Thoughts on the .30 Super Carry

Monac said:

In factory ammo, isn't the kinetic energy of the factory standard 230 grain 45 ACP load within about 2% of the kinetic energy of the factory standard 115 grain FMJ 9mm Parabellum load? It surprised me to learn that 45 ACP and 9mm Para are very similar in power, but they are. The 45 has more felt recoil, because the bullet weighs twice as much and that's felt how recoil works, but it's true nonetheless. It is surprising to me how many people do not know that, or argue that 45 is way more powerful, but it just isn't so. Not unless you want to use some other measure, anyway, and I would like to know what that is.

(And yes, I know that the old standard loads are way below the hot hollow point loads we have now, but I would bet that kinetic energy is not all that different overall, or that 9mm actually has an edge because in kinetic energy, velocity counts more than projectile mass.)
...

Click to expand...

What's your definition of Power? Just wondering.

If this is like .327FM which is ear splitting to shoot without hearing protection. I'm out.
You shoot one in a house one time and your deft to your assailant.
If it does run at 50K pressure as someone else stated I don't know how it couldn't be ear splitting.
This would definitely be one I would shoot before I buy.

Monac said:

In factory ammo, isn't the kinetic energy of the factory standard 230 grain 45 ACP load within about 2% of the kinetic energy of the factory standard 115 grain FMJ 9mm Parabellum load? It surprised me to learn that 45 ACP and 9mm Para are very similar in power, but they are. The 45 has more felt recoil, because the bullet weighs twice as much and that's felt how recoil works, but it's true nonetheless. It is surprising to me how many people do not know that, or argue that 45 is way more powerful, but it just isn't so. Not unless you want to use some other measure, anyway, and I would like to know what that is.

(And yes, I know that the old standard loads are way below the hot hollow point loads we have now, but I would bet that kinetic energy is not all that different overall, or that 9mm actually has an edge because in kinetic energy, velocity counts more than projectile mass.)

Caveat: I stand ready to be corrected if somebody can explain how I am talking through my hat, because I have been wrong a lot and being wrong again will not shock me.

Click to expand...

Interesting... I looked up one of my favorite FMJ target loads just now, Winchester White Box, and in that case the 45ACP has even less energy than the 9mm para! Sure enough, you're right!

Though, they usually don't specify a barrel length, I assume it's the same length test barrel, but that could potentially be the variable.

WWB specs:
9mm, 115gr@1190fps= 362ft/lbs
45ACP, 230gr@835fps= 356ft/lbs

I don't know a thing about it and really have no interest in it. That's not be being a grouch, that's just the result of seeing so many new rounds over the last several decades destined to be the "new rage" crash and burn and fall into some niche/obscure cult following. That goes for both handgun and rifle rounds. Sure, rounds like the 6.5 CM, 300 BLK, and 40 S&W went on to become more or less "mainstream", and 5.7 is doing its best (after being in circulation for quite a while) but there are dozens that just fell into obscurity. Whenever new things have just come out in the past (say, 3+ years ago), ammunition was challenging to find and always comparatively expensive vs the long established "legacy" calibers. That right there is only going to be worse in this day and age with all of our current challenges. I even question the fiscal decision making process of ammunition companies developing new calibers in these times, regardless of how awesome the cartridge is/could be.

tightgroup tiger said:

If this is like .327FM which is ear splitting to shoot without hearing protection. I'm out.
You shoot one in a house one time and your deft to your assailant.
If it does run at 50K pressure as someone else stated I don't know how it couldn't be ear splitting.
This would definitely be one I would shoot before I buy.

Click to expand...

This is what Federal says:

How does felt recoil compare to 9mm Luger?
Recoil, flash and sound report provide a very similar shooting experience to 9mm Luger

(https://www.federalpremium.com/30supercarry.html)

I agree. I have one and it's like a 9mm.

Monac said:

In factory ammo, isn't the kinetic energy of the factory standard 230 grain 45 ACP load within about 2% of the kinetic energy of the factory standard 115 grain FMJ 9mm Parabellum load? It surprised me to learn that 45 ACP and 9mm Para are very similar in power, but they are. The 45 has more felt recoil, because the bullet weighs twice as much and that's felt how recoil works, but it's true nonetheless. It is surprising to me how many people do not know that, or argue that 45 is way more powerful, but it just isn't so. Not unless you want to use some other measure, anyway, and I would like to know what that is.

(And yes, I know that the old standard loads are way below the hot hollow point loads we have now, but I would bet that kinetic energy is not all that different overall, or that 9mm actually has an edge because in kinetic energy, velocity counts more than projectile mass.)

Caveat: I stand ready to be corrected if somebody can explain how I am talking through my hat, because I have been wrong a lot and being wrong again will not shock me.

Click to expand...

The other commonly used parameter when describing pistol calibers is "power factor" which is just another name for momentum.

Momentum = mass x velocity
Power factor is typically described as "bullet mass in grains" times "muzzle velocity in feet/sec"

Using that definition:
Typical 45 ACP: 230 x 850 = PF of 195,500
Super Carry: 100 x 1250 = PF of 125,000
Super Carry: 115 x 1150 = PF of 132,250

When compared using power factor there is a distinct difference between the two rounds.

Whether or not energy or momentum is the more appropriate parameter to compare two rounds is a topic of much discussion.
I am not even close to being a ballistician but for me when talking about pistol calibers I lean towards momentum with energy being secondary.

30 Super Carry. It offers something for people who are prohibited from military calibers. Seems to give very close to 9MM performance in 115 gr loads. Similar recoil, a couple extra rounds, slightly smaller diameter, etc. The 9mm has many hard to beat advantages - it's everywhere, it's cheap, a great variety of platforms and support, and in use literally over 100 years in military service and decades of police service. 9MM is proven and mature, while 30 SC is in it's infancy.

If it had similar performance but significantly lower recoil, that would be a real gain and a mass market could develop around that. But I think the limited advantages of 30SC over 9mm are not enough for a mass market.

ddc said:

The other commonly used parameter when describing pistol calibers is "power factor" which is just another name for momentum.

Momentum = mass x velocity
Power factor is typically described as "bullet mass in grains" times "muzzle velocity in feet/sec"

Using that definition:
Typical 45 ACP: 230 x 850 = PF of 195,500
Super Carry: 100 x 1250 = PF of 125,000
Super Carry: 115 x 1150 = PF of 132,250

When compared using power factor there is a distinct difference between the two rounds.

Whether or not energy or momentum is the more appropriate parameter to compare two rounds is a topic of much discussion.
I am not even close to being a ballistician but for me when talking about pistol calibers I lean towards momentum with energy being secondary.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure power factor is useful. A 5.56 55 grain bullet at 3,000 fps has a power factor of 165. That's far below a 45 Auto. I think most people would agree that the 5.56 is more effective than the 45 Auto at personal defense.

ddc said:

The other commonly used parameter when describing pistol calibers is "power factor" which is just another name for momentum.

Momentum = mass x velocity
Power factor is typically described as "bullet mass in grains" times "muzzle velocity in feet/sec"

Using that definition:
Typical 45 ACP: 230 x 850 = PF of 195,500
Super Carry: 100 x 1250 = PF of 125,000
Super Carry: 115 x 1150 = PF of 132,250

When compared using power factor there is a distinct difference between the two rounds.

Whether or not energy or momentum is the more appropriate parameter to compare two rounds is a topic of much discussion.
I am not even close to being a ballistician but for me when talking about pistol calibers I lean towards momentum with energy being secondary.

Click to expand...

Yes, I am old enough to be acquainted with momentum based measurements, like "Taylor Knockout Values". I also know they did not work. They give high ratings to things like the 38 S&W Super Police Load, the 380 Enfield, and the 200 grain 38 Special loads. None of those loads justified the high numbers given to them by those momentum based formulas. Kinetic energy, coupled with bullets designed to expand on impact, is actually a valid measure, justified by experience. Why are you still pitching an obsolete measure? What evidence do you have for it?

I think I read once that the "power factor" of a well-thrown baseball was so far above pistol bullets that it was like the thunderbolt of Jove. Let's see:

A major leage baseball weights at least 5 ounces

An ounce is about 437.5 grains, so a baseball is 2185 grains

Per Google, in 2020 the average Major League fastball was about 92 MPH, or about 135 feet per second

Major League fastball: 2,185 x 135 = PF of 294,975

That's about 50% more than 45 ACP. It's a wonder anyone survives an MLB game.

Look, I am wrong a lot. I could be wrong about this. But if momentum is a valid measure for pistol bullet effectiveness, I want to be shown how it is. Otherwise, you've got nothing but a feeling.

Leon tP said:

What's your definition of Power? Just wondering.

Click to expand...

Kinetic energy (1/2 mass time velocity squared). That seems to the best simple measure of what potential a properly designed pistol bullet has to expand on impact, and that is what finally began to improve the effectiveness of pistol bullets in actual use, starting about 50 years ago.

I readily admit KE doesn't tell you much about the relative effectivnessFMJ or other non-expanding bullets, because while those bullets excel at penetration and therfore long-term (say, over 5 minute) lethality, they have not had the immediate effect found with proper expanding bullets. (At least, not without a lucky hit, and if you're going to count on getting just the hit you want, you might as well throw rocks.)

To me, that is why all police forces now use expanding pistol bullets; they actually work, while other things, like extra-heavy bullets, did not.

PS - if you want to calculate kinetic energy using American units, you have to apply a correction factor incorporating Earth's force of gravity. That is because grains are a unit of weight and not of mass, and if you want to know the difference, go talk to my high school science teacher, Mr. Ihlenfeldt.

Monac said:

…like "Taylor Knockout Values". I also know they did not work.

An ounce is about 32,400 grains, so a baseball is 162,000 grains

Click to expand...

I’m pretty sure there are not 32,400 grains in an ounce. I think there are 7000 grains in a pound. Or 437.5 grains in an ounce.

And the Taylor KO wasn’t meant to compare baseballs to bullets to rockets to arrows. It works for relative bullet comparisons, though.

Monac said:

Kinetic energy (1/2 mass time velocity squared). That seems to the best simple measure of what potential a properly designed pistol bullet has to expand on impact, and that is what finally began to improve the effectiveness of pistol bullets in actual use, starting about 50 years ago.

I readily admit KE doesn't tell you much about the relative effectivnessFMJ or other non-expanding bullets, because while those bullets excel at penetration and therfore long-term (say, over 5 minute) lethality, they have not had the immediate effect found with proper expanding bullets. (At least, not without a lucky hit, and if you're going to count on getting just the hit you want, you might as well throw rocks.)

To me, that is why all police forces now use expanding pistol bullets; they actually work, while other things, like extra-heavy bullets, did not.

PS - if you want to calculate kinetic energy using American units, you have to apply a correction factor incorporating Earth's force of gravity. That is because grains are a unit of weight and not of mass, and if you want to know the difference, go talk to my high school science teacher, Mr. Ihlenfeldt.

Click to expand...

Okay, so kinetic energy is power, got it.
And what's the correction factor? How do I use it?

Leon tP said:

Okay, so kinetic energy is power, got it.
And what's the correction factor? How do I use it?

Click to expand...

I really don't know any more, because I learned it in high school and that's a heck of a while ago. Pre-disco, even. I know the force of Earth's gravity on the surface is 32 feet per second squared (and squared seconds really are a thing in physics).

Look, you're on the Internet. Ask a smart kid or find a converter. The latter is what I did for ounces-to-grains and MPH-to-FPS.

Also, I said I look to KE as a measure of cartridge power. Maybe there's a new thing these days I have not heard of. But it sure isn't momentum. I think.

PS - or do it in metric. Kilograms ARE a unit of mass.

Ru4real said:

I’m pretty sure there are not 32,400 grains in an ounce. I think there are 7000 grains in a pound. Or 437.5 grains in an ounce.

And the Taylor KO wasn’t meant to compare baseballs to bullets to rockets to arrows. It works for relative bullet comparisons, though.

Click to expand...

A) You are so right about the 32,400 mistake that even I noticed and fixed it a while ago. Kudos for being on the ball and having the right answer!

B) The fact that using momentum as a meaure of bullet effectiveness gets silly above a certain point is exactly what I was saying. Kudos for picking up on that too. What is the upper limit above which momentum does not apply, and why?

C) I don't see why rockets and arrows are relevant here, but I would be pleased to learn. I think the Gyrojet pistol rockets actually rather support my point, and I don't know anything about archery except that it's pretty different from riflery.

fxvr5 said:

I'm not sure power factor is useful. A 5.56 55 grain bullet at 3,000 fps has a power factor of 165. That's far below a 45 Auto. I think most people would agree that the 5.56 is more effective than the 45 Auto at personal defense.

Click to expand...

And for exactly that reason note that I specifically referenced pistol calibers.

Monac said:

Yes, I am old enough to be acquainted with momentum based measurements, like "Taylor Knockout Values". I also know they did not work. They give high ratings to things like the 38 S&W Super Police Load, the 380 Enfield, and the 200 grain 38 Special loads. None of those loads justified the high numbers given to them by those momentum based formulas. Kinetic energy, coupled with bullets designed to expand on impact, is actually a valid measure, justified by experience. Why are you still pitching an obsolete measure? What evidence do you have for it?

I think I read once that the "power factor" of a well-thrown baseball was so far above pistol bullets that it was like the thunderbolt of Jove. Let's see:

A major leage baseball weights at least 5 ounces

An ounce is about 437.5 grains, so a baseball is 2185 grains

Per Google, in 2020 the average Major League fastball was about 92 MPH, or about 135 feet per second

Major League fastball: 2,185 x 135 = PF of 294,975

That's about 50% more than 45 ACP. It's a wonder anyone survives an MLB game.

Look, I am wrong a lot. I could be wrong about this. But if momentum is a valid measure for pistol bullet effectiveness, I want to be shown how it is. Otherwise, you've got nothing but a feeling.

Click to expand...

Hey. You asked for another way to look at the problem. I presented one. Then you jump on me for providing it. I specifically pointed out I am not a ballistician. I am not pitching anything.

Try not to be such a jerk.

ddc said:

And for exactly that reason note that I specifically referenced pistol calibers.

Click to expand...

That does not suddenly make power factor a valid measurement for this argument. It's still not that useful.

I see the 30 Super Carry being a lot like the 357Sig, but in my opinion (with the very limited data on the 30 Super Carry) the 357Sig had greater advantages to offer. Namely barrier penetration such as windshields, car doors, etc.

I could see it limping along, but mainstream success, I think at it's best it could maybe approach 380ACP ammo sales and that in itself would be achievement. But I could be wrong, wouldn't be the first or the last.

I just see it being designed to surpass the wrong cartridge. Trying to market against the nearly 120 year old 9mm that has not diminished in popularity but has increased by magnitudes in the last 30 years; is a tough road to climb.

For me, when I can get a very slim G43x/48 with 15+1 135gr 9mm at 1,110fps+, I don't need an additional couple of rounds especially at the expense of having to shoot a 100gr, 0.313" bullet at 1,250fps. I'll take the heavier bullet to punch through bone without deflecting and a larger meplat. But that's me. And this doesn't touch the subject of ammo availability, affordability, proven track record and not to mention the great amount of pistols, carbines, rifles, magazines, etc that are already out there.

But the same argument I made above could be made for the 40S&W versus going down to the 9mm. It's all a matter of where one puts emphasis on being comfortable with size of projectile heading towards a threat. For me I landed on 9mm being the perfect balance of capacity, performance, and controllability. I just don't see a large enough population to make the argument for a move down in size to the 30 Super Carry from the 9mm which already gets balked at on the interwebs as being borderline too small for effective self-defense.

But good on Federal not resting on their laurels; but as far as prudent business idea not so sure. Especially, on the heels of their 224 Valkyrie failure.

ddc said:

Hey. You asked for another way to look at the problem. I presented one. Then you jump on me for providing it. I specifically pointed out I am not a ballistician. I am not pitching anything.

Try not to be such a jerk.

Click to expand...

I aplogize, ddc. My post was rude to you, and I should have toned it down. I will try not to be like that in the future.

I would be definitely in .. with the 30SC .. in a thin Sub Compact pistol… but …I really can’t see myself starting with a new caliber right now

Monac said:

I aplogize, ddc. My post was rude to you, and I should have toned it down. I will try not to be like that in the future.

Click to expand...

Wow, someone who recognized they had a bad response, owned up to it, apologized and will make efforts in the future to prevent it. Breath of fresh air and I didn't even read what you wrote.

Monac said:

I aplogize, ddc. My post was rude to you, and I should have toned it down. I will try not to be like that in the future.

Click to expand...

Thank you for the apology. That is very nice of you. It is appreciated. I can also try to be less reactive. Stay safe, good shooting.

Darth-Vang said:

What do you guys think about the .30 Super Carry Cartridges? I don’t think it’ll replace the .380 or 9mm luger for that matter.

Click to expand...

The 30SC is an interesting cartridge in the abstract. I like how it enables some potentially interesting guns, like perhaps a compact or youth centerfire lever gun (bullets are always flat-nosed in 30SC), or an M1 Carbine clone with new magazines that are finally made reliable, or a 7-round clipped revolver. But I'm pretty sure no gun on this list will ever be made. And beyond these novelties 30SC just does not provide enough advantage. Even the 12 rounds in a 10-round magazine is a bit of an advertisement exaggeration, if you actually measure the rounds. The only gun where you immediately and truly get such a jump is Glock 43X. In the rest of them, manufacturers will have to do tricks with followers and bottom plates. And even when they succeed it's a 20% bump (or less).

I have no idea when folks started using Taylor's Knockout formula for handguns, it certainly wasn't meant that way, even for Taylor.

This is what Taylor had in mind.

... While he admitted that many cartridge types would work at killing an elephant when aimed accurately at an elephant's brain, he was more concerned with situations where he missed the brain and the elephant would become enraged and charge at him. He wanted to evaluate cartridges that could stun an elephant, even if the bullet didn't hit a lethal spot, reasoning that a "knock-out" blow on the elephant would give the hunter enough time to reload and follow up with a more accurately aimed shot. It was really meant to calculate the effectiveness of solid big-bore bullets. John Taylor himself used this formula to make the point that big-bore bullets were more effective at stopping larger game than the lighter and faster bullets available at that time

Click to expand...

https://firearmshistory.blogspot.com/2012/12/measuring-effectiveness-of-cartridges_19.html?m=1

Despite all the back and forth, I don't think either Momentum or Power Factor are useless. I just think we've gotten better at assigning meaning to the KE numbers, through experience and observation, than we realize.
Since KE and P (momentum) are related, I suspect with experience, observation and familiarity, we could do the same with momentum or Power Factor numbers.

I know several things have to be there in order for everything to work. If any of these things are missing, well,... good luck.

• Will/Intent/Opportunity
  
• Weapon Platform
  
• Shot Placement
• Velocity
• Mass
  
• Knowledge of the Target
  
• Projectile Construction/Shape/Geometry or Properties

Special emphasis on the last one, after all, the projectile does the Work.
I keep saying projectile because I'm including bullets, bolts, pellets, buckshot, arrows, etc., Whatever flies towards the target.
If any of the above are non existent or zero, not much is getting done.

As for the Super Carry, I like the idea of it but if the availability of firearms or ammo don't come through in a big way, or the costs turn out crazy then I think it'll be about as successful as the 6.8 SPC, remember that fiasco. Too bad because I kinda liked that cartridge when it came out but I just couldn't find one and I lost interest in it over time.

Jmho

I think it’s future popularity depends much more on marketing than anything else.

If a few manufacturers pick it up and market it heavily, it’ll become wildly popular. If they don’t it’ll be 45gap all over again.

My faith in the general population is, in a word, lacking.