Who Wants an 8mm Cartridge?

I think that the advantages of going down from 9mm to 8mm are not big enough to be worth the bother. If it is desired to go in this direction, then I think a 7mm bullet diameter should be the maximum, and it should be designed from scratch to be a high-expansion projectile. It would have more to offer in terms of increased capacity in both single-stack and high-capacity magazines. Penetration might be poor, but I am thinking of self-defense here, and that may be different from police requirements.

Of course, there are no 7mm automatic pistol cartridges, and pretty much never have been (aside from 7mm Nambu), and that is going to send the R&D costs rocketing toward the stratosphere, but we are primarily engaged on a thought exercise here. I think arguing in favor of 8mm over 9mm is like arguing the US Army should go from 45 Springfield to a 40 caliber rifle round in 1890 - you're not thinking big (or rather small) enough.

Golden

"Again, you assume something with my preference for the 32 super auto over the 9mm. Both are effective using the right ammo. Using the wrong ammo, like the older simple jacketed hollowpoints, both are less effective then unless you up the noise, flash and recoil. I have been through that with +P and +P+ in the 32 super and the high velocity rounds in the 9mm.
I can get the performance that I want with FEDERAL HST ammo (or something similar) in either caliber, but the 9mm will offer a small performance advantage and fewer rounds with more recoil."

That's just how that works.

Do you really think they can't make a HST work in .312-.321?

Monac said:

Of course, there are no 7mm automatic pistol cartridges, and pretty much never have been (aside from 7mm Nambu), and that is going to send the R&D costs rocketing toward the stratosphere, but we are primarily engaged on a thought exercise here. I think arguing in favor of 8mm over 9mm is like arguing the US Army should go from 45 Springfield to a 40 caliber rifle round in 1890 - you're not thinking big (or rather small) enough.

Click to expand...

The work has been done, look up 7mm Penna. A Euro-cop project (like the 7.92 VBR) but even STI was in cahoots with them for a while.

The US went from .50 to smallbore .45 rifles in 1873. There had been a short look at a .58 breechloader but it did not catch on.
It did in England, the .577 Snider was issued for a long time followed by .577-450.
They were moving fast towards a .40 single shot but smokeless repeaters were coming in and the .40s were back converted to .450 or forward to .303.

How about bring back the 7.62 x 25mm Tokarev? It does everything a 9mm does plus some and it is pleasant to shoot.

MAVRACER,

It will be less effective than a 9m.m. HST because it is an 8m.m. The same applies to .40 S&W and .45ACP HST, bigger is better in some cases, but can cost too much in performance.


Big Al,

The 7.62x25 TOKAREV is just another name for the 7.62 MAUSER. Some of the Czech and Russian ammo is supposed to be hotter, but I have not seen proof of it.

Jim

Jim Watson said:

The work has been done, look up 7mm Penna. A Euro-cop project (like the 7.92 VBR) but even STI was in cahoots with them for a while.

The US went from .50 to smallbore .45 rifles in 1873. There had been a short look at a .58 breechloader but it did not catch on.
It did in England, the .577 Snider was issued for a long time followed by .577-450.
They were moving fast towards a .40 single shot but smokeless repeaters were coming in and the .40s were back converted to .450 or forward to .303.

Click to expand...

Well, there you go! I think Mr. Penna and I have cracked this case, and our work here is done. Glad to be of help.

But seriously, if I take nothing else away from this discussion, it is respect for Jim Watson's breadth and depth of knowledge, and the creative thinking of the other members here, and the value of being able to get many points of view. No snark intended.

BTW, until I Googled 7mm Penna, I thought its full name might be 7mm Pennsylvania. Penna was sometimes used as an abbreviation for the state before the standardized system of two letter abbreviations was introduced.

PS - I am not entirely sure what this is, but it came up (with a Cyrillic URL) when I did a Google Image search for 7mm Penna: https://cheaper.2021discountonline.com/content?c=7mm penna&id=4

That is a good price, these days, If you could get the gun they show to go with it.

With a 35000 psi pressure limit, the performance of this proposed round would be just above the 32 H&R (given same barrel length).

I believe the 32 H&R is used for SD by many 327 owners because of the reduce recoil / blast. One of the biggest selling points for self defense 32s is 6 round revolvers instead of 5 for 38s. Squeezing in extra capacity in a compact auto would be a selling point regardless of how many round is "really needed".

Less recoil with no increase in muzzle blast over the 9mm would also be potential selling points.

The basic internal ballistics is the easy part to figure out. Matching up with existing bullets is not so hard given what is made for the 32 H&R and 327. I could easily make up a Contender barrel for this round and demonstrate that Quickload results are not just theory (the software is pretty good for this type of thing). But that would not really convince anybody of anything. Taking a small single stack 9mm and converting it to a "32 Super" or "7.65 x 20" or similar would be a little more interesting. It would require a new barrel, magazine work and possibly slide re-work. For the conversion, I would worry most about magazine issues. There are small guns that use a locked breech for 380s. Do any of these also come in 32 ACP? It would make a trial much easier.

The OP was discussing something more along the lines of a new gun for a gun maker. For them, coming up with a few prototypes would probably be no big deal.

None of the above really matters because it is not likely to happen. Even though a good percentage of "32 lovers" would be interested, only a fraction of this number would be eager to pull out their wallet. Selling to these guys plus a few folks that are not already fans of the 32 would not be likely to viewed as adequate market potential for any big name gun maker. Just because an idea "could work" does not mean that there is enough marketability for anyone to try to make it happen.

We're going to have to get the cartridge up and running before we interest any gunmakers. Starting with a single-shot isn't a bad idea for a proof of concept, and if someone here is a good enough gunsmith with loads of free time on his hands, I would suggest starting not with a tiny pistol, but a pistol the size of a 1911 or a Beretta 92 (etc.). I'm guessing a fixed or rotating barrel would be the easiest to work with, but I wouldn't ask a CZ gunsmith to jump platforms simply because I thought it just might be easier. Once it works in a big gun, it would be easier to deal with a smaller gun.

The first custom gun is going to be the most expensive.

Mauser lover said:

We're going to have to get the cartridge up and running before we interest any gunmakers. Starting with a single-shot isn't a bad idea for a proof of concept, and if someone here is a good enough gunsmith with loads of free time on his hands, I would suggest starting not with a tiny pistol, but a pistol the size of a 1911 or a Beretta 92 (etc.). I'm guessing a fixed or rotating barrel would be the easiest to work with, but I wouldn't ask a CZ gunsmith to jump platforms simply because I thought it just might be easier. Once it works in a big gun, it would be easier to deal with a smaller gun.

The first custom gun is going to be the most expensive.

Click to expand...

You're spot on, using existing cartridges is the best way to make this a reality and that's why I focus so much on the .32 NAA. It already exists and like .357 Sig to .40 S&W, any .380 can be easily converted to shoot .32 NAA with a barrel change.

The 32 NAA may not be the best round to focus on. It is designed for 380 pressures and really light bullets. Any 327 gun can be used as is (no changes required) for proof of ammo acceptability using regular 32 brass of a selected length and OAL as desired for final product. Unless you invest in pressure test equipment, a tool like Quickload should be used to estimate the pressures required to get measured velocities. To more closely match what we a really interested, a snubbie would make more sense.

To actually get a semi-auto pistol to run on a longer than 32 ACP straight wall round would probably start with a compact gun intended for the 9mm.

I'm in the camp that prefers large diameter, heavy bullets for self defense.

But, I could see a potential need for a 8mm/32 caliber high performance round for semi-auto pistols for critter control.

It would be a hard sell though.

BigAlShooter said:

How about bring back the 7.62 x 25mm Tokarev? It does everything a 9mm does plus some and it is pleasant to shoot.

Click to expand...

While I do like the Tokarev, that's really a full size pistol only option and the length of the cartridge requires a fairly long grip. Not 5.7x28 levels of long, but still quite long. I hope someday Ruger decides to take the 57 and offer an option in 7.62 Tok and .357 Magnum, but with Ruger these days unless it's embraced by tacticool operators, they won't make it. Other than Ruger, I don't see it happening, at least not by a US company. Maybe Zastava or other Eastern Eurorpean country would, the former Soviet states must view the Tokarev like the 1911 is in the US.

Also, the 7.62x25 has a lot of blast. Not something I want in a 3 inch semi auto.

golden said:

MAVRACER,
.......................

The 7.62x25 TOKAREV is just another name for the 7.62 MAUSER. Some of the Czech and Russian ammo is supposed to be hotter, but I have not seen proof of it.

Jim

Click to expand...

It maybe another name for the 7.63x25 and so what if it is. An 85 grain bullet of proper design going at 1500 fps second sound like a good round.

P Flados said:

The 32 NAA may not be the best round to focus on. It is designed for 380 pressures and really light bullets. Any 327 gun can be used as is (no changes required) for proof of ammo acceptability using regular 32 brass of a selected length and OAL as desired for final product. Unless you invest in pressure test equipment, a tool like Quickload should be used to estimate the pressures required to get measured velocities. To more closely match what we a really interested, a snubbie would make more sense.

To actually get a semi-auto pistol to run on a longer than 32 ACP straight wall round would probably start with a compact gun intended for the 9mm.

Click to expand...

the cartridge and the pistol would ideally need to be designed together. The french .32 long pistols IIRC were recoil operated, but were not pocket guns.
Probably never could happen. Would need one or two of the major companies to get together to produce such a cartridge and gun.

mavracer said:

MCB nailed it in the second post a straight or slightly tapered rimless case with an OAL of 1.15-1.2 and a MAP of 38-40K should push a 110-115 gr bullet to 1150-1200 fps.
It's hilarious to see all the 9mm guys use the 40and 45 guys arguments word for word.

Click to expand...

I'm still not sure why a bottleneck cartridge is a bad idea. Especially if we're talking about a night-stand gun or something to keep in the top desk drawer. Insisting on every new design being an ultra-compact carry piece limits the market and cements in place the idea that civilians must only be allowed to carry concealed, therefore they must also be licensed and regulated to carry a firearm. Kinda don't make sense to me.

I don't see an advantage in a bottleneck, either. The small caliber bullet was not the point of the exercise. The European developments I mentioned were for police service pistols of high capacity, low recoil, and adequate power by Civilized Old World standards. One outfit was going to break into IPSC which would require changing the rules on allowable calibers. Have to pay a lot of sponsor money for that.

GeoDudeFlorida said:

I'm still not sure why a bottleneck cartridge is a bad idea. Especially if we're talking about a night-stand gun or something to keep in the top desk drawer. Insisting on every new design being an ultra-compact carry piece limits the market and cements in place the idea that civilians must only be allowed to carry concealed, therefore they must also be licensed and regulated to carry a firearm. Kinda don't make sense to me.

Click to expand...

Well for starters the 30 Luger already exists and would offer the ballistics discussed here easily with nothing more than a barrel change to any current 9mm. Problem is it's going to hold the same number of rounds. At that point it really offers little over just running a lighter bullet in a 9mm

Kleanbore said:

Hornady has introduced a .327 Magnum Critical Defense load , with an 80 grain bullet. I do not know hoe it performs

Click to expand...

I was watching that release fairly closely and saw a bunch of issues with it immediately. Case head separation seemed to be the most common. Ammo became scarce shortly after so didn't see if they ever fixed it.

mavracer said:

Well for starters the 30 Luger already exists and would offer the ballistics discussed here easily with nothing more than a barrel change to any current 9mm. Problem is it's going to hold the same number of rounds. At that point it really offers little over just running a lighter bullet in a 9mm

Click to expand...

Pretty sure I said new design not .30 Luger. But it’s okay. I guess there’s no point to the discussion unless it’s about 9mm. Sorry for interrupting. Peace out.

I guess you could neck down a 9mm to 8mm, either 9x19 or 9x21 that way it would be a real screamer. Could work but then you have to make sure bullet makers were making suitable bullets for it.

I've always wondered why there isn't a 44 caliber option, it would be on the larger framed handguns like .45 and 10mm but could be more powerful than both. Then again, it seems like higher power and heavier recoiling options aren't that popular amongst LEO's and for it, or anything for that matter, to take off, it has to be accepted by agencies.

I've also considered a straight wall .357 option that shoots actual 357" bullets, you would get 9mm like capacity with 125gr @ 1500+ fps, but not sure that could happen in the smaller framed semi autos and either way it would be a very high pressure round. Plus that's already doable with the 357 SIG and it's not fairing so well. Oh well, it's fun to think up pointless things at times.

BARNETMILL,

It maybe another name for the 7.63x25 and so what if it is. An 85 grain bullet of proper design going at 1500 fps second sound like a good round.

Good for what?

I am always interested in something better being developed, however, 1500 fps with a non expanding bullet is just a pellet moving at 1500 fps. It is also noisier and will have more muzzle blast than a 9m.m. So what have you got?
The 9m.m. is as good as it is right now because of development of the round to produce reliable expansion and adequate penetration over many different situations. This was the FBI goal when they adopted the 10m.m. and then the.40 S&W. It was my agencies desire when they first adopted the .357 magnum and then went to a high velocity .40 caliber round.

I do not see any real advantages to a 7.62 MAUSER or 7.63 TORKAREW. Maybe with development, then can provide something that I cannot now get with a standard pressure 9m.m. round, but I doubt it.

JIm

SDGLOCK,

A necked down 9 m.m. already exists, it is the .30 Luger round. Even if loaded to +P pressures, what will it do better or even as well?

The 9m.m. Parabellum, loaded to standard pressure provides a relatively easy round to shoot and provides an excellent balance of power to recoil. It is easier to shoot than almost any competitor and compact enough to allow large campacitiy magazines without making the grip too large. Anybody remember the original versions of the GLOCK 21? A lot of .45 ACP in that mag and a grip that was simply too large for many people and a slower recovery time between shots. I speak from my own experience on this.

Jim

SDGlock23,
There was a poster on the 1911 board with a .44 Russian Rimless project. I fear it foundered on the cost of a .44 barrel.

There was a poster on TFL with a .357 auto whose extra two thou on barrel and bullet claimed substantially improved performance over 9x23 Win. Even got a short gunzine piece out of it.