Any opinions on the .30 Super Carry cartridge

Post above makes a few good points. One is the price for both pistols and the defensive hollow point ammo not being anymore or being absurdly expensive compared to 9mm. The only added cost is going to be in the form of factory fmj, which the Federal AE stuff runs along the price of .45 ACP, so if you can afford to shoot .45 ACP factory ammo, you can afford .30 Super.

At 100 grains of lead and in a better pistol than the Shield, shooting 100 rounds every other weekend isn't going to be a necessity to stay proficient.

I'm not turned off by price, but I am by lack of pistols and an uncertain future.
 
Grab A Gun has those Shield Plus models in 30 super carry for $299. That's a pretty good price, but I am content with 9mm.

Joe
 
Wolfsbane said:
Any opinions on the .30 Super cartridge?

Came across an ad for a S&W M&P in .30 Super Carry that's about half the price of M&Ps chambered in larger rounds.
Click to expand...
My opinion is as follows: the 30SC cartridge offers a useful capability that the gun makers aren't exploiting, so it's going to die out quicker than .45 GAP.

What we see now is the marketing of cramming 12 rounds into the space of 10.

Unfortunately, the launch partner, S&W, accomplished it by re-chambering the existing guns, in particular their Shield line. There is no re-design to speak of. Therefore, the outline of the gun remains the same, while the increase in capacity is very incremental. This is not a recipe for success.

What we could be seeing, but will not are
- A lever action in 30SC. It's going to be a success similar to Aguila minishells in shotguns.
- A competitor for Shield and P365, with a capacity between 10 and 12. No need to chase the capacity, but make it thinner.
- A carry revolver in the vein of K6s, but clip-loaded and packing 7. Use the best steels and make it small. I know it's challenging because of 30SC pressure, so I placed it last.

But instead we observe a complete lack of vision on the part of Federal and Smith.
 
zaitcev said:
the outline of the gun remains the same, while the increase in capacity is very incremental.
Click to expand...
It doesn't take much thinking to show that the "incremental" increase of two shots (or even one, in the case of small revolvers) can be the difference between life and death.

I understand that, and that's why I am considering a new pistol.
zaitcev said:
No need to chase the capacity, but make it thinner.
Click to expand...
By one millimeter?
 
cfullgraf said:
I’d be interesting trying a 30 Super Carry if the gun was sized down for the smaller cartridge.

Not just stuffing a 30 SC barrel in a 9mm platform.
Click to expand...
Same here... just clambering it in a 9mm platform is a waste. If a specific frame size was made for the gun, awesome. At least with .45 GAP, you get .45 ACP ballistics in a 9mm frame.
 
Miami_JBT said:
Same here... just clambering it in a 9mm platform is a waste. If a specific frame size was made for the gun, awesome
Click to expand...
Just which dimensions might be reduced, and by how much? The cartridge has the same OAL as the 9, and it is one millimeter smaller in diameter.

The frame length could not be reduced.

The thickness might be reduced by up to one millimeter.

Reaching the height would negate the capacity advantage.

Why does this keep coming up?
 
Kleanbore said:
By one millimeter?
Click to expand...
The case head diameter of 9mm Luger is 10.01mm, and the case head diameter of 30SC is 8,74mm. In addition a double stack magazine gains more, although not quite twice more (about x 1.85). So, about 2.35mm total reduction in thickness can be gained. That is close to 10% for guns like P365 and Shield Plus.
 
Okay, 1.27 MM. One twentieth of an inch.

No investor in his right mind would develop a new frame for that change.

Thickness wise, I consider the Avidity Ams PD10 just about perfect as is. The .30 SC takes it from a capacity of 10+1 to 12+1.
 
Miami_JBT said:
Same here... just clambering it in a 9mm platform is a waste. If a specific frame size was made for the gun, awesome. At least with .45 GAP, you get .45 ACP ballistics in a 9mm frame.
Click to expand...
I'd like to see what the capacity for a .30 Super would be in something like the Glock 21. The wider width would allow more cartridges in the mag making for a serious capacity increase well beyond the +2 that 9mm's are getting when made in .30 Super.
 
Kleanbore said:
The thickness might be reduced by up to one millimeter.
Click to expand...
I have proven to you with math that frame thickness can be reduced by a significant amount, or at least 10% for double stack guns. Yet you still spread this "one millimeter" thing. It is just not true and you know it.
 
Kleanbore said:
Just which dimensions might be reduced, and by how much?
Click to expand...
From my point of view the 30SC frame size does not need to be reduced, though it may need to be strengthened. We have a choice of plenty of "380 frame"-size, including the Glock G42 and the P365-380 with locked breech designs. If the 30SC is to be useful, i.e., displace the 380, it needs to be built on 380-frame pistols. (I'll pass on the really small ones, however.) Otherwise, what's the point? This is my only problem with the 30SC - they designed it as a low-end 9mm, not a high-end 380-magnum.

It may be useful for me anyway as designed, as I'm looking for something (e.g., Shield EZ) easier to rack, load, etc., that I can leave home with my wife. I'm still researching whether the rack strength is the same as 9mm or falls between the 380 and 9mm. When I get a chance I'll check whether the part number for the 30SC is different from the 9mm. Falling between the two would be ideal.
 
Kleanbore said:
Just which dimensions might be reduced, and by how much? The cartridge has the same OAL as the 9, and it is one millimeter smaller in diameter.

The frame length could not be reduced.

The thickness might be reduced by up to one millimeter.
Click to expand...

It operates at a higher pressure than 9mm.. So I would think making the gun smaller would leave manufactures in trouble like they did with 40S&W.
 
Me, too. I shot my KelTec .32 to compare with .22 LR as a concealment pistol caliber.
That little devil stings.
So I don't want a .30 SC smaller than a small 9mm, the G43 and LC9 are about all the fun I want, I am interested in the extra capacity.
 
fxvr5 said:
What trouble was that? Thanks.
Click to expand...
Guns blew up, frames cracked, they beat themselves to death, etc. etc. Everyone that had a gun that started as 9mm and ported to 40SW had issues. They all had to go back to the drawing board and make changes.
 
tarosean said:
Guns blew up, frames cracked, they beat themselves to death, etc. etc. Everyone that had a gun that started as 9mm and ported to 40SW had issues. They all had to go back to the drawing board and make changes.
Click to expand...
I think that had to do with the force of the recoiling slide, rather than chamber pressure.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

J
  • Locked
You Asked for it, You Got It; .30 Super Carry.
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Replies
208
Views
13K
9mmepiphany
9mmepiphany
D
  • Locked
Thoughts on the .30 Super Carry
2 3 4 5
Replies
123
Views
6K
RainDodger
RainDodger
W
  • Locked
.30 Luger hanguns...
2
Replies
47
Views
3K
tark
tark
Kano383
  • Locked
.45 ACP, .45 ACP +P, .45 Super... momentum/springs?
Replies
16
Views
2K
fxvr5
fxvr5
D
  • Locked
30 super carry
Replies
8
Views
670
MikeInOr
MikeInOr
Back
Top