Is Federal’s New 30 Super Carry a 32 ACP Magnum?

Kleanbore said:

Basis?

Click to expand...

No basis at all other than from personal experience from shooting a variety of different pistol and revolver calibers at indoor ranges.

AND that is why I said "I don't see"

It would have been different if I would have said something like "I know" because none of us know yet. Please do not take my words out of context.

So what exactly makes one pistol cartridge louder than another? Velocity, internal pressure, or something else?

I have posted this a number of times. The 30 SC muzzle blast is very similar to the 9mm.

First I ran Quickload. Although it has a higher chamber pressure, the pressure falls off more rapidly and is down to about the same pressure as the 9mm when it leaves the barrel.

Then I watched a video with a guy shooting SD ammo in 30 SC and 9mm in the same gun. They looked the same and the guy indicated they were very comparable from his point of view for both blast and recoil.

The 327 (I have one) is nasty will full power ammo. It has a lot longer case and uses slower powders for full power.

I agree with Kleanbore that excessive loudness may well be a concern with this cartridge. It’s a significant concern for me because I like to hear things, and if given the choice of two adequate cartridges for self-defense, would be most likely to choose the one less likely to permanently damage my hearing after the fact in the event I actually need to use my firearm.

I notice that .32 (s&w long, acp) .38spl, .45acp do seem quieter than the supersonic crack of 9mm or .357. I personally choose the heavier, 147gr subsonic for this reason in 9mm ammo. We are talking about a significant pressure increase over 9mm. We probably won’t know for sure until some decibel testing is done. Which may be a while. It’s very hard to find good data about the loudness of different cartridges.

Kleanbore said:

Basis?

Click to expand...

An understanding of pressure curves and seeing the small powder capacity of the 30SC my SWAG would agree with 12Bravo20's assumption.

Kleanbore said:

Okay.

The similarity between the .30 SC and the .327 Federal Magnum, which we are told sounds like dynamite, gives me a different expectation.

Click to expand...

The oonly similarity is diameter and pressure the 327 has over 50% more powder capacity and uses slower powder add to that the blast from the cylinder gap and you're gonna have 2 very different animals.

More rounds in a standard size magazine. It has that going for it, and that’s enough for a lot of buyers. (Not me)

Kleanbore said:

Pressure and gas volume--louder with a shorter barrel.

Click to expand...

Pressure at the point the bullet leaves the barrel should be something that can be compared and contrasted (loosely) based on velocity and bullet weight. Seems that if you have a heavier and a lighter bullet, both leaving the same length barrel at the same velocity, the heavier one (to my mind) likely has more pressure behind it at the point it exits the barrel. What happens before that is meaningless regarding muzzle blast, because the blast hasn't yet happened.

Gas volume, assuming a complete burn and similar charges of similar powder (re: burn rate) should be....well, similar. I don't see any reason to suppose vast differences in powders or charge weights considering that the smaller case has a lighter bullet and a higher MAP.

I'm not anticipating any kind of overwhelming muzzle blast from the 30SC. Seems like no big deal.

Kleanbore said:

Okay.

The similarity between the .30 SC and the .327 Federal Magnum, which we are told sounds like dynamite, gives me a different expectation.

Click to expand...

We can also use 9mm as an example. 9mm shot out of a semi-auto pistol will have a different level of noise compared to the exact same round fired from a revolver. As stated, this is due to the cylinder gap.

The shop owner that runs the indoor range can definitely tell the difference in both the sound and loudness when I shoot my 22WMR Kel-Tec PMR30 pistol versus when I shoot my different 9mm pistols. And the register/gun counter is at the opposite end of the building. I know that is somewhat subjective but the owner does make the comment all the time to me.

I would think that a revolver with a near .01" cylinder gap shooting a Magnum is going to have a lot of blast, but a semi auto shouldn't have so much more to be uncomfortable.

Really, I have a lot more reasons to turn down .30 Super than simply because it's loud.

SIG just announced that they will build a P365 in 380. Getting interesting, isn’t it?

Zone Five said:

SIG just announced that they will build a P365 in 380. Getting interesting, isn’t it?

Click to expand...

That is interesting. Strange that they'd go for .380 and not 30SC. Are they sending a message?

I think Sig announced that .380 P365 nearly a year ago, just hasn’t actually seen the light of day yet. Maybe they will announce a .30SC too, for 2025.

What are the odds that Sig had had as much time as we all have to think about this cartridge? I'm not privy to how secure the information on a new pistol cartridge would be but it takes a ton of time to get test barrels and whatever other parts needed for a new cartridge made. Then time to play with designs and spring strength plus the couple dozen other details I'm missing. I wouldn't read into a company releasing a gun in a different cartridge as any commentary on this new cartridge.

The round was in the works before the panicdemic.
S&W and Nighthawk got enough notice to set up for it.
If anybody else did, he didn't take an interest.

Kleanbore said:

Many people prefer the .380 in small, light pistols. I am one of them.

Click to expand...

Should be a real pussycat to shoot. One of my favorite 380s is a keltec p11 clone in 380acp. Recoil impulse is like a large 32acp.

Sig p365 might end up being a nice multi caliber platform...380/30sc/9mm. Barrel/caliber/ Recoils spring change is all you need. Kind of like a Sig Sauer meets the HK4. Somebody should make a 22lr kit for them.

starling said:

Sig p365 might end up being a nice multi caliber platform...380/30sc/9mm. Barrel/caliber/ Recoils spring change is all you need. Kind of like a Sig Sauer meets the HK4. Somebody should make a 22lr kit for them.

Click to expand...

Interesting notion.
Just took mine apart to look at that (just not enough to go search up a 380 snap cap). 380 is about the same overall as a 22lr, so, once the magazine issue was worked out, there's nothing but sorting the springs & barrel out.
30sc is the same over-all (functionally) as 9x19, so that ought not be a fit issue.
The 22lr would need a new slide so as to have the correct breechface (which will also be an issue with the 30sc, breechface dimensions).
Ill guess that most of the engineering for a 380 P365 would be in the magazines, where 2mm can be a major issue.

CapnMac said:

Interesting notion.
Just took mine apart to look at that (just not enough to go search up a 380 snap cap). 380 is about the same overall as a 22lr, so, once the magazine issue was worked out, there's nothing but sorting the springs & barrel out.
30sc is the same over-all (functionally) as 9x19, so that ought not be a fit issue.
The 22lr would need a new slide so as to have the correct breechface (which will also be an issue with the 30sc, breechface dimensions).
Ill guess that most of the engineering for a 380 P365 would be in the magazines, where 2mm can be a major issue.

Click to expand...

22lr would need an entire upper and magazine. Slide most likely aluminum. Similar to the twisted industry conversions for keltecs.

380 is a simple fix for the magazine. Simple rear spacer and shorter follower. Its been done on lots of pistols. Recoil spring would need to be lighter. 9mm and 380 would probably work with the same slide. 9mm/380 vs 30super using the same slide might be an issue. Possible Extractor, Ejector, and breech face differences there. All of it is pretty easy though for a designer. Its all been done before. If you have the components and a little skill something like a keltec p11 can fire 22lr, 380, 9mm, 40S&W, and 357 sig.

22lr conversions make a lot of sense for cheap practice if its a dedicated CCW platform. Why more companies dont offer them for subcompact CCW pistols is beyond me. The market is already built in.

starling said:

380 is a simple fix for the magazine. Simple rear spacer and shorter follower.

Click to expand...

Concur in principal, but magazines are deceptively complex bit of engineering. Many an novel firearm has been undone by poor magazine engineering.

The length of the magazine feed lips is a significant part of how the magazine feeds. 2mm less grip might be telling. It might be that the back of the magazine might be 2mm thicker, rather than an internal spacer. Maybe. Perhaps.

9mm and 380 would probably work with the same slide.

Click to expand...

Ought to, as I'm middling sure the P365 is a locked breech, so the slide mass is less of an issue.

[/QUOTE]Why more companies dont offer them for subcompact CCW pistols is beyond me. The market is already built in.[/QUOTE]
Probably tied up in product marketing as much as machine run time. There's significant overhead in how products are packaged and labeled and boxed up for sale. Probably some product liability tied up in it as well. So, given "corporate inertia" it's easier to just let the companies already specialized in conversions keep their niche.

Mind, I have long wondered the exact same thing. Also, while similar products (like the Colt Ace) were dropped.
Shoot, I have enough trouble keeping up with my own trade in Architecture. Sigh.

CapnMac said:

Concur in principal, but magazines are deceptively complex bit of engineering. Many an novel firearm has been undone by poor magazine engineering.

The length of the magazine feed lips is a significant part of how the magazine feeds. 2mm less grip might be telling. It might be that the back of the magazine might be 2mm thicker, rather than an internal spacer. Maybe. Perhaps.


Ought to, as I'm middling sure the P365 is a locked breech, so the slide mass is less of an issue.

Click to expand...

Why more companies dont offer them for subcompact CCW pistols is beyond me. The market is already built in.[/QUOTE]
Probably tied up in product marketing as much as machine run time. There's significant overhead in how products are packaged and labeled and boxed up for sale. Probably some product liability tied up in it as well. So, given "corporate inertia" it's easier to just let the companies already specialized in conversions keep their niche.

Mind, I have long wondered the exact same thing. Also, while similar products (like the Colt Ace) were dropped.
Shoot, I have enough trouble keeping up with my own trade in Architecture. Sigh.[/QUOTE]

Agree on the feedlips length. It varies depending on design. My experience converting a few 9mm to 380 on subcompacts is that the shorter actions are more forgiving. As long as the lips dont clear the rim before the bullet contacts the feedramp its usually good to go. It can still work if it does but you cant slow cycle the slide without a misfeed because the rim jumps the extractor hook. Under actual fire or slingshoting the slide it typically still runs fine. Not sure how short the feedlips are on the p365 magazine though.

Here is a good video on the HK4 if you have not seen it. He shows how HK managed to engineer a nifty reach face feature for the 22lr. It might be worth a watch for you