New Cartridge/Pistol Idea -- "6.8mm Kel-Tec"

[Varminterror]

If a hole exists there, it doesn’t “need to be filled.” If there were a hole with a market vacuum, you would see a lot of folks buying 32acp’s as alternatives, and you’d be seeing stretched case 32’s, or high pressure loadings like the 460 Rowland is to the 45acp, or 9mm+p+ for the 9.

But you don’t...

 

[6.8KT]

If a hole exists there, it doesn’t “need to be filled.” If there were a hole with a market vacuum, you would see a lot of folks buying 32acp’s as alternatives, and you’d be seeing stretched case 32’s, or high pressure loadings like the 460 Rowland is to the 45acp, or 9mm+p+ for the 9.

But you don’t...

A lot of people do carry the Kel-Tec P32 (because it's really the only cheap and reliable option out there) over the P3AT/LCP for the additional +1 and/or better controllability in a tiny gun, but lament its relative weakness in stopping power.

And also, 99.9% of these people are not handloaders or gunsmiths, nor can they source a higher power load, nor would it be advisable use such a load in the pistols they actually own.

I'm attempting to combine the best of both worlds here.
If, in some bizarro fantasy world, manufacturers just magically provided what I'm suggesting to put on the shelf at every gun/ammo retailer, at comparable prices to what's already out there, it would be a top seller. I'm sure of it.

 

[Varminterror]

it would be a top seller. I'm sure of it.

How much time have you spent in marketing? How much time selling firearms? How much time in product development?

‘Cuz this is a poor thing to be sure of.

 

[thomas15]

But you have to think... what, are we just never going to have any new cartridges ever again? Are we stuck with .32ACP, .380ACP, 9mm etc... forever?

There has to be a commercial or military demand and/or someone with a lot of influence will have to convince the customers that this is a good idea. If there is a groundswell of unhappiness with what is currently available, it is the biggest secret out there.

Beyond that, there is way too much cost and a lot of financial risk. You seem to think that just because you like the idea that everyone else sees the need. I personally see it this way...big risk, small reward. Convincing yourself is one thing, convincing those that have the funding to make it a reality is something all together different. Look at some of the newer cartridges such as 40 S&W it took years for that to catch on.

 

[6.8KT]

Just thinking aloud, but another thing we could imagine is "Lone Wolf conversion barrels" or "drop-in conversion kits" for Glocks, like exist for .22LR.

How much time have you spent in marketing? How much time selling firearms? How much time in product development?

‘Cuz this is a poor thing to be sure of.

Just from years and years of reading 'caliber wars' and 'what to carry in my pocket/on my person' conundrums in hundreds of threads at dozens of forums, and my own personal deliberations on the subject.

 

[Varminterror]

Just thinking aloud, but another thing we could imagine is "Lone Wolf conversion barrels" or "drop-in conversion kits" for Glocks, like exist for .22LR.

Can’t do it if the overall length is as long as you’re describing. The chamber block of the barrel won’t be long enough to contain the round, nor the cycle length long enough to operate.

See how this is mechanically failing at every turn?

 

[6.8KT]

There has to be a commercial or military demand and/or someone with a lot of influence will have to convince the customers that this is a good idea. If there is a groundswell of unhappiness with what is currently available, it is the biggest secret out there.

All it would take (to at least get ball rolling and generate some buzz) is the announcement of some partnership between manufacturers. Then the firearms media would have something to write/talk about for awhile -- and many of them would make the same case I'm making. Since, frankly, most people are sheep, if someone like Hickok45 gave his seal of approval, people would be all over it.

Beyond that, there is way too much cost and a lot of financial risk. You seem to think that just because you like the idea that everyone else sees the need. I personally see it this way...big risk, small reward. Convincing yourself is one thing, convincing those that have the funding to make it a reality is something all together different. Look at some of the newer cartridges such as 40 S&W it took years for that to catch on.

In the current paradigm, where the streets are relatively safe, the less than 10% of people who want to carry concealed, mostly already do, and aren't rushing out to buy another gun. You could say the market is currently saturated.

But things change... and tomorrow, what if 50% of people decide they definitely need a small carry gun. That's where the potential reward could be for manufacturers. New buyers of the future, and among them, lots of women.

And I think the .40S&W is an excellent bridge between 9mm and 45ACP. I personally want a G22/23/27 and matching Sub-2000. It has its rightful place in the mix.

Can’t do it if the overall length is as long as you’re describing. The chamber block of the barrel won’t be long enough to contain the round, nor the cycle length long enough to operate.

See how this is mechanically failing at every turn?

Well, that's why it's a goal to keep it no longer than a 9mm, if possible. This is where testing would be needed.

 

[JohnKSa]

I've pretty much covered those points at length, and acknowledged that the cost would be great.

No, you've covered each of them by picking one specific parameter and examining it in isolation from all other pertinent parameters and then moving on to another parameter and doing the same for that one. And, when necessary, ignoring the actual cost and talking about non-issues.

...the cost would be great. How great? No clue. I mean, .32 brass already exists, though it would have to be cut to a novel length. .32 projectiles already exist in what I imagine is a multitude of lengths and weights. The pistol frames already exist, although new chamberings and barrels would need to be made. I'd say more than half the work is already done.

This has nothing to do with the real cost. Making the ammo is trivial. The cost is from the consumer standpoint--what does it cost me to choose to buy a gun in this caliber. Some are money costs, some are not. Costs like availability issues for ammunition and accessories. Costs like the expense for practice ammo. Costs like concerns about future support for the caliber. Stuff like that.

I figure, as others mentioned, the pistol weight/frame would have to be intermediate to .380 / 9mm; and pushing a projectile with a similar mass to .380 at 10-15% higher speeds... well that would mean slightly more recoil, but perhaps mitigated by the slightly heavier frame and/or slightly longer barrel compared to .380.

If you can manage that, the controllability will be very similar to the .380 and you'll have a larger gun than the .380. Now instead of having a cartridge that is competing with the .32ACP--which might make sense to some folks, you have a cartridge that will be competing with the 9mm (bigger pistol and a more powerful round than the .380ACP) --which just isn't going to work if the only benefit is a gun that is only very slightly smaller and holds one more round in a single stack or two more in a double-stack.

The gun will have to be smaller than a .380 with at least equal ballistics. If it is bigger than, or the same size as a .380 then one more round in a single stack won't, IMO, be enough to make it sell.

Given comparable performance, I think it only has to equal the .380 in terms of ammo costs and availability (admittedly the hardest part), and people [particularly the 90%+ of people out there who do not yet own a pocket firearm] would choose it every time.

Well, the 90% of people who don't own a pocket firearm aren't in that boat because there are no options. There are lots of options. And I think your statement is very optimistic. Future support is a major concern, for one thing. Also, the only thing it's got going for it compared to the .380 is a small difference in grip length--if you can keep the other dimensions and the weight below or equal to the .380ACP which is questionable and probably contradictory to your improved controllability requirement. That's a lot of ifs and some serious concerns.

Regardless of all your legitimate misgivings, there is a 'hole' in the small pocket pistol world that needs to be filled.

Regardless of your repetition, the number of people besides you who agree with this statement does not appear to be significant. So far the market hasn't been actively looking for ways to fill the gap between the .32ACP and .380ACP. That doesn't mean nobody at all has tried--but when people did, no one was especially interested. Now, one could argue that if someone could come up with a semi-auto handgun cartridge that offers .32ACP capacity, handgun size smaller or no bigger than .380ACP and .380ACP or better performance that would generate some interest--and I tend to agree. I think that there is room for a cartridge like that--if it can be designed. I don't know if there would be enough interest to make it viable--but there might be.

I think it would be a home-run if a couple big names got behind it, and I think the technical feasibility is assured at this point.

Maybe, and not by a long shot. Cartridges with big names behind them fail on a regular basis--look at the .45GAP. And the technical feasibility is nowhere near assured.

Well, that's why it's a goal to keep it no longer than a 9mm, if possible. This is where testing would be needed.

Nobody, I mean NOBODY is going to want this cartridge as a conversion barrel/conversion kit alternative to shooting 9mm. 9mm is already the cheapest centerfire handgun round on the market and a fun/easy round to shoot--why would anyone want to pay to shoot more expensive ammo in their 9mm pistol?

I assumed you meant conversions to shoot it in .32ACP or .380ACP which would be problematic given the higher pressure and longer case length that would be required to meet the other design parameters.

I don't know how to say this nicely. The fact that you have given this a lot of thought and believe it is a good idea doesn't mean that it is actually a good idea. There are some aspects of it that could have merit--it will take a lot of work to determine if that is true--but there are many aspects which need to be re-evaluated in the light of basic theory of operation of semi-auto handguns and cartridge design.

 

[thomas15]

I don't know how to say this nicely. The fact that you have given this a lot of thought and believe it is a good idea doesn't mean that it is actually a good idea.

Very well said.

If an individual thinks they have an idea for a great invention they have two choices. First make a prototype and demonstrate to someone/organization that can convince others that it is worth taking a risk and fund manufacture. Or they can lay out in great detail why this is such a great idea with potential positive return on investment to someone that has the money to take it to a board room and make the pitch. Anything less than that is basically bar room chit -chat. Very rare that a raw idea by itself gets anywhere.

 

[6.8KT]

Now, one could argue that if someone could come up with a semi-auto handgun cartridge that offers .32ACP capacity and .380ACP performance that would generate some interest--and I tend to agree. I think that there is room for a cartridge like that--if it can be designed. I don't know if there would be enough interest to make it viable--but there might be.

That's all I'm trying to do. The proof it can be done is above. The overall length of that cartridge is a bit less than 9mm. I would guess a P3AT/LCP-sized gun, perhaps one-half inch longer, could be chambered for this cartridge. It could be beefier, for potentially higher pressures, while not being any thicker, because the cartridge is thinner.

I assumed you meant conversions to shoot it in .32ACP or .380ACP which would be problematic given the higher pressure and longer case length that would be required to meet the other design parameters.

You assumed or Varminterror assumed. What's going on here. Hmm.

No, I meant this new cartridge could be fired in some Glocks with conversion kits/barrels -- mainly the 9mm varieties -- if it was short enough.
If we basically copy/resurrect the 7.65mm Longue, it would be short enough. Any longer though, probably not.

There will never be market support and cheap ammo for it if it never gets made.
Before making it, we have to narrow down and test the parameters.
I think we have them pretty well narrowed-down.
So, who wants to test it?

 

[thomas15]

What I was trying to say above is I think you should put your money on the table, build a working firearm and ammo and show the world how awesome it is. You can modify an existing platform or pay someone to do it to make your point.

Sell your bed, invest it all in 6.8 KT. If you are right, in the future you will be able to buy 100 beds.

 

[JohnKSa]

The proof it can be done is above

That case is more than 20% longer than the .380ACP case and about about 14% longer overall. If you reduce those numbers to get it into a .380ACP size package then performance will suffer accordingly.

. The overall length of that cartridge is a bit less than 9mm. I would guess a P3AT/LCP-sized gun, perhaps one-half inch longer, could be chambered for this cartridge. It could be beefier, for potentially higher pressures, while not being any thicker, because the cartridge is thinner.

Earlier, when I suggested that your design parameters could be met with a .380ACP having a grip that was 0.4" longer, you said that was too much. Now going 0.5" longer on the overall length is not an issue.

You assumed or Varminterror assumed. What's going on here. Hmm.

I assumed that you were talking about .380ACP conversions when I read your initial comment about conversions which is why I didn't respond to it and then realized what you really meant when I read your second comment in response to Varminterror and did respond at that point. It may be tempting to assume that there's some kind of conspiracy against you because that would help you explain to yourself why your obviously great idea isn't getting the traction that it should, but the reality is that your idea isn't getting traction because it lacks merit.

Before making it, we have to narrow down and test the parameters.
I think we have them pretty well narrowed-down.
So, who wants to test it?

"We"?

Before you can convince someone to make something, you will need to acquire sufficient background in the field to be able to propose a viable solution and back it up with sound technical arguments as opposed to solely with unbridled enthusiasm and speculation about market demand.

When you have done that and come up with parameters that translate to a viable solution in the eyes of commercial gun and ammo makers, then you will need to make contact with those entities and demonstrate the solution.

You may need to do some of your own prototyping and testing in order to convince people that the solution is viable.

If you don't think enough of your idea to prototype and test it, it's unlikely anyone else will either.

 

[6.8KT]

What I was trying to say above is I think you should put your money on the table, build a working firearm and ammo and show the world how awesome it is. You can modify an existing platform or pay someone to do it to make your point.

Sell your bed, invest it all in 6.8 KT. If you are right, in the future you will be able to buy 100 beds.

It's .32 Super now. Keep up.
I was hoping to spark a collaboration here. I sing the praise of this idea, we all refine it into a work of art on paper, then someone with the know-how and means to do so makes the prototype.

 

[6.8KT]

That case is more than 20% longer than the .380ACP case and about about 14% longer overall. If you reduce those numbers to get it into a .380ACP size package then performance will suffer accordingly. Earlier, when I suggested that your design parameters could be met with a .380ACP having a grip that was 0.4" longer, you said that was too much. Now going 0.5" longer on the overall length is not an issue.

Yes the length of the grip from slide to magwell, that we'd want to keep the same, because that dimension is important when it comes to fitting in a pocket.

Maybe the grip would need to be a bit girthier than a .380, to accomodate the longer cartridge, or maybe not. I don't know how much room there is to spare in a P3AT grip with respect to a .380 cartridge.

As for the overall length of the gun itself, we'd have to tack on a few millimeters to the chamber for the longer cartridge, and maybe a 1/2 inch onto the barrel (or maybe not).

Before you can convince someone to make something, you will need to acquire sufficient background in the field to be able to propose a viable solution and back it up with sound technical arguments as opposed to solely with unbridled enthusiasm and speculation about market demand.

When you have done that and come up with parameters that translate to a viable solution in the eyes of commercial gun and ammo makers, then you will need to make contact with those entities and demonstrate the solution.

You may need to do some of your own prototyping and testing in order to convince people that the solution is viable.

If you don't think enough of your idea to prototype and test it, it's unlikely anyone else will either.

I've pretty much gotten the cartridge and gun dimensions down to within a few millimeters here or there, with all your help.
The only real question is what would be the final chamber pressure and performance numbers, and I presume it would be within the acceptable range.

It will never work!!! Please, I beg of you, stop now!!!

It's almost like, more than a healthy skepticism or playing the devil's advocate, some people here have a vested interest in seeing this die.

 

[JohnKSa]

I've pretty much gotten the cartridge and gun dimensions down to within a few millimeters here or there, with all your help.

There are software packages out there that will let you get an idea of the pressures you'll need to run to get the performance you want out of the size cartridge you can fit into the gun. Keep in mind that if you have to go with pressures that are too high to get extra performance, that will require a stronger cartridge case which will reduce case capacity and raise pressures even further. Same deal with shrinking the OAL to fit a small package.

Also keep in mind that if you make a gun that is .380ACP size or larger, it's going to be a very hard sell. There are already people who won't buy a .380ACP because they can just get a 9mm that's only slightly larger and heavier. This gun/cartridge combo will need to be competitive with the .380ACP in terms of size and weight without venturing into 9mm territory in order to have a chance of success.

Running the pressure numbers would be a good place for you to start. Yes, the pressure estimating software will cost you some money, but why should the only people who spend money on your great idea be people other than you?

The basic physics of locked-breech, recoil operated handguns are not terribly complex. You should be able to figure out how to calculate slide velocity and compare it with existing designs to see if the numbers for your design are in the right ballpark.

It's almost like, more than a healthy skepticism or playing the devil's advocate, some people here have a vested interest in seeing this die.

Of course. It's a conspiracy against you and your obviously great idea.

 

[6.8KT]

There are software packages out there that will let you get an idea of the pressures you'll need to run to get the performance you want out of the size cartridge you can fit into the gun. Keep in mind that if you have to go with pressures that are too high to get extra performance, that will require a stronger cartridge case which will reduce case capacity and raise pressures even further. Same deal with shrinking the OAL to fit a small package.

Makes sense.

Also keep in mind that if you make a gun that is .380ACP size or larger, it's going to be a very hard sell. There are already people who won't buy a .380ACP because they can just get a 9mm that's only slightly larger and heavier. This gun/cartridge combo will need to be competitive with the .380ACP in terms of size and weight without venturing into 9mm territory in order to have a chance of success.

I'm guessing it would be a hair bigger than P3AT, with slightly higher pressures, and therefore slightly more mass/weight. But certainly much closer to .380 than 9mm. Kinda like how a P3AT is only marginally bigger than a P32.

Running the pressure numbers would be a good place for you to start. Yes, the pressure estimating software will cost you some money, but why should the only people who spend money on your great idea be people other than you?

Another option is one of the great members of this forum, who already has the software (and knows how to interpret it), who sees the greatness of what I'm -what we're - trying to accomplish... maybe that guy would be glad to chip in and help out?

You should be able to figure out how to calculate slide velocity and compare it with existing designs to see if the numbers for your design are in the right ballpark.

No clue how to do that. I mean, I could learn... but that's not really in my wheelhouse. I imagine someone in our little impromptu design team who knows how to do that could rather easily throw some numbers at us.

One variable, the mass of the slide... a few different figures could be used, starting with the mass of a P3AT slide, then maybe 5 of 10 different incremental steps up to just below the mass of a PF-9 slide, until the optimal mass vis-a-vis slide velocity is found. But again, I wouldn't know what's optimal and what's not.

 

[Texas10mm]

Yes, .32 H&R is a good analogue in terms of performance. .32 Super would be its autoloading brother.
And as I mentioned previously, .327 Federal is also analogous in terms of how increasing the capacity of an existing platform (.357) while nearly matching its performance results in something people want.
See, what we have here is sort of a negative feedback loop that probably happens with all new calibers absent some sort of government subsidy. People do want it, but they're not willing to take the plunge because it's expensive and hard to find, which results in low demand, which keeps it expensive and hard to find.

I'd gladly trade my .38 Special (or a .357 if I had one) for a .327 Federal if ammo cost/availabilty were comparable.

Federal obviously thought it was worth it in the .327. Maybe their only failure in that was not offering the round up cheaply enough to gain market share?

It's pretty obvious you have no idea how any of this works. Price is driven by demand. Everyone wants 9mm so it's cheap. Very few people want .327 Federal so it's expensive. The savings come in volume.

Federal could sell .327 Federal Magnum ammo at the same price as 9mm. They would lose their shirts doing so, but it would make a few of us very happy. They could flood the market with .327 Federal ammo at 9mm prices, all they would have to do is raise 9mm prices to cover the loss. Federal could have given .327 Federal ammo away. It might have increased their market share by one or two percentage points. Then as soon as they started charging for it market share would plummet. I would guess that many if not most people who own and shoot a .327 Federal Magnum reload for it. I know I picked up my Single Seven from someone who bought it, found the lack of ammo troubling, and decided to sell it. Since I reload and cast my own bullets the .327 Federal was perfect for me.

The .38 SPL has been around over 100 years. If you think .38 SPL/.357 Mag ammo is cheap and available now then the only thing that shows is your age. Both of those rounds used to be cheaper and more available than 9mm. Back when revolvers were king. Once the wonder nines took off and the US military adopted 9mm those old revolver cartridges started getting more expensive.

For you to get the cost and availability of the .32 Super down you're going to need MILLIONS of people wanting it. That means you're going to need to sell MILLIONS of firearms for it. However people aren't going to buy the firearm if the ammo is not available, and the ammo is not going to be cheap and available till people starting buying it.

You can't just wave a magic wand and make things happen. There's no participation trophies here. Everything has to be EARNED. A small manufacturer like Kel-Tec doesn't have the marketing or manufacturing capacity to get something like this off the ground. You would need to get Ruger, Smith & Wesson, and Glock to build firearms on board at a minimum. Then you're going to need Federal, Winchester, and Remington onboard to make ammo. Someone is going to have to have MILLIONS of dollars to dump into advertising.

Without all of the above all this is nothing more than mental masturbation.

 

[Varminterror]

someone with the know-how and means to do so makes the prototype.

I’m a person with the know-how and means, and I’m telling you, you are wasting your own time by chasing this.

 

[Zaydok Allen]

There is a difference between perseverance and obstinate denial of solicited and educated advise.

This is going nowhere productive.

 

[6.8KT]

I still think something based on or around the 7.65x20 Longue is a good idea, despite the many naysayers. I'm not swayed.
That doesn't mean I think it's likely to happen at any scale.
I just found these discussions on it:
https://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog...-weapon-calibers-015-7-65x20mm-french-longue/
http://flatdarkearthsociety.blogspot.com/2015/06/could-765x20mm-french-longue-make.html

 

[SDGlock23]

Nothing .32 is a hot seller, heck they magnumized the 32 in the 327 Federal and it's selling some I'm sure. Is it flying off the shelves? No. There was a point when really tiny .32/380 pistols were about the only thing you could have that was truly small, but nowadays you can get 9mm's, even .40's and .45's that are small enough that there's not much reason to get into the 380, let alone a 32. A new .32, your so called "32 Super" wouldn't sell either, even if was advertised as the next big thing, it woudn't sell. I have no problem with you or anyone else daydreaming about a new cartridge and all the what ifs, it's fun and I get that, but just keep in lighthearted and don't get too worked up over it.

 

[6.8KT]

Nothing .32 is a hot seller, heck they magnumized the 32 in the 327 Federal and it's selling some I'm sure. Is it flying off the shelves? No. There was a point when really tiny .32/380 pistols were about the only thing you could have that was truly small, but nowadays you can get 9mm's, even .40's and .45's that are small enough that there's not much reason to get into the 380, let alone a 32. A new .32, your so called "32 Super" wouldn't sell either, even if was advertised as the next big thing, it woudn't sell. I have no problem with you or anyone else daydreaming about a new cartridge and all the what ifs, it's fun and I get that, but just keep in lighthearted and don't get too worked up over it.

If it could be made small enough (fits in any pocket), with 10 in the magazine, and a power factor of 90+ (to use the cutoff for competition shooting of back-up guns) -- now, granted, meeting all those criteria could be difficult (or maybe not -- I don't know)... then I think it would be a big seller today, particularly among women.

Crime will only get worse. The number of concealed carry permits will continue to rise.

Would you rather have a P365 with 10+ rounds of 9mm?
Or a P365 with 12 or 13+1 rounds of .32 Super with less recoil (and say, 25% less stopping power).

Sure, a lot of guys would choose 9mm, but probably not all; and I think a lot of women would choose the .32 because it would be less harsh.

I don't really have a dog in this fight, since even if it did come to fruition, and even if I was part of the inspiration, I'd never get any credit.
But I agree that it's not likely to happen, simply because 'market forces' favor the momentum of what already exists over anything else.

 

[Varminterror]

Would you rather have a P365 with 10+ rounds of 9mm?
Or a P365 with 12 or 13+1 rounds of .32 Super with less recoil (and say, 25% less stopping power).

I would rather have a P365 in 9mm with 10+1 over a far weaker 32cal. Only a fool would stand on the ragged edge of stopping power, and willingly give up stopping power for capacity. You’re ignoring every aspect of empirical statistics for civilian defensive shooting encounters.

Kinetic energy isn’t the only metric for comparing rounds.

Something you need to consider - we’ve discussed a dozen rounds in this thread which are obsolete, obscure cartridges, but match nearly exactly what you’re hoping to design. If all of these have failed, why would any human with a half ‘a lick of sense think doing the same thing would yield a different result?

 

[6.8KT]

I would rather have a P365 in 9mm with 10+1 over a far weaker 32cal. Only a fool would stand on the ragged edge of stopping power, and willingly give up stopping power for capacity. You’re ignoring every aspect of empirical statistics for civilian defensive shooting encounters.

Nevertheless, people do frequently choose lesser calibers than 9mm for the smaller gun that comfortably fits in a pocket.
This round, as a pocket gun or back-up, is meant to compete with those lesser calibers: .25ACP, .32ACP, .380ACP.

Something you need to consider - we’ve discussed a dozen rounds in this thread which are obsolete, obscure cartridges, but match nearly exactly what you’re hoping to design. If all of these have failed, why would any human with a half ‘a lick of sense think doing the same thing would yield a different result?

Well, I'd only counter that, up until recently... with modern pistol designs, powders and metallurgy... what wasn't achievable with those cartridges then very well could be now.

With concealed carry coming onto the scene strong in the last decade, and with it a tremendous new demand for pocket guns...

.32 Super makes good sense.

 

[Zaydok Allen]

I would rather have a P365 in 9mm with 10+1 over a far weaker 32cal. Only a fool would stand on the ragged edge of stopping power, and willingly give up stopping power for capacity. You’re ignoring every aspect of empirical statistics for civilian defensive shooting encounters.

Agree completely.