Race to the Bottom... Long Range Pistol/Carbine Cartridge

F

fpjeepy05

Member
Joined
Nov 20, 2009
Messages
66
Recently read the "Race to the Bottom" article about the 6mm ARC. Makes sense. 6mm ARC wouldn't exist without the rangefinder.

I've recently had a fascination with the side arm interchangeable cartridges. I guess first was 9mm (Mac-10), but more recently the 5.7x28mm. (Ruger LC carbine and pistol) I would also include the Keltec PMR-30, CMR-30 in 22WMR. I've also seen a 30 carbine pistol, but I don't think it had a matching carbine. But a common complaint is some aren't practical as self defense in a pistol.

So, the prompt is.... What is the most powerful cartridge that would work long range in a carbine, but also fit within a pistol grip? I think the max overall length would be around 1.68" the length of the 30 carbine. The AMT Automag III looked a little goofy, but lets assume it worked.

My vote is 6x35mm KAC (6mm-221, 6mm fireball, 6mm whisper) loaded with a snubby nosed bullet. (30-30 Leverevolution style) I think it could make the 1.68" length limit, and with a 65gr bullet at 2400fps in a pistol, it does a lot more damage than 5.7x28. In a 16" carbine I think it would be just behind 5.56 energy wise.

Also Sig is expanding it's ammunition of other cartridge's for their two-part case system. Maybe somewhere down the road there is a 6x35mm Fury that beats 5.56 out of a smaller package.

1080701-7d976dea45af2b1ac53c4d721fef74a5.jpg
amm-3030__45575.jpg
img_5079-440x187.jpg
 
I always wanted a 256 Win Mag Winchester 92'.

Although, a 357 Bain and Davis in a 92' would be pretty good too. Although a 357 B&D in a old Ruger Deerfield would be great.

Might be able to get the 256 to run in a Coonan. Both should work in a Desert Eagle with an appropriate barrel and magazine. Easy button for either handgun would be a S&W wheel gun though.
 
What do you define as long range and what kind of accuracy are you expecting? 100 to 150 yards a 10mm in a handgun or a pcc would be more than minute of bad guy. does an AR or AK type pistol qualify? if so then 6 arc or 223.
 
I know this performance can be exceeded by a larger diameter case, again necked down to a small projectile, but this has been my answer to the “long range deer hunting revolver” problem. I went through various super magnum cartridges, 460 & 500 S&W, 445SM, 357Max, 357/44 Bobcat (stupid poly carb collars), 256win, 22 Jet, 22 Hornet & K-Hornet… and finally stumbled upon the 357/44 Bain & Davis about 10 years ago. This pursuit was significantly hindered by the non-existence of the right combination of bullet weight and construction for given calibers. But drawing the Speer .358” 180 grain HotCor through a .357” bullet sizing die offers the right mix of short bearing surface, short ogive, while being sufficiently robust to hold together at relatively extremely high impact velocities for a revolver cartridge without being so tough to not expand at relatively low impact velocities for a rifle cartridge.
542D542F-6FF1-41DD-9320-780E9711C2AB.jpeg 42DA1192-4F9E-4416-A59C-665339443E97.png

Over substantial charges of H110, I can get this 180 grain bullet up over 1900fps from a 7.5” Redhawk barrel. I am sourcing parts currently to build a Marlin 1894 in the same, and expect another 300-400fps from a 20” barrel. My objective with this pursuit was to create a revolver truly capable of taking deer out to 250yrds - and my load is hitting harder at 250 than a conventional .357 magnum would with the muzzle pressed against the hide.

Less recoil and a smaller revolver than a 460 S&W X-Frame, and nearly a whole 0.1 higher BC, my B&D is actually meeting and beating the 460 at 250yrds on energy, velocity, sectional density, and trajectory… in a revolver ~30% lighter.
 
Varminterror said:
I know this performance can be exceeded by a larger diameter case, again necked down to a small projectile, but this has been my answer to the “long range deer hunting revolver” problem. I went through various super magnum cartridges, 460 & 500 S&W, 445SM, 357Max, 357/44 Bobcat (stupid poly carb collars), 256win, 22 Jet, 22 Hornet & K-Hornet… and finally stumbled upon the 357/44 Bain & Davis about 10 years ago. This pursuit was significantly hindered by the non-existence of the right combination of bullet weight and construction for given calibers. But drawing the Speer .358” 180 grain HotCor through a .357” bullet sizing die offers the right mix of short bearing surface, short ogive, while being sufficiently robust to hold together at relatively extremely high impact velocities for a revolver cartridge without being so tough to not expand at relatively low impact velocities for a rifle cartridge.
View attachment 1139963 View attachment 1139966

Over substantial charges of H110, I can get this 180 grain bullet up over 1900fps from a 7.5” Redhawk barrel. I am sourcing parts currently to build a Marlin 1894 in the same, and expect another 300-400fps from a 20” barrel. My objective with this pursuit was to create a revolver truly capable of taking deer out to 250yrds - and my load is hitting harder at 250 than a conventional .357 magnum would with the muzzle pressed against the hide.

Less recoil and a smaller revolver than a 460 S&W X-Frame, and nearly a whole 0.1 higher BC, my B&D is actually meeting and beating the 460 at 250yrds on energy, velocity, sectional density, and trajectory… in a revolver ~30% lighter.
Click to expand...

One of these days I'm gonna stumble across the right, cheap used 357mag Blackhawk to convert to 357B&D.
 
gotboostvr said:
I always wanted a 256 Win Mag Winchester 92'.

Although, a 357 Bain and Davis in a 92' would be pretty good too. Although a 357 B&D in a old Ruger Deerfield would be great.

Might be able to get the 256 to run in a Coonan. Both should work in a Desert Eagle with an appropriate barrel and magazine. Easy button for either handgun would be a S&W wheel gun though.
Click to expand...

No what I'm talking about is Totallyyyyyyyyyyyyy different. Lol

I forgot about the 256 win mag. The 6x35mm KAC is nearly identical but rimless. Maybe a little less taper, 0.014" small bullet, 0.097" longer, shaper shoulder. Wouldn't be the first time someone reinvented something that already existed.

256 would have better bullet selection, 6x35 would be easier to function in a semiauto.
bearcreek said:
Please define "work" and "long range".
Click to expand...

I think taking a coyote at 250yds out of a 16" barrel, would be a nice minimum. I'm never going to use it in a military application by maybe 1.25MOA @ 400yds would be useful. Complete guess. Short range stop an attacker at 10 yards with a 8" barrel.

jak67429 said:
Does an AR or AK type pistol qualify? if so then 6 arc or 223.
Click to expand...

Gotten fit in the pistol grip.
 
The downside of most of these existing bottlenecked revolver cartridges is the bullet options, both for expansion velocity range and for ballistic coefficient.

Look at the bullets used in 22Jet and 256win, they’re stubby little lightweight, blunt nosed bullets. Even for my Bain & Davis mag, I have to either trip meplats on the old Hornady 180 SSP-SP bullet to fit into cylinder or carrier length, or use a stubby blunt bullet like the HotCor pictured above. But while these short radius bullets might not have BC’s anywhere near that possible for their caliber in rifle cartridges, they CAN (not all DO) stand tall among revolver bullets. So it’s a balancing act between poorer BC and overall length tolerance.

And of course, reloading data doesn’t exist for many of these bullets in these Wildcat cartridges. I have lower pressure with over 2.5 whole grains more powder under the 180 HotCor than with the lesser charge under 180 XTP’s, which I attribute to the fact the bearing surface is only about 1/3 as long.

But I can hang onto deer-killing group sizes at 250yrds from my Redhawk. I’m hoping my 1894 with a 20” barrel will cut that in half, and again, add 300-400fps, which should translate into another hundred yards on my reach, and then some.

Of course, Ernie has been doing some pretty cool stuff with his FrankenRugers in 357mag and 44mag, even with factory ammo. @xphunter posted a video a few years ago smacking a 1moa target clear out at 500 yards, with a straight 357mag.
 
Varminterror said:
The downside of most of these existing bottlenecked revolver cartridges is the bullet options, both for expansion velocity range and for ballistic coefficient.

Look at the bullets used in 22Jet and 256win, they’re stubby little lightweight, blunt nosed bullets. Even for my Bain & Davis mag, I have to either trip meplats on the old Hornady 180 SSP-SP bullet to fit into cylinder or carrier length, or use a stubby blunt bullet like the HotCor pictured above. But while these short radius bullets might not have BC’s anywhere near that possible for their caliber in rifle cartridges, they CAN (not all DO) stand tall among revolver bullets. So it’s a balancing act between poorer BC and overall length tolerance.

And of course, reloading data doesn’t exist for many of these bullets in these Wildcat cartridges. I have lower pressure with over 2.5 whole grains more powder under the 180 HotCor than with the lesser charge under 180 XTP’s, which I attribute to the fact the bearing surface is only about 1/3 as long.

But I can hang onto deer-killing group sizes at 250yrds from my Redhawk. I’m hoping my 1894 with a 20” barrel will cut that in half, and again, add 300-400fps, which should translate into another hundred yards on my reach, and then some.

Of course, Ernie has been doing some pretty cool stuff with his FrankenRugers in 357mag and 44mag, even with factory ammo. @xphunter posted a video a few years ago smacking a 1moa target clear out at 500 yards, with a straight 357mag.
Click to expand...

I think if a production manufacturer like Hornady picked up the idea they could get the optimum bullets.
 
fpjeepy05 said:
I think if a production manufacturer like Hornady picked up the idea they could get the optimum bullets.
Click to expand...

I’m not terribly certain that aligns with how Hornady runs their business. When we look at cartridge releases which have been dependent upon new diameters or specialized development which only applies to a singular cartridge, Hornady hasn’t been the company making those particular mistakes. Hornady does retain a few bullet models which have unique expansion characteristics, but none are terribly recent releases.
 
I agree there aren't many 6mm bullets that will expand at the velocities we are talking about. But for military applications it's FMJ and therefore doesn't matter. If the cartridge were to catch on then there would be more guaranteed ROA so bullet manufactures would be more liking to produce something. DRT makes a 6mm pill with a tungsten powder core, although it looks to be out of stock. From the videos I've watched those would work in self defense or varmint application regardless of velocity. "Work" and "best for avoiding legal repercussions" in self defense are two different things. Hornady 65gr v-max would probably be my choice of what is currently available.

Could also push the shoulder back. It would decrease volume, but with 6x35 being slightly larger than 256, and new blended powders, and higher pressures. I think it would at least match the 256 and still better than 5.7x28. Sig Furyized would help as well. If that doesn't work then push the shoulder way back on 6ARC to make a 6ARC short @ 1.68 overall. I don't know if a 6x35 would be single or double stack pistol mag, but I think 6ARC short would be single stack. Probably getting close to feed issues, but there are smart people out there. They can make it work.

cmr30-truck-rust-green-squares-scaled-1-1-1.jpeg
Ruger-LC-Carbine-2.jpg
 
Varminterror said:
The downside of most of these existing bottlenecked revolver cartridges is the bullet options, both for expansion velocity range and for ballistic coefficient.

Look at the bullets used in 22Jet and 256win, they’re stubby little lightweight, blunt nosed bullets. Even for my Bain & Davis mag, I have to either trip meplats on the old Hornady 180 SSP-SP bullet to fit into cylinder or carrier length, or use a stubby blunt bullet like the HotCor pictured above. But while these short radius bullets might not have BC’s anywhere near that possible for their caliber in rifle cartridges, they CAN (not all DO) stand tall among revolver bullets. So it’s a balancing act between poorer BC and overall length tolerance.

And of course, reloading data doesn’t exist for many of these bullets in these Wildcat cartridges. I have lower pressure with over 2.5 whole grains more powder under the 180 HotCor than with the lesser charge under 180 XTP’s, which I attribute to the fact the bearing surface is only about 1/3 as long.

But I can hang onto deer-killing group sizes at 250yrds from my Redhawk. I’m hoping my 1894 with a 20” barrel will cut that in half, and again, add 300-400fps, which should translate into another hundred yards on my reach, and then some.

Of course, Ernie has been doing some pretty cool stuff with his FrankenRugers in 357mag and 44mag, even with factory ammo. @xphunter posted a video a few years ago smacking a 1moa target clear out at 500 yards, with a straight 357mag.
Click to expand...

When I decided to make a 500 yard goal for my 357 Magnum Fraken-Ruger, I had no expectations, other than, I thought it could be done.
When you can get a 3-shot group right around 3.5" at 500 yards with a 357 Magnum, it makes you feel pretty good.
I was just goofing around.
I don't shoot or hunt with revolvers a lot.

Trimming meplats sounds like a a great compromise to make things work.
Good job of thinking outside the box!

Back to a semi-auto pistol, that fits in a holster, that does not use an arm brace, is going to be limited for LR use.
Even when you are using a field bag, many semi-autos accuracy is affected when pressure is put on the bottom of the mag
I guess one needs to define what LR is in a semi-auto pistol carry gun, that is designed for holster carry, even with a reflex sight.

I have had a Seekins AR-15 pistol for a long time with 2-uppers (7" and a 15" with Rock 1-7T barrels). The 15" has hit steel beyond 1K with 69 grain Smacks. That is not really a big deal, as it doesn't fit in my mind with what the OP is talking about.

"I've recently had a fascination with the side arm interchangeable cartridges."
I think this is a cool project, but it is not something I have experience in.
My carry guns are 9mm or 40S&W. Primarily 9mm. With a reflex sight, I can be pretty spicey with one at times when shooting at 100 yards or a tad further. Depends if we are talking off-hand or rested, and the size of the target makes all of the difference in the world.
 
fpjeepy05 said:
6mm ARC wouldn't exist without the rangefinder.
Click to expand...

If you want precision, even at unknown distance like 400+ yards, with a plex reticle on a big magnum a LRF helps.
Even with a magnum, missing the distance by 75 yards, when you guessed 400, and it was 475 is going to be a 10"-12" or more low with the majority of rounds folks hunt game with.
Most people don't do well guesstimating distance, unless they practice a lot.
When guesstimating distance, when talking mid-range distances (600 yards+), you better have a LRF.

Gravity is constant (that doesn't mean your vertical drop will be), but it is the wind, that is the great Achilles Heel of LR shooting

I shoot my clone Charger 22lr out to 500 yards, and have killed pd's out to the 350 yard mark with them.
Still have a goal of 500 yard pd with one of my clone Charger's. I have not focused on that yet though.
 
xphunter said:
Back to a semi-auto pistol, that fits in a holster, that does not use an arm brace, is going to be limited for LR use.
Click to expand...

The idea is a compact carbine that shoots ballisticly close to 5.56. The mag being in the pistol grip shortens the overall length. Also I have not shot a lot with the AR, but I shoot freehand better with my non-trigger hand closer to my body, like on the trigger gauge, and elbow in my gut. The pistol grip mags would help with balance to shoot this way in my opinion.

Actually having a pistol that shoots the same ammo is just kind of an add-on. In apocalyptic scenarios it is nice to only have to stock pile one ammo and interchangeable mags adds redundancy. For the military a soldier only carrying one ammo makes sense. I would buy the carbine before I bought the pistol.
 

Attachments

  • 815686519.jpg
    815686519.jpg
    88.5 KB · Views: 7
The people who I know that hunt people for a living do not try to carry the same ammunition or one cartridge for everything, it’s not practical or realistic for what they do.
I am glad people enjoy, apocalyptic circumstances, but I don’t buy into that myself. I sure don’t have a problem with people who think that way or buy ammunition and guns that way.
I’m more of a bring the specific tool for the specific tasks. If there are some crossover’s, I am fine with that as well, and would enjoy that.
But if trying to do that, all of a sudden, it made my every day carry weapon impossible/not practical to carry, then, it makes no sense to me.
 
fpjeepy05 said:
For the military a soldier only carrying one ammo makes sense.
Click to expand...

I am largely on board with the idea of a long range pistol - especially shifting the lines between “long range for a pistol” closer to that of “long range for a rifle.” But I’m not following the logic of a military soldier carrying common ammo for both pistol and carbine. This is a paradigm which has been potentially fieldable for a century and a half, and what has been proven is that doing so hinders performance of both firearms - and frankly, the paradigm of common soldiers fielding two weapons has overwhelmingly been abandoned. Personally, all of the training I have ever taken, all of the practice and use of firearms I have had, and all of the data and research I have seen on the subject have all proven that shooting any round from a handgun, when it could be fired from a carbine or rifle, is a round wasted.

Ballistically and functionally, I think there is considerable delusion in the pursuit of reaching “ballistically close to 5.56” from a handgun, or ~1.7” cartridge. A 16” carbine length barrel gets more from these rounds than a pistol length barrel, but we simply don’t have enough powder on hand (potential energy) to do the work. Consider the 221 Fireball, which is ~1.9” spec COAL, if memory serves - it gives up ~300-400 fps to a 5.56 in similar barrel lengths. And of course, the 221 Fireball is largely relegated to lightweight bullets with relatively low ballistic coefficients, which means most loads are falling transonic by 500 yards, which might still be fantastic for a pistol, but is abysmal for a rifle. We really just can’t get enough potential energy into a case small enough to fit into a grip-borne magazine to deliver the performance we’re demanding here. That’s largely why handguns have always been built around cartridges with a differentiated mechanism for killing - big caliber bullets, heavy for the powder charge, moving slowly. The 5.7x28 is a novelty, not a standard, for a reason; super light bullets at relatively low speeds just aren’t that impressive.

Picking a cross-over carbine & pistol cartridge, especially one intended for a semi-auto pistol, creates a cartridge which is neither fish nor fowl, and which has significant utility limitations. Fun? Sure. Productive? Eh. Worth the development costs? Not a chance.
 
Varminterror said:
But I’m not following the logic of a military soldier carrying common ammo for both pistol and carbine.
Click to expand...

If the soldier's rifle jams having a sidearm could save a life. If it is a different cartridge he only has his backup ammo. If it is the same cartridge he can use all the ammo he was carrying. Good idea or bad idea is different from lacking logic.

Varminterror said:
This is a paradigm which has been potentially fieldable for a century and a half, and what has been proven is that doing so hinders performance of both firearms - and frankly, the paradigm of common soldiers fielding two weapons has overwhelmingly been abandoned. Personally, all of the training I have ever taken, all of the practice and use of firearms I have had, and all of the data and research I have seen on the subject have all proven that shooting any round from a handgun, when it could be fired from a carbine or rifle, is a round wasted.
Click to expand...

Again the idea is the rifle is disabled.

Varminterror said:
Ballistically and functionally, I think there is considerable delusion in the pursuit of reaching “ballistically close to 5.56” from a handgun, or ~1.7” cartridge. A 16” carbine length barrel gets more from these rounds than a pistol length barrel, but we simply don’t have enough powder on hand (potential energy) to do the work. Consider the 221 Fireball, which is ~1.9” spec COAL, if memory serves - it gives up ~300-400 fps to a 5.56 in similar barrel lengths. And of course, the 221 Fireball is largely relegated to lightweight bullets with relatively low ballistic coefficients, which means most loads are falling transonic by 500 yards, which might still be fantastic for a pistol, but is abysmal for a rifle. We really just can’t get enough potential energy into a case small enough to fit into a grip-borne magazine to deliver the performance we’re demanding here. That’s largely why handguns have always been built around cartridges with a differentiated mechanism for killing - big caliber bullets, heavy for the powder charge, moving slowly. The 5.7x28 is a novelty, not a standard, for a reason; super light bullets at relatively low speeds just aren’t that impressive.

Picking a cross-over carbine & pistol cartridge, especially one intended for a semi-auto pistol, creates a cartridge which is neither fish nor fowl, and which has significant utility limitations. Fun? Sure. Productive? Eh. Worth the development costs? Not a chance.
Click to expand...

I didn't mean to give the sense that it was worth the development cost. For me it is purely for the fun of it. I think ballistically close to 5.56 is the goal, but better than 5.7x28 and 9mm is minimum. I don't consider falling transonic by 500 yards "abysmal for a rifle". 30-30 is transonic by 500yds and it's killed more deer than anything else. All things equal a 6mm fireball would be faster out the gate than a 221. Add blended powders, and higher pressures, It's getting closer. I don't think most people will care about getting 2800 vs 3000fps.
 
fpjeepy05 said:
I don't consider falling transonic by 500 yards "abysmal for a rifle". 30-30 is transonic by 500yds
Click to expand...

And the long range performance of 30-30 is abysmal for a bottlenecked rifle cartridge. Even contemporary for its era of conception, the .30-30 is embarrassingly poor performing at long range.

A lot of eastern hunters like to say the .30-30 has killed more deer than anything else, but historical data really points to this NOT being true, and again, it certainly doesn’t offer any bearing of logical support for crippling a rifle with poor performance and overburdening a handgun with excessive recoil, AND defying established military history by suggesting a soldier should be carrying extra firearms and wasting rifle ammo by firing it from a pistol…

The thought experiment of long range handguns is certainly viable, and a lot of us have actually been doing this for a long time, but I’m not convinced this paradigm makes any sense at all. And yeah, I’m comfortable with the perception that illogical principles are a foundation stone to define what is a “bad idea.” What you’re describing feels too akin to the completely fabricated Cooper Scout Rifle paradigm where poor overall performance from a fun firearm would defy all known battlefield and combat knowledge, as well as civilian realities. Special Ops folks carry multiple firearms, rank and file soldiers don’t. Civilian defensive scenarios don’t and can’t mimic organized military combat where sustained and varying distance fire from a single “soldier” is ever applicable. We’re fighting imaginary dragons here.
 
fpjeepy05 said:
6mm ARC wouldn't exist without the rangefinder.
Click to expand...

Revisiting this thread, this line keeps jumping out at me. It’s a Ron Spomer article, so sure, I expect some half-witted boomer-ism like this, but this statement ignores very simple fact:

Long range shooting, including cartridges nearly identical to the 6 ARC, have been around for much, much longer than LRF’s.

Spomer threw out these boomer-ism lines, much the same as the OP here, “race to the bottom,” and “6 ARC wouldn’t exist without LRF’s,” surely just to catch eyebrows and drew readers to yet another of his click-bait articles, but he’s certainly familiar enough with these markets to know he’s lying, just to get likes.

Going back almost a century and a half, the 6.5x55 Swede had sights adjustable out to 1600m, and I’m sure we can agree laser range finders weren’t broadly available before 1900. We saw the 6mm BR released in the 1950’s and the 6ppc, almost identical to the 6 ARC, released in the 1960’s and 1970’s. The 1,000 yard Wimbledon Cup dates back as far as the 1860’s - that’s 18, not a typo. So we’ve been shooting long range for a long, long time.

Alternatively, affordable laser rangefinders capable of true long distance ranging of anything smaller than a compact car, or less reflective, are really only about 10 years old. My first experiences shooting 1,000yrds involved leapfrogging with a 100yrd tape over and over, while a spotter shouted and waved to signal whether we were in line with the target and potential firing position or not. It wasn’t until the late 1990’s that one of my cousins purchased an LRF, which at the time was still only capable of hitting a man-sized object out to ~300 yards, still requiring a game of leapfrog to plant targets. In the early 2000’s, there were a couple VERY expensive models which would range long distances, but a common ~$400-700 model would only range 1000yrds on a truck or building, with their non-reflective capacity only around 400-600yrds, again requiring a game of leapfrog to get out to 1000. It wasn’t until SigSauer released their Kilo2000 in 2015 that the bar was raised. At the time, the “affordable” long range LRF was the Leica 1200b, and the 1600yard model had just hit the streets, which on good days could be used to indicate targets (or at least ground precisely near them) at 1000yrds. But after Sig’s Kilo2000 hit the market, we saw immediate response from the rest of the market, so now we have models capable of 3000-5000 yards, even 10,000 yards on reflective targets (buildings and trucks), and well over a mile on game animals and steel targets of common scale.

So to say the 6 ARC, nearly identical to a cartridge designed in the 1960’s, and mimicking trajectory performance from the 1890’s, would not exist without laser rangefinders, which have only been available broadly for about 25 years, and really only available with true long range capability for less than 10yrs is pretty obtuse.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

cluttonfred
  • Locked
Straight-blowback carbine in .30 Carbine?
2
Replies
32
Views
6K
justin22885
J
L
  • Locked
Noncarbine, Carbine
Replies
22
Views
1K
BCRider
BCRider
LoonWulf
The 6mm Max Cartridge......
2
Replies
28
Views
1K
horsey300
H
CoalTrain49
  • Locked
Which cartridge would you select in these calibers?
2 3
Replies
55
Views
2K
<*(((><
<*(((><
M
  • Locked
.30 Carbine better than 5.56
2
Replies
48
Views
6K
lencac
L
Back
Top