uncomfortable muzzle blast to use in a pistol(as if it was a rifle cartridge). Dillon does have similar dimensions but it's basically 357SIG lengthened in the body - its neck and bottleneck are the same length and dimensions.
There's been a guy that formed 357SIG DIRECTLY out of 10mm, so it only had longer neck and his performance was already pretty good, but i designed this one before i found that, and i still think that mine would perform greater from longer barrels while being probably slightly more powerful that 357mag from short barrel. You can check my graphs here, they describe velocity gain from different barrels for different calibers.
Wanted to correct myself: the cartridge would probably me close or better than 10mm, not on the level of 357SIG.
The purpose of the cartridge was to copy 357 magnum performance in an autoloader without it being too big and having at least some long-barrel performance. Now i've kinda changed the scope and picked another caliber but this one is also alright, along with other ones mentioned.
There's one more thing about 357SIG i've found out - it's either misunderstanding on my side or a fucking scam. 357mag is most popular in revolvers with 4" barrels, which is what most think of when they hear 357 revolver. The problem is, the actual barrel length, if measured as in pistols, is ~6" because of retarded regulations. What follows this is 357magnum is thought of in terms of its power from 6" barrel, not 4", and that's a significant difference that puts it in a whole another category because its gains from barrel lengths are greater than almost any other pistol cartridge. Basically, 357 magnum is equal to 10mm from 6" but 40SW from 4". 357SIG replicates magnum's performance from actual 4" barrel, which equals to a 2.75" snub nose revolver, and while it almost accomplishes what it claims, it highly relies on speculation from this misunderstanding.
I've already mentioned how 357SIG doesn't seem to be much of an improvement over 40SW in theory, even if it's generally loaded hotter, so that's another point towards it being a letdown.
The two drawings on the top are 10mm and 357SIG for reference, 2nd row is the same but without the numbers, down left comparison is them altogether and right one is a finished cartridge with a more aerodynamic bullet. The case heads might differ a bit but probably don't matter as they all are the same family and their parts are interchangeable iirc.
>the SIG claim is that it can replicate the performance of a 4“ barrel revolver out of a 4" barrel autoloader
They don't specify which way is their revolver barrel measured, so it could be that they were talking about 2.75" barrel revolver, using a correct measurement method.
>isn't it in effect replicating the performance of 6" of revolver out of a 4" barrel?
Absolutely not. It struggles to match 357mag from a 4"(measured to the breech face, like autoloaders do) barrel and, as i mentioned before, 357 magnum gains a lot more from longer barrels even when compared to other magnum cartridges. From 4" both SIG and magnum have around 600ft-lbs of energy, with the first having 20 more for the hottest loads available, while from 6" barrel SIG gains 70ft-lbs, while magnum gains 200, matching 10mm auto in terms of power. It's really got unusually high gains from longer barrel.
So, to sum up, 357SIG is a misunderstanding at best and a lie and speculation at worst. It still a pretty good defensive ammo that shoots flatter and with less recoil than 40SW, and has hotter loads in general and slightly more powerful(like 40ft-lbs) hot ones due to higher operating pressures.
>Also, still reading through the whole thread, but what's the cartridge of choice at the moment?
For now i've rejected 9mm caliber because despite the great commonality and bullet selection it would have too much recoil for desired velocities and sectional densities, albeit with more power. Something like aforementioned 357 auto could have 357-sih performance from 6" barrel and lose less from 4", while retaining more gain from longer ones than most pistol cartridges, allowing efficient use in SMGs as well but it'd have the recoil of 357 magnum which, while ok in rifles, is a bit problematic in pistols, especially autoloaders that lend themselves for more rapid shooting than revolvers. It probably could be changed by using lighter bullets but they'd lose SD and limit expanding ammo options so much that it's easier to pick a new one.
I've stopped at 327 magnum as a golden standard - it's performance is in the better half of the 530-600ft-lbs defensive ammo(read:40sw or mild 10mm, 45+p, 357SIG, 2.75" 357mag) while recoiling "slightly more than mp shield" in a revolver, which means that it'd recoil even less in an autoloader. But wait, there's more - it almost matches 30 carbine from similar barrel lengths and doing that with as little as 19gr case capacity, compared to 21.4gr for 10mm, for example. I didn't choose smaller caliber because i fear that'd require longer bullets that'd increase OAL more, though i'm uncertain on this matter due to lack of dedicated research of this topic. I've found someone actually designing a similar cartridge with dedicated software but i don't know how to use that and have no equipment so it stays still for now. >>640898
Right now i was further researching internal ballistics and cleaning up my notes, filling the empty space with averages and will soon post cleaned-up and more wholesome graphs.
Here they are, if you want some of them sorted some other way in another chart, feel free to tell me.
And my research was about terminal ballistics, not internal, i've mistaken again.
It was on topic of efficiency of higher velocity bullets in damaging tissue compared to heavier ones and how can they compare when using different bullet types. Basically, what if we're using a lighter bullet with the same energy and slower expansion to achieve similar penetration and performance. From what i've found, it is possible to achieve similar performance with some differences. I've tried searching for similar in energy examples like 10mm/357mag, 556/44mag, 556/30 carbine, 9mm+p/tokarev but there was almost no ballistic data and what was there was incomprehensible due to differences in ballistic gel everyone was using. The only somewhat consistent source were schematics like pics related, and there were very few of those. That was until i stumbled upon several 308 graphs. This round did have common energy with another one i had - 45/70 but i wasn't sure about that. Happily, there was 12ga slug graph that not only had a round with equal energy, but identical penetration as well. From that point, things started to make sense - the cartridges have similar energy, penetrate the same length and one of them moves at substantially slower velocity than another. So we've got to look at the graphs and determine what's the difference. Well, the difference is that slower bullet created smaller temporary cavity but greater permanent one. Both bullets seem to hold together rather well and from my observations it seems like fragmentation is the only way to "lose" energy, otherwise it'll be converted in either temporary or permanent cavity. The bullets do have different starting diameter but it seems that this correlation remains the same - you have slower bullet that transforms less energy into smaller temp cavity and faster one that loses it more quickly. So, to increase our temp cavity and limit penetration we use expanding ammo, reaching a certain distance of penetration, but if we use a bullet with expansion coefficient viable for slower bullet as a faster one it'll lose its energy more quickly and underpenetrate, so we have to use a bullet with smaller expansion coefficient. This results in less expansion but greater temporary cavity due to more rapid loss of energy that results in a sharper, taller "wave", rather than more prolonged and thin one of the slower bullet. Basically, lighter bullet "pushes" tissue away more and heavier bullet crushes and "pulls" it while losing energy.
So, it can be done and high velocity cartridges absolutely can deliver similar performance to slower and heavier ones and their underpenetration issues can be solved with proper bullet selection, resulting in greater area that can damage internal organs and weaker tissue. It's still more technologically problematic to design tougher expanding ammo that can hold together at these extreme velocities without losing expansion. Hunters, how important is temporary cavity compared to just bigger holes? Shouldn't the first one be more damaging to stuff like lung tissue?
I've also found another core problem that added to 5.56's bad reputation - not only its FMJ ammo doesn't perform well(as understood by anyone but military)but its expanding ammo does tend to break up and lose substantial part of its weight in tissue, resulting in loss of performance. My 3rd picture shows that fragmented ammo did create almost as little temporary cavity as non-fragmented one from significantly(14.5" vs 8.3") shorter barrel and almost 300ft-lbs less energy.
Interestingly, tumbling bullets tend to create slightly narrower temporary cavity(i think it's also different from different angles due to bullet flapping only 1 way, while HP expands on all sides, so there could be more inconistency) and penetrate more, acting like a very inconsistent and temporarily-expanding(and by not much too) bullet.
>So the implication is that you always want your bullet to stay in one piece if possible, yes?
That would be true if the bullet always stayed in target. It does not and i didn't mention the other way of losing energy - by it escaping the body.
>does this suggest that it's better for an FMJ round to stay in one piece and tumble rather than fragment?
It really depends. Both wounding mechanisms are not very good or reliable and most examples of them are only doing either of those occasionally and sometimes require both(like NATO ammo needs to tumble to fragment). I'd say that dedicated fragmenting rounds are slightly inferior to dedicated tumbling ones - they do seem to generate similar temporary cavity but fragmenting rounds generate big local permanent one while tumbling round will have better penetration, so i'd pick the latter, but that applies only to dedicated rounds like fragmenting ammo(not FMJ that occasionally can do it) and 7N6 5.45 bullet that has hollow nose that makes it tumble almost instantly. Then again, i'd probably pick 556 soft point that technically fragments over 5.45 that tumbles. Or maybe not. There's really a lot of variables and so few examples of properly performing ammo that i'd stay away from either until the situation where i don't have to choose. I can say for sure that a frangible exploding is better than an icepick, so FMJ without a dedicated tumbling mechanism is the absolutely the worst choice.
I wouldn't mind to see some testing done with the ammo that tumbles like 7N6 and stays solid vs the same ammo that fragments like M855. I really don't know which one would be better. I'd bet fragmenting one would make a slightly nastier wound couldn't the military just decide to go this way for no reason, right? and tumbling one would have more penetration and a secondary "wave" like 5.45 on pic related.
>dedicated expansion (SP)
I'd say "controlled expansion", as in it's optimized how much energy you dump in the tissue over penetration while having maximum weight and therefore energy retention.
>dedicated tumbling (7n6 spoontip)
Or dedicated fragmentation, as in 556 JSP because they can't make them tough enough
>incidental fragment/tumble (FMJ)
They rarely work and this tumbling is natural to any spitzer bullet, so it's mostly the same icepick FMJ. As seen on the graphs, basic ball does start to tumble over time, it's just too late most of the time to do anything.
And on topic of fragmentation aftr accidental tumbling, i'm unsure it really does anything besides greater permanent cavity, especially as it depends on how did the bullet fragment and therefore how ineffective it may be. It could improve things, or it could worsen them, it probably doesn't matter at the time it works anyway, so these should be treated like a basic FMJ.
I do think tumbling ammo has more use too. It could be used as either a low-expanding ammo(temporary-expanding, technically) so it might have some application in hunting and these spoon tip bullets definitely have application in AP ammo as it's an easy way to straight up improve their performance at little loss. Tumbling ammo does almost icepicking permanet cavity though, so its potential for bleeding out might be less than the bigger and more gaping hole of the fragmenting one. Or maybe the surface of the bullet turned sideways is enough, who knows.
>what would the pistol companion to this sub gun be?
Doesn't really matter that much. Our potential cartridge won't go beyond 10mm/45 length and so will fit in modern pistols just fine. The model in question is somewhat out of scope of SMG thread. I've too got some ideas, though.
>(gas?) delayed blowback
Yeah, i like the gas delayed blowback in pistols too as they are already oriented on semi-auto shooting anyway. I really dislike gas ports and such, though, just don't trust them, so for a more durable "military" pistol rather than general purpose sidearm i'd probably prefer either lever or roller delayed blowback, if properly designed. Here are pictures of Korriphila and Benelli B76, they use these systems.
>a fixed barrel for accuracy and easier feeding
And simpler manufacturing due to less moving parts. I really dislike the moving barrel short recoil systems.
>dual-feed magazines
Yeah, i've always told that's the way to go and the only real reason it's not done is because of stagnant industry that cannot innovate one bit and is built on faggotry around brand names.
>SMG compatibility
I'd prefer using dedicated mags, longer curved ones have more reliability and offer more flexibility in design. They could also be designed quad stack for a lot greater capacity, like that Sites SPECTRE in the OP.
>Steyr GB
I dunno, i've heard that it runs very dirty and requires a unique barrel which i dislike so it's not really perfect. Other than that, there's little info on it too.
For the gas delayed system, i very much like HK P7 gas system, it seems like a better design for me. It also uses slightly modified barrel as a spring guide rod, which is nice. There's already been Vektor CP1 and Valther CCP that use that system and it seems to be working pretty well.
>Why not give the GB a polymer frame
Maybe, generally not much of an issue. Walther CCP does that.
>a picatinny rail
It's just an accessory.
I'd like to reuse makarov FCG for its simplicity, just mate it with P7 gas system and larger frame with double stack mag.
Oh, and also add polygonal rifling to the mix.
I've been looking at performance of the tumbling 308 on the 4th pic and the 12ga slug and they do seem quite similar in terms of temp cavity, except slug has it closer to enter and has a lot bigger permanent cavity, so i wonder where does the energy of the 308 go? Could it be that my premise that you only lose energy by fragmentation is incorrect? The 308 does have almost twice the penetration and could have had lost energy before it started tumbling. Still, on my last pic there are the 3rd and 5th rounds that have same energy, almost the same penetration and still the latter deals significantly more damage and i'm unsure why could that be. Could it be that the lighter bullet has lost more energy before tumbling than heavy before expanding? Or that their data wasn't correctly showing and tumbling bullet has dealt greater damage if we look at it from the top? There seems to be some kind of inefficiency hidden within tumbling bullets, are there any anons who knows physics that might help me out with that?
Please, read the thread.
Well, aside from disadvantages of gas systems with their tubes, gas ports and such, i don't the intertwined nature of such systems, they all have to be too fitted together and have all these spaces, grooves and cavities inside that i don't really trust. That's why i like blowback systems - they don't require you to modify the barrel, keep pieces isolated, separate and simple, so that you can approach the weapon part by part and fit or overview any of the elements separately. Maybe it's irrational but i just don't find gas systems as trustworthy.
>Since blowback bolts just rest against the breach with no real locking mechanism holding them in place, they have a less consistent lock-up, which lends itself to worse accuracy
Incorrect. Roller delayed blowback is the most accurate automatic system there is. Aslo, any blowback operation can have one thing a gas system never will - free floating barrel.
>this reflected in the precision of ARs
AR is nothing special. It tries to mitigate recoil impulse but that's all there is to it, and does a shitty job overall due to it shitting in the receiver. And don't get me started on straight magwell or buffer tube inside the stock. AR18 is a lot better design.
>you can get sub-MOA performance out of the box from a $600 rifle
That depends on the market condition, not the design. There's just a lot more AR barrels so the prices are low. Even a shitty AK would do the same if you out a quality barrel on it.
>As for gas-delayed blowback, I think it can be especially useful in pistols
Yes, if i strangle my deep irrational hatred fro gas systems then gas delayed blwoback is the perfect system - low recoil, few parts, simple operation, good reliability, versatility in ammo, accuracy, even ease of manufacture, probably.
>Seeing as the pistol rounds this project is using are on the hotter side
If you read the last parts of the thread you'll find that i've gone away from 9mm caliber and 9x25 dillon clones, and chose 312 caliber and 327mag as a standard to strive for, and this cartridge is noted for being pretty light, i'm almost sure it'll shoot as softly as 9x19 in semi auto, definitely nothing too snappy. I've also mentioned another cartridge as an alternative to 9x19 - 7.92x24, which does everything the former but better - capacity, recoil, velocity, energy, penetration, you name it. And it works in straight blowback pistols, requiring the slide 25% less heavy than a 9mm.
To clarify the info on 327mag(the best load) - it recoils at 5.58ft-lbs from a 1.97lb revolver, while 9mm(standard 115gr load, nothing +p) recoils 5.2 from 1.5lb gun, that's without counting "felt recoil", just bare calculated numbers. Because our cartridge is bottlenecked it'd create greater blowback energy but i doubt that matters for the recoil, given a properly designed handgun. Low-recoil loads can have as low as 3ft-lbs recoil, which is lower than standard 9mm load from a 2lb gun(3.8ft-lbs).
Oh, and the revolver weights 1.87lb, that was a typo.
>But isn't the lock-up less consistent?
I dunno, probably not. I could see that as an issue with open bolt guns that were blowback, i could see that as an issue with less attention to accuracy in design, i could see some other delayed blowbacks moving a bit more but roller-delayed blowback is pretty solid, it almost "locks" the bolt from moving while the bolt slides these rollers out, while lever and especially straight blowback bolts move constantly, even if delayed. Of the semi auto rifles, i think SVD and PSG1 are the most accurate for each operating system and the latter is definitely a winner here.
>What would the approximate dimensions be of an auto cartridge with similar performance to .327?
Around this much >>640898
>the case is both shorter and narrower than .37 mag
Yes, its length is that of 38spl but it's thinner, which allows it additional capacity in revolvers, like 6 instead of 5 in small frames.
>a slightly lengthened 9mm
38 super doesn't have enough case capacity to offer desirable results. 10mm auto case was chosen for more capacity and flexibility. Check out the thread slightly before the linked post, there's some info of case capacity and similar stuff.
Yeah, i mentioned it in "versatility in ammo" part.
>An SMG shtick is controllable full auto fire, which the MP5 isn't anything great compared to many others including much older designs.
ROF of 550 vs 800, duh. If HK reduced that, and they absolutely can, it'd be a marvelous design. And Beretta can't fire 10mm, because the virgin straight blowback vs the Chad Kraut/Hungarian magic and an SMG in 9mm is pretty pathetic for anything other than saving moneys.
Well, i've heard some things and read yt comments that make me believe it was. I remember it having a problem of increased wear because it's not really designed for that. It got less popular because it's easier to train new coplings with 9mm, as well as general disregard for effectiveness and widespread of 5.56 guns.
Alright, i've finally found some data on 9x25 dillon. It seems like the cartridge is getting more attention.
I was using info on 125gr underwood load, so it's actual an not theoretical one, that could show greater results. Also, 9x25 performs better with lighter bullets so expect greater results for 90gr loads.(they could get as much as 80ft-lbs from the same barrel)
At first, it confused me that most data on 9x25 dillon was for 6" barrel so i assumed it as being a step up in power over 10mm and such, which it's actually not. Now that i've got info for at least approximate graph i can tell that for sure. It's still something very unusual for autopistol cartridges.
For the data i have, 9x25 dillon is almost identical to 357 magnum for most barrel lengths(that's less difference than between 327mag and 30 carbine). It has very similar velocity gains for same barrel lengths, similar energy, with very slight advantage at shorter lengths and slower gains from longer ones, but all these differences are very small(10-20ft-lbs at 4", ~50ft-lbs at 9" and probably around 100 at 16, though i'm unsure about the last one). It beats 45 super at 11" when it clearly was a step up in power at 4", and its parent cartridge, 10mm, only beats it to 6" barrels, significantly falling behind afterwards. The downside is, like 357mag, that the round has less energy from 4" barrel, being only slightly more powerful than 357SIG. That's a pretty big issue because, even if we disregard the problems with blast and flash(i've heard that they can be mitigated by using a faster powder here, i'll look into that later), handguns, unlike revolvers, don't really go that well with longer barrels, significantly growing in size so the great boosts in performance are somewhat limited. Not much of an issue if used primarily in a long gun though.
The effective range of the gun would probably be around 200m for the rifle. I've got no calculators on hand and didn't really look into external ballistics but i know that even with 90gr from a 6" pistol it retains half of its energy(400ft-lbs) at 100m, so even a handgun can shoot and kill up to around 120m and with heavier bullets from a rifle, as well as better sights it might even be extended over to 200m, which is a very good mark, even somewhat competitive to intermediate cartridge rifles. Pointed bullets could probably help retain some energy over 357mag or at least compensate for that long barrel disadvantage.
I expect the recoil to be similar to 357 magnum minus the pistol dampening it, and certainly less than 10mm, though it might require heavier recoil spring.
Also, for reloaders out there, i suggest trying soft point bullets, they would probably be more efficient than fragmenting/exploding HPs at this point. Too bad the bullets for this are .355, not .357 diameter, this round could really use those.
Alright, so with the data on hands i can say that the decision to pick a smaller than 9mm caliber was a correct one - the bullets don't really have enough sectional density to make it to longer ranges. Don't get me wrong, 357mag or dillon are still very solid choices for a carbine but they still are somewhat suboptimal and can be improved with modern technology.
I've picked 1m(around 40") drop as the maximum allowed for maximum range, while energy is still undecided and less important i think, as getting hit by a 22 is still worse than missed by a 44 and suppressive fire can also be sent downrange with less calculation and precision. I think 300ft-lbs might be an ok mark. Sure, it won't kill immediately but a lung shot with expanding ammo would hinder one's ability to fight significantly, likely resulting in death anyways over time if he doesn't get help. Immediate stop is also less important because of the range between you, while if it's closer you've got a lot more of it. 30 carbine fits pretty well in this standard, with its average load(1990fps110gr/967ft-lbs, i'm using buffalo bore with additional 100fps in my graphs) has 600ft-lbs at 100m and, when zeroes at this distance, has 13.5" drop and 1236fps/370ft-lbs at 200 and 28" at 250. The energy might be somewhere around 150ft-lbs and it becomes subsonic somewhere around there so it's the maximum range, and 250m is really pretty good for a wide array of purposes, given that 223(1280ft-lbs, hot load) has 27" drop and 420ft-lbs energy at 400m and 52" drop and 311ft-lbs at 500, having 450m effective range as per my standard. 7.62x39(1500ft-lbs) has even less having 40" drop and the same 420ft-lbs energy at 400m, resulting in something like 350m range. Given those numbers, it does seem like an improvement to go with high-velocity ammo, though the heavier weight and larger caliber of the latter greatly impact terminal ballistics so the general conclusion may differ.
Back on topic of pistol cartridges, our 357 magnum, which i'll be using because there's more data on it, we have a 158gr load with 1830fps/1175ft-lbs(though energy can be better for 125gr loads) that reduces to 1138fps/454ft-lbs, along with 21" drop at 200m, going subsonic immediately after that and the drop being 39"at 250, which is almost below the maximum too, so we're basically losing almost 50m of range here. I'll look at that 140gr bullet though, it would probably fit better for the test.
So, this whole comparison was to show that despite 357 magnum being significantly(200ft-lbs) more powerful than 30 carbine, yet the former's effective range is same if not worse than the latter.
Ok, so i got a decent ballistic calculator(thanks Hornady, you're great) and, using 140gr corbon data from BBTI with theoretical Hornady's 140gr Leverevolution bullets that they were kind enough to tell BC for i've got 1248ft-lbs/2004fps at the muzzle and 1133fps/400ft-lbs and 27" drop at 250m, so our favorite round has slightly more range than 30 carbine standard load, provided we're using something relative to spitzer bullets like leverevolution soft tip and using the hot load that Corbon uses, not Hornady in their ammo. So my conclusion was correct, as even if we'd not consider the speed of sound the drop at 300m would be more than 40".
I've also just calculated the same data for best 125gr loads and they seem to have similar maximum range, which is interesting, as they have basically the same(~2" less actually) drop and velocity, losing only 50ft-lbs(350 here) in energy, which is not really much, so the bullet selection might better be based on terminal ballistics, rather than external ones.
Alright, the last bit of info before i go to sleep. The information about loudness of the Dillon seems over exaggerated and probably comes from comparison to other pistol cartridges by people unfamiliar with revolvers, as well as the earlier loads being intentionally developed with slower powders to power compensators, now it's less of an issue. I've found a clear statement that the flash and noise for the cartridge are an almost exact copy of 357 magnum, which makes sense.
Still, there seems to be another general problem with high-power ammo that i didn't notice before - the noise. it may not seem like much, but cartridges like 357 magnum and Dillon, as well as 10mm and 357SIG are a step up in terms of flash and noise over weaker ammo like 9mm and, especially the first two, can very easily cause hearing damage when fired without protection(even when outdoors), which is what happens in a defensive situation. That's not to say that other rounds are hearing safe but these are more likely to cause that. I ignored noise as mostly irrelevant and it is for rifles, but for defensive pistols that's another story. Of course, saving one's life is always better than becoming deaf but it's something that should be avoided if possible. In this regard, our "universal" cartridges have a disadvantage, though people have been using 357mag for a while so it's certainly possible and works.
Looking up 9x25 dillon loads, i've stumbled upon the extreme defender solid copper bullets that Underwood uses. While generally regarded as gimmicks, i found mentions of their very light 9mm bullet that allowed 357sig to reach dillon velocities(2kfps) from a shorter barrel, which i found interesting, as its performance overlapped with the topic of my previous research on terminal ballistics, specifically the performance of lighter bullets with similar energy in tissue and optimization of bullet construction for them.
Monomaterial bullets like this one are interesting not only because, like its creators mentioned, it works more reliably compared to HPs sometimes clogging, but also offering the advantages of non-expanding projectiles like 100% weight retention, greater barrier penetration and lack of limitations of hollow point technology like ability to hold together at higher velocities, manufacturing costs, predictable expansion, etc.
While looking at extreme defender i found another variable that presumably impacts the effectiveness of the bullet the concentration of the bullet channel in a small area, as more small wound channels would close up faster. The bullets shows pretty impressive performance in ballistic gel, especially for a non-expanding projectile and, while isn't a complete joke like RIP, it does create these wound channels in gel due to cavities in it. These channels , while reaching wider than hollow point and creating a picture of greater damage, do that by making the wound channel less uniform, as you have a cross instead of impulse and expansion in all sides. That could explain the problems with tumbling rounds - they also create more narrow, vertical wound channels, rather than circular ones of expanding ammo. Still better than nothing we have today, especially for ammo that has to hold together like AP.
While looking at this ammo i've recalled another similr type of ammo that i didn't really look at - French THV and similar construction ammo. It's interesting in that it uses hollow base weirdly shaped bullets propelled at really high velocities(again, 2kfps but now for standard pressure 9mm), resulting in a round with a lighter recoil, armor-piercing capabilities and flat trajectory. it also produces a larger muzzle flash which makes me think that heavier bullets use poweder slightly more efficiently because of their slower speed that they spend more time in the barrel, making the powder burn longer as well. It's not a great difference but it becomes notable when you cut projectile weight more than in half(47gr?). Interestingly, ballistically it functions like an opposite of a hollow point - these inward curves result in a high drag coefficient of the bullet that, along with low SD and high velocity of the bullet makes it transfer its energy quite quickly, resulting in very little penetration, maybe even too little for good performance. The graph i've found also shows the bullet dumping its energy very rapidly, with little left to generate temp cavity later, albeit it compares it with 5.7 after they went through IIIa armor, but that's the best i've got. Still, i think it has potential as you could easily decrease the drag coefficient of the bullet, as opposed to increasing it, so could the bullet have more penetration and slower energy transfer for a less sharp temp cavity "wave"?
These bullets are actually used by several countries' police and such where HPs are not in use or prohibited, though there's little info on that.FED's work? And South Africa actually produces and develops these kinds of bullets, with even rifle ammo examples, though i don't think there's much use for those.
Does anyone have any info on those rounds? I've only got some velocity/energy and pictures, as well as descriptions of the performance that are pretty similar to varmint loads - i.e. pretty much explosive, high impulse and very rapid energy transfer. What could be downsides of such ammo, aside from terrible external ballistics, assuming we've got the software that automatically designs bullets with low enough drag coefficient to achieve desired penetration for a certain load? Could that be the same as with light high-vel hollow points, i.e. rapid expansion and greater temp cavity at the front compared to less steep and more prolonged cavity of a heavier one, as it spreads its energy into the cavity more evenly?
http://www.quarryhs.co.uk/THV.htm
>357 sig
Little gains from barrel length
>9.25 dillon
Best choice without resorting to unpopular wildcats
>7.5fk
These guys can go fuck themselves with their forced proprietary incompatibility. While their round does offer more energy than 9x25 dillon at range, the difference is insignificant and totally not worth both the proprietary caliber and an overall length designed specifically to not fit in any current handgun besides their shitty overpriced useless chunk of metal.
Also
>AR
>In pistol caliber
Except there are none. The only company that produces the ammo also has a patent on it and produces the pistol, and it sure as hell will sue into oblivion anyone who tries to prevent its blatant cash grab.
Seems like just another victim of the NIH syndrome for the 5.7/4.6mm pea shooters.
Thanks, i remember seeing it but totally forgot about it afterwards. This one seems pretty nice, though i'd not use it in 30 carbine over soft points because of increased drag.
>The extra brass length isnt needed, it just prevents you chambering and firing a .460/.960 in the lower pressure chamber of a .45acp/9mm luger weapon.
And most importantly, allows that guy to earn some really great money for selling rare brass and his own loads for what essentially can be done with a common standard one. The same thing with 45 super and 460 rowland - same shit but 460 is only available from this happy merchant, both brass, loads and barrels, if we're talking ready solutions.
>Even higher chamber pressures could help to push a light solid copper bullet into .357sig velocity territory
Velocity alone doesn't really matter - its impact on energy is where it's at. 9mm +p+ goes up to around 500ft-lbs and that's the most it's capable of and is certainly above optimal pressures for the guns that were designed for it.
Ok, so non-expanding high-drag bullets seem to work pretty well. Compared to hollow points in terms of terminal ballistics, these seem to have more flexibility as they cannot break up or tear themselves apart in tissue, nor can they clog up. HPs have a theoretical advantage of being able to expand slower as they go through tissue, resulting in a more gradual energy distribution but generally they do not and expand pretty fast and it'd be very expensive and hard to design them otherwise. High-drag bullets also have another limitation - they depend on velocity more than HPs, with fast energy transfer bullets requiring to be light ones, while HPs are less weight dependent.
Overall i think they could have their place in pistol rounds and could even possibly improve their effectiveness or at least their versatility in terms of barrier and armor penetration. Other than that, i can't say much more due to lack of knowledge in physics in general and terminal ballistics in particular. If HPs main purpose is to increase their drag coefficient and dump energy in the target then high-drag bullets could do that out of the box, creating greater temp cavity in the process as they don't expand and spend less on permanent one. If HPs do something else, then i don't really know. For external ballistics that come in play at SMG levels already, these bullets aren't really great due to their high drag, so here expanding ammo will still be best, though we can expect technological improvements over current basic soft points in the future, be it more controllably expanding HPs, more weight retention or something else, as modern soft points do tend to lose some weight while expanding and are given less attention and are more crude and simple only because rifles have a lot more energy and so greater loss of it is less noticeable than in handguns.
And here's some battle footage.
Yeah, they are produced, though soft points in pistol rounds are generally not that good to to lack of expansion, though i'd like to see 90gr 9x25 dillon soft point. There were some but they are mostly fragmenting if they're light, by design.
They are not entirely shit, though they are kind of exploiting the gel properties to create greater cavity, i've explained their mechanism right here >>647382 .
Probably, but he was testing the effectiveness of the bullets and simulating a defensive scenario.
I found one more type of high-drag ammo - the Devel bullet. It was developed by Charles Kelsey right before he was murdered and during his company's downfall and bankruptcy, which is kinda strange and sad story in itself. I haven't looked into much info on that but it seems he made plenty of interesting investments, even having some of them stolen/copied later. If someone knows more on his creations, feel free to post them for us to appreciate the works of this great man.
As for the bullet, it seems like a THV but has 5 rigidity ribs that make the bullet's profile closer to conventional one. That was done to improve feeding, which was one of the problems in designing THV as well as greater rigidity and barrier penetration. The bullet was also made from compressed copper and nickel(?) and not machined, like THV. It was also less extreme in its weight, being only slightly lighter than normal bullets(12gr .45 instead of 160-200gr, compared to what, 60gr THV?). Only muzzleloader bullet was sold and only .45 one was developed before his death. These bullets' profile would indeed improve feeding without changing the THV profile, aside from these ribs and it seems like the bullet would perform similarly to THV, except that it would be more conventional in terms of weight, wouldn't penetrate ballistic vests(due to larger surface area too) and would probably be less effective than THV in terms of drag due to ribs obstructing the wave path. On the downside, the bullet was prone to tumbling when it entered the tissue, which may be either result of lack of stabilization or just a construction flaw, as i think that tumbling is less desirable than straight movement with high-drag side forward, though it could be pretty good at the start and behave slightly better than FMJ after it has started tumbling. It looks similar to lehigh bullets but this one has straight ridges, while the latter was designed to concentrate the energy outwards in a more concentrated manner, which would create greater visible trail in gel but less severe and quicker closing wounds(its "cuts" were thinner and longer and so clog up faster, presumably), while Devel retains the overall profile of the THV and therefore the angle is more wide and is straight outwards, creating more uniform wounds. This one also has an advantage of being cheap, unlike the machined THVs or even more complex and advanced shaped lehigh.
I like the design, though i'd prefer some other ways to improve feeding, like monad plastic caps(though without the tip changes) or even gluing/inserting plastic ribs akin to Devel on top of the bullet to improve feeding, while allowing the optimal shape without wider tip that can get compressed or obstructions that would interfere with stability of the bullet. It's not optimal for mass production, though, and Devel is more fit for this purpose.
https://patents.google.com/patent/US5116224
http://docshare.tips/devel-ammunition-english-translation_5888243ab6d87f735a8b481e.html
On a side note, could anyone happen to have a PDF, scan, copy or anything else related to the book named "Pistol Caliber Penetrators" by Matthew Collins? It'd be very much appreciated.
Here's some more pictures of the Devel bullets.
I've found reports of muzzleloader shooters that said that this bullet was very accurate but they were somewhat conflicting. Some said its performance was great, though not in much detail, while i've seen one mention of it being poor performer, though it was next to claim that it didn't expand(which it shouldn't, duh), so it might be misinformed. I've also heard that bullets' creator reported that their manufacturer fucked up the dimensions, which can very well be true, as its inward curve is very important in increasing drag, which is why some bullets could perform like lighter flat nose FMJs.
http://www.namlhunt.com/all-things-ml.html#
Another interesting observation - lehigh bullet seems to have similar penetration both in 9mm P and +P configuration, with the same bullet weight and construction, differing only in wound channel. An interesting property of the bullets, i wonder is it applies to other high-drag designs as well, as HPs can work very differently at different velocities.
Dunno about pistol rounds but this demonstration showed greater potential for overpenetration than shotgun. I think it depends on the ammo - if yours is made well than it'll hold together better so you can even beat FMJ/hardcast pistol rounds, probably.
>bullet that isn't as high drag as older, superior, simpler designs
It's not though, not only THV bullets are similar in construction to hollow-base wadcutters(except they have the weird point, the base is still trying to be flat) but because of their concave shaped point they concentrate pressure at one point(or circular are, to be more precise), resulting in higher drag. Wadcutters and SWCs also generally were just lead and so expanded more when entering tissue, unlike these bullets that do not.
Here's the test of such bullet, it lacks the drag of a HP or THV https://invidio.us/watch?v=vpM6LICK4hs , even though the penetration is pretty good. He might be also using a weak load in the weak caliber but it mostly doesn't expand and performs similarly to a hardcast flat point that we find in some loads today, though these are more focused on penetration. Lead also holds worse at higher speeds so hollow base wadcutters are kinda limited in that regard.
>>648181
I've mostly been looking info on this topic in case of these rounds, reading their descriptions in the process and figuring things out. For others, i've also mostly looked into the info on them and got the general things in the process of figuring all the mess that was created. I've found BBTI to be extremely useful in case of comparison and evaluation of specific rounds. I have a table with the info structured in one place and try to fill it in when i'm looking at a new caliber. That is a lot more precise and useful than comparing just velocity or even energy from manufacturers' or load data, as both can be and often vary greatly depending on the barrel length.
External ballistics is pretty easy with modern calculators, the hardest part is to find BC of a bullet, after than you just fill few positions and voila - you have the data. It's just a bit time consuming at times, so i haven't looked much into that for rifle calibers(nor do i have the filled data on them like previously described).
Terminal ballistics is very tricky, there's much more variables, as well as controversy, often with field doctors instead of physical scientists being the most reputable source. A while agolike a year and a half i've started with reading page on wikipedia about ballistics after reading a discussion about the calibers. I didn't give it much thought but later i've found more interest in this topic and after reading several discussions and even downloadingthough i'm still too lazy to read them, prefer shorter articles, maybe one day a few books i've started getting attracted to the topic. After some more threads, even one that i created as a general ballistics thread, i've found Paul Harrell's channel and learned from that quite a lot(i sometimes watch some of his videos when i'm bored now, even though they wouldn't really tell me much new or useful info) and got a general glimpse of what was going on. I've also found this site a while ago and it has some pretty logical info that i had an easier time to grasp, even if it was biased and shilled one-sided position quite often. I still suggest to check it out, just filter nitpicking and shilling for shot placement by limiting recoilprotip, recoil has things to do with consecutive shots and sights acquisition, not "accuracy", which Paul also demonstrates well in one of his videos it's pretty good and i still agree with him on topic of general purpose rifle cartridges. Here http://abesguncave.com/stopping-power-the-simple-truth-of-terminal-ballistics/ , there are some alright, if a bit dated guides for AR building as well.
>>648181
After than i for some time lurked and helped people in QTTDTOT and then created this thread. During its progression i've had to learn and explore some of more specific topics and gather all this data which kind of gave me an overview of the general picture of what's going on in addition to what i already had a glimpse of. During my research ITT i've visited some forums and watched some gel tests and such but they were more important for helping to get an intuitive grasp of what's going on, while the hard data was mostly from manufacturers, wikis and BBTI. Most of the research was posted here and can be tracked as i get rid of some misconceptions.
As for weird bullets like THV, these were mostly some mentions, 2 gel tests and many unbacked opinions, so in case of this weird ammo i've kinda managed to intuitively understand the mechanism after all that, mostly relying on assumtions about the intention of the type of bullet and then assuming that these certain traits would aid in that(i.e. teflon coated bullets that were designed for car doors and windshield penetration were made from hard alloy and has a shape somewhat between round nose and SWC and teflon was just a cheap coating that actually probably worsened the effect, though the latter assumption was about body armor so it could stabilize bullets against door metal, i dunno). I kinda got a grasp of these weird bullets because they were often pictures near each other by collectors and most of them are not that sophisticated in construction, be it a sabot/support for AP pistol round's core, thin part of bullet where it's designed to break apart or something similar. There's very little info on that so we have to rely on guesses here, even if somewhat informed.
For general purposes of basic internal and a bit more advanced terminal ballistics i'd go to Paul Harrell, he'll also in practical choices more, theoretical info is more of an addition. Then, if you need to compare and better understand cartridges, go to and learn to use and reference BBTI, then after you got the grasp of general purpose/behavior of cartridges/bullets/ etc, look for it more specifically. Youtube, surprisingly, has quite a lot of ballistic gel, water jugs, chronograph, caly blocks, penetration, etc. tests so be sure to check it out too. Or ask here, on /k/, i'm sure i'm not the only one who could suggest something or help and even if i am at a certain time, i'm still here. I'm also planning to install windows again soon, so i hopefully will get access to these fancy loading programs that could aid me in understanding how cartridge dimensions work, get into wildcatting(even if theoretical) and just learn to use these tools. maybe i'll also look into rifle cartridges' external ballistics, though this topic has a lot more resolved and discovered, so this will be waiting for a while.
>>648181
Oh, and here's the books, there's also Hatcher's notebook but it's easily found and weights 80mb.
It doesn't fucking work. What's wrong with 8ch ffs.
Holy shit guys look what i've just found
I was thinking of somehow improving the THV bullet without significantly altering its profile or, preferably, using their old design instead of a new rounded one that had problems with compressing in tissue and failing and came up with an idea of using plastic caps similar to the ones SA ammo uses. They put a round plastic cap on top to improve feeding and decrease drag while in air but they had no means to secure the cap but let it detach when needed, so they had to alter the nose of the bullet, making it more fat and rounded again, introducing the same problem. I think i found a way to mitigate this issue. Basically, why not to cut a notch on the point of the bullet so that the cap can snap onto it? It'd require to make a hole in the cap so the point can go through but that's not an issue to make these, so the only thing to adjust would be to make the tip edges slightly rounded. I'm unsure how that'd impact the bullet's performance but i don't think it'd be by much, as we're not even sharpening the tip, only rounding its edges while leaving the top relatively flat. SA THV bullets intended to discard the cap during flight short after firing(though i may confuse it with other ammo), while my design does intend to keep the cap until the bullet reaches tissue, where it collapses and discards under the pressure and resistance of tissue, opening it to the original bullet shape. That'd require for the cap to be made pretty thin so it can compress easily and not cause problems with performance but that's easily achievable and even if it's still insufficient, you can just cut shallow grooves in the cap to aid in its collapse, as it would tear itself easier along them and separate. It could also have an effect on bullets' penetration, as they can travel slightly deeper if they have to strip the cap first, especially with the harder and thicker cap that would be less likely to deform. That can be a plus because one of the problems(and benefits) with original THV was the bullets' under penetration, as they transferred their energy too quickly and resulted in a paradoxical situation - they punched easily through body armor, yet rarely exited the body. That meant that they used all their energy in the first inches of the body, possibly resulting in less damage as they couldn't reach the vital areas. Even with 71gr ammo that ifo was posted the penetration was pretty limited, so much that i think that the bullets might require a redesign to decrease their drag and increase penetration(probably still with the hollow base, to make most out of their non-expanding property that allows them to work where HPs fail). In this situation, the cap might allow the bullet to keep its energy a bit further similar to how HPs need to expand, resulting in the same big wound channel caused by the high drag of the projectile, yet located closer to vital areas in the middle of the body instead of its edge.
Alright, my linux mint finally died so i installed windows, again, and finally got to quickload. Now i can finally research internal ballistics in more detail.
I've looked into it and while it's kinda complicated and has weird things it's not terrrible, albeit the bullet selection could be better and manufagturers could have added the length of their bullets when posting specs.
There were some cartridges unknown to me like .357 auto that i couldn't find any info about.
One of the first things i tested was the idea of using slower burning powders in rounds intended for use in longer barrels, which one anon tried to disprove. I picked basic standard pressure 9mm and 3 different powders: Aliant red dot, green dot and bullseye, with burn rate corresponding to their position. I then created a load for each of them with equal max pressure of 35kpsi, the max pressure of the round. I was using lighter 95gr bullets the program picked but they were the same for each load so it's okay, just don't mind higher muzzle energy values than usual. I also added pressure at the muzzle as it was another variable that i deemed important. Also added POWER PISTOL powder alter(it's teh only one that is compressed, to 100.7%) and its second loading that matches Green Dot powder. I got these results:
BL - Red Dot - Green Dot - Bullseye - Power Pistol - Power Pistol II
4" - 380ft-lbs(5415psi) - 397(5818) - 444() - 468(8826) - 396(7802)
6" - 447(3181) - 468(3407) - 537(4471) - 580(5603) - 496(5020)
9" - 506(1894) - 532(2023) - 620(2668) - 687(3537) - 591(3206)
16" - 581(921) - 610(980) - 724(1301) - 828(1825) - 720(1679)
If the data compiled by the QuickLOAD is correct, we've got same cartridges with the same pressure that have similar muzzle energy and differ only in muzzle blast, yet shoot them from a longer barrel and you can see a significant difference in velocity. While what that anon was talking about was true to some extent, the cartridge dimensions don't seem to be a defining feature in how fast the powder burns. I'll try this test with 5.56 next to see if this applies to more complex shapes like bottlenecks.
I've also got a question - are rifle powders more energetic? Because it seems that they have more gradual burn while requiring only so much more capacity to reach maximal chamber pressure. I mean, i was filling the case to 97 or so % with the Red Dot and to 100.7% with Power Pistol, with others in between these two.
I've gotta give quickload some credit though, they've really put effort in making it retard-proof in terms of safety and caution for reloaders.
Ok, here's the data for .223 Rem
BL - Red Dot - Blue Dot - Reloader - 7 - Reloader - 10x
6" - 393(15K) - 507(24K) - 511(29K) - 519(30,5K)
10" - 539(8,5K) - 735(13K) - 800(17,5K) - 823(18,5K)
16" - 663(4,9K) - 926(7,5K) - 1050() - 1095(10K)
20" - 719(3,7K) - 1010(5730) - 1170(7,7K) - 1217(8,3K)
Here the difference is more pronounced and using a slow-burning powder is kinda pointless as you get a weaker load that becomes less effective with additional barrel - the exact opposite effect. My premise about there being an "array" of powders for each cartridge that allows to optimize the load for you actually came out to be true. Even in this case, using powder like Blue Dot can be beneficial because not only it works but can make shooting something like SBR more bearable, as 65ft-lbs can be a good tradeoff for 5kpsi less, helping both with muzzle flash, your hearing and suppressor longlivety, regardless of actual practicality.
I've tried using reloader 7 powder in 9mm but it seems like very compressed powder just spikes in pressure and then doesn't completely burn even through 20" barrel. It's kinda weird and even uncompressed loads behave badly. Could it be that the powder either burns slowly and underperforms while unable to gain enough volume before it spikes in pressure when compressed? Could it be that it gets too much space to push the bullet for the powder charge because of the wide bore?
Saying that, i've only started seeing the loss of efficiency when using Blue Dot and it still behaved close to Power Pistol and better than Bullseye, so the array of possibilities is pretty wide, to the point when it's possible to use the same powder effectively in both 5.56 and 9mm.
I'm not good at physics but I guess larger amounts of powder take more time to burn in contained conditions?
Oh, as a side note, the blue dot was the first powder to show not 100%(to around ~87 iirc, didn't write in) in amount of propellant burnt, so i'm almost completely sure that this parameter has things to do with efficiency and its loss with slower powders.
And that POWER PISTOL powder works alright in 223, just a bit worse than Blue Dot, with similar reduction in pressure.(882ft-lbs and 7Kpsi vs 926ft-lbs and 7.5Kpsi). It's pretty well optimized for magnum powders though, lending best results in 9x19 and will probably do so in most other pistol calibers.
Okay, now things don't really make sense. I've looked further into 9mm loads and developed one that shows 436ft-lbs with a 115gr FMJ using that Aliant Power Pistol powder(7.7gr, 100,6% capacity) from a 4" barrel, which is more than 100ft-lbs more than the loads i've got my data on. Granted, it'll be louder, could probably keep pressure high for too long fucking up the casing and not cycle but it is standard 35k pressure, which is really weird. It also gains 200ft-lbs where it should have been 80(4" vs 9").
Other weird thing is how it computes .357 magnum - it's really lacking, where instead of the best result in my data(621/817ft-lbs from 4" and 6" barrels respectively) i struggle to get to 550, with the power pistol i get mere 701ft-lbs out of 6", and this is right at the maximum pressure point. Blue Dot gives 695ft-lbs, Herco gives 637, Green Dot gives petty 524. That's just unbelievable, how can these powders perform so badly? Either most .357 manufacturers use cutting edge powder technology that pushes the cartridge significantly beyond what common loads can do, all the real world data i have is unrealistic or there's something not right with this software, as its results are speaking against real world data, and by a very large margin in both ways.
Can someone experienced with the software suggest me what the fuck?
>are you just using a computer program, or are you testing ANY of the loads with a gun and a chronograph?
I don't, obviously, as you can see by looking at my flag. I'm just using the tools i've got at hand.
>such programs are theoretical and often times incorrect
Indeed, i figured this much. I've seen this program recommended several times here, it does have lots of variables, huge database and many results do correspond with real life data. It's the best program i know of.
>Theories based on powder only have a burn rate as a variable are all but worthless.
Maybe, but i don't think the program only looks at burn rate.
>When I said that cartridge is more important than barrel length
But we weren't arguing on whether the barrel length determines the burn rate, it's whether powder selection can be optimized for a particular burn rate in a same cartridge that was the question.
>REAL LIFE data
Yes, yes, nothing is more objective than objective events that are only observed and documented, yet we have to work with what we're got. Unfortunately now i have no means, legal, monetary or physical, to make such experiments, so theoretical research using the tools i can find are the only things i've got at hand. At least i've already found out an issue with this software - its results do not always correctly correspond with real life data, at least the one that i've saved from others' research.
>many shooters have tried what you suggest and use slower gun powders for rifle barrel loads to increase performance
I've also noted that using rifle powders does result in failure, but using slower burning magnum powders instead of regular pistol ones can very well boost the performance from longer barrel, along with shorter one, due to more prolonged application of pressure. I've found at least one mention of using such powder in a very fast-burning cartridge(9mm) that resulted in greater muzzle blast and noise without reduction in energy of the bullet, which might mean increased pressure at the muzzle, which would, in turn, improve the performance from the longer barrel. Not by much, yet it's something.
>the same powders that maximized power in the handgun maximized the rifle barrel power as well
Yes, it actually corresponds to the results i got. It's just the slower, more powerful powders that give maximum performance did greatly increase the pressure at the muzzle and could probably interfere with cycling and cause other such problems due to more prolonged pressure curve.
>Maximizing the cartridge is the ONLY way to maximize performance
And i'm trying to change the cartridge - the powder part of it, the longer barrel is only the medium where the cartridge is expected to perform.
Good luck. i suggest looking up ways that existing stocks are attached if you haven't already done that.
>7.62x25 is about perfect for submachine gun
Well, that's not really true. While it is a very good cartridge and can be better than more powerful and significantly more recoiling cartridges like .45ACP+p and .40S&W from longer barrels, its range is still pretty limited, especially with the mild loads that are currently most common. It's maximum range, as defined by my made up standard previously in this thread, is around 100m from a pistol for a normal load(by which i mean 1600fps) and ~130m for 10" barrel SMG. For hotter loads loaded up to 9mm+p levels(38K vs 36K vs 35K(for std 9mm))(would probably result in something like 1700fps velocity, and the case is already very strong by design, while the SMG can surely handle it) it turns into 110m for pistol and 150m for a rifle. That's more that 10mm, 45 super and probably even 44 magnum can do, in terms of range, with very flat trajectory too. Still, there are rounds like .30 carbine, 9x25 Dillon, .327 and .357 magnums that can add additional 100m of range to that(and i think it's possible to add 50 more with further optimization). So, is it good, flat and mild shooting cartridge? Yes. Is it perfect, especially for a full sized SMG? No, not really, though it's still better than most other pistol cartridges.
>Why did it fade away?
Lack of hollow point technology that lead to poor terminal performance and overpenetration, as well as gun control to make the piles of ammo that were everywhere after the war less useful by removing the guns that use them from service and production.
I actually found what .357 auto is - it's 10mm magnum necked to 357 with a 357SIG die. it uses 6.8SPC bolts that actually have the same head as 10mm auto. Pretty cool competitor to 357 AR tbh.
http://ar15barrels.com/prod/357auto.shtml
Probably not, it's too powerful for that. Lack of gas port is probably so that you can drill it for your gas system length.
I recalculated the data on .327 magnum and .30 carbine and found because i found out that some shit is just not right, specifically the ballistic coefficient of .308 bullets compared to .312 ones. 100gr .312 has SD .147 and BC of .170, while a 110gr .308 has SD of .166 and BC of .15, with both bullets having same manufacturer - Hornady, which is some serious bullshit, especially since the .312 i hollow point while .308 is round nose. If using the data from Buffalo bore for their hot 30 carbine load with .154 BC it has around 250m range, while the hot AE 100gr .327 has range of ~280m out of the same 18" barrel. If we change the .308 BC to .2(like it probably should, or .185 in the very least) it immediately hits the 300m mark, and it can be reloaded with spitzer bullets that can be around .270 BC.
Okay, i obviously don't have enough data but it seems that relation of caliber/bullet weight(maybe?) to the remaining case capacity is what determines the performance of a cartridge from a certain barrel length, rather than the actual shape of it. Does case capacity in relation to bore size determine powder selection? Cause it seems this is the cause of the problem with using inappropriate powders, as using a slow powder in a very pistol cartridge causes the powder to either burn incorrectly because of the rapidly increasing space behind the bullet that leads to pressure drops or something, while compressing it might lead to something similar to what happens when you use compressed propellants in tight containers to make them "explode" or something. With faster burning powders, i assume, it'll either cause a huge pressure spike, if using a rifle powder load, or, if we try to keep pressures low, would lead to very significant drop of performance, for example a 5.56 would probably be reduced to slightly more than a 22lr, albeit being a lot closer to it in noise and such from shorter barrel.
I've read in one old thread here strelok saying that to reduce the pressures of a cartridge you should increase its capacity. Now that i think about it, how is that achieved? Isn't pressure the thing that drives the bullet forward? Could it be that what actually happens is that greater capacity allows the use of slower powder and/or extends the time when great pressure acts upon the bullet(resulting in more force used upon the bullet over time), so even a greater charge of the same powder can be used without going over the maximum pressure.
There's one example that is also worth mentioning - two cartridges, same but different: 5.56x45mm and 5.56x30mm MARS, which perform identically from a 10" barrel, yet the latter is significantly shorter and has less capacity. I don't know about the powder selection or max pressure of the latter but i doubt it's much higher than 556. It's kinda weird but it seems true. There are also examples of NATO stupidly altering cartridge dimensions before adopting them without significant change performance. Then there's also Ackley improved cartridges that also boost case capacity by straightening walls and pushing shoulders forward.
In QuickLOAD i've found a variable called "cartridge weighting factor" for each cartridge but i don't really know what to do with that yet.
On a side note, i've come up with a way to classify cartridges more accurately than they are now, i think. The key here is to not just sort them by power but also by their burn rate, i.e.
Rifle - intermediate - pistol cartridges
High - medium - low power
High power rifle - .300 WinMag, .338, .50BMG
Medium power rifle - 6.5 grendel, most 6-6.5mm cartridges
Low power rifle - .223
High power intermediate - .458 Socom, .50 Beowulf
Medium power intermediate - 30-30/7.62x39
Low power intermediate - 5.56x30 MARS/.357 magnum/9x25 Dillon
High power pistol - (generally = low power intermediate) 10mm Auto/.45 super
/.224BOZ
Medium power pistol - 9x18 Makarov to .357SIG
Low power pistol - .22lr to 9x18 Makarov, probably won't exist
because it's impractical, maybe only pocket pistol ones like .32NAA/.380acp
That way, it can be clearly seen that 5.56, as a low power rifle cartridge has longer range than 7.62x39 and is designed for longer barrels, while cartridges like .357mag and 9x25 Dillon perform more like intermediate rather than pistol cartridges, with large gains from additional barrel and big loud blasts from short ones. I've not yet decided on pistol rounds, as many high power pistol rounds can as well be LPI, like it case of 45 super and probably 224BOZ. 10mm is an exception as it's one of the few HPP cartridges with a very "pistol" burn rate. I'm also unsure about what low power pistol rounds should be, as i wrote above near them. I'm open to suggestions in case you think i got something wrong here.
Though, now that i think about it, lower pressure cartridges do tend to have lower powder effectiveness and need slightly more powder to achieve same performance. i remember reading about that somewhere around that same time, during discussion of super short magnums, i think.
Ok, i've recalled some of the physics knowledge i've long forgotten so i'll rethink my question - does powder burn faster in a more contained environment compared to more open one, or is there more to it?
>The energy needs to go somewhere after all.
Yeah, that's assuming 100% burn. There's still muzzle blast and muzzle pressure though.
I've looked into that "cartridge weighting factor" and it's basically how "overbore" a cartridge is, which is the relation of bore diameter to its capacity. I think that this variable is actually the one that determines the burn rate, mostly through the powder selection. It's also more often than not noted that the greater is the overbore variable the faster the cartridge will burn through the barrels, though barrel life is another weird topic so i'm unsure how could that be explained.
>9mm(too little)
too unoptimized
>30 carbine(too much)
Nah, just right.
>The x25 is just BARELY short enough to fit into a pistol grip ma
Yet too long for a proper comfortable double stack.
>Plus the x25 will be about the softest shooting round that is threat to Level IIIA soft body armor at close range.
incorrect, microdick calibers like 5.7 and HK whatever copy are.
>357 is gonna be problematic in SMG
Unchanged? yes.
>they say Dillion is fading
Says who? Dillon as a cartridge or as a company?
>whereas x25 Russian has massive history behind it
History ain't gonna load you ammo, and there are more manufacturers that load 9x25D(underwood, double tap in several loadings including defesive ones, while with x25 you're stuck with either dried up surplus, wolf, S&B or one American brand that all load the same 85gr FMJ with varying degree of wimpiness) than there are producing x25. Number of guns shooting it too.
>If it ain't broke don't fix it.
It's not broke, it just has half the range.
>so what do you recommend? 9mm Dillion?
Readily available? Yeah, it's best. Otherwise, there are several other options that have less recoil and more range, you can read about them higher ITT.
>the military should adopt the 10mm Glock family
Eh, plastic gun. if it cost like a hipoint could call it "budget choice" but for the price it could be something a lot better. Also, it's such a big mess that little can be rationally done without going into complete unfucking of all the bullshit that has piled up.
Good thing you're checking out.
>what "big mess"?
Everything is so fucked up and intertwined with each other along supply lines that trying to implement any meaningful change would be meaningless without re organizing the system for it to not be meaningless or negative. Military pistols are not really the most important thing and better be picked based on other things like current logistics, economics, etc. The ones to whom it matters most are paper pushers who now picked P320 because it's easier to carry and they are the most active part of the military that's grown and fattened over peaceful time, so they can afford that.
Alright lads, let's talk about bullpups more specifically than a few assumptions.
So, what i came up with is that the most important characteristic we'll be talking about will not be the barrel length(later - bl) or even bl to overall length ratio. The most important and main variable we'll be looking at is how far the gun is poking in front of you, i.e. just overall length, as it's the biggest deciding factor in how the weapon will be handled in CQ.
The "comfortable threshold" here is, being pretty generous, the length of a full size MP5, maybe a bit more but the difference would not be bigger than the added length of an intermediate action. MP5 layout and length will also be called standard layout 10" barrel, and i think that most will agree that it can be maneuvered in CQ without any problems related to the weapon. When we go beyond that it doesn't mean that these guns aren't good for CQB, mind you, it's just they'll be at a slight disadvantage that might very well be worth it for additional bl. BUT, my main point is that a shorter weapon doesn't offer noticeable benefits beyond that point without changing it's layout, so a shorter weapon that might not hinder your ability to use it(more on that later) isn't that beneficial still. It's a fixed threshold that depends on the person in question but since humans are quite similar it's mostly the same, so only when a gun is longer than that it becomes uncomfortable.
Now, for other layouts. I already described the CQB standard - MP5 or 10" standard layout, that is almost right at the point where the length starts to matter. I also mentioned the next, longer layout, which i describe as M4, AK or simply 16" bl standard layout. This one is a bit longer, long enough to be chosen into other class but is still maneuverable in CQ and it just takes a bit more effort. Not perfect but still perfectly acceptable, it has been done and it worked well enough. The next class is the M16(or most bolt actions/battle rifles) or 20-22+" bl standard layout and at this point you're at a significant disadvantage when using the gun in contained spaces, to the point of having to constantly and intentionally manage the gun position and require additional training to employ effectively. It doesn't mean that you shouldn't use the gun if you need to, especially if that's what you have and it'll still do the job, but you get what i'm saying. There's also one more class that i'll talk about later.
Now, these all examples have been in standard layout, but what about bullpups? Well, i've done some comparisons and for similar weapons the bullpup layout reduces the length of the weapon by around 5-6", i.e. almost exactly down 1 level in my previously stated classification. Therefore, a 20" bullpup is similar to a 16" standard layout, a 16" bullpup is similar to a 10" bl SBR/SMG, and often employed similarly too, it seems.
I'll add some examples, the Groza pictured here is a bullpup AK, and it uses a 16" bl similar to a standard AK, yet is not much longer than an MP5, as you can see. I included a picture of a normal AK and an MP5 as well.
Now, there's also another class of weapons that is a bit more complicated - it's a shorter than 16" bl bullpups like P90. There's no denial that they work well in CQ but, as i stated earlier, i don't think that they offer a significant advantage over a longer standard layout with the same barrel, and might actually make the handling less comfortable due to the lack of space to hold the gun while shouldered. This is not a problem with P90 as its ergonomics are well designed and thought out, but for the shorter gun like this variant of the Groza with a similar bl you've got little space for your support hand.
Now, these guns still do have some use, as i also didn't mention one other thing that may drastically change the overall length - suppressors. As you might have noticed, unlike the P90 that fires not that great of a round, the Groza has intermediate length action and fires 7.62x39 in it's longer layout and the heavy subsonic 9x39 in the shorter one. See where this is going? Suppressors. These things are very nice and useful, but they do tend to be quite long, potentially increasing the gun length by around, you guessed it, 5-6", effectively upping the "handling class" by one. I might have rounded the numbers a bit but the estimation may vary a bit at the cost of ease of understanding. Therefore, to have a weapon that is perfectly suited for CQB that is suppressed you either have to reduce the bl to a basically pistol one or use the bullpup scheme, at which point it becomes from an under optimized and over engineered novelty to a functional solution. Otherwise though, i still think that the versatility and simplicity of a simple standard layout outweighs a slight potential drawback when using a suppressor.
So, to get gun that works in close quarters well you don't need anything more extreme than a standard 16" bl layout or even a 20" bl bullpup, while you still have an option of a perfectly functional gun that is suited for a wide variety of situations, yet is extremely well fit for CQ with a 16" bl bullpup. otherwise, for my SMG i'd probably pick a bl of around 12-14" and standard layout, as it's not really a dedicated CQB weapon but also a field one, yet might be used that way too more likely due to its range. That's it.
Yes, i posted the images as i went on in the chronological order. The second one uses a big ass thick suppressor
I've also found a video of a guy who loaded 9mm with slower powders like power pistol and he got velocities slightly better than the ones that i have for my best 9mm+p. The pressures are also probably similar, with his might loaded slightly hotter, but generally the same. It further proves my point that using reasonably slower powder would result in greater gains from a longer barrel, even though the difference between them from shorter barrels would be a lot less pronounced, yet the noise, blast and pressure would be very recognizable.
Pretty good, though you focus on secondary features a bit too much. Sights/handguard/stock should be made easily replaceable so that you can utilize already working and proven designs, even if you make your own.
>a 2 piece hinged hybrid material reviver
Yeah, why not.
>lower piece contains the fcg and mag well and release
Assuming you have the release. It might be not worth it due to additional parts, machining and cost when it's not hard to do without, especially with a short action. I like the utter simplicity of the FNC. Doesn't mean you cannot design variants with bolt hold, potentially even as aftermarket parts kit.
>the fcg is simple and striker fired
>striker fired
God, no. Striker fired is just asking for a liability in anything but manual cycling guns like bolt action. A hammer fired FCG can be just as simple and more reliable. Just make it self-contained drop-in and if we're going fully autistic, design a pistol with it and use it in both guns.
>it uses a roller delayed blowback system and fires from a closed bolt for safety and accuracy
Closed bolt is fine but roller delayed can be complicated to work with and somewhat expensive during development. Lever delayed might work better, especially with pistol rounds.
>it's bolt and carrier are made from a strong forging for durability
Shouldn't this be obvious? I mean, why does this have to be even mentioned?
>it feeds from double stack double feed 35rd mags
Good, though the capacity number i'd disagree with. I'd much prefer 25rd mag, especially with the larger case heard of the 10mm, as it'd also simplify logistics and counting. Also, 50rd quad stack mags like the ones for SITES spectre. The double feed is the most important part though.
>side charging
I also like that, though i'd probably go with the FN FNC style right side charging handle because of utter simplicity and price of the gun. It'd also be less of a hindrance since you're less likely to use anything bigger than a red dot so charging would not be a big problem.
>pic rail
i'd make it removable with tools, in case you wanted to reduce weight/cost, but certainly leave this as an option.
>quick change barrel system
Do it if you can pull that off, but i wouldn't unless i use an already implemented solution.
>overpressure 9mm
9mm+p+ is not bad for the use in handguns and 500ft-lbs is pretty good for a pistol but for a longer gun it's still lacking
>offered in 10mm
The main part, tbh. You don't have to read the thread, i'll just tell you that 10mm is the most promising cartridge in terms of wildcats, they can give you A LOT.
>from what I understand BIGGER==better to reduce reliance on velocity and expansion, and to allow for use of big, heavy subsonics
Not exactly that - bigger means heavier and slower so you have to reduce the load less, if by any amount to fire subsonics without losing much in terms of energy.
in case of external ballistics, no, there are too many variables and i didn't really have any sorted data so i didn't add that into a table but i've used a ballistic calculator to figure out the optimal bullet weight for the range. I've used Hornady's one, it's simple and easy: you find the estimated velocity from your desired barrel length for a particular bullet weight(not hard with BBTI), then search for the BC of the bullet with similar weight, add the data and get the results. My standards for maximum range are: staying supersonic(>1100fps), drops less than 1m(40") and has more than 300ft-lbs. That way you can check it out yourself for any specific loading, bullet weight and whatever if you want to.
As for your question, the site doesn't allow me to post the data again, so look here >>564251 for others. I don't have data compiled for the rest but you can do it yourself, good tokarev reaches 1850fps from 10", while SIG does 1720fps from 16" with 125gr bullet.
The Tokarev is from a pistol, though i mistakenly "zeroed" the sights at 100m. It does shoot flat though, the main problem with it is its somewhat lacking in power compared to bigger cartridges, stating subsonic only to around 150m from a rifle - significant compared to most pistol rounds(9mm/40sw struggle at 100) but limited compared to others nonetheless.
I don't have enough data for 9x25D to make the judgement but it's somewhat similar to 357mag, except with a very little bit less gains from a longer barrel(might be just loading) and it works a lot better with the lighter bullets, while 357mag users seem to hate this category, with almost none info on that. Just assume that it's a bit worse with the heavy 140gr bullet.
357SIG is just a weaker 357 magnum from 4" barrel(chamber included), while it's gains from longer barrel leave it very far behind, not really different from those of 40SW.
9x23 winchester is basically this thing with a lot higher pressure, go shoot it. .38 super has also been around for quite a while. And it honestly was a cheaper and more primitive 7.63x25 anyway.
I've stumbled upon one more example of high drag non-expanding ammo that i talked about a while ago. This one is called an "external hollow point" by a company named G9. It's weirdly shaped and has spiral grooves but still remotely resembles the inward concave shape of the original THV ammo which function it mimics. There's not really much info on that but this ammo seems less of a scam than Lehigh's extreme defenders, as it's got more gradual curve without any sharp angles, potentially creating a more uniform wound channel. The video seems to use a bad HP that broke apart but still seems impressive. If i understand what they've made right, these guys only scam you from penetrating body armor, which might be the purpose of those slopes as they collapse, i don't think that rather slow spin of the bullet would do much to improve terminal ballistics. The bullets' penetration is a bit excessive and, possibly due to smaller concave surface area the wound channel might be a bit smaller than it could but it's mostly a matter of preference at this point.
It also seems to prove my theory about fast and small bullets having potential for more powerful loads due to greater case capacity, as their 9mm load with an 80gr bullet makes 390ft-lbs, though the barrel length is not stated.
Anyway, this seems to be quite a good round and i'm not completely frustrated and displeased with it's behavior and it's designers' engineering decisions, so if you need a non-expanding ammo that offers good barrier penetration then this is your best bet for terminal performance among options readily available.
>G9 has been making nothing but gimmick rounds since day one. Look past the hype.
I'm actually trying to study the rounds behavior here, while retards only make same uneducated remarks over and over for any new design and thought. it's not about the hype but about looking at new things objectively instead of being a room temp IQ fudds. The test might be unscientific but does still have some merit to it.
And
>hydrostatic shock
Let this retarded meme theory die already. Use proper ballistic terms for that.
>In non expanding bullets, the 38 wad cutter and semi wad cutter are superior to 9mm FMJ on tissue
WCs and SWCs would also be better for 9mm.
>45 ACP is better than 9mm FMJ because bigger size and flatter meplat.
There's more to it, but this comparison is not entirely wrong.
This, the study of statistics, especially as crude as those that exist now are little more than exercise in cherrypicking and falsification for 9mmfags and FBI agents to denounce anything that is beyond their pitiful abilities. Only the appeal to public myths and "everyone knows that" and other kind of similar shit is more low than this.
>.45 will do the most damage traveling through tissue in terms of its diameter
That's obvious, but "traveling through tissue", i.e. permanent cavity is not the only wounding factor. That's why 357 or 10mm beat 45 hands down.
>A wider projectile is more likely to damage something important on its path.
Again, that ignores all other factors involved.
>to some extent monetary cost
My suggestion - don't appeal to temporary things like the state of markets when discussing scientific things like ballistics.
>When the guns are the same size
Compare the mag type, not size - a double stack 45 would hold 3-4 less rounds in a full grip, while a single stack is still thinner.
>The difference between medium and high power rifles and handguns is night and day
Not really, and this assumption is probably the one that done most harm to public understanding of ballistics.
>some rounds will cause hydrostatic shock below 2,200 FPS
Therefore, proving once again this idiotic theory useless.
>The idea that 16 rounds automatically makes that cartridge better than one with 15, or 12, or 10 is approaching autism.
More is automatically better than less, the problem is it ignores other variables that can come into play most of the time.
>SHTF scenario where gunfights could turn into protracted affairs because there are no police on the way
Unless drum mags are involved reload speed would be more important and available ammo on you would be even more important still.
>Handgun hunters do seem to feel that larger calibers matter a lot
That's why so many hunt with 357 and 10mm, duh.
>I don't know, I simply don't think most of that is worth it.
Many would say that carrying a gun is not worth it, does it make them right?
>7.5 FK is something pretty special and cutting-edge
See >>640405 >>647387 and be ashamed of yourself.
>based on actual usage against human beings
And the data is completely unscientific bullshit.
>Larger bullets will always cost more all else being equal.
But things won't be equal. Economy of scale is always the deciding factor in ammo cost.
>the argument is whether the velocity/energy is enough to cause permanent damage to tissue rather than allowing it to simply bounce back
It's not about "making it stay" or "bouncing back" but about damaging it so that it leads to a faster bleedout. Ever had a bruise? That way faster bullets, including rifle ones, can do more damage and lead to a faster bleed out than slower and heavier ones.
>First, life is not like the movies where you can simply jump behind a marble pillar on cue to swap out magazines in your HK P30L
So we should ignore cover whatsoever? Make a proper argument at least, dumbass.
>the average 1911 owner is probably not going to be carry three extra magazines around, whereas a lot of guys would carry at least one extra mag
And run out of ammo and get killed. Good job killing yourself in a situation where you know you've got to rely only on yourself.
>Nothing there about it being a bad round
Except for the fact that it's impractical in every imaginable way they could make it, along with their piece of shit scam that is advertised by lies and price tag.
>You're not knowledgeable enough to talk down to me
I'm pretty sure i am. Under any circumstances, an average poster on 8ch will have more brains than a reddit-spacing nigger any time.
>Theories on the same type of bullet G9 is selling this time have been tried before and are well known as gimmicks
Are they? Have you heard of THV ammo? Of it's uses? Physical implications? I don't think so.
>They purposely soaked the meat to distort and exaggerate results to the point the information has no valid bearing on real tissue
Maybe, though compared to their competitors that scam on the very bullet design and not tests.
>As far as "hydrostatic shock' it is the colloquial term for permanent stretch.
And "permanent stretch" is as much of a vague wording as "hydrostatic shock". The only accurate way to call this is "temporary cavity" and this is the first step one should do to be taken seriously.
>the incredible terminal effect of high power rifles using SOFT POINTS and other expanding bullets built for terminal effect is radically different than handgun rounds, and it is night and day
No, it's not. While it's often several times greater the whole principles and function is the same, which is the reason we use expanding ammo in both.
>The difference between M80 ball and any cheap off the rack 150 grain soft point in 308 IS night and day difference
That it is, indeed. Where a good hunting bullet in a rifle round can reliably kill game bigger than humans almost all the time same military counterpart might only wound him.
>There is incredible permanent stretch with soft points in 357 and 44 magnum with full length rifle barrels
Yes, it indeed is. It actually was the topic of my research ITT and 357mag was one of the primary rounds in focus.
> Soft point 223 far exceeds the damage of 55 grain ball 5.56 when it fragments
Not exactly "far", though this is also correct, aside from the fact that 5.56 soft points tend to get torn apart quite a lot at shorter ranges, leading to their performance being closer to fragmenting counterparts.
>if the expanded edge of the bullet misses the heart by and inch it can still tear parts of it to shreds
Yes, the pressure around the bullet moving through tissue can be quite extreme and can even tear things like blood vessels not directly connected with it.
>direct crush cavity
permanent cavity is the correct term.
>handguns are no where in the same league as full power rifles with the right bullets
That'd be true if we were talking about power and classification. In that case of course high power rifles leave handguns far behind but we're talking about terminal ballistics and here it's incorrect to classify handgun rounds as something completely foreign, they do the very same things, just much less of them.
>you are the Rus poster who does all those computer programs on handloads and this and that and is a non gun owner whose never killed anything and observed it what happened in real life and has never actually handloaded cartridges
That's a fair criticism, even if i'm not to blame here but there's plenty of objective information out there that allows me to make claims and statements about these things based on the information provided by people who are in turn much more experienced than you. So, please, if you have things to say address them in a manner of a proper argument, not an ad hominem attack.
>Those who have handloaded know a few things about real handloading, not just programs and books
More often than not they don't even have a chronograph though.
>Velocity alone is not magic. Energy, resistance, how the bullet uses its force, how the tissue resists, Bullet weight, shape, its construction.
I wholly agree.
>Energy is not magic
Of course, it's about how it's applied. It's just a good thing to compare because you physically can't apply it if you have none.
>Just because handguns don't create permanent stretch
handgun bullets do create temporary cavity though, the difference is that in rifles it attributes to 80%+ of the damage done, area covered, etc, while in handguns, especially with most modern rounds there's not much energy and it's often spent on creating greater permanent cavity, especially in slow rounds with heavy bullets like 230gr 45, where the permanent cavity might have greater are than temporary one minus the permanent. It's still there, it's just a lot less pronounced.
>Military ball is designed to do minimal damage in accord to Hague Convention
It's mostly designed to be cheap, otherwise we'd use AP ammo that does almost all similarly, aside from exceptions like 223 fragmenting.
>ust because they are poor at damaging tissue doenst' mean that improved bullets are anywhere near the same realm
Never said anything like that, wholly agree. Without special ammo it's very inefficient and hardly possible to design a versatile round that would reliably kill man-sized game, unless we're going to such impractical giants like 50bmg.
>It's one data point, one of the best we have
So it's literally nothing.
>Usually not the primary goal in taking out an attacker, bleeding almost always takes too long
Depends on the rounds used, what place was hit and what is the desirable outcome. It shouldn't be death, it might be just lights out or even weakness from loss of blood pressure.
>Ideally, you want someone to be immediately incapacitated
That's "ideally". You can't expect to reliably hit CNS in a combat situation, which is why center mass shots are taught.
>Put another way, you aren't guaranteed cover, ever.
You're not guaranteed time to take your gun out either. Does it somehow allow nitpicking?
>The more rounds you have ready to shoot, the more likely you can reach cover or concealment
You're either moving or shooting, that's how it's done. If you don't do that you'll be pointlessly wasting ammo for nothing, might as well shoot in the air.
>The round and gun are quite nice
For an uneducated retard that finds golden toilet a piece of art. Otherwise, it's a heavy ass gun with a lot of fuss that you'll never be able to shoot to it's or it's round's half potential, all at the cost of a good automobile and losing your dignity and becoming their bitch both for any parts and ammo when all that one can do with it can be done at a fraction of it's price by getting a glock 20 with a long slide and 9x25 dillon replacement barrel.
>CZ is one of the best gun manufacturers in the world
And this is not CZ, nor does it have to do anything with it but remotely resemble it.
>Neither do I fault Beretta for cashing in with special edition 92s that are beautiful safe queens.
Nor do special edition guns have anything to do with this scam abomination.
I'm not a physicist my any means and mostly got where i am by comparing different statements and other's conclusions and getting them all together when they agree with each other but for basic terminal ballistics it works, at least on paper assumption.
>So, tissue is not water, and we should forget this bullshit about ripples and whatnot
Tissue is largely water and while the ripples and stuff are mostly a misunderstanding, treating tissue like water-based medium and designing projectiles based on that assumption is pretty accurate or at least working. Hydrodynamics and whatnot is the go-to stuff to explain why round nosed bullets do less damage than flat pointed wadcutters, and so on.
> The temporary cavity is caused by this strechting, and it hardly matters if it's not enough to "snap" the tissue.
I don't know the physical mechanisms behind that but it's not really a threshold, nor do you really see the tissue "stay torn", it mostly flexes back after non-fragmented round. It's more about causing stress on it for even unnoticeable "micro tears" to appear, which do happen with almost any bullet, possibly with any and even arrows but in those cases they are hardly possible to recognize and have any effect. This type of damage is different from just crushing tissue in front of the bullet(permanent cavity), it instead makes it damaged gradually, as many micro tears disrupt the blood flow, increase bleedout and so on. I'm no physiologist so i can't say for sure but think of it as a bruise that makes you bleed out more and disrupts the blood flow in the damaged tissue in the process.
>Rifle rounds have enough something to be "snappy", but pistol rounds lack it
No, that's not it, rifle rounds are still same kind of rounds as pistol rounds, they just carry several times more energy than those. The wounding mechanisms still remain similar and affect both types of rounds, with the principles also being the same, as the usage of expanding projectiles, for example. The difference is that pistol rounds are slower in general and have larger diameters, leading to their energy being spent primarily on permanent cavity(though this varies and slower rounds will be more so than faster ones, i.e. 45 vs 9mm) while in rifle rounds their small caliber leads to a smaller permanent cavity, while all this huge amount of energy goes into temporary one. There are things in between and this difference is not qualitative but quantitative but it's mostly result of the current state of rifle and pistol rounds.
>you would see a very clear delineation in velocity, where below it temporary cavity barely matters at all
It largely depends on the bullet design though, with a less hydrodynamic bullet being able to create visible disruptions for longer. I remember seeing gel tests of those lehigh defender bullets where their non uniform wound channel that made it look bigger in gel would still be visible almost throughout the whole bullet path. I prefer to view it not as velocity threshold but as a way to spend energy for the bullet - a wider bullet would spend more on permanent cavity, while a narrower would be the opposite. The problem with this is we've mostly got expanding bullets as a means to improve performance and limit penetration, so all assumptions and theories are based on them, potentially ignoring the greater picture.
Also this.
>On the other hand, a very small and light object like a BB could be travelling at thousands of feet per second and still not have the necessary energy or momentum to commit to any damage
Well, it'd do damage, just a bit and very very locally so it'd be harder to notice.
>extremely useful as long as you're in the 200m range
Probably more than that. if properly sighted, it can be good out to 300yds, i.e. 280m+.
>MP5s in .30 carbine
Pic related, an assault rifle has a lot more problems with doing that.
And your ideas are kind of similar to the goals i pursue and the main research topic ITT, i just also try to make the round a 10mm wildcat so the grip size is usable.
Why have an assault rifle when you can have a proper intermediate one?
>Many people who misunderstand terminal ballistics often assume that if one trades bullet weight for added velocity that there is some magic basic idea that cavitation will automatically increase while penetration decreases, as if its a simple straight equation (bullet shape and build remains the same)
Sounds like dumb fudd myth with projecting over others. Bring the proofs here and now, faggot.
>As you say, momentum is incredibly important in terminal ballistics, because without it the bullet will not keep pushing forward and keep the force stretching and tearing tissue up
You literally pick part of his sentence and pretend that it's everything there is and it makes your case.
>he faster lighter bullet eventually "loses" much earlier in this violent impact and shifting and resistance of forces, it loses its energy/velocity incredibly rapidly, the force and potential is LOST, it is NOT TRANSFERRED to the target in many cases
How can it be not transferred, you dumb faggot? Does it magically disappear?
>ne loses everything and gains nothing from lighter weight bullets in 30 caliber, as one can see in gel tests
Post them here, you lying faggot.
>the velocity cult's theory
How much arrogant projecting can one retarded fudd fit into a single post? Now we know and it's terrifying.
>Kinetic energy (a working force) is lost as heat, sound, light, vibration, and the deformation of the bullet itself, all types of energy which are not being applied to the intended target
That's a fair point, though this same principle applies to heavier bullets as well.
>Higher momentum (mass x velocity) means the object resists slowing, so it keeps more energy over distance.
Yeah, sectional density is probably the most important thing in external ballistics when already using modern spitzers.
>I have never fired a rifle round that was more effective than Federal .308 Winchester 180 grain Power-Shok jacketed soft points
For rifles external ballistics become a lot more important, and it might be optimal for the game type to use a heavier bullet that can hold together well and produce smaller temporary cavity for a bit longer, potentially increasing the chance to reach vital organs like heart or damage lungs instead of losing all the energy before that. That's not what my point was, aside from calling out his obnoxious hypocrisy. My point was that is we ignore external ballistics and focus on terminal one, having 2 bullet - a lighter and heavier one, carrying the same energy then with the same bullet construction we'd have more penetration from the heavier one, obviously, but if we optimize both bullets for a certain amount of penetration we'll end up with a faster expanding bullet design for the heavier and slower expanding one for the lighter bullet, similar to how soft points and hollow points both expand, yet they do that at different speed. That way we'd end up with a slower bullet expanding faster and leaving greater permanent cavity, while lighter bullet expands slower but due to it's higher velocity it creates bigger temporary cavity instead. Your problem was likely that 150gr was designed as a varmint bullet and so expanded rapidly, losing it's energy far too fast.
>they did also have significantly less penetration
Well, that proves my assumption. Proper bullet constriction is important, and one thing about higher velocities is that the faster you go the harder is it to achieve the best results, with 5.56, for example, even the best soft points break apart when shot up close. That's an obstacle that can be overcome, though.
>the more massive bullet is not guaranteed to be the more effective, but it has good likelihood and opportunity to be more effective
I think that it's easier to observe the expansion/effectiveness of a heavier bullet and manufacture it that way so you've got less chances to fuck up with them, especially when expansion and penetration is the only thing looked at with modern rounds, ignoring temporary cavity.
>However, when trying out JHP ammo for 9mm Parabellum, I found that the 115gr and 124gr loads were more effective than the heavier loads
Well, i've found out one thing that is unrelated to terminal ballistics that impact these things, especially in pistol rounds that have big bullets - the lighter bullet you go the more powder you can fit in the case so you can get more energy out of a lighter bullet. With equal amount of powder though the heavier bullet would likely have a very little bit more due to it longer staying in the barrel.
>extremely fast bullets do not always penetrate deeper as a rule, due to factors such as fragmentation and deflection
That's completely unrelated factors though. Weren't we talking physics rather than customer advice? As for velocity's relation to penetration, no, the higher velocity the more energy is spent on temporary cavity, while you want to be as slow and heavy as you can, carrying maximum energy and concentrating it on the smallest area possible, both for permanent and temporary cavity. Kind of like arrows - they tend to penetrate tissue quite well, unlike bones, yet they often carry less energy that a mere 22lr.
>Hence why sabots are a thing - a projectile far lighter than ordinary, with far greater penetration than ordinary, all due to small cross section compared to the energy it carries.
That's for penetration of hard objects though, the tissue is a bit different. I know less about this topic but i can point out that 5.56 does penetrate better than 308 at the muzzle, with this being the reason lvl III+ body armor appeared.
>the design of the two rounds being basically the same
Then it's obvious that the lighter bullet will expand faster and cause the effect you described, proving my point. The overall state of soft point technology isn't that modern though, so you might have no other choice but to use a heavier bullet that works with the design that everyone uses and so on. Modern improvements of HPs like bonded jacket could significantly change that, if properly implemented.
>there are 'sweet spots' in the velocity:mass ratio; that is to say, if energy remains close to the same as a standard load, then the 'best' loads for a certain task (say, shooting amorphous ayylmaos) could be found within a range of lighter/faster and heavier/slower
I doubt that. The "sweet spot" defining feature really is the penetration that allows you to blow varmints up and go straight through the deer if needed, and penetration is not only about bullet weight but also about bullet construction so changing weight is only necessary if your bullet choices are limited, forcing you to use slower bullets because manufacturers can't be bothered to design a slower expanding and tougher bullet.
>large, high caliber cartridges, such as .45-70, have probably the widest acceptable range of velocities and masses, and smaller rounds axiomatically have less wiggle room. Would you agree?
Well, yes, though it's not really practical to use lighter bullets in these cartridges, aside from few exceptions. 45 hollow points will break apart, fly worse and make the cartridge even more limited compared to smaller, higher velocity ones. Versatility is not that good of a thing whey you are versatile at being limited or handicapped.
>how would a straight-walled 8,58mm magnum cartridge perform?
It'd perform the way you make it perform. The caliber is not the defining feature of a cartridge, there also are case capacity and maximum pressure. 357mag has pretty big capacity but it's pressure is almost 10Kpsi less than 327 fed mag, which is why the latter is capable of almost matching the former from shorter barrels while being significantly thinner, shorter and using smaller bullet. If you make the case capacity and pressure in between those two you could get something that is either between those two both in power and longer barrel gains, or you could end up with a lighter-recoiling and possibly more powerful 357mag with almost all it's barrel gains if these increases end up being multiplicative, which i suspect is the case so you can easily beat 357 if you just scale up 327's capacity to the caliber.
I don't really see that much point in that though, with 357mag already being commonly used, even if being suboptimal in terms of pressure, recoil and size, while for a more modern cartridge 327 already does all that quite well. I'm not good at theorizing about these things as i'm mostly about optimization so i'd be ok with just two pistol cartridges - 7.92x24 and 7.92x25, covering most
Use this site, it just works torrentz2.eu/search?f=quickload
>.338 Lapua Magnum is basically the de-facto sniper cartridge by now, and we might see it adapted as a machine gun cartridge in the future
Isn't it rivaled by 6.5CM?
>worries about the Federal Magnum's performance
If loaded up to it's actual limits it's almost as good as 357mag from 4" barrel and is still better than anything short of best 10mm loads from a semiauto pistol. And it's already there and is quite common, maybe even from the moment of introduction - the 100gr AE load that is.
>5.56 NATO chargers
What on earth uses these? Mini 14? Bolt actions? I don't really see that as relevant even if rim diameters are the same for these cartridges. Potentially easier conversions are a lot more important factor.
>I'm just theorizing about equipping a military that doesn't need to adhere existing standards and is supported by its own arsenals.
Well, modern standards are quite flexible so you can easily pick something that's good for you without any downsides so there's little reason to unintentionally introduce incompatibility. .308, .312, .338, .355, etc. all are quite common and the margin between them is quite tiny.
>8.58×70mm Lapua Magnum is real magnum cartridge.
Yeah, it's bigger, but what are advantages that it brings? Longer supersonic range? Less drop? More energy downrange? A 6mm optimum can be supersonic up to 1200m and still has almost 300ft-lbs of energy at that range, with higher BC bullets that drift on the wind less. A 6.5mm cartridge can do that and be even bigger, while what does .338lm have to offer afterwards? Being as loud and recoiling and barrel-burning and flashy as a scaled-down 50BMG? Smaller caliber and larger BC is the goto for long range performance and an 8mm caliber doesn't strike me as a small one.
Well, you're free to try. I doubt that it'd be really that practical to use with general purpose 6-7mm cartridges present, not enough to issue it specifically for that purpose, anyways. Even designing a bit lighter anti materiel rifle with hydraulic recoil dampening stock would be more reasonable.
Is it just a fancy way of saying 9mm+p+? Because if it fits 9mm mags then it's likely just that - an overpressure 9mm. Not that bad itself, with it's 500ft-lbs but significantly behind the SIG with it's 600-650. Still an ok defensive ammo, not really good for anything else, not powerful, versatile or useful enough, really.
Even if it has a longer casing it won't do shit because it has to maintain 9mm OAL to fit into the mags, you're just seating the bullet deeper. Unless they raise the numbers so high that even +p+ rated guns can't handle that their data is either dishonest or straight up a lie. Quickload is not a good estimator of a cartridge's power and fails to give meaningful information when going out of conservative estimations of common loads.
>960 rowland
Piece of shit lie like everything that came ot of this lecherous motherfucker. It's nothing but over glorified overpressure 9mm+p+ that requires custom brass and barrels only that faggot makes, conveniently. Same thing with 460 rowland - 45 super except only from this faggot.
>Are saboted rounds in a straight wallee cartridge completely out as a topic in this thread?
Sabots would be most beneficial in rifle cartridges, in handguns this is not really the case. Also, technology is not really good enough for common use unless it's something weird like 6.5CBJ. When it finally arrives, it will be able to shift things a lot in terms of rifle internal ballistics but that's a topic for another thread and is not really mature enough.
>.40cal case
Low capacity, high recoil, poor ballistics, 9mm format. 357SIG only somewhat fixes 2 of those.
>injection molding THV/Lehigh cavitator projectiles
>I dont know enough about this rowland guy to quite understand all the hate thrown his way.
He's a scam that sells you already existing solutions that only differ in that they are proprietary so he can milk you out of your money.
>The extra case capacity
It only has extra case capacity in comparison to 9mm.
>a subcal bullet to reach higher energy levels, but without the need to form the brass and create a necked cartridge
Point by point:
Sabot technology is still very much in development and should not be considered a solution until it improves.
Forming brass is likely to be cheaper than fucking with those, especially in pistol rounds.
A necked cartridge has several advantages like better feeding.
40 short and weak is shit and deserves to die right after 9mm does.
>.30 carbine throws a 85-105grn pill at around 2100fps from a 16" barrel
It shoots 110gr bullet at 2000+fps from an 18", i don't know where did you get that info from.
>.312 bullet in the 50-60grn range
And that's not 30 carbine performance in any way, shape or form. If you ever had an idea this is you should not be allowed to discuss these things.