Speer .30 Super Carry 115gr Gold Dot in 250A Gel.

This is potentially a grave oversite, because "what if" more effective threat-stopping could be achieved without penetration or expansion?

Click to expand...

Go back to the earliest days of single shot black powder firearms, where if the shot from your single shot pistol didn't do the job you got run through with a saber. The .38 pistol experience in the Philippines against the Moro's, which led to the nickname "leathernecks" for the improvised armor to improve the odds of surviving the failures to stop, had the Army scrambling to meet the performance of the old .45 Long Colt rounds from the frontier.

I'd say that matching what a .45 Cal 255 gr SWC bullet at ~900 fps , or a 1770's era .69 Cal black powder pistol ball does in your gel tests should be the floor for if modern loads are adequate or not.

BlueHeelerFl said:

Federal's reasoning is that velocity and energy only matter once a bullet reaches 2,200 fps and creates reliable hydrostatic damage. Since that does not take place with handguns raw energy and velocity is only needed to cause expansion and penetration

Click to expand...

My plan was to interview people who have taken a .45 through the gazoozleum. But none of them would talk.

I was very skeptical at first but I'm coming around to the 30 SC. I'm not going to buy one yet as I'm not sure of its longevity.

Id like to see some real world usage to see how it actually performs when bones, glass, and auto body are involved. My guess is it does pretty well.

Balrog said:

Agree with your assesment of potential benefits. To me they do not outweigh having to keep another cartridge on hand.

Click to expand...

and probably pay a lot more per round for the priviledge. worth watching, but I won't be an early adopter of it.

C-grunt said:

I was very skeptical at first but I'm coming around to the 30 SC. I'm not going to buy one yet as I'm not sure of its longevity.

Id like to see some real world usage to see how it actually performs when bones, glass, and auto body are involved. My guess is it does pretty well.

Click to expand...

It probably does pretty well, but it's going to take someone with those things available to get those test, not sure if an agency would ever issue 30 Super Carry, maybe when (if!) more duty sized guns come out for it.

This round like the 45gap will have plenty of beta testers. I'll wait to see what major law enforcement agencies adopt it over their current 9mm.

There are some improvements over a 9mm, minor but you can see it. Why someone would switch a platform they are happy with for the added cost of gun and ammo I don’t know. I know this will come across as being cynical but I cannot help thinking it’s just a way to make more money because 9mm’s profit margin is small.

JERRY said:

I'm waiting to see if the 45GAP I mean the 30SC survives the test of time.
I'm leery of new calibers that offer only marginal differences for what's already out there and plentiful.

Click to expand...

...and cheap!

You can find 30 Super Carry FMJ for $15/box, that's not much higher than the cheapest 9mm. I'd be interested in seeing how the Hornady Critical Defense 30SC does.

It's too early to say if the 30SC will end up like the 45 GAP, the .45 GAP really offered one thing only, which is .45 ACP ballistics (not new) in a 9mm sized gun. Capacity was worse, as mentioned ballistics were not improved just copied and price was higher. The 30SC at least gives us a serious "32 caliber" self defense option, something that really didn't exist prior at least in recent history. It is to the 32 ACP what the 9mm is to the 380 ACP...same caliber but shoots heavier, higher sectional density bullets to a higher velocity.

Capacity is great, better than 9mm. Prices are generally higher and hover around 380 prices, but if you look around you can get it for nearly 9mm costs. Recoil is about the same as 9mm, I think it's a bit less and it's not overly loud as some say it would be, it's not. Ballistic performance seems to indicate that it will perform similar to the 9mm, and no I'm not saying it's as good but it's also not bad, might prove to be better at barriers than 9mm too.

I doubt we'll see any major departments issue 30 Super Carry, but if the guns and ammo get cheap enough, it could happen here and there, but still unlikely as the major reason for the widespread adoption of 9mm is price alone. If ammo pricing can come down a bit more to where it consistently hovers just slightly above 9mm and some full size and compact guns come out for it, it may do okay. I hope it does, I don't see why some folks almost seem eager for it to fail.

I always wonder how they arrived at 0.313 " for the bullet diameter. I doubt computer modeling came up with that exact diameter for the best sectional density for penetration. Why not 0.3120" with a longer bullet ? Why not some other diameter?

If I were going to design a new round, I would pick a niche and put a cap on muzzle energy that fits that niche. For example, many people carry .380 ACP pocket pistols, very few people purchase or carry .45 ACP pocket pistols.

It seems like the bullet diameter should have been the variable to arrive at a penetration goal.

C0untZer0 said:

I always wonder how they arrived at 0.313 " for the bullet diameter. I doubt computer modeling came up with that exact diameter for the best sectional density for penetration. Why not 0.3120" with a longer bullet ? Why not some other diameter?

If I were going to design a new round, I would pick pick a niche and put a cap on muzzle energy that fits that niche. For example, many people carry .380 ACP pocket pistols, very few people purchase or carry .45 ACP pocket pistols.

It seems like the bullet diameter should have been the variable to arrive at a penetration goal.

Click to expand...

In manufacturing one of the tenets is to stay as close to whole numbers or fractions of wholes as much as possible. 5/16 of an inch is .3125" and 8mm is .315". The benefit of using .312/.313 bullets is they are already made.

The issue with .32 for a long time has been the cartridges weren't built around expanding hollow points given the origins of the cartridges. The .32 Mag could have, but hollow points were just starting to become a thing in the 80s when it was invented. By the time .327 came along, it was the prevailing king of self defense and still is today.

The last time a caliber was invented to meet a penetration goal was 10mm, which then turned into .40 S&W because it took the strengths of the 9mm and .45 and assimilated them. Since .40 was the hot new gal in town everyone wanted to get with the exotic caliber of the future and 9mm was looking kinda old and tired, so they dumped 9mm for .40 only to find out that .40 was into rough BDSM stuff, like after a night with .40 you hurt so good and took days to recover. Well, some people don't like that sort of thing, so they dumped .40 and went back to 9mm after it got a facelift and improved ballistic implants.

Back in the '80s when I was still unretired, I was at Fort Benning and discussed the impending switch to the 9mm with an "expert." He justified it by saying "the 9mm is more modern."

I pointed out the Germans adopted the 9mm in the P08 Luger in -- 1908. And the US adopted the .45 ACP in 1911. He had a troubled expression on his face when I left.

TTv2 said:

The last time a caliber was invented to meet a penetration goal was 10mm

Click to expand...

I think that's what happens when you make penetration a non-variable and don't put a cap on muzzle energy or felt recoil.

I think the 30 SC is neat, but I'm not going to go out and buy one. well, if Rohrbaugh was still in business and they made a Rohrbaugh 30SC that was the same size as the R9 but held an extra round - yes I'd go buy one. But that's not going to happen...

I think if you start with 294 ft-lb of muzzle energy which is 380 Auto +P (for a 100gr bullet), there has to be a bullet profile between .355 and .312 that has better penetration than the 380 Auto bullets.

Even if the energy involved was too much for straight blow-back, if I could get a locked-breach pocket pistol that wasn't too much snappier than your average 380, and the bullets penetrated deeper than current 380 hollow points and expanded some - I'd buy it.

wally said:

Go back to the earliest days of single shot black powder firearms, where if the shot from your single shot pistol didn't do the job you got run through with a saber. The .38 pistol experience in the Philippines against the Moro's, which led to the nickname "leathernecks" for the improvised armor to improve the odds of surviving the failures to stop, had the Army scrambling to meet the performance of the old .45 Long Colt rounds from the frontier.

I'd say that matching what a .45 Cal 255 gr SWC bullet at ~900 fps , or a 1770's era .69 Cal black powder pistol ball does in your gel tests should be the floor for if modern loads are adequate or not.

Click to expand...

In the days of single shot pistols, a combatant would carry several of them. As a pocket gun for civilians, even one of them was an effective deterent. When they gave way to revolving pistols, warriors often had 36 caliber round balls at modest velocities, and might have had a 44 if they had a horse to carry it. The pocket packing civilian was more likely to have a 31 caliber revolver that shot round balls at low velocity. It would have taken the best powder and lead to rival a 22 LR.

The cartridge that is regarded as having failed in the Phillipines was the 38 Long Colt. The 38 Special was a "magnum" version of the "long" which was itself a magnumized "short." The 38 Special was and is a highly effective cartridge when it is fired in the 6" barrels that were once the standard. Its reputation has been less impressive since it became the defacto standard for tiny snub-nosed pocket revolvers with barrels barely over an inch. I don't think anyone even makes a gun chambered for 38 Special with a 6" barrel any more, but it's a decent combination for the older guns made so.