Discussion in 'General Gun Discussions' started by SSN Vet, Jul 15, 2021.
Actually, it would fit with the velocity requirements, but would be doing so with a 23 grain, .22 caliber bullet.
Not really a “field” type cartridge, but a human, maybe even a squirrel or coyote wouldn’t like it…
But, we’re all carrying carbines. Where did you find the rifle?
But, I agree. Perhaps a 50AE Desert Eagle along with a 50 Beowulf AR?
Or still my favorite, a 1911, obviously in 45 Auto, and a 30-06 BAR carbine.
But neither set would share the Cowboy type dream of also sharing the same cartridge.
Back then a longer barrel wold turn a 45 Colt into rifle cartridge. I don’t know if we’re all just more sophisticated than that now, or if the technology just advance to where this isn’t a thing, if it was.
I don’t see practical men of any genre plying a pistol cartridge into a hunting rifle scenario, nor vice versa.
Despite my hours watching Lucas side load that levergun while staring at the camera.
I thought the west was all open. How was a 45 Colt going to hunt sheep?
How cool would the Rifleman look with a four shot Savage 99 in 250-3000?
Well, still pretty cool, but the opening scene of shoot-from-the-hip would be shorter…
When I was loading for my 357 AMP a lifetime ago, depending upon bullet weight, my loads were 1500-1800 FPS.
The indoor ranges would not let shoot on the pistol range. They said it would tear up the back stop, so I had to shoot it on the rifle range.
With a 10 round capacity that would be real neat.
357-44 Bain & Davis.pdf (143.4 KB, 18 views)
357 Bain Davis Page 109.pdf (41.0 KB, 19 views)
A 69 Smith in this with a Rossi 92, would be a sweet combo.
I looked at this myself, but a bottleneck cartridge doesn't let you run carbide dies, which is inconvenient. Pistol bullets aren't designed with a spitzer profile allowing you to reach out like a rifle and make better use of that extra velocity. Speaking of which, that 1000 fps difference in velocity between handgun and carbine will likely prevent using a common bullet, they won't perform the same at such different velocities. You run into that with .357 magnums, just stepping from 1400fps to 1900fps. So, if it's more inconvenient to build the bullets and you need different ammo for handgun and carbine to perform properly, you might be better off with a purpose built handgun bullet for the handgun and purpose built rifle bullet for the rifle.
But that 69 and 92 combo has me rethinking the concept...
I am going to respond to all of this post in sections, without looking further at other replies first, because I find this so interesting and one I have though about many times ... I wanna see how close we all are to being on the same page as this.
I'll begin with stating my undying love for 44 Mag in the rimmed category followed closely by 45 Colt then 41 Mag then 357 Mag then 327 Mag ... because I love pistol/carbine combos.
I'm thinking we shoukd lay ground rules perhaps? Straight walled vs necked-down. Box fed vs tube fed ... which may be the limits of where you intended to go with this?
Soooooo Desert Eagle 44 Mag paired with a Ruger Camp Carbine in 44 Mag would be fine with me in the semi auto boxes mag category. S&W 686 paired with a Marlin 1894 Carbine in the tube fed category.
With that said I hear Ruger is going to concentrate on their 327 SIG model straight out of the chute with Marlin ... that will be an interesting carbine/pistol combo ballistically speaking.
Once again ... are we talking straight walled or bottleneck? That is a key component to all of this friend.
You shut yo dirty mouth.
Depends upon how you define "respectable" and for what purpose they are intended to be deployed. You also failed to mention 10 mm which, imho, is the finest semi auto cartridge ever designed until perhaps just recently. I also have a real fondess for SIG 357. I'd marry it were it a woman. It's beautifully designed, well shaped for reliabilty (it feeds exceptionally well), fits like a glove in my hand and the performance ballistics are outstanding. What's not to love? I mean it's a little bit expensive to operate and play with but what fine woman isn't?
Browning, as in John Browning, tried hard to make it work .... he made it work but, as stated, they're really not reliable enough. No sense trying to force a square peg into a round hole. It also begs a the question .... what's the main reason to own a Browning Levergun? Anyone who knows the true answer to that knows the answer to your question above.
Okay so here we go but first, 9x23 Win flopped for a reason. 9x23 WIn, or as we used to call it 9x23 Long Nine, was beaten soundly by every metric by SIG 357. Firearms manufacturers do not mass produce firearms for cartridges that have better alternatives.
So here we go ...
Straight-walled cartridges are best in tubular magazines, after that it's all about capacity and ballisitics imho ... and deciding which wheel gun to match it with.
We may allnagree on that right?
Rimless cartridges are for box magazines and rifle cartridges are not meant to be pistol cartridges.
We may all agree on that as well right?
Exceptions? How about 5.56 out of an 11" barrel? I agree ... no. Well ahow about 300 BLK out of an 8" barrel? Again, I agree .... no. Neither are true pistol cartridges but they are both true carbine cartridges. There definitely is a place for braced pistols in today's world but that's not what we're after here.
The holy grail has always been to find a pistol/carbine combo cartridge functions and performs equally well in both. Right now, in the Straight-walled arena, the new Federal ammo in 357, I forget the name, probably best fits that bill. Hammerdown ammo maybe?
In rimless there some are some exciting new possibilities for semiauto pistol/carbine combos. But first let's admit that 5x7x28 just doesn't pack enough punch out of a carbine. Great little high cap high performance semiauto cartridge, but there is not enough gain to justify a carbine especially at longer distances (which is the point of a carbine).
SiG 357 is super duper out of a carbine AND a pistol and the projectile size is right ... if only it could be a little bit hotter out of a semiauto pistol. Like pushing 2000 fps let's say. Then we would be talking maybe 2400 fps out of a carbine maybe? So we would have to imcrease case capacity to maybe 10mm lenth .... oh wait! That's an idea!
How about instead of cutting-down and then necking-down a 10mm case to make SIG 357 ... why not just neck down the 10mm case to 355, add more happy dust behind it and let it go bang? Existing 10mm magazines would work. Exisiting SIG 357 chambered barrels would work. Existing pistol frames would work ... might have to do something with recoil springs but you would think 10mm springs would work.
Anyone? Anyone? That's right .... pressure. Would existing 10mm frames work?
Okay, the wife just summonded me to lunch. I'll be back because I love this topic and have contemplated it for years.
In "Six Years with the Texas Rangers, 1875 to 1881" James B. Gillett gives a good reason for carrying a pistol that uses the same ammunition as your carbine. He tells of a Ranger who inadvertently loaded a .45 Colt cartridge in his '73 Winchester, and had to unscrew the side plates to clear the resulting jam -- while under fire. That would break me of sucking eggs!
See 9x25 Dillon. Everything you coukd possibly want in a pistol/carbine combo in terms of velocities and energy ... but man oh man did it wear out components.
Turns-out 38 Super Auto beat it out.
So what about 38 Super Auto in a pistol/carbine combo?
Who doesn't love 38 Super? Everyone who has ever shot IPSC knows all about 38 Super. But it lacks 10mm and 9x25 Dillon performance big time.
Honestly, for most of us, 9x25 Dillon is probably the answer to the question. Perhaps the finest cartridge for the perfect box fed semiauto pistol/carbine combo if only ....
Only if somone would make a pistol and carbine for 9x25 Dillon.
Should have known someone would get it.
357 magnum makes a fine handgun / carbine set. Nothing's magic about it though. My most used combo us a 6" gp100 and a 77/357. The 77 feeds from a detachable rotary magazine . both are dependable and accurate. It's not perfect though.
If we're talking about rimless cartridges , I'd say 10mm will work fine. Just depends on what your goal is.
There is no magic or voodoo in any of this, no certain diameter that was blessed to be ideal , just depends . if I was going to get 1 carbine and 1 handgun and it had to be as versatile as possible, I'd go 44 magnum or 454 casull . in my book, bigger IS better. Most of us don't need that though. you mention 9×23 as something desirable for the application. I'm a sucker for cartridges that aren't mainstream but you've got to be realistic about who will buy the thing. 10mm is niche enough , I've got buddies that think 10mm is exotic and super powerful and I try to explain it's really not but no one I know or shoot with would ever buy any 10mm out of fear of obsolescence. I did.
Where I'm at (midwest) there isn't a single animal that 357 or 10mm couldn't kill cleanly. No need to carry more , I often do though. If I think there's a real chance I might have to shoot something . I'd pick a rifle cartridge any day.
Carbines chambered for pistol cartridges have their place but they'll never be very powerful.
If you chamber a 357 to 360 Dan Wesson. It puts a cast 180 grain bullet in high 1900 fps territory from a 20" barrel.
That's knocking on 30-30's door pretty hard. The larger bore diameter makes it even better at close range. After 100 yards the 30-30 would walk away from it.
44 mag will do even more with the expense of higher recoil.
Cowboys would have died to have the cartridges we call weak or not flat shooting enough today.
It is the ballistics listed at Wikiwhatever, and they fit with the current velocity requirements.
That a cartridge is not limited to factory or initial design loading is routine.
Some even say it can’t be reloaded.
We’re all talking large calibers and getting manufactures to make special actions for remote cartridges, or loading one hot for a carbine and light enough to handle in a pistol, to fit the perimeters of the OP and subsequent posts.
Yet the “lowly” 5.7mm does it already in a 20” P-90 and FiveSeven pistols.
What we need is Ruger to make a PCC in 57 to match their pistol.
Or, we can admit braces make ARs pistols and then 450 Bushmaster wins, and I have to buy another pistol lower to build and match my rifle!
I used to think the same thing. Then I tried it, and gave it up.
Straight wall pistol cases just don't offer anything compared to a rifle, and if you're going to carry a carbine, you may as well carry it in a rifle round. There is nothing, other than ammo interchangeability (and even that isn't always true) that putting a pistol round into a rifle (carbine) can offer.
Example: I did a lot of experimentation with 44 magnum in a Winchester 94 lever gun to pair with a Redhawk revolver. Waste of time and money. The heavy bullet won't stabilize past 50 yards. The Model 94 weighs 6 lbs. If I'm going to carry 6 lbs and 20" of barrel, why would I carry it in 44 mag, when I could carry it in 30-30? I would get more accuracy, more muzzle energy, less bullet drop, and greater range.
Example: 357 mag is a better choice than 44 mag, but again, why would I prefer 357 over 30-30 (or 45-70 etc)? Again, other than same ammo for two guns (and slightly higher magazine capacity), what do I gain?
So that's the two big kids on the block when it comes to revolver cartridges and looking at hunting scenarios. Now take a look at 9, 10, and 45 in a more military scenario. Sure I'll get some slightly higher velocities and some better accuracy in the PCC, but that's pretty much it. Why would I carry a carbine length (and weight) AR (Or Beretta PX4 or Ruger etc) in 9, 10 , or 45 when I can carry it in 5.56? What does a slightly faster 9mm round give me that M855 doesn't? (Perhaps the only thing I can think of is if you went with a select fire PCC, with large magazines, in a scenario where you needed a volume of fire at close range with no need for long distance shooting.)
The handgun has its place and purpose-quick/easy access in an emergency (bear defense, self defense, etc.), and the rifle has its place-all of the above plus long distance accuracy/stopping power with the trade off of size and weight. We would do well to recognize, respect, and value that.
How has the 357 SIG beaten the 9X23 Winchester?
Chocolate and peanut butter each have their place and we should recognize respect and value that too. But Reese's peanut butter cups sure are tasty.
AWD sports cars, mini vans and compact cars; yep, they also serve a purpose for millions that dont want/need a jeep rubicon or a ford raptor or even a 4wd suburban.
First of all, if Jeep has to write "trail rated" on their vehicles, they're probably not trail rated. (NOW it's a party! LOL) Second, virtually all of the guys I know who own Jeeps (or Land Cruisers, or Side by sides) also have some other "in town" vehicle. In this example, I'm not sure if the Jeep is a rifle or a pistol, but you see my point.
Edit. I guess the Jeep is the PCC. You can drive it around town, but its not terribly efficient at going to the grocery store, and you can take it off the road, but, unless you spend an extra 10 grand, it's not really "trail rated."
If you handload, you can get a 38 Super to duplicate the 9X23 ballistics, while still within 38 Super normal pressures.
Separate names with a comma.