9mm "too small" .40 "too snappy", has there ever been a .375 pistol caliber?

Status
Not open for further replies.
As suggested the 357 SIG offers a cartridge closely comparable to the .40 S&W(except at the heavy weight bullets) ... with quite a bit more zip than a 9x19 ....

A 124 gr JHP moving along at 1400 fps works pretty well ... it compares closely to factory .357 S&W ammo fired in a four inch barrel ....

I shoot a Glock 31 in 357 SIG and finding it lacking in no area for which it was designed ... put a 124 gr Barnes bullet and be set for plenty ....
 
I think that the old 41 Long Colt was about a true 0.38 inch in diameter, but I don't have any reference books here.

Let me check Wikipedia: Yep, .386 inch, just like the 9.8mm Colt someone mentioned earlier.

As others have said, tiny differences in bullet diameter don't make any real difference. The weight and velocity of the bullet are far more important in determining the available power and the felt recoil. At least, IMO.
 
Yes, I reload. For 9mm, 357 Sig, .40 S&W and .45 ACP. Haven't gotten to owning a 10 mm yet.

No, not trolling, this is an honest question. What's so hard about a guy asking if cartridges in a given caliber exist?

I understand that cartridges can be downloaded. I'm not looking for something downloaded. The reason I put "too snappy" in quotes is because I don't agree with that statement. But, when you look at light .40 bullets, they really start to lose SD. 135 gr .40 cal bullets almost look like a round ball. To increase the SD, the solution is to decrease the caliber. Seems like a 9.5mm cartridge on a 9mm/.40 length action would be right at home working with the weight bullets everyone gravitates toward and also make make power factor without exceeding pressure limits (9mm major loads anyone? )

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk
 
Yup, 9.8 Rumanian Colt.
Similar 9.65 FN Grand Browning (Looked just like a 1911, presumably scaled to fit the round like the 9.8 Colt.)

.41 Colt Special. Not the same as .41 Long Colt, but a proper inside lubricated bullet, presumably still .386". Three loads developed regular, stout (+P), and heavy for New Service only.

Dan Wesson had the .375 Super Mag, but that is not the niche you were talking about.


But the modern niche is negligible. There are more powders and bullet materials available and you can make either a 9mm or .40 do what you need done. A tough 135 gr copper .40 hollowpoint is going to be plenty effective in spite of low sectional density.
 
Too small? Whenever you see any cop, any new city you travel through ask em what they carry. All of Denver carries 9mm/147gr gold dots...at least that's what they pulled out and showed me when I asked a couple years ago. Funny thing was I felt I knew more than they did :D
 
Well..not 9mm..but seen 22 short one shot stop someone out of a saturday night special..shot placement counts

Sent from my LGMS395 using Tapatalk
 
Just use a larger heavier pistol for 40 caliber. Problem solved. I thought it was kind of snappy in the smaller pistols I'd shot it in. Then I got a double-stack 1911 in 40 caliber. It is a pussy cat. The recoil is completely inoffensive.
 
I have little doubt that were this endeavour to suceed, in 20 more years you'd have people asking 'You know, 9mm is a little too small - and 9.5mm THR is a little too big - shoudln't we make a new 9.25MM round?".

It's all just physics. There's not secret combination that we can finally find and we get awesome power with no recoil or muzzle blast. I think we've got a pretty good selection of choices in the lineup that we don't need any additional ones at least for performance (ie something that is done for additional capacity or another technical reason I'd be fine with).
 
Ok, I'm seeing that nobody gets my use of quotes in the title? No, 9mm isn't really "too small" nor is .40 "too snappy". Just things said by detractors of either caliber (I happen to like both). The quotes signify that I'm just using phrases that other people toss around. Kinda like how we talk about "assault weapons" or "high capacity" magazines even though few of us buy the manure spread by the gun banners...

Yes, a 9mm works fine for most things, but it only really works with lighter bullets. It falls short when trying to knock over steel or deal with harder obstacles. A .40 has more recoil because it's launching a larger chunk of lead at respectable velocities but I've never found the recoil out of line with the energy it provides.

But, there is little overlap between the two. Yes, I can find super heavy 9mm ammo up to 158gr range or extra light .40 down to 135gr (or lighter if lead free) but you're stretching both calibers there. Sure, there are +P+ 9mm rounds or all steel .40's (or lightly loaded rounds) to help stretch things further, but I don't feel comfortable cranking out 9mm that's hanging on the ragged edge pressure-wise on a progressive press and if I'm carrying a huge chunk of steel around, I want it to launch a magnum caliber (hence my 1911 lives in .460 Rowland. The M&P is a much better platform for .45ACP)

So, generally 9mm covers 115-147gr and .40 goes 155-180gr. I think those ranges straddle a very happy area in terms of bullet weight/recoil and the moderate size of both provides good magazine capacity while also making a big enough hole for most purposes. Taking the SD range used by popular pistol calibers, a 9.5mm could run about 125-165gr. That really captures the best of both these calibers.

Is this a solution in search of a problem? I don't think so. It seems every group that issues pistols has moved back and forth on the 9 vs 40 question. A 9.5mm cartridge would easily fit on current 9mm frames and only likely sacrifice 1 round of capacity. What it would gain over 9mm would be either a heavier bullet or better velocity without having to resort to overpressure rounds.
 
This reminds me so much of the "Super 380 ACP" discussions we've had here.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Coop45 View Post

Try a nice .45 and be happy.
Click to expand...

Yeah, it'll knock 'em down every time.
Click to expand...

One thing is for sure, my .45 isn't going to shrink inside the target. Your 9mm "might" expand. You want to stake your life on "might" it's on you. The recent resurgence of 9mm popularity is directly related to an increase in ammo costs. I don't want to hear the "new 9mm bullet performance" rhetoric either.
 
"So, generally 9mm covers 115-147gr and .40 goes 155-180gr."

So an 8 grain "gap" in bullet weight justifies a new cartridge?
I don't think the manufacturers will agree.

It might be a fertile field for wildcatting.
You need a parent case of .400" - .405" head diameter if it is to be straight or nearly so like a .38 Super or 10mm. I don't see anything like that in CotW; the .351 WSL at .407" is the closest, and not common.
Maybe you could do a faint bottleneck on .40 brass for the prototype, at least; kind of like DWM's first pass at 9mm Luger. When it catches on to wild acclaim, you could announce the straight cased Mk II based on your 100,000 piece order to Starline.
 
C0untZer0 said:
This reminds me so much of the "Super 380 ACP" discussions we've had here.
Click to expand...

Must've missed seeing them. 38 Super is a good place, but locks you into a longer grip frame. Trying to think of the wider market and most guns are built on a 9mm magazine length.
 
I also don't believe this crap people say about .40 being "snappy" either. It has more recoil because it's shooting a bigger bullet. But that's still the line.
Click to expand...

Factually untrue. The .40 does in fact have a more rapid recoil impulse due to being a higher pressure round, despite delivering exactly .45 ACP power.

This phenomenom has been noted for years with cartridges that use lower pressure, larger case compared to smaller cases at higher pressure. Many shooters feel the difference, even if delivered power is exactly the same.
 
Jim Watson said:
"So, generally 9mm covers 115-147gr and .40 goes 155-180gr."

So an 8 grain "gap" in bullet weight justifies a new cartridge?
I don't think the manufacturers will agree.
Click to expand...

It's not the gap itself, it's that the gap occurs in such a useful range of bullet weights. 9mm is running out of steam just as it's getting the bullet weight up and .40 is kinda reaching to go so small.

In terms of the manufacturers, they are thinking of the market. 9mm, .40 and .45 are what they are because of current and/or past military/police use. The American buying public will flock to whatever cartridge the "big boys" use (not saying that's a bad choice, just what happens). There is little incentive to develop new pistol cartridges in this power range because of that.

JShirley said:
Factually untrue. The .40 does in fact have a more rapid recoil impulse due to being a higher pressure round, despite delivering exactly .45 ACP power.
Click to expand...

There are many things that dictate the perception of recoil besides pressure inside the barrel. Two bullets of the same mass leaving the muzzle at the same velocity have both provided the same impulse to the gun. The rest comes down to differences in design, masses in the gun and spring rates.

Besides, there isn't a pressure difference in the rounds I'm looking at. .40 and 9mm are both listed to have a 35,000 psi MAAP, so any effect caused by the pressure inside the barrel will affect 9mm and .40 equally.
 
Yes, a 9mm works fine for most things, but it only really works with lighter bullets. It falls short when trying to knock over steel or deal with harder obstacles.
Click to expand...

George Luger invented the cartridge and the Parabellum-Pistole first and foremost to sell to the militaries of the world and not as a sporting pistol.

So far the 147gr bullet weights have shown the best terminal ballistics in the FBI tests and IWBA protocol, like Federal 147gr HST and Winchester 147gr Ranger T.

Federal has introduced 150gr HST but I've yet to see denim gel tests of it.
 
A .375 caliber, 150 grain bullet going at 1100 fps sounds good to me. Whats not to like?
 
Steve Cover said:
I'm a disabled vet and spend more time than I like at the Veteran's hospital in Spokane.

During the LONG waits for service, I like to talk with other vets.
These are guys that have actually seen combat, not garrison heroes.
Literally no one (combat veteran) that have had to shoot someone with the 9mm handgun respect it.
They all have told me many stories of failure to stop.
The military use of the 9mm is so that we can all use the same ammunition as NATO, not because of its performance in handguns.

The vast majority of sub machineguns now in military use are 9MM.
Six to eight 9mm bullets hitting in under 1/2 second are a reasonable stopper.

But no wounded veteran I spoke to that actually used it in a pistol liked it.

The FBI uses it because larger cartridges are too powerful for their politically correct smaller agents to handle.

The US Military uses it because it has to.
The FBI uses it because some it's agents can't handle the 40S&W.

Again, these are not performance based decisions.

Politically Correctness can get you killed.

Steve
Click to expand...
I will have to back up Mr. Steve on this one, As a service member who has seen the "elephant" so to speak and as someone whose heard others who've been there and done that can say the 9mm has had its failures. Now I attribute this to the FMJ round used not to the cartridge itself, if the military issued quality hollow points then I'd sing a different tune.
 
In defense of the .40, if your .40 is "snappy and hard to control, it is because you are making it that way. The .40 was originally loaded as a 180gr bullet doing around 950fps. That is the round the FBI found to be very effective in many different situations. Later when the "faster is always better" crowd realized they could add a few hundred feet per second to it, they created the "snappy" .40 that everyone whines about. The original round is still very effective (more so with modern bullets) and still very pleasant to shoot. So are the 165gr loads when loaded to around 980fps.

Check out how well the lower velocity .40 loads did in this extensive ballistics gel test compared to even the +P 45ACP loads:
http://www.luckygunner.com/labs/self-defense-ammo-ballistic-tests/#380ACP
 
I know this isn't the caliber you asked for, but isn't 9 Mak (9x18; old Warsaw Pact caliber) actually 9.2 mm diameter? I own a few pistols chambered for this, and the bullets are larger than .380 or 9 Parabellum. Can't even drop one in a 9x19 barrel.

I remember the Russians used to keep same diameter on their ammo in the past; 7.62
x 25,
x 39,
x 54R

I wonder if they ever went further than "x 18" with the 9.2 chambering, even in prototypes and experiments.
 
In my best old geezer voice:

Why do I carry a .45? Because they don't make a .46!

You can shoot somebody in the thumb with a .45, and it will knock them down.

19 out of 20 times the .45 will kill a man with one shot.

Whatever.

A whole .096 inches is the difference between the bullet diameter of the 9mm (.355 for jacketed) and the bullet diameter of the .45 (.451 for jacketed).

What matters is where you put the bullet and how many bullets you put there until the threat is no longer a threat.

The only factory chambered .375 handgun cartridges I have seen are the .375 Supermag in Dan Wesson Revolvers and the kill anything on this planet .375 JDJ in T/C Contenders and Encores.

Just my .02,
LeonCarr
 
Last edited:
The 9m/m ...a good offensive round. It`s not ment to repel armored vehicles. J s/n.

Don`t know where you got the "to small" stuff.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

J
  • Locked
Conversion Barrell XDSC for carry?
Replies
0
Views
231
jwalker497
J
Tallball
  • Locked
Small 45acp Pistol Recommendations
2 3 4
Replies
85
Views
4K
DesertFox
DesertFox
S
  • Locked
HOLY COW !!! Bud's Guns Website HUGE increase in gun prices !!!!
Replies
4
Views
995
JDGray
J
Z
  • Locked
9mm is too snappy.
2 3
Replies
53
Views
6K
Gary A
G
B
  • Locked
A simple caliber question: .40 vs 9mm
Replies
11
Views
1K
HGUNHNTR
HGUNHNTR
Back
Top