Who Wants an 8mm Cartridge?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Monac said:
It was not as hot as 9mm Luger. In fact, I think (on the basis of no engineering knowledge at all) that it would have been possible to make a large blowback pistol for it, like the FN 1903 (think of the Colt 1903 .32 automatic scaled up to 80% of the size of a Colt 1911).
Click to expand...

FN 1903 was already 9mm Browning Long, a 110 at 1000 or more.
Same ballistics as 8mm RS in a simpler gun.
Would going down to 8mm gain a round of capacity? If not, why bother?
 
Jim Watson said:
FN 1903 was already 9mm Browning Long, a 110 at 1000 or more.
Same ballistics as 8mm RS in a simpler gun.
Would going down to 8mm gain a round of capacity? If not, why bother?
Click to expand...

I dunno. I guess so, because the FN 1903 held 7 rounds of 9mm. 7 times 9mm is 63mm, while 8 time 8mm is 64mm. That seems doable, especially because 9mm Long is semi-rimmed and 8mm RS is rimless.

But the Austro-Hungarians didn't want a pistol for that cartridge; they took the cartridge because they wanted the pistol that used it. IMO, they would have been better off with the FN. So would a number of other armies, like the Italian, the Japanese, and so on.
 
Last edited:
TTv2 said:
I'm doing my best getting the word out on .32 NAA. It's kind of hopeless tho because until someone other than NAA makes a production pistol in the caliber, there's going to be no demand by the ammo industry to make ammo for it and anything involving a new or niche cartridge needs both to work.

The number one thing that would greatly help the .32 NAA is if reloading companies would make die sets for them on a semi regular basis and price them around $50 a set, not the $300 for a custom set.

This thread is more focused on duty size or full size pistols, and the .32 NAA would be great in a longer barrel, but where it excels the most is LCP sized pistols and for me, I'm not a person who is putting 500 rds thru my LCP every year, maybe 200 a year because when I bring the LCP to the range, I only put 4 mags thru it at a time as any more than that it hurts too much. Thus, my point is I don't care if .32 NAA were to cost $20 a box, I'm not shooting so much of it that the extra cost of it over .380 makes it unaffordable.

For larger pistols where people are shooting 200 rds in an hour, they won't even entertain the thought of an ammo that costs 40 cents a round that's not as simple as 9mm is to reload.
Click to expand...

I have looked at the .32 NAA and have not picked one up for the reasons you mention. It would have to take a lot of shooting to make a set of custom dies pay for themselves.

As far as a duty size firearm there have been plenty demonstrated in this thread. I find it interesting that many of them are over a hundred years old. Before the 9mm became as popular as it is now. Be that as it may, I think the firearms manufacturers figured there was a market, and to some extent there was. The technology, propellents, metalurgy, etc., weren't able to deliver. I think @JCooperfan1911 is on the right track (before he goes off) in that as technology improves, firearm designers and engineers will be able to do more with less. I wouldn't be surprised if something shows up, packaged sort of like the P90 and Five Seven.
 
Monac said:
I guess so, because the FN 1903 held 7 rounds of 9mm. 7 times 9mm is 63mm, while 8 time 8mm is 64mm. That seems doable, especially because 9mm Long is semi-rimmed and 8mm RS is rimless.
Click to expand...

You have to look at head diameter and semirims don't stack rim to rim.
I don't see room for an extra round unless you go to the trick followers and skimpy springs that added capacity to Government Models.
 
I think capacity is a big deal. I like the idea of having a double stack 8mm in a grip just a hair wider than a single stack 9mm. I really like my Beretta 81 (I think it's an 81, anyway), specifically because it is a double stack and I get 12 rounds or so. Unfortunately, it is designed big enough to be a double stack .380, so I wish it were thinner. I think that is one of the biggest strengths of this idea, more rounds in less space. Also, something fairly hot (maybe just slightly hotter than the original Austro-Hungarian 8mm) would make a pistol the size of that Beretta 81 a whole lot more viable for serious self-defense situations than .32 ACP.

So, to the OP, have we moved on to actually designing this cartridge yet? I think there is space in the market for this, and you probably won't get rich off it, but it would be cool anyway, right?
 
Jim Watson said:
You have to look at head diameter and semirims don't stack rim to rim.
I don't see room for an extra round unless you go to the trick followers and skimpy springs that added capacity to Government Models.
Click to expand...

Thanks for pointing out what I should have figured out for myself, Jim Watson. The real difference in base diameter (NOT rim diameter) between 9mm Browning Long and 8mm Roth-Steyr is only 0.87mm. Seven times that does not work out to enough room for one more round of a cartridge with an 8.54mm base diameter like 8mm RS.
 
Last edited:
In revolvers, a smaller-diameter bore enables fitting more chambers into a cylinder. A ~0.32” bore size enables fitting six chambers into a cylinder the size of that in a Colt D-Frame, Ruger SP101, or similar-sized revolver. Six shot, instead of five, is a mathematically significant boost, especially if one may face multiple opponents. Such revolvers fit a number of folks’ hands very well, and conceal a bit easier than a service-sized revolver. Even so, the various .32 revolver cartridges do not, as I remember, sell very well. There is a devoted, vocal following, but the last sales figures that I saw do not indicate significant demand.

I am curious; how much of an advantage would be realized in auto-loading pistols, by engineering and introducing a .327-Fed-mag-ish rimless cartridge? To be clear, I am not preaching against the idea.
 
There is the 7.5 FK BRNO cartridge and pistol. Is this too hot?

Just edited to add: Well, after taking a look, I reckon this one is too hot for compact pistols!
 
TTv2 said:
I don't think the increased capacity means anything, I don't think it makes any difference at all. What would is the lower recoil and faster shooting.
Click to expand...

TTv2 said:
How often outside of a warzone does a civilian going about their day find himself in a situation where they need to draw pistol, let alone shoot the pistol until empty? I mean, if you were armed security or a drug dealer or gangbanger type, I could see the benefit of a few more rounds in a mag considering the higher potential for a prolonged shootout.
Click to expand...

If capacity doesn't matter, then a derringer should be fine?;) No?
5 shot snub?
7 shot 380?

IMO its not a negative to have extra bullets available (capacity).
Bonus thought: Location should not reduce the handgun we would prefer to defend ourself with.
For example, if a Glock 19/23 is preferred over a 38 snub in an area of greater "anticipated threat" that shouldn't change standing in a nice spot.
The Glock has better sights, longer sight radius, lower recoil, quicker follow up shots, those are wherever advantages.
I can't imagine having to defend myself and at that moment wish I had a LCP380 in my hand rather than a Glock 23.

Fair odds that when someone posts statistics, "war zone", "good area" ... what is not getting posted is behind what is, IME.
What does not get posted is they are unwilling to wear a belt/holster, or unwilling to untuck their shirt, or they carry "more" if they perceive the need.
ETA: Unwilling does not apply to someone limited by work attire.
 
Rexster said:
A ~0.32” bore size enables fitting six chambers into a cylinder the size of that in a Colt D-Frame,
Click to expand...

Uh, a D frame Colt ALREADY holds six .38s. I doubt it would hold seven .32s.

It is not just the cylinder diameter, the basepin and ratchet diameter matter, too, as does cylinder stop location. I have the idea that Taurus gets more shots or larger calibers into smaller frames than others. Is it a smaller ratchet or are they sneaking in larger cylinders than it appears?
 
Jim Watson said:
Uh, a D frame Colt ALREADY holds six .38s. I doubt it would hold seven .32s.

It is not just the cylinder diameter, the basepin and ratchet diameter matter, too, as does cylinder stop location. I have the idea that Taurus gets more shots or larger calibers into smaller frames than others. Is it a smaller ratchet or are they sneaking in larger cylinders than it appears?
Click to expand...

I believe a Colt D-frame cylinder is basically the same size as a S&W K-frame. There should be room for 7 shots of 32/327 in that cylinder.

I don't have a Colt to measure but using measurements from a K-frame as a bases and assuming we do not move the barrel up or down in the frame. There would be, in a 7-shot 32/327, approximately .051 wall thickness between chamber to chamber, there would be .021 between rims and .095 between chamber and OD of the cylinder. There would be more room for the ratchet in the center of the cylinder, a 38 Special K-frame has .4725 diameter for the ratchet a 7-shot 32 on a K-frame would allow .5375 diameter for the ratchet. The cylinder stops would be between chambers on an old number of chambers cylinder.

If you do it right you would move the barrel up slightly in the frame to get similar wall thickness between chambers and between chamber to OD.
 
WrongHanded said:
So the 9mm fell out of favor some decades ago and we got a 10mm, then the 10mm Short (a.k.a .40S&W). Now bullet technology has advanced to the point that 9mm can reliably pass the FBI test, and it's back in vogue.

Lower recoil, greater capacity, still expands to 150% or more of original diameter through various mediums, and goes deep enough but not too deep in ballistic gelatin.

So who's ready for an 8mm cartridge that does all that, but with even more capacity, lower recoil, and still passes the FBI penetration and expansion testing?

If such a beast came to be, would you jump on it?
Click to expand...
Nope. I'm a bargain hunter and new tech's expensive, especially if its also popular. I'm really in more of a selling time of life than a buying time of life but, what you're describing almost (but not quite) sounds like the 8mm Nambu jazzed up with modern projectile technology and modern powders... or a 7.62 Tokarev like some of us already load them - for fun and small game (mostly fun). A .311" 95gr. HC-LRN loaded over 5.0gr. of TG in a CZ-52 Tok is freaking awesome! Don 't try that in Old Uncle Joe's TT-33 (as opposed to New Uncle Joe's AR-14). Do the ol' water jug test with that combo! Double-stack superpolymerize grip-frame magic that baby and call it Mascarpone! ;)
 
WrongHanded said:
It's actually a hypothetical, asking a question.

Would you sacrifice per hit wounding for faster split times and higher capacity, if the FBI said an 8mm round was good to go?
Click to expand...
It's like I told y'all before, what's next is the .500SuperCopGunMagnum, a .50caliber 500 grain belt-fed miniaturized recoiless rifle pattern the size of a pack of Chiclets with a neoprene grip, 1000rounds belt that tucks into a special dimension of dark space, and all the rainbow colors epoxy-enamel coating to make it fully inclusive. It'll be FAB boys! simply Fab!

Any arguments about agency or division armaments belong in paramilitary and military circles. Making the argument that every civilian is a cop, should be armed like a cop and treated like a cop is a bad argument - unless you're arguing for a police state.

And in case no one knew or forgot, Parabellum is from Latin, and literally translates to "Made for War".

Be careful what you wish for - you just might get it.
 
Would this round offer anything that the very old .7.63 Mauser pistol round did not? 86 grain bullet at 1400 fps. Get a modern hollow point in this round and a modern gun to shoot it, then see if it sells. Also, the CZ company made a single stack, semi-auto for this round, the CZ-52, as do former Warsaw Pact countries with their TORKAROV clones. They were very powerful, but sold cheaply on the surplus trade, so I do not think their is much of a market for it. The lack of a premium bullet hurts the chance of it catching own.

Jim
 
golden said:
Would this round offer anything that the very old .7.63 Mauser pistol round did not?
Click to expand...

Yes, capacity in a slimmer double stack. 7.63 Mauser (and the Tokarev round) are essentially the same diameter at the base as 9mm Luger. Also, having it in a modern and locked-breech firearm rather than the blowbacks of yesteryear, cool as they are.

I am aware that there were locked-breech Mausers and Tokarevs, but most are single stack, and nobody is going to carry a C96 in a belt holster for serious use.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mcb
Mauser,

I still do not see the advantage, since it is almost a given that an 8m.m. will have lower performance than a 9m.m. or even the 7.63 Mauser, which was a very powerful round for its time and now as well.
Past a certain point, an increase in ammo capacity is just that and does not constitute a real advantage. We are up to 9m.m. pistols with 20 round capacity, how much more is needed.

If you just want more rounds, then why not use a shortened .30 Carbine round. This case is already set up for higher than standard pistol round pressure. Again, how much performance gain, if any would you get?
Plus, magazine capacity would be EVEN LARGER than with an 8m.m. cartridge.

Jim
 
golden said:
If you just want more rounds, then why not use a shortened .30 Carbine round. This case is already set up for higher than standard pistol round pressure. Again, how much performance gain, if any would you get?
Click to expand...

Why not. Why not a 7mm, or a 6mm? It's still the same question. More capacity; lower recoil; still meets FBI requirements. Who'd switch to it? Those are the key reasons other than cost most proponents of the 9mm use to justify the 9mm over any other service cartridge.
 
Hmmm, a 7mm? That's a .27 caliber, which would get you a spiffy marketing name of .275mag or .275super.
Will wager you'd need 22 - 25mm of case to get enough powder behind it for near Mach performance, though (or to bury a high-BC round in it.

6mm pistol round is getting pretty skinny, 0.263" and would invite endless comparison to the 6.35x16sr.
But, I'll wager a person could sell a few pistols in 6x25 from the "cool" factor. Effective? Shoot, there would be endless arguments in print and flame wars galore online. Getting it to 1045 fps probably means a pea-sized bullet, though.
Harumph.
 
WrongHanded said:
It's actually a hypothetical, asking a question.

Would you sacrifice per hit wounding for faster split times and higher capacity, if the FBI said an 8mm round was good to go?
Click to expand...
With the number of people here that use that exact logic to argue 9mm is better than 40, without a doubt many would.
There are a lot of 32 h&r and 327 fed revolvers sold on the same premise.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

J
  • Locked
  • Poll
Kahr K vs. MK, 9 vs. .40
Replies
13
Views
722
Johannes_Paulsen
J
P
  • Locked
Analysis of Lucky Gunner's Handgun Test Data
2 3
Replies
50
Views
8K
tipoc
tipoc
HoboCoastie
  • Locked
Handgun Caliber Selection Insight
7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
Replies
388
Views
16K
AK_Maine_iac
A
S
  • Locked
Boberg XR9 & XR9 Shorty: New gun with rotary barrel
Replies
9
Views
3K
71Commander
7
Joshua M. Smith
  • Locked
*TEST* "Short Barrel" 135gr+P Gold Dot Water/Denim
Replies
6
Views
832
Pumpkinheaver
P
Back
Top