The yet to be invented 30/357 Sig, it may just prove to be the best handgun cartridge

[Zak Smith]

BHP9,

So what are you after, just penetration? For nonexpanding bullets, the one with the most velocity * sectional density will win. No argument there.

You are absolutely correct and this is why people should not place so much faith in expanding bullets. For example you told of the .45acp bullet designed to expand at around 850 fps but as the range increase the expansion will go down or fail to expand at all.

For two bullets with the same BC, the one that starts out at 2x the speed of the other will lose a larger percentage of its muzzle velocity at 100 yards than the one that starts out slower.

In particular, for a BC of 0.15, a bullet that starts at 800fps will only drop to 733fps at 100 yards, a loss of about 9%. Another bullet with BC of 0.15 shot at 1600fps will drop to 1231fps at 100 yards, for a loss of about 23%.

The point should be obvious: those bullets that rely on high terminal velocity for proper expansion & penetration (combined), so that they do not over-expand and under-penetrate at very close distances, will become more rapidly less effective as the distance increases.

In 5.56mm, M193 and M855 are prime examples: above about 2700fps terminal velocity, they dramatically fragment. Under somewhere in the range of 2200-2500fps, they more or less poke .22" diameter holes.


Contrast to the .45ACP, which is like the 800fps bullet in the example: it only loses 67fps and is probably still within the design range for expansion.

And what happens when these JHP's happen to not expand? They give you what you wanted in the first place: more penetration.


-z

 

[tex_n_cal]

Hmmm....a 10mm case necked to .17...


....hmmm...

I wonder if a .221 fireball would fit in a Desert Eagle?

 

[BHP9]

For two bullets with the same BC, the one that starts out at 2x the speed of the other will lose a larger percentage of its muzzle velocity at 100 yards than the one that starts out slower.

I think that you are now getting into a discussion that could be proved either way depending on what bullet, what velocity, what weight, what caliber etc. etc.

In a more down to earth experiment try shooting at unknown longer ranges as I have. At around 100 yards the .45 just barely makes it there providing you give it just the right elevation so you can connect with what you are shooting at. When using a fast stepping caliber like the .30 Mauser or 9mm luger it at 100yards is still traveling a lot faster and in the case of the .30 mauser really cracking. Hits a 100 yards are not difficult.

If none of this were true then the superior penetration of the .30 Mauser and 9mm Luger would not take place. Notice the tremedous difference in the U.S. military test trials of 1945 where the 9mm luger using fmj bullets blasted right through a steel helmet at 130 yards while the slower moving .45 bounced off at 30 yards.

Although it may be true that the higher velocity bullet does indeed lose a higher percentage of its velocity at 100 yards this does not mean that it is still not traveling faster and penetrating deeper than the example you quoted in the .45 acp that lost less velocity but was still traveling way slower.

If none of this were true than it would be the .45 not the 9mm or the .30 Mauser that would have the superior penetration way out yonder so to speak. Real tests proved all of this a half a century ago.

I hate to keep bringing up an old , old test I performed many years ago when I was just little more than a kid but when using a full power hard cast bullet in a .45 ACP at almost point blank range on a 55 gallon drum it only went through one side of the drum and fell down inside the drum when it bounced off the opposite wall of the steel drum. I then shot the same drum with a weak down loaded way less than full power load in 9mm again with the same hard cast bullet and it easily zipped through both sides of the drum and kept on going.

So in other words even though way back then before I had ever even heard of the U.S. military test trials I was in a way duplicating what they had already done and found out years earlier. That smaller high velocity bullets do indeed penetrate way better than bigger bullets traveling at less speed even though the bigger bullets are heavier and lose their velocity less they do indeed lose velocity and since it is low to begin with they cannot afford to lose the velocity like the much faster smaller bullet can. In other words even if the smaller bullet loses a higher percentage of velocity it still has more than enough velocity left over to penetrate and do the job and once again this was proven by U.S. military test trials and my own more humble tests years ago.

 

[BHP9]

In 5.56mm, M193 and M855 are prime examples: above about 2700fps terminal velocity, they dramatically fragment. Under somewhere in the range of 2200-2500fps, they more or less poke .22" diameter holes.

I do not know where you are getting your information but I have found that bullets fragment in the air while on the way to the target if the rifling twist to too fast for the thickness of the bullets jacket coupled with to fast a velocity.

You can take a military 55 grain .22 caliber bullet put it in a .220 swift and shoot it at 3,700 fps and it does not disentegrate on the way to the target and it does not desintegrate when passing through the target (a woodchuck) as long as bone is not hit which will cause it to tumble and deform or break apart. The swift with its 1 in 14 twist is slow enough not to destroy the bullets jacket. This same bullet fired out of a twist as fast as 1 in 10 as in my Mini-14 rifle at around 3,000 fps will also not disintegrate on the way to the target or when it passes through it. As a matter of fact we even fired these bullets through thick plate winshield glass in an old automobile and although a fair amount did break apart they did it after penetrating through the glass and some did not break apart and those that did, did not always totally disintegrate. I think for such a small light bullet this is outstanding performace considering how tough automobile glass is and one must also consider the fact that the windshields were at an angle , we did not take the windshield out of the car and stand it up vertically. If we had I think a very much larger percentage of the bullets would have made it through without breaking up.

The one big problem with the newer military loading that I believe is around 62 grains with a steel penetrator insert is that although it will penetrate an old style helmet at 400 meters it will usually not tumble as readily as the older 55 grain loading that would tumble if it encountered bone. Even the older 55 graind loading did not always tumble when stricking flesh if it did not encounter a solid object like bone or thick muscle to help deflect it.

 

[ElAlumno]

I think you are contradicting yourself here. Since the 5.7x28mm does penetrate body armor and the other handgun calibers do not this only proves what I stated in the beginning.

Penetration of body armor is a specialized application. I took your discussion to be penetration in the terminal ballistic sense since that was what you were discussing an alluded to with this question †"What new caliber based on this theory would be a superior police and civilian round?“.

If you are talking about penetration against body armor only, then you are correct the FN 5.7x28mm does out penetrate pistol calibers.

Here again the U.S. military proved the 5.56 mm with the newer heavier bullets and faster 1-7 twist penetrates old style steel helmets up to 400 meters while the 9mm only penetrates them up to 130 yards and the .45acp only at 30 yards.

I guess I am confused here. Are we talking terminal ballistics against a human target or are we talking about performance against body armor?

You seem to allude to a new round that will offer superior terminal ballistics against human targets based on velocity.

I think you were referring to the use of expanding bullets or the use of the older 55 grain fmj military loading that often tumbled when hitting a human target.

I am talking about the use of the 5.56 for SD/HD and SWAT type operations, wherein the target is a human. In such a case, contrary to your claim, velocity does NOT give us a â€â€¦ tremendous increase in penetration…â€. Very often it gives us the exact opposite.

Let me point out some further confusions.

Starting out with a caliber with tremendous penetration like the .30 caliber pistol cartridges

This is a statement that cannot be made accurately. Depending upon the construction of the bullet and the velocity it is launched at, you may have extremely deep penetration or extremely shallow penetration. Without stating what you are launching, claims to penetration are unsubstantiated.

Proving that the smaller faster pistol calibers do outpenetrate the slower bigger calibers as the range increases.

Are we talking shooting metal drums or people? Because such experiments as you describe really have no applicability if we are talking about terminal ballistics against humans.

BTW, the NATO test for the SS109/M855 penetration against a steel helmet were at 600 meters.

I believe is around 62 grains with a steel penetrator insert is that although it will penetrate an old style helmet at 400 meters it will usually not tumble as readily as the older 55 grain loading that would tumble if it encountered bone. Even the older 55 graind loading did not always tumble when stricking flesh if it did not encounter a solid object like bone or thick muscle to help deflect it.

Again, sorry but this is incorrect. The function of both rounds are more due to velocity than anything else. The “tumbling†is more like fragmenting and separation at the cannelure. It has been found that for the 5.56 to do this reliably it must have a velocity at least of 2700fps. Hence, the velocity is not giving it penetration but fragmentation and limited penetration.

See, BHP, I guess I am still confused at what you are looking for. Penetration against tissue? Penetration against body armor? Penetration against metal barriers? Terminal ballistics? They are not the same, just like velocity is not an insurer of penetration.

 

[ElAlumno]

A small example, based on the FBI Handgun Ammunition Tests of 1989-1995 you have the following results

FN 5.7X28mm 23.5gr., @ 2855fps

Penetration:

Bare gelatin = 9.40 inches

Steel = 4.9 inches

Auto glass = 0.7 inches

.45ACP, 230gr., @ 837fps

Penetration:

Bare gelatin = 39.5 inches

Steel = 31.3 inches

Auto glass = 14.9 inches

Yet the 5.7X28 will penetrate a ballistic vest while the .45ACP will not.

 

[Mikul]

I like the idea. There is a lot to be said for the 7.62x25 Tokarev round. The idea presented adresses the alleged size problem. Of course, the size of the case allows enough powder to push that 85 grain bullet to 1,900fps out of a handgun. Woo Hoo.

With today's metals and gunpowder, it seems reasonable to explore the possibility of achieving the same performance with a smaller round.

I would also like to see at least a 100 grain bullet, but that's a prejudice I have based on existing rounds. Play with the 85 grains and see what their performance is. I hope it's surprising.

 

[Zak Smith]

I said:

In 5.56mm, M193 and M855 are prime examples: above about 2700fps terminal velocity, they dramatically fragment. Under somewhere in the range of 2200-2500fps, they more or less poke .22" diameter holes.

Then you replied:

I do not know where you are getting your information but I have found that bullets fragment in the air while on the way to the target if the rifling twist to too fast for the thickness of the bullets jacket coupled with to fast a velocity.

ammo-oracle.com:

Q. So, velocity is a critical component for the wound profile. How fast must the bullet be traveling when it hits its target in order to fragment reliably?

Testing by combat surgeon Col. Martin L. Fackler, MD (USA Medical Corps, retired), determined that M193 and M855 bullets need to strike flesh at 2,700 feet per second in order to reliably fragment. Between 2,500 fps and 2,700 fps, the bullet may or may not fragment and below 2,500 fps, no significant fragmentation is likely to occur. If there isn't enough velocity to cause fragmentation, the result is a deep, 22 caliber hole, except an area where the yawing occurred, where the diameter of the hole grows briefly to the length of the bullet.

FirearmsTactical.com:
http://www.firearmstactical.com/briefs13.htm

You can take a military 55 grain .22 caliber bullet put it in a .220 swift and shoot it at 3,700 fps and it does not disentegrate on the way to the target and it does not desintegrate when passing through the target (a woodchuck) as

So your wonder-round is for woodchucks? I thought we were talking about humans.

-z

 

[Handy]

Hey Mike Irwin,

Back on page one, were you trying to say that most full sized guns, including the Beretta 92 and Glock 17, could be chambered in .30 Mauser/Tokarev?

I was under the impression that the round is too long for all 9mm based platforms, both in magazine length and slide travel.

 

[Tamara]

Handy,

He didn't say the Beretta 92 or the Glock 17. He said:

Kind of a nebulous statement, don't you think?

MOST existing auto loading pistols?

You mean the 1911s, the Berettas, the Taurui, the S&Ws, the Rugers, the Glocks, etc. etc. etc.

All of the full-size models perfectly capable of handling the Tokarev round.

Even some of the smaller compact models should be more than capable of handling the Tokarev round. For example, the Glock compact in 10mm.

By his specific reference of the G29 rather than the G26, I took this to read that any gun sized for the .45ACP or 10mm Auto could handle 7.62x25 without too much work (although it is a smidgen longer in max OAL...)

 

[Handy]

Well, that's what I was asking.


"All of the full-size models..." you see.

 

[Dr.Rob]

aside from the need for a thicker case mouth to prevent bullet set back (which the 357 sig is notorious fro), and barrel throat erosion cause by pushing the velocity envelope.

So what I'm seeing is a 30 cal 165 spbt at say, 2000fps?

Sounds like it would kick like a 30-30 contender.

 

[BHP9]

See, BHP, I guess I am still confused at what you are looking for. Penetration against tissue? Penetration against body armor? Penetration against metal barriers? Terminal ballistics? They are not the same, just like velocity is not an insurer of penetration

I guess we totally agree to disagree. Penetration is paramount if incapacitation is the goal. A bullet that does not reach the vital organs does not incompacitate or terminate the target. When a round refuses to penetrate one materiel it usually fails to varying degrees in other materiels as well. In the real world human targets don't pose and stand around wainting to be shot, they hide behind barriers of, wood ,safety glass, steel doors etc. , wear protective body armor, wear thick winter clothing , I could go on and on. This is why penetration is often such an advantage in a handgun caliber that does so.

So your wonder-round is for woodchucks? I thought we were talking about humans.

The woodchuck is very relavent to the depate being that it is a living organism and it proves that the military 5.56mm bullet can not be counted on to perform in textbook like fashion according to the slide rule kids. Real life tests have proved this. I am not saying that the military 5.56 bullet has not disintegrated but that it can not in any way be counted on to do it consistantly. Most of the chucks I shot simply had a small hole drilled right through them. If the 5.56 mm behaved as the slide rule kids would have everyone believe the bullet would have at least yawed to some degree which would have been very evident as to the damage done to the chuck. It simply was not there most of the time .

ONe of the reaons I did this was because of the sensational news media reports that were published back in the late 1960's about the tumbling affects of the 5.56mm. Wild claims were made that it literally chopped people in two. I still have one news media report that claimed an enemy soldier was hit in the finger and died instantly from the shock. At the time it reminded me of the older, wilder stories about the .45 ACP spinning people around even if they were hit in the finger or arm.

I think the old test from the early part of this century that involved the .30 Luger dropping a 1,300 pound steer proved that you do not need expanding bullets to kill creatures many times larger than the handgun caliber was even meant to be used for and it proved that the smaller high velocity calibers have plenty of penetration to do the job and contrary to established beliefs over the the years are not the inferior calibers that many people have been led to believe.

P.O. Ackely's tests a half century ago proved that the pip squeak 48 grain bullet of the .220 Swift drilled right through armor plate when the hevier armor piercing 30-06 faild to do so. Seeing is believing and P.O. Ackley proved it. He also proved that it killed 600 pound burros quicker and faster than many of the much bigger and heavier calibers that were also used to dispatch the burros. Once again he proved all this with tests that had numerous witnesses. The info did not come out of a Government lab from Government people who we all know always tell the truth and are never incompetant.

 

[BHP9]

For those of you that think the 30 Mauser could be chambered in many of the more modern handguns I suggest you take a round and stick it in the 9mm magazine. I tried it on a Berretta and it in no way would be able to be chambered in this gun unless some serious enlarging of the frame took place which would weaken the frame seriously.

I think even if we were to do this it still misses my whole point. i.e. that people think newer is better and a new handgun round would capture a lot more interest than an old one even though there may be little difference between them. People would not realize this and there would be a big rush to buy and test the new round. Look at all the hoopla over the new short magnums in rifle calibers. If there ever was an example of useless duplication this is a prime example of it.

Something new generates interest and as I said before people would buy to try it and a lot of them would like it. They would be far less likely to try the same handgun chambered for an old, old caliber.

 

[Mike Irwin]

Handy,

Glock, Taurus, Ruger, Beretta, etc., all make guns chambered either for 10mm, .45 ACP, or both.


"Something new generates interest and as I said before people would buy to try it and a lot of them would like it."

.22 Jet

.256 Win. Mag.

.32 Magnum

9mm Ultra

.41 Action Express

10mm Magnum

.451 Dectonics

and, unless I badly miss my guess, the .45 Glock...

All new, all ballyhooed, all sank faster than lead bricks even though they were new, had lots to recommend them according to many pundits...

 

[BHP9]

All new, all ballyhooed, all sank faster than lead bricks even though they were new, had lots to recommend them according to many pundits...

You forgot the 40 S&W and it did not flop.

There is also the new .480 Ruger.

There is the new S&W 50.

But even more interesting to a lot bigger crowd of people is the new pocket pistol cartridges. There is a necked down 32/380 and a necked down 25/32acp, now this is the first big improvement in pocket pistol cartridges in about 100 years. These two new pocket calibers may be around long after the .480 Ruger and .50 S&W have turned to dust, and I might ad they are not something just dreamed up to promote gun sales like the .480 Ruger or .50 Smith was. Yes, they are more powerful than the .44 magnum but they are specialized cartridges that were ment for hunting and we all know each year the hunter is fast becoming a vanishing breed of American. On the other hand the new little pocket calibers appeal to a much wider market of gun owners and if given the right advertisement as to their worth they just could become extremely successfull.

Nothing is for certain in life and some very, very good cartridges got killed under some very unusual circumstances. How many people know what a superior cartridge the .222 Rem.Magnum was compared the inferior .223 Remington. Sound like crazed heresy. Any real rifle nut knows only how true that statement is but since the .223 was a military cartridge with all the ballyhoo and cheap penny a piece surplus brass the .222 Magnum never stood a ghost of a chance except amoung people who really new and understood rifles and cartridges and they unfortunately were not numerous enough to save it.

And how about the .280 Remnington, it was way better than the .270 ever was because of the wide variety of heavy weight bullets available for it over the years making it a much more versatile big game cartridge but did it knock off the .270? Nope, because their was no Jack O'Conner to promote it or sing its praises and only a few real rifleman new how good it really was compared to the .270 and the dearth of bullet weights that were available for it for so many years. Its only been in recent years that the selection of bullets for the .270 has expanded and we still don't have any really good heavy weights available for it. At least none that are readily available to the average Joe buying at the average gun shop.

And just one more. How about the forgotton .225 Winchester cartridge. If it had been made a commercial cartridge years sooner, today there is a very good possiblilty that the 22-250 would only be some obscure wildcat cartridge that was introduced commercially for a short while and then flopped and passed into obscurity.

Few people today ever heard of the .225 Winchester or realize how good a round it really was.

 

[Tamara]

There is a necked down 32/380 and a necked down 25/32acp, now this is the first big improvement in pocket pistol cartridges in about 100 years. These two new pocket calibers may be around long after the .480 Ruger and .50 S&W have turned to dust, and I might ad they are not something just dreamed up to promote gun sales like the .480 Ruger or .50 Smith was.

Thought you'd want to know that the .25 NAA was DOA and doesn't show up on Cor-Bon's price list any more. Unless people start chambering real guns in .32 NAA, it's likely to follow.

 

[Zak Smith]

BHP9,

You might take a look at .38Casull and Bill Caldwell's .224Zipper:

.38Casull http://www.casullarms.com/handguns1.htm has a bore size of .355", and fires a 124gr at over 1800fps, or a 147gr at over 1650 fps. I think those values are for a 6" barrel.

.224Zipper http://www.pistolsmith.com/viewtopic.php?t=6048 fires a 40gr bullet at 2200fps. He also said,

I've got a 308 running 110gr bullets way faster than a 30 Mauser. With a 125grHP/FN Sierra 2020, may rank with the deadliest of all defense loads. I have a 25(257) and am working on a 264.

These were all built in a 1911 platform. All realization takes is application of enough $$.

regards
Zak

 

[Zak Smith]

Another, cheaper, alternative for testing would be a .45ACP, 10mm, or 9x23 with the appropriate sabot.

-z

 

[Mike Irwin]

You're right, some pistol cartridges didn't flop at the starting gate.

Yet that wasn't the point of my comment, which was to put the truth to your statement that anything new and seemingly sparkly in the world of handguns and cartridges is an immediate, resounding success.

The .40 didn't flop for one reason, and one reason alone -- by the time it came out as a commercial product people in the gun world had been fed a steady diet for nearly 4 years about:

A) How horribly the 9mm failed in Miami.

B) How the 10mm was good, but that it just wasn't quite right.

and C) How this new, shortened 10mm, called the .40 S&W, was going to be the greatest thing since pre-lubed bullets.

There were numerous positively GLOWING write-ups in the gun magazines prior to the .40 being released to the public saying how wonderfully it performed in the FBI tests, how it would be the PERFECT fit between the 9mm and the .45, how it would give capacity almost to the level of the 9mm, fit in a handgun the size of the 9mm, but give ballistics close to the .45.

It was, quite literally, touted as the second coming of Christ, or John Moses Browning, which ever one fits.

Smith & Wesson, Sig, and Glock took ENORMOUS advance orders for the .40 S&W from their civilian distributors. The public was clamoring to get them, and the clamor increased as more and more police forces indicated that they were very, very interested in testing and/or adopting the .40 S&W.

In very rapid fashing the California Highway Patrol adopted the .40. The Pennsylvania State Police adopted the .40. Other, smaller, forces adopted the .40.

Some police forces even dropped the 9mms they had adopted less than 5 years before in the face of the "Wonder 9 movement" and adopted the .40.

Do you really think that with that kind of lead up the .40 had any chance of civilian failure?

The pump, as it was, was FULLY primed long before the first .40s ever hit the civilian market.

It was fascinating to sit behind my desk at American Rifleman magazine and talk to the representatives of the firearms and ammo companies about how they had never, ever seen anything like the run up to the .40, and how it largely had everything to do with the attention that the gun press had given it.

Do you really think that a .30/.357 cartridge would get that kind of run up? If the .357 Sig couldn't get that kind of run up, what makes you think a subwildcat would?

"These two new pocket calibers may be around long after the .480 Ruger and .50 S&W have turned to dust..."

You're JOKING, right? Christ, have you even been following what's going on with these two rounds, or other, similar rounds that have been introduced?

So far the result has been a large, industry- and public-wide, collective YAWN. I give the .32 NAA no more than another year before it quietly dies for lack of the wild public acclaim for something new.

As Tamara notes, the .25 NAA is already dog food. That may well have been one of the fastest birth-to-death announcements in the history of the handgun world. It might even rival the 9mm Federal, which had a birth to death of less than a year.


"They weren't dreamed up just to promote gun sales."

Now that's one of the most foolish statements I've ever heard in all of my life. That should go into the thread in General about some of the truly ludicrous things that people have said about guns.

Here's a little hint for you. NO company would go through the hassle and expense of research and development if it didn't think that it would result in a salable product.

To think otherwise is the heighth of stupidity. These companies are first and foremost in the business of selling products. If they don't sell products, they don't suceed as a business.

NAA introduced its two new cartridges with the expectation that they would sell. It spent a lot of good money developing the cartridges with the expectation that people would believe that they had something to offer.

Do you really think that NAA brought these cartridges to market, spending quite possibly hundreds of thousands of dollars in total, in some sort of esoteric Zen-based experiment?

There are many other handgun cartridges that also rest on modern scrap heap. Why? Because the massive public infatuation with something "new" just wasn't there, and yet ALL were brought to market in an attempt to gain market share.

To think otherwise is to admit to the world that you possess no working knowledge of how business operates.

Finally, given the widespread availability of small to very small handguns firing recognized rounds like the 9mm, .357 Sig., .40 S&W, and even the .45, all service rounds, there's even less serious expectation that a sub-caliber round such as this would catch on.

Oh well, as Zak says. All you need is money. I recommend that you sell your home and all of your possessions to raise working capital, and go on a crusade to develop this round.

See where it gets you.

As if most of us couldn't tell you that already.

 

[George Hill]

Not looking at any of the real information sources

The Miami event wasn't an indictment of the 9MM, but of the loads used. And if I recall there was only 1 or 2 FBI agents armed with 9MM pistols wasn't there? I thought most were armed with .38s.

 

[Mike Irwin]

Oh, and the .270 Winchester vs. the .280 Remington?

Given that they both have virtually the exact same range of bullet weights, from about 100 grains to about 170 grains, any perceived advantage of one over the other is purely fairy tale.

But what could be the TRUE reason for the .270s pre-eminence in the mid-caliber field over Remington?

Could it be that the .270 is truly a superior cartridge? Nope, the .270 and .280 are virtual ballistic twins.

Could be simply be that Jack O'Connor latched onto the .270 in some sort of payola deal with Winchester? Nope, that's not it, either...

Oh, I know!

It's the simple fact that Remington gave Winchester a THIRTY-TWO year head start!

Winchester brought out the .270 in 1925. Remington didn't even bother investigating the mid-caliber market until after World War II, and FINALLY chimed in with the .280 in 1957.

The only reason that the .280 didn't beat the .270 is because the .270 was well established. Rifle shooters looked at the .280 and said what everyone who really knows the truth about these two cartridges said -- the .280 offers no true advantage over the .270, so why should I switch?

Remington has a LONG history of flubbing cartridge introductions by either hitting the market way too late, or hitting the market with the wrong thing at the wrong time by totally messing up what the consumer is looking for.

A good example of this is the .243 Winchester vs. the .244 Remington. For once Remington was there at the ground floor. Both cartridges were announced in 1955, but once again, Remington screwed the pooch.

Winchester correctly saw that the .243 would need to be a versatile round, capable of taking both varmints and medium-sized game, so it not only offered a range of bullet weights suitable for varmints through deer-sized game, it offered rifles with the correct barrel twist to stabilize the full range.

Remington, on the other hand, just didn't grasp that concept, and totally flubbed the .244's introducting by trying to pawn it off as a purely varmint rifle.

The 1 in 12 twist on the .244 just simply wouldn't stabilize the heavier bullets that hunters wanted for deer-sized game, so that was a no brainer which cartridge they would turn to.

The .243 and .244 both sold well in the initial year, but sales of the .244 quickly dropped off as people realized that it wasn't a deer rifle, and wasn't capable of stabilizing heavier bullets.

What did Remington do? Correct the mistake immediately?

Nope, waited 8 years to do anything about it, by which time the .243 was SOLIDLY established as the pacesetter in this caliber range.

The 6.5 Rem. Mag., the .350 Rem. Mag., the 8mm Rem. Mag., the .244/6mm Rem., and the .280/7mm Rem.

All decent cartridges, yet all failures for one reason or another that are largely attributable to Remington's piss poor timing or lousy reading of the consumer market.

The only TRUE success story in Remington's commercial cartridge development efforts since World War II?

The 7mm Remington Magnum.

But yet, in its own way, another failure, only this time a failure of what MIGHT have been.

Remington brought out a single cartridge, whereas Winchester brought out a family of magnum cartridges based on a magnum case -- .264, .300, and .338 magnums, nicely bracketing the range of calibers that the post war shooter was most interested in, and gaining the market share that Remington could have had a piece of had they had the foresight to actually play in the market.

All of it really goes to a single point.

Failure, even if it's cloaked in the aura of moderate success, is not an original concept.

 

[Mike Irwin]

George,

That's very true.

But that's also NOT the perception that the average gunowner came away with after reading the hundreds of thousands of words that were written in the popular gun press about the Miami fiasco.

The overriding impression that most people got was that the 9mm failed.

Not that the 9mm Winchester Silvertip performed almost exactly as it was designed to do.

But that the 9mm, as a complete package, failed to perform.

Package that with the "obvious" implication given by FBI's investigation into, and later adoption of, the 10mm and the development of the .40 S&W, and the mad rush away from the 9mm by many police forces that had madly rushed to the 9mm only a few years before, and the implication for many people was very, very clear -- the 9mm sucks. It's worthless as a round if you have to actually shoot someone with it.

It didn't matter that FBI's training, tactics, preparation, and apprehension methods likely would have given the same results even if the agents had been armed with bazookas.

It all boiled down to one conclusion in the public's eye -- the 9mm sucks -- which was spoon-fed to them by the popular gun press.

 

[KPersimmon]

Look out, Ma!
Here comes another "best pistol cartridge!"

 

[Gewehr98]

Darn.

I kinda liked the 9mm Federal. No moon clips in a J-Frame. I was gonna get a bunch of the brass, and a Model 940. Then I got a Jones for the Model 547, the K-frame 9mm with the goofy extractor...