Looks like a solution to a problem that doesn't exist.


PDA






Eric F
August 10, 2008, 09:37 AM
Looks like a solution to a problem that doesn't exist.

I notice people say this just about every time a new round gets developed. Why?

Is it not ok to design some thing just to do it? In the ammunition world there is nothing left. Its all been done and every thing else is just rehashing something else.

This applies especially to the world of wild cat rounds.

If you enjoyed reading about "Looks like a solution to a problem that doesn't exist." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
armoredman
August 10, 2008, 11:18 AM
Not true, there is always something new and differant to work at. Besides, I am sure it's fun.

kwelz
August 10, 2008, 11:45 AM
It is a term most often used by people who are stuck in their ways or adverse to change. While there are some isolated times that the statement is true, more often than not it is about something that people just don't want to bother with.

The recent thread in Handguns about the .40 is a good instance of this. A number of people have made the statement or similar statement about it being a solution without a problem. Well we all know it is just a new round like any other.

There will always be people who don't like or want change. And this statement tends to be their battle cry.

Low-Sci
August 10, 2008, 05:19 PM
Maybe if folks would stop seeing innovations as an attempt to fix problems, and start seeing them as ways to potentially improve upon what already works, you'd hear that a lot less.

There's really nothing out there that's so perfect that it couldn't stand a tweak here and there just to see if it can't be improved.

TexasRifleman
August 10, 2008, 05:20 PM
Besides, I am sure it's fun.

That pretty much takes care of it I'd say :)

No other reason needed.

The Lone Haranguer
August 10, 2008, 07:00 PM
I notice people say this just about every time a new round gets developed. Why?

In some cases, at least, it is because the new offering offers identical or very similar ballistics to older, more established cartridges (e.g., .45 GAP, Winchester short magnums).

Jim K
August 10, 2008, 07:49 PM
If the new round really is innovative, even if it duplicates an existing round ballistically, it is interesting. But if the only obvious purpose is to give the gunzines something to write about and make a few bucks on the infantile hype, what is the point?

Jim

davepool
August 10, 2008, 10:24 PM
I've read this stuff about the FNH 5.7 pistol i just bought...same ballistics as .22magnum,blah blah,blah...but how many .22 magnums do you know of with a 20 rnd mag capcity? it is a fun gun to shoot! Took it out to Ben Avery for the first time today, accurate little sucker

woodfiend
August 10, 2008, 10:42 PM
Let me ask you this, can a .22 magnum shoot through a kevlar vest? New rounds may bridge the gap between performance and capacity.

Deer Hunter
August 10, 2008, 10:45 PM
No, but a 7.62x25 can.

:)

The Tourist
August 10, 2008, 10:48 PM
It's like inventing new lures. You might not catch fish, but you catch fishermen--and their wallets.

When the "new" 10mm first came out, the older guys wondered what exactly was 'new' about it. It's a 38-40. It's a .401 Power-Mag. It's a .41 AE.

But to a guy in his thirties with a wallet, the 10mm was the cutting edge.

Any new .22 centerfires out there? I mean ones that can drive a bullet faster than a 220 Swift or a 22-250 without blowing the bullet up or key-holing?

If I put a .375 Magnum and .350 Rem Mag together, could you tell them apart at first glance?

How about the 7.62x39mm style rifle, that broke some ground. Not really, I saw a picture of a lever action rifle modified to fire automatically. The mechanism is about 100 years old.

So is a 22 WSSM better than a 22-250? Are there actual improvements in the 25 WSSM that can not be found in the 250-3000?

I don't think so, not really. It's a chunk of lead at a certain size at a certain speed. Just the name changes.

ilcylic
August 10, 2008, 11:11 PM
Yeah, I think it's BS, I have new problems every day. :D

I play around with cartridge design all the time, just as mental exercise. Why not, it's fun to think about. Might be a cure looking for a disease, but heck, it's fun. And who knows, you might come up with something really sweet.

Of course, I'm one of those 10mm idjits... ;)

461
August 10, 2008, 11:52 PM
The .327 Federal magnum is suffering this persecution a lot lately. I for one am excited about it as a longtime .32 enthusiast. Folks seem to get the idea that it's gunning for the .357 Magnum as "King of the Hill" but I'm not even looking at that. To my mind it is a straight walled 32-20 and that is a clear cut improvement to the reloader, same performance with longer case life and carbide dies. What's not to love? I think the marketing model they are using is wrong but I've long ago learned to look past marketing hype.

The enthusiast is a different animal than the average gun owner, we like new stuff just to have new stuff, but the average Joe fights change and sticks with what works for them. Your average hunter or competitive shooter isn't necessarily a gun nut or reloader. Different strokes for different folks.

230RN
August 11, 2008, 12:44 AM
My problem is not with the innovation involved in new cartridges, but rather whether or not ammo will still be available in ten or twenty years.

Just as an example, I thought the .22 Jet was the cat's meow when it first came out --what with chamber inserts for .22 LR, and the super velocities of the Jet round. But I held off buying one the same way I would hold off buying a new model of car.

Sho' 'nuff, it was dead as a doornail in only about three years... now, admittedly, it was because of the insoluble problem of cases backing out to the breech face and locking up the revolvers for which it was chambered, but still, it was a "solution" that became its own problem.

I love the ballistics and quietness of the new .17 rimfires, but I won't touch one for at least two more years... and even then, I'll check ammo availability before I line the pockets of marketing geniuses.

I was thinking a couple of years ago that my close-to-ideal defensive carry weapon would be something in .32 H & R Magnum in a 3" 5-shot revolver proportioned to the cartridge, but then found ammo was hard to find.

I see now they have the Federal version of my close-to-ideal Magnum .32 cartridge.

I can wait. It's a solution, but let's see if the market says so, too.

gallo
August 11, 2008, 01:58 AM
I'm a classic on the 9mm side. The 40 SW, although it has proven itself plenty to be considered the new kid on the block, simply does not appeal much to me. Is it a solution to a problem that didn't exist? A lot of LEOs swear by the caliber.

That type of comments come from people fixed in on their caliber choice.

LightningJoe
August 11, 2008, 06:04 AM
I notice people say this just about every time a new round gets developed. Why?


Because it's generally true. We've had all the cartridges we needed since the beginning of the 20th century. All the guns we needed since the 60s.


Still, innovation goes on. Not a bad thing. Just a solution to a problem that doesn't exist.

Raystonn
August 11, 2008, 07:12 AM
I would disagree with you. The .357 Magnum is the king of one-shot stops. It beats out the .45 ACP, and anything else in the handgun category; that is until the .357 Sig round was invented. The .357 Sig very slightly edges out the .357 Magnum at common grains, and finally makes this stopping power, commonly referred to as the lightning bolt effect, available in a semi-automatic that holds many more rounds than a revolver ever will.

I'd hardly call the .357 Sig a solution to a problem that doesn't exist.

-Raystonn

lysander
August 11, 2008, 12:09 PM
I notice people say this just about every time a new round gets developed. Why?

Perhaps because at the subconscious level, we all have a natural resistance to the modern manufacturing notion of "planned obsolescence", and the modern marketing notion of "perceived obsolescence." :neener:

That isn't to say that there are not tech revolutions, but much of it is puffery and smokescreens.

jason10mm
August 11, 2008, 12:28 PM
Have you guys seen those all enclosed experimental rounds in one of the latest American Rifleman mags? Looked like the cases were plastic or something. Supposed to be lighter than conventional rounds of the same caliber and performance.

THAT to me is a worthy innovation. Of course I am not sure if those rounds are re-loadable, so while the military might like it, I don't see it catching on with the general population.

I think the round needs to follow the market. If someone could develop a killer compact handgun round (.45GAP, .327 mag for example) for a new market, that makes sense. But creating a round and then trying to make a demand for it is a bit more of a challenge.

We had a nice cartridge revolution with smokeless powder as the old rounds fell away and new ones came in. Barring a similar evolution/revolution in technology, I'm not sure there is a niche that has not been adequately explored.

The man-killer market seems to be in flux with the 6.8, but otherwise I don't see much else.

ilbob
August 11, 2008, 12:33 PM
I think some new cartridges actually address a true need, like the .416 Barrett. :)

Some are attempts to sell into a perceived niche market, like the .22 reed express.

Some are just people tinkering and coming up with something new and nifty. The .50 Beowulf comes to mind.

Then there are those trying to sell something like the .327 federal magnum/SP101. This is clearly a case of trying to create a market for something that doesn't really exist. Only time will tell if it is worthwhile.

IMO, in the end, the true worth of a cartridge is whether anyone shoots it.

rantingredneck
August 11, 2008, 12:41 PM
At a certain point, it's all been done before. Barring a major leap in technology as the previous poster mentioned.

Polymer frames on semi autos were a major step forward. Will polymers be used in any other way. (Will we finally get that Glock 7 that John Mclane made such a big fuss over?? :D)

Smaller handguns for CCW. Larger rounds/handguns for hunting/field use. Both of those seem to have reached their limits.

The Tourist
August 11, 2008, 01:05 PM
IMO, in the end, the true worth of a cartridge is whether anyone shoots it.

A comedienne was doing a spoof on Paris Hilton in 2001. She talked about clothes and slang, and then commented, "Oh, that's so-o-o-o last century!"

People liked the 10mm because it was new, so it had a following. Limited amounts of bullets, no brass and only one pistol to shoot them in--if you could find the gun and pray for the magazines.

Meanwhile, thousands of 38-40s languished on shelves.

This is one thing about collecting (anything) that troubles me. We will buy, sell, trade or believe anything if a saleman says that magic word "new."

We will dump a perfectly good commodity when a celebrity wrinkles their nose.

If P Diddy hit Entertainment Tonight and proffered that all of his posse has switched over to the new 11.5 millimeter Sri Lankan Titanium Express, thousands of guys would be trading off their Colt Elites.

Edit: This is not to denigrate the 11.5 and the standard factory load. I've only had mine one month, and obviously have only shot it a few times because reloading components are slim. I think it will become a good defense round once the hollowpoint issue is settled.

R.W.Dale
August 11, 2008, 01:19 PM
Two Words


30 TC

now someone give me a compelling reason why?

It's one thing to develope a cartridge like 270wsm, 500/460mag or 40S&W to fill an unused niche. But it's quite another to develop a cartridge that's a fourth or fifth generation copycat.

7.65x53 mauser / 30-06/ 300savage / 308win and now 30tc:rolleyes:

Tirod
August 11, 2008, 01:52 PM
New cartridges can offer solutions to bolt-reciever ratios, action lengths, size problems, and internal storage problems.

Think Leverevolution. The pointblank range is extended about another 100 yards, a significant improvement for the old lever action. Great for deer hunting. It puts the Winchester/Marlin hunter back in the field in areas he may have felt only a bolt action would do.

With the huge popularity of the Ruger LCP, I expect an improved .380 is now percolating to the top of ammo maker's hot list. And it will become the defacto preferred SD round - until the competition catches up.

As for the new Army ammo, I don't think the plastic telescoped rounds will even survive to fielding. The end game is to develop a completely caseless ammo. A 45% weight reduction and no expensive brass to form is the whole point.

The only disadvantage is that it may remain an exclusive military item - which would tightly control the sale of any resulting "sporter" arms with the required chamber designs. On the other hand, black powder shooters are just one step away with sabot rounds and pellets stacked on a sprue. With a primer holding, sealing case head, you could have semi caseless centerfire ammo to shoot in a conventional firearm.

The problems have existed for 150 years, it's about finding better solutions.

R.W.Dale
August 11, 2008, 02:11 PM
With the huge popularity of the Ruger LCP, I expect an improved .380 is now percolating to the top of ammo maker's hot list. And it will become the defacto preferred SD round - until the competition catches up..


I really hope so, The current crop of locked breach pocket pistols are just begging for a high pressure version of 32/380ACP

machinisttx
August 11, 2008, 03:42 PM
I would disagree with you. The .357 Magnum is the king of one-shot stops. It beats out the .45 ACP, and anything else in the handgun category; that is until the .357 Sig round was invented. The .357 Sig very slightly edges out the .357 Magnum at common grains, and finally makes this stopping power, commonly referred to as the lightning bolt effect, available in a semi-automatic that holds many more rounds than a revolver ever will.

I'd hardly call the .357 Sig a solution to a problem that doesn't exist.

-Raystonn

Unless they've made some significant change to the ammo, the Sig round isn't any better than the Magnum. It's also far less versatile. The Sig round is at it's best with 125 grain bullets, and if loaded with anything heavier velocity starts dropping off much faster than the Magnum.

I'd also guess that the comparison was made between fully jacketed hollow points in both cartridges, rather than the semi jacketed hollow point that made the Magnum famous.

Sam
August 11, 2008, 04:13 PM
Unless they've made some significant change to the ammo, the Sig round isn't any better than the Magnum. It's also far less versatile. The Sig round is at it's best with 125 grain bullets, and if loaded with anything heavier velocity starts dropping off much faster than the Magnum.

I'd also guess that the comparison was made between fully jacketed hollow points in both cartridges, rather than the semi jacketed hollow point that made the Magnum famous.

The SIG is significantly less effective when you consider the most effective loadings of the 357, as opposed to the most popular loadings.

The thing most telling about the "solutions to a problem that does not exist" are their low survival rate. Unless heavily subsidized by an entity with unlimited funds, they tend to disappear in a relatively short time.

LightningJoe
August 11, 2008, 05:23 PM
The .357 Sig very slightly edges out the .357 Magnum


Logical error #47: Impossible calculation.

Raystonn
August 11, 2008, 06:28 PM
Logical error #47: Impossible calculation.

It's the truth.

FBI Tests the .357SIG:
http://www.recguns.com/Sources/IIIC2q8.html

The purpose of the FBI tests is to evaluate how ammunition will perform in all situations that agents may find themselves in. These tests were developed and formalized after the famous Miami incident.

The author said that out of the 8 testing categories of the 40 round evaluation, tests 6 and 8 are the acid tests. These two tests involve shooting at lightly clothed gelatin through automobile glass.

Besides the 40-round test, every load is checked for pressure, velocity, and accuracy.

Another important emphasis by the FBI besides penetration, is bullet placement.

The 357SIG performance is equivalent to a 125 grain 357 Magnum with a 2 1/2" to 4" barrel length.

One complaint about the 357 and 9 ammo in similar grain loads as the 357SIG, is that they have limited penetration, especially after going through glass. The 357SIG is designed to have controlled expansion and excellent penetration.

The 357SIG held up as advertised. It exceeded 12 inches in all eight tests.

Dr Topper stated: "Average velocity from the SIG229 used in the gelatin tests was 1309 fps, and velocity from the test barrel was 1364 fps. Extreme velocity spread was only 55 fps from the SIG pistol and 47 fps from the test barrel, indicating excellent consistency in performance from both the ammo and the test gun. A 10-shot group from the test pistol averaged just 1.89 inches at 25 yards. The test barrel's group was only 1.14 inches, again indicating excellent performance from both the gun and the cartridge."

The pressure of the 357SIG, 40,000 psi, puts it into the magnum category, which means it can generate a lot of recoil. Since the SIG229 was designed as a magnum semiauto, recoil is very controllable and it kicks less than a medium weight 3" 357 revolver. It also holds 13 rounds compared to six rounds in a revolver.

The FBI tests showed that the 357SIG round out-performed the 357 Magnum revolver and the very popular 9mm Luger semiautos.

Honestly, the .357 Sig is a great advance in ballistics technology. Anyone who thinks it's "a solution to a problem that doesn't exist" is just fooling himself.

-Raystonn

Sam
August 11, 2008, 10:58 PM
How many are in the unsubsidized market and how many will be in 5 years.
I don't get as many customers asking for the 357 SIG as I do for the 327 and those are very sparse indeed.
I'd say 95% of the private owners I know l are NMSP guys who got them because they had a source of free ammo

Sam

thebaldguy
August 11, 2008, 11:08 PM
"Looks like a solution to a problem that doesn't exist."

I'm one of the people who say the above quote. My apologies to anyone I may have offended.

It's not my intention to rip on anyone who likes a new round. But if someone asks my opinion, they get my input. Some have fallen by the wayside, some haven't. The .357 Magnum was one of those rounds years ago, just like the .308 Winchester. I'm not sure if these new rounds are an improvement or not. Time will tell. I do know that expensive, hard to find ammo does not sell well, and if it doesn't sell, it doesn't survive the market.

Nolo
August 11, 2008, 11:19 PM
Because it's generally true. We've had all the cartridges we needed since the beginning of the 20th century. All the guns we needed since the 60s.
I don't understand the "we need" part of this. You have not quantified the need with a goal. There is no such thing as need without goal parameters. If you use very narrow goal parameters, your statement might be true. If you use very liberal goal parameters, your statement would most certainly prove false.

Raystonn
August 12, 2008, 12:11 AM
I do know that expensive, hard to find ammo does not sell well, and if it doesn't sell, it doesn't survive the marketI can find .357 Sig ammo in Wal Mart. It's cheaper than .45 ACP ammo.

-Raystonn

Jayman
August 12, 2008, 12:26 AM
Heck, I like .357sig, but only because I can get brass for it all day long. I started reloading it for a friend who is stuck with it as his duty gun and kept loading it for myself because it was fun. I too believe that maybe it wasn't the best new thing and perhaps a solution to a problem that didn't exist, but it is still fun to play with.

LightningJoe
August 20, 2008, 01:52 AM
I don't understand the "we need" part of this. You have not quantified the need with a goal. There is no such thing as need without goal parameters. If you use very narrow goal parameters, your statement might be true. If you use very liberal goal parameters, your statement would most certainly prove false.


The term "goal parameters" is also a solution to a problem that doesn't exist.

LightningJoe
August 20, 2008, 01:58 AM
It's the truth.

FBI Tests the .357SIG:
http://www.recguns.com/Sources/IIIC2q8.html


Your original post mentioned stopping power. Now if you want to say that in some particular test the .357 Sig ammo used penetrated farther than the .357 Magnum ammo used, that's fine. Might not mean much due to the vast array of different ammo available for both cartridges, but it's measureable.

misANTHrope
August 20, 2008, 02:09 AM
Huh, I figured this was going to be a thread about the Remington EtronX system.

:p

If you enjoyed reading about "Looks like a solution to a problem that doesn't exist." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!