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

[JO JO]

Another caliber debate, awesome.

it will never be settled , Ford vs Chevy it goes on and on good stuff

 

[Caliper_Mi]

Another caliber debate, awesome.

Yeah, it sure went that way, huh. I don't get where .45 even came into the discussion. Too bad everyone has latched onto the first half of The title instead of the actual question...

 

[Caliper_Mi]

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.

Just had a thought, any rifle calibers with the right case head? I don't have a copy of CotW yet since I never saw myself as a wildcatter, but might have to cruise through Wikipedia.

 

[george burns]

38 or 38super. You can get a 9 in so many different flavors that it's hard to believe that one of the hundred out there doesn't work for someone. You can always go to a 380 in a heavier gun, "rather than a sub-compact". Or a Makarov in 9x18. But realistically the round is so popular that you can get just about any power rating you could want out of one.

 

[TRX]

> You need a parent case of .400" - .405" head diameter

6.8 SPC - a shortened .30 Remington - is .421".

The gun mags used to announce a new .375 wildcat every few years, but as far as I remember they were all rimmed.

The main problem with a .375-ish autoloader round is that no appropriate jacketed bullets exist. (that I know of) There are plenty of .375 rifle bullets, but they're too heavy and have thicker jackets that wouldn't allow much expansion at likely pistol velocities.

 

[TRX]

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

Why, sure they do, partner!

.460 Rowland
.460 S&W

Well, the bullets aren't exactly .4500", but neither are the .45 ACP or .45 Colt...

 

[OilyPablo]

I thought the 9x25 Dillon had significant recoil.

But it's a good recoil. Seriously it is loud but recoil isn't so bad with the lighter bullets.

 

[sothoth]

If you need something better, get a rifle or shotgun.

Especially for CCW

Try 9mm JHP for a good compromise or bump to 45. In my opinion the "middle" ground between those isn't especially useful.

I don't think there's a real .375 out there and I doubt there would be much use for it if it existed.

 

[sothoth]

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.

The ballistics for 40 were close to 45 because it was high pressure and increased mass over 9. The 9.5mm seems to have that same trade off but it would be closer to a 9 than 45. I just wonder how different that would really be from 9.

More importantly, I think shot placement is the most important factor and all the bickering about 9 being too small or 45 having too low a capacity is splitting hairs. Pop one or two in someone's chest and they're likely to go down for the count. You could be correct about there being a benefit to a compromise between 9 and 40 but imho it wouldn't be worth the effort when you have two excellent choices already there.

FYI, I like 40 in principle but can't shoot it worth a damn and sold the only 40 I ever had. I don't miss it at all or worry that my 9s and 45s will ever let me down.

 

[Steve Cover]

The ballistics for 40 were close to 45 because it was high pressure and increased mass over 9. The 9.5mm seems to have that same trade off but it would be closer to a 9 than 45. I just wonder how different that would really be from 9.

More importantly, I think shot placement is the most important factor and all the bickering about 9 being too small or 45 having too low a capacity is splitting hairs. Pop one or two in someone's chest and they're likely to go down for the count. You could be correct about there being a benefit to a compromise between 9 and 40 but imho it wouldn't be worth the effort when you have two excellent choices already there.

FYI, I like 40 in principle but can't shoot it worth a damn and sold the only 40 I ever had. I don't miss it at all or worry that my 9s and 45s will ever let me down.

I have to fully agree.
A hit to the central nervous system with a 22 is more effective than a miss with a 20MM canon.
It all comes down to how well you can hit your target with the firearm you are using.

The actual miniscule differences in damage caused by different sized bullets fired at handgun velocities does not over shadow the need to strike your adversary in a vital spot to stop an attack.

Keep splitting size to find that "Perfect" defensive round is an exercise in futility.

Controllability and Accuracy with what you are using are what counts.

Different people react to recoil differently.
Like an acquired taste, recoil on any level needs getting used to.

If anyone feels that they need a more powerful handgun than the one they now carry, they have to accept the fact that they will have to do some training to deal with the heavier recoil.

Hit with what you are comfortable with, and not miss with a dragon slayer that you are not.

Steve

 

[tactikel]

This is really about felt recoil, not about caliber. Two thoughts: .38 Super and .45 ACP. Neither is "underpowered". If you don't handload these will work. The .45 is surprisingly easy to shoot well. If you handload think :+P 9mm, light .40 SW or a .357 Sig "lite".

 

[FL-NC]

If one gets invented, let me know how the cost of ammo compares to 9 or 40.