Thoughts on the .30 Super Carry

I would expect the muzzle blast and noise would be distracting. Much like shooting a tokerav or CZ52

earplug said:

I would expect the muzzle blast and noise would be distracting. Much like shooting a tokerav or CZ52

Click to expand...

See post 30.

earplug said: ↑
I would expect the muzzle blast and noise would be distracting. Much like shooting a tokerav or CZ52

fxvr5 said:

See post 30.

Click to expand...

Part of the flash from a 7.62x25 is from the type of powder that is used. I suspect those factory use nothing to retard flash in their powders.

Opinion...It's all about marketing and selling new caliber firearms. Some folks like to follow the latest and greatest. I suppose that's why there are choices. Personally I just don't see the need for one when I have 9s, 38/357s and 45s in the stable that perform very well.

I think the 30 SC is probably an improvement.

If you get 9mm terminal ballistics with 2 extra rounds in basically the same footprint as a 9mm, then that's an improvement.

In the past, people were just taking educated guesses when they were inventing cartridges. The .380 ACP wasn't really a great idea.

Today we have computer modeling and increased knowledge of sectional density, momentum, energy, and felt recoil in a handgun, terminal ballistics and how hollow points can be made to work. I think engineers can improve handguns and cartridges to better meet requirements, like increased concealability, reduced felt recoil or in the case of 30 SC - having more ammunition in roughly the same size as a 9mm handgun.

If American Car buyers were like American gun buyers we'd all still be driving 70's style Big 3 automobiles.

C0untZer0 said:

The .380 ACP wasn't really a great idea.

Click to expand...

?????

Generally speaking, I am gonna support anyone that chooses to carry and affirm their right to select whatever caliber they desire.

Hope our 30 SC brethren and sisters never have to use em, and I hope it’s effective if they do.

Just me though, I’ll stick to 9mm. I’m set up for it, it’s ubiquitous, it works well enough for me, and it’s the way I’m going.

Time may prove it’s an improvement, though. We shall see I suppose.

My immediate reaction to this cartridge was "Why?"

If I want more rounds I'll choose a slightly bigger gun with higher capacity in an easy to find cartridge like 9mm. Putting a smaller and faster cartridge in the same gun isn't a new concept.

If it offered different performance then maybe, but matching 9mm isn't that exciting to me. At least with the 327 Federal Magnum there was a substantial increase in velocity over 32 H&R mag. But I've been in it too long to care anymore.

The .380 ACP is not that great of a cartridge.

It has the same diameter as the 9mm Luger but it is a much shorter bullet. Two bullets that have respected terminal ballistics are the 9mm 147gr Winchester Ranger "T" Series - RA9T and the 9mm 147gr Federal HST. They have a sectional density of 107.505 The heavy for caliber 102gr .380 ACP hollow points have a sectional density of 74.596. The 147gr hollow points from a 3" barrel have muzzle velocities of around 930 to 950 ft/sec and penetrate between 15" and 16" in ordnance gel. The heavy for caliber 102gr hollow points from Remington from a 3" barrel have muzzle velocities under 910 ft/sec, some of the hollow points fail to expand and penetration and over-penetration runs the gamut. Which is representative of .380 ACP ammo as a whole. Most .380 hollow points penetrate to around 10" and the FMJ, even truncated flat nosed rounds zip out the back of 19" blocks. There are a few exceptions to this, the 90gr Hornady XTP bullets which penetrate to around 13.5" through 4 layers of denim. Most other rounds either underpenetrate or over penetrate.

A better round could have been created with about the same amount of energy but greater sectional density and better terminal ballistics.

But in 1908, John Browning was just making an educated guess when he came up with the .380 ACP.

Something new for the bored. May end up being a cartridge that ammo is only made every 5 years. Stock up.

C0untZer0 said:

The .380 ACP is not that great of a cartridge.

But in 1908, John Browning was just making an educated guess when he came up with the .380 ACP.

Click to expand...

Yeah, that danged JMB. He didn’t look 100+ years into the future and see radical improvements in bullet design and testing to develop ballistic gel standards set by the FBI by which all rounds are judged. What a loser.

fxvr5 said:

He didn’t look 100+ years into the future and see radical improvements in bullet design and testing to develop ballistic gel standards set by the FBI by which all rounds are judged

Click to expand...

I didn't disparage John Browning. He didn't have the tools and knowledge that today's engineers do.

I think improvements can be made. Gun manufacturers and ammo makers should make advancements by creating new and improved cartridges.

There needs to be some more options in 30 SC or else it's doomed. The only one right now that I might consider would be the M&P Shield Plus, couldn't care less about a Shield EZ or a $4000 1911. The cartridge itself may be okay, seems to recoil about like a 9mm and should give okay ballistics because it runs fairly heavy bullets for .312". But again, if nobody else is willing to come out with guns for it, and soon, it won't make it even if I kinda like the idea of it.

C0untZer0 said:

The .380 ACP is not that great of a cartridge.

It has the same diameter as the 9mm Luger but it is a much shorter bullet. Two bullets that have respected terminal ballistics are the 9mm 147gr Winchester Ranger "T" Series - RA9T and the 9mm 147gr Federal HST. They have a sectional density of 107.505 The heavy for caliber 102gr .380 ACP hollow points have a sectional density of 74.596. The 147gr hollow points from a 3" barrel have muzzle velocities of around 930 to 950 ft/sec and penetrate between 15" and 16" in ordnance gel. The heavy for caliber 102gr hollow points from Remington from a 3" barrel have muzzle velocities under 910 ft/sec, some of the hollow points fail to expand and penetration and over-penetration runs the gamut. Which is representative of .380 ACP ammo as a whole. Most .380 hollow points penetrate to around 10" and the FMJ, even truncated flat nosed rounds zip out the back of 19" blocks. There are a few exceptions to this, the 90gr Hornady XTP bullets which penetrate to around 13.5" through 4 layers of denim. Most other rounds either underpenetrate or over penetrate.

A better round could have been created with about the same amount of energy but greater sectional density and better terminal ballistics.

But in 1908, John Browning was just making an educated guess when he came up with the .380 ACP.

Click to expand...

Well, what he was asked for was a cartridge that could be used in the Colt 1903 with a minimun of modification. It was not what you could call a "clean sheet" design. Possibly more bullet weight would have made it overlength for the Colt magazine, or maybe it would not have cycled the slide with the right velocity.

Also, I am not grasping your preference for heavy bullets. The modern trend has been toward lighter bullets, in order to obtain increased bullet expansion on impact (given a bullet designed for expansion, of course). The heavier bullets seem like an exception to the rule. (Does anyone else here remember how the first 147 grain 9mm Para bullets for pistols were a flop? The Navy SEALs had been using them in suppressed SMGs, where the longer barrels gave them usefully greater range and enough velocity to expand. In pistols, they expanded poorly. It took careful design to get the effective 147 grain 9mm's we have day.)

Interesting idea, though, and a good analysis. It's been about 115 years since 380 ACP came out, so we ought to be able to do better, even given that John Browning was a genius. In fact, people tried to do better 50 years ago, when "9mm Ultra/9mm Police" came out. But it wasn't enough better to overcome 380. Heck, the very discussion we are having here about 30 Super Carry shows how hard it can be to get people to think a new cartridge is a good idea.

I hope I have not stepped on your toes, C0untZer0. I had no intention to.

Monac said:

I am not grasping your preference for heavy bullets.

Click to expand...

Not heavier bullets per se, but bullets with greater sectional density tend to penetrate deeper. "Heavy for Caliber" bullets tend to have the greatest sectional density for that caliber. I think there are limits to that though, the standard pressure 150gr 9mm bullets don't outperform the standard pressure 147gr bullets.

The story of the 380 is a great case study in how not to design something. Usually you start with an issue or a problem that you're trying to address, that generates requirements that must be met, and the requirements dictate a solution. I know that the cartridge was designed around 1907 and that is part of my point. Colt wanted a new cartridge that could be used in the Colt 1903 with a minimum of modification and that is exactly what they got. Anything else that the .380 ACP does is incidental.

If bullet manufacturers today set out with specific objectives and requirements to create a cartridge that produces somewhere around 290 ft-lb of muzzle energy out of a 3" barrel (this is toward the high-end of 380 +P) with an emphasis on penetration, I'm sure they could make a round that can be fired in the smaller locked breech pocket pistols that has better terminal ballistics than the 380 ACP.

C0untZer0 said:

Not heavier bullets per se, but bullets with greater sectional density tend to penetrate deeper. "Heavy for Caliber" bullets tend to have the greatest sectional density for that caliber. I think there are limits to that though, the standard pressure 150gr 9mm bullets don't outperform the standard pressure 147gr bullets.

The story of the 380 is a great case study in how not to design something. Usually you start with an issue or a problem that you're trying to address, that generates requirements that must be met, and the requirements dictate a solution. I know that the cartridge was designed around 1907 and that is part of my point. Colt wanted a new cartridge that could be used in the Colt 1903 with a minimum of modification and that is exactly what they got. Anything else that the .380 ACP does is incidental.

If bullet manufacturers today set out with specific objectives and requirements to create a cartridge that produces somewhere around 290 ft-lb of muzzle energy out of a 3" barrel (this is toward the high-end of 380 +P) with an emphasis on penetration, I'm sure they could make a round that can be fired in the smaller locked breech pocket pistols that has better terminal ballistics than the 380 ACP.

Click to expand...

Boy, I have started any number of long winded answers to your post, C0untZer0. I think the problem is I don't really want to criticize your ideas, because they are interesting and well thought out.

Yet I find that idea that 380 ACP is the result of of a flawed design process jarring, to say the least. It is one of the most popular automatic pistol cartridges in the world, and has been for a century, give or take. It has easily outlived potential replacments like 9mm Makarov and 9mm Police. If you think the process that led to a thing that so many people have found so useful for so long was flawed, then I think maybe you need to re-evaluate.

Similarly, the better cartridge you describe really is better, no question. It is also so similar to 9mm Parabellum that I am afraid I don't see the point. Once again, maybe I am missing something.

Finally, I would point out that there is a cartridge that pretty much meets your design specs for a 380 ACP replacement. It is 9mm Browning Long (9x20mm SR), which has the heavier bullet and higher velocity you desire, without getting into 9mm Parabellum territory. Nobody has wanted to design pistols for it since about 1930, and I don't think getting rid of the semi-rim and shortening it up by 2 or 3mm is going to help. Maybe it would be useful with today's designs and materials, but that ship has sailed.

You know, somebody in the revolver forum had an idea for a modernized 38 Short Colt cartridge that sounded a lot like your modernized 380 ACP. Most people there had a hard time with that idea, too. I think you are trying to hit too small of a target between 380 ACP and 9mm Parabellum for other people to see the appeal.

I understand the feeling, because I am actually a big 9mm Browning Long fan and lately have been seeing the .442 Webley as a good cartridge abandoned too soon. And if talking about 442 Webley here isn't thread drift, I don't know what is.

It seems like the goal of 30 SC was to meet similar ballistics to 9mm but be able to fit 2 more rounds in roughly the same space.

I'm not trying to hit a target between 380 and 9mm. I think anything over 380+P energies is too much for a pocket pistol (although I EDC a Rohrbaugh R9). I think a cartridge that has better terminal ballistics than .380 ACP without increasing recoil above what 380 produces must reduce bullet diameter and increase bullet length and mass to increase sectional density. That moves it away from 35 caliber toward 33 or something...

C0untZer0 said:

The .380 ACP is not that great of a cartridge.

It has the same diameter as the 9mm Luger but it is a much shorter bullet. Two bullets that have respected terminal ballistics are the 9mm 147gr Winchester Ranger "T" Series - RA9T and the 9mm 147gr Federal HST. They have a sectional density of 107.505 The heavy for caliber 102gr .380 ACP hollow points have a sectional density of 74.596.
...

Click to expand...

How did you figure out the sectional densities on both bullets? Just wondering.

Maybe the 30SC will be the greatest thing since sliced bread, but I kind of doubt it. Self defense rounds will be designed to penetrate 12-18” in gel to meet the FBI criteria, just like 9mm SD rounds. They won’t expand to a larger diameter than 9mm hollow points expand, so the crush cavity for each round will be marginally less than a 9mm JHP. The recoil is about the same as a 115 grain (this is where momentum comes in, BTW), so you are going to get off the same number of rounds per unit of time. The only advantage is the alleged 20% increase in capacity, which really isn’t that great of an advantage unless you are in a situation where you are going to go to slide lock. The report is going to be loud, there’s no such thing as a free lunch. I haven’t priced the ammo, but I’d be shocked if it was less than 9mm.

There are a lot of handgun rounds that were good ideas in concept that have fallen by the wayside - 38 Super, 10mm, 41 Magnum, 40S&W, 357Sig, 45GAP, 327 Magnum. I suspect this will be another.

Well, if I were going to introduce a new round and new guns to go with the new rounds during a pandemic where ammo is scarce and prices for ammo were really high, I would have made tons of the ammo at very low prices to attract buyers. Also, I would have made sure there were plenty of firearms for sale that could use that cheap new “wonder” ammo.

.30 Super Carry is $1.50 to $1.75 per round (ball park) on Ammoseek.

https://www.hornady.com/team-hornad... bullet's weight,the deeper it will penetrate.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sectional_density

https://www.vcalc.com/wiki/MichaelBartmess/Sectional+Density

I will let you know what I think about it when ammo becomes available. I've had this S&W for over a month, and no ammo.

fxvr5 said:

Bullets are .312", traditionally named .32 caliber. They can name it anything they want.

Click to expand...

I think .32 Super would have been a good one.
I not a big fan of SD handgun rounds that will cost me my hearing.
If there were to be a carbine offered in this cartridge I might be interested.

Too much speculation and not near enough first hand experience to really tell me anything. I will say I haven't heard more than one or two arguments against 30SC that couldn't be used to make 40s&w the default winner over 9mm para. What I'm really looking forward to in this cartridge is a gun designed from the ground up around the dimensions, something that can carry like a single stack 9 but have the extra capacity I want. I'm young enough in shooting to still have that naive hope about such things.

"Variety is the spice of life", once wrote a wise poet.
I have zero issues with the introduction of new cartridges. Not caring if it's an answer to a question nobody asked, I see it more of an indicator of a robust industry that buttresses our 2nd amendment rights.

Also, I wouldn't mind seeing a PCC or PDW chambered in it. In fact, I don't think I would turn down an FN P90 in .30 super carry if it was given to me.