wanting to design a new pistol/pdw

[Trent]

ETA; that's an NRA smallbore target; they're more challenging (by 1 MOA) than NRA high power targets.

And, the SCAR17 did better.



Given the options I'd grab the SCAR if the end of the world happened simply because of the effective range is "well beyond anything I'd reasonably need in defense of family."

But the PS90 sleeps by the bedside for a reason. Quicker to bring on target, can use it one handed, loads of ammo supply, easy to get slice the pie around a corner since it's so compact, stupidly fast to shoot, and extremely accurate.

 

[Trent]

To the original topic; 5.7x28mm is probably not going to be possible in an action which is also designed to use other cartridges due to idiosyncrasies inherent in the actual cartridge itself.

The 5.7x28mm cartridge is quite unlike any other conventional brass cartridge. Its tapered and bottlenecked, has a dry film lubricant to let it extract via blowback, and requires a pretty light bolt (or slide) for straight blowback action.

It's a very tricky little bugger to get right on reloading; I imagine designing a gun that would work with factory ammunition would be quite an engineering feat, with physics equations well beyond what I'm capable of doing.

 

[justin22885]

well, thats my idea, to make something similar in design to the 5.7x28, designed to use higher pressured, higher energy loads on non-blowback firearms.. and expand the case capacity by using a larger base diameter than what the 5.7x28 uses.. think of it as a super-sized 5.7x28mm

also, it would be much easier to find brass, 5.7x28 brass isnt very common and im not aware of anything you can use as a donor to make your own brass, however with the idea i have for a cartridge, the base diameter is 9.6mm, same as the .223 winchester, therefor you could make your own brass for this cartridge from 223 brass, using the same bullets too

i have large hands, so large grips dont bother me and thats even considering a straight grip profile.. and personally i actually like the luger grip angle.. its not much different from the grip angle used in glocks

my only criteria for the pistol side of this combo is to be reliable and to be concealable, something that can be used as a duty/carry pistol, maybe 4 inch barrel, possibly an accessory rail, doesnt need to have much

the criteria of the rifle/carbine aspect of it would be reliability, accuracy, all in a very light weight package of say a 10-12 inch barrel length

so to sum it all up.. imagine something similar to the five-seven/p90 combo, but imagine a larger, more powerful cartridge that had the handloader in mind by making brass incredibly cheap by making it very simple to make, and imagine these two firearms being designed more around the short-recoil actions than blowbacks, therefor not requiring specific case designs or fluted chambers

its really not asking for much.. just a bigger, more powerful, more handloader friendly version of the 5.7x28 for a cartrdge, and a pistol/carbine concept capable of a larger variety of chamberings

 

[Trent]

Sounds like you are roughly describing the 7.62x25 Tokarev.

Other options in that size range also exist, the 9x23 winchester (9x23 comp) or 38 super. Those are heavy hitting 9mm designs approximating the effect you want, which fit in a 1911 magazine.

Inventing a new gun is one thing (that's an enormous task on it's own, times two as you want to do a carbine AND pistol both). There's a surprising amount of engineering involved in making a new gun action. The metallurgy knowledge required to contain and harness the violent action is considerable, and the engineering knowledge is likewise substantial. Even the pros get it wrong with all their 100+ year experience and resources (e.g. note the semi-auto 17HMR recalls, Glock Gen 4 issues, number of junk 1911 redesigns over the years, etc).

But also inventing a cartridge to go with it while still asking to be modular enough to swap out for other calibers (each with their own quirks) is quite another. Do you even reload ammunition? I noted you don't have any posts in the reloading section on here.

"Making a new round" involves a lot more than just lopping the end of a case off and putting a different bullet / powder in it. I mean, on the face value, yeah, that's about what is required - but the process is non-trivial. You'd need to engineer (at minimum) new sizing dies. You'd probably need to also ream the cases as they are designed, the walls get much thicker as they get towards the base. Cutting off a 223 and necking down to 223 again will involve (at minimum) at least several dies to re-form a shoulder and neck, as that big of a change in one pass on the thicker walled brass would simply crush it. Once you do manage to form down a new neck midway down the case, you'd have to ream the inside of the neck again because the neck would be extremely thick (too much material to accept a case.)

Then the fun part. Do you have any machining / manufacturing background or experience? You'll need a custom manufactured barrel reamer and barrel blanks to play with. (No reamer exists for your design so you'll have to have one manufactured).

Then you'd have a barrel which would (hopefully) accept your new cartridge, at considerable expense - with all the machining and custom tooling required, I don't see that happening for anywhere less than $1500 *if* you had a fully outfitted machine shop (plus a couple weeks of time designing and cutting your dies / reamers). If you don't have equipment and had to contract out the machining work? Could easily be upwards of 10K.

Just to get a barrel and cases formed on a cartridge that has no load data or testing. You're 1% to the finish line! Now all that's left is to build a safe, functional (NEW!) pistol and rifle design to shoot it.

Going off the beaten path comes at great expense, man. Not trying to discourage you, just hoping you fully understand what you are getting in to here.

We all want the next ultra-uber-super-modular-eat-anything-gun and everyone who has ever thought about firearms designs has said "what if...?", but the reality is that the development and construction of a new rifle, pistol, AND cartridge is well beyond mere mortals unless you have one DEEP bank account, a lot of free time, a hell of a machine shop / prototyping outfit, and experience.

There's a reason the 5.7x28mm took a long time to design and develop; it wasn't a "guy in his garage" putting it together. It took them *8+ additional years* to get the design of the Five Seven pistol hammered out so that it could use the same ammunition safely. And that's with a full team with world class engineering facilities and prototyping equipment working on it.

 

[justin22885]

well my intention is to design either the pistol or carbine first based around a pre-existing cartridge.. i was planning on that cartridge being .30 carbine due to it being more available, and less expensive than these other cartridges..

as shown in the p90 results in someone elses post above you can see how much of a difference a spitzer bullet makes in adding distance and power behind that distance, so for something that can work as a sub 200 yard rifle a spitzer bullet is key, pistol bullets just drop off way too quick

and as i stated above the 5.7x28 actually has a lot of negatives going for it.. its not particularly cheap or easy to find ammo, reloading is difficult as brass isnt all that common, and as someone mentioned above its a pain in the rear to load for.. its no secret that its not a very reloader friendly cartridge and with the way ammo prices are going, having a good, reloader friendly cartridge is good

and lastly, 5.7x28 is rather lacking in performance.. out of a 10 inch barrel it has LESS energy than a 9mm does out of a four inch barrel.. now im not sure if the 5.7x28 is actually loaded to its claimed 50,000 PSI max, i seriously doubt it, but we can do much better

so with 5.7 being a pain to reload, cant seem to find commercial brass for, ballistically inferior to a 9mm at close range, there are enormous areas for improvement, especially when it comes to all of us civilians that rely on such things as handloading

 

[Big Shrek]

Hrm...you might be overthinking it...
instead of 5.7x28, try .22TCM!!!

Or, Why not take a tried & true mechanism, like that of the Marlin Camp 9...
and beef it up for use with 10mm, or .30-carbine, or heck, .50GAP!!!

Then instead of a riflestock, use a under- or over-folding stock
with an AR15 grip so that it can be used for in-home or outdoor use with ease...
use a 16 & 1/4" barrel, should make it a nifty household problem remove tool

And if you use Glock Mags, saves a buncha headaches...

For 30-carbine, the already established Automag III has the mags & mechanism...

The more stuff that interchanges mags, the better for the consumer


I love having a boxful of the same mags that will fit into any of 15 rifles
(most Marlin .22WMR mags swap...922M, 25m, 25mn, 25mg, 25mb, 882, 925M, 982VS & 982vscf, XT22M-series)

 

[Jim Watson]

"are you guys worried your hands wont fit a pistol with a 40mm or so length cartridge?.. can you not handle a desert eagle? a FN five-seven?"

Yes, no, and barely.

Also, I am like Ross Seyfried, if you call it a pistol, I want to be able to carry it routinely in a holster. Which eliminates the C96 derivatives.

If this is to be a self defense handgun, to interest me it would have to fit in the Colt Commander, Glock, BHP, etc. envelope.

Dixon and Dornaus made the mistake of trying to introduce a new gun and a new cartridge together. I see lip service to starting out with a standard round, but the .30 Carbine isn't it. Have you ever seen a Kimball? Single stack and a pretty good rake to the grip, it is still big.

If there is something in the high velocity smallbore handgun category superior to .22 TCM, .22 Reed, or .224 Boz, I haven't heard of it. And I go back to the day of the .22 Goldstein Luger. Unless you want to mess with odd intermediate calibers in the 6mm, 7mm, .25. range, which is really far out.
Make it a TCM for which you can actually buy ammunition and work from there.
Or a 9mm or 9x23 Win.
Jeff Cooper once showed pictures of prototype Husqvarna gas operated pistols. As he said, it was not an advantage in 9mm, but would be for an as yet undeveloped high velocity round. But the 9mm was there to work with.

 

[barnbwt]

Justin; you should look at the base and case-lengths of 30 Carbine and 5.7x28 when you get the chance. They are a lot closer than I'd have thought, and I think a 30 Carbine necked down to 223 would yield a slightly-stronger clone of the FNH round. A 30 carbine necked down to 224 is called the 22 Spitfire, or more humorously, the 5.7mm Johnson *snicker*.

From another forum:
"Spitfire first, then FN:

Bullet dia: .224 vs .220
Neck dia: .253 vs .249
Shoulder: .332 vs .309
Base dia: .353 vs .310
Rim dia: .356 vs .310
Case Lng: 1.29 vs 1.13
Loaded: 1.65 vs 1.71"



I'm actually kind of surprised there aren't more comparison threads, since 30 Carbine is the only cartridge of prominence with a case head narrower than 9mm/223 that could even hope to approximate what the 5.7 does. Likewise, possibility of stubby 30 Carbine in a PS90 . Numrich apparently carries Carbine barrels in Spitfire, too.

TCB

 

[justin22885]

so far all ive seen from the 22 tcm was incredibly mediocre performance.. only 300ft/lbs of energy (less than even the lowest standard pressure 9mm.. close to .380 levels) with a rounded bullet that would have almost no range

from what i could see the .22tcm is just a shortened .22 spitfire, made vastly inferior to the 22 spitfire purely just to fit in a pre-existing handgun

my idea for a cartridge is similar to a .22 spitfire, but based on a .223 remington case using a spitzer bullet and the shoulders shortened at about a 45 degree angle.. basing it on the .223 case would also allow significantly higher pressures than the 22 spitfire

the 5.7x28mm pushes a 31 grain bullet out of a 10 inch barrel at 2,350fps
the .22tcm pushes a 40 grain bullet out of a likely 6 inch barrel at 1,875fps
the .22 spitfire pushes a 40 grain bullet out of a 16-18 inch barrel at 3,000fps
the 7.62z25 pushes ab 80 grain bullet out of a 5 inch barrel at 1700fps

performance of mine would exceed the 22 spitfire, and do it with a 10-12 inch barrel, far surpassing the 5.7x28, .22 spitfire, 7.62x25, and the .22tcm, only thing is it would require a slightly longer grip which i think is an OK tradeoff for something thats going to absolutely dominate all these others in a small carbine platform

but as i said, instead of basing it on the smaller, less common, lower pressured 30 carbine case like the 22 spitfire id base it on the 223 case.. and by going with a sharper shoulder angle you could pull the case mouth back a bit and use the same .224 bullets youd use in a 5.7x28

but if i had to pick any of those cartridges, id take the 22 spitfire over 5.7x28, .22tcm, or 30 carbine

you know, to test this cartridge out since the base diameters are similar enough to require little added work, i should use an M1 carbine (reproduction of course) for a test bed

 

[barnbwt]

"If there is something in the high velocity smallbore handgun category superior to .22 TCM, .22 Reed, or .224 Boz, I haven't heard of it. And I go back to the day of the .22 Goldstein Luger. Unless you want to mess with odd intermediate calibers in the 6mm, 7mm, .25. range, which is really far out."
Not to caliber-war or anything, but standard 5.7x28 is demonstrably superior to TCM as of now, even though the TCM is numerically superior; it's just a matter of bullets and the FNH Hornady's are really good (and really expensive ). The Teflon coating and primer staking and all the reloading issues are solely due to the blowback/delayed blowback platforms available for the round. 22TCM would also be unrecognizable after being fired from a blowback (although I'll bet it's primer pocket wouldn't loosen up quite so fast with a beefier case head surrounding it). Back on point, the 4.6x30 is ballistically/penetratively superior to everything, but this is due to its 60,000psi operating pressure (like the 454 Casull) and a solid hardened steel projectile with gilding (which we proles obviously can't enjoy in America)

"Or, Why not take a tried & true mechanism, like that of the Marlin Camp 9...
and beef it up for use with 10mm, or .30-carbine, or heck, .50GAP!!!"
It'd be big and clunky. And kick too much for a small carbine. Direct blowback is a massive compromise of what we prefer guns to be, and is even worse in our mandated close-bolt designs. If the goal were simple/cheap, designing & building a gun would be about the last things in mind

"The more stuff that interchanges mags, the better for the consumer"
Not in pistols. For some reason . Every last maker gets away with mags unique to their individual model. But in rifles, it's like the most important issue there is . My guess is people don't bump fire pistols

"and lastly, 5.7x28 is rather lacking in performance.. out of a 10 inch barrel it has LESS energy than a 9mm does out of a four inch barrel.."
A 9mm from a four inch barrel won't fragment upon impact and isn't going fast enough to shear fibrous material (Kevlar and others, including tissue). By the numbers, 5.7 is 'wimpy,' but it is also going fast enough that it behaves very differently from other duty rounds, so that really needs to at least be considered as a mitigating factor apart from the chrono readings
"now im not sure if the 5.7x28 is actually loaded to its claimed 50,000 PSI max, i seriously doubt it, but we can do much better"
If you've never fired one (esp. without earplugs), I can see you thinking that is a noble endeavor . Getting additional gas volume (which moves bullets) from added case volume is far more efficient than increasing pressures to the point your brass fails after a single shot (I believe 60K is the limit for brass the size of pistol rounds; any higher and significant flow occurs). I think your instincts on going to the next bigger case head to gain your desired performance are correct.

"There's a reason the 5.7x28mm took a long time to design and develop; it wasn't a "guy in his garage" putting it together. It took them *8+ additional years* to get the design of the Five Seven pistol hammered out so that it could use the same ammunition safely. And that's with a full team with world class engineering facilities and prototyping equipment working on it."
That's also with a multi-national customer base constantly changing the requirements for the bid and moving the goal posts via politics

TCB

 

[justin22885]

well obviously the easiest way to add case volume vs the 5.7x28 is to use .223 brass for the base and enlarge the diameter of the body which is exactly what im talking about

 

[Jim Watson]

Sorry, justin, the TCM is not related to the Spitfire. It IS on the casehead diameter of the .223 and it is about as long a round as the 1911 magazine width will handle. And that gives as big a butt as I care to grab. If you can soup it up with better-than-Armscor materials, fine.

Barn, as even you said, the 5.7 has limitations due to its small casehead diameter and lubricated case.

Any road, I am not talking about a final design for an optimum cartridge, I am talking about something reasonably suitable that you can use to get a gun shooting. Then you can substitute what you think is a better round once you have a working gun.

There was a guy on the nearly moribund Pistolsmith board who shot a necked down 9x23, calling it the .22 Zipperer. He said he was working on a .17 version.

 

[barnbwt]

"performance of mine would exceed the 22 spitfire, and do it with a 10-12 inch barrel, far surpassing the 5.7x28, .22 spitfire, 7.62x25, and the .22tcm, only thing is it would require a slightly longer grip which i think is an OK tradeoff for something thats going to absolutely dominate all these others in a small carbine platform"
See the Wildey Automags. They dominate the competition, and no one has one (they have stayed in business, though). Just playin' Devil's Advocate here; longer rounds require more than a longer magwell, they require added slide travel (which means added guide rod and spring length/allowance, as well as an overall longer slide/frame/rail design), and more powerful rounds will grow everything out laterally to withstand the higher loads (big case heads even more so, which you are avoiding).

"from what i could see the .22tcm is just a shortened .22 spitfire, made vastly inferior to the 22 spitfire purely just to fit in a pre-existing handgun

my idea for a cartridge is similar to a .22 spitfire, but based on a .223 remington case using a spitzer bullet and the shoulders shortened at about a 45 degree angle.. basing it on the .223 case would also allow significantly higher pressures than the 22 spitfire"
You describe exactly a 22TCM "magnum" with a better projectile. The TCM is/isn't made from 223 brass depending who you ask, and is loaded to higher pressures than 5.7x28 (though only slightly). Since it still only has a powder load-out of 9mm-scale, the TCM and smaller rounds are physically limited in how far they can accelerate a bullet down a barrel; like all 9mm's, it's just about peaked around 10" and is probably slowing down by the time it leaves a 16" barrel. Which is why I agree a larger powder charge is needed for a carbine barrel, but is also unfortunately why the same round will be hard to fit in a handgun without getting fat. Not impossible, but likely not very concealable or comfortable for most folks.

The real solution is bigger people (hands), to tell you the truth, or powders that somehow contain more gas volume/powder volume than they presently do. That would allow handguns to actually overlap low-end rifle rounds and begin to fully exploit the unique effects of high-velocity ballistics. Until then, I'm afraid you will be looking at a compromise of performance or practicality, unless you personally happen to be of a large enough set that the grip is tolerable. Which is a win-win unless the goal is to market the thing at the end of the day (I forget; is it? Everyone always assumes that's the goal since deep down we all want the new toy )

TCB

 

[justin22885]

ill design a pistol or carbine first to use the .30 carbine or 22 spitfire round, that should cover the size constraints for any one of these other cartridges.. so the first priority would be to get the pistol and carbine to work with that first ,then i could convert it to other things later with a barrel and magazine change

 

[justin22885]

barnbwt, i have larger hands.. i dont find a desert eagle or five-seven grip to be uncomfortable at all

 

[barnbwt]

"There was a guy on the nearly moribund Pistolsmith board who shot a necked down 9x23"
Woof. That'll do it . Is x23 brass more common than 30 Carbine or 38 Super? I think Carbine would be neat just because its case head is still small enough that you could get some very high magazine capacities, unlike 9mm-class and larger which eat it up quickly (a double-edged benefit to 5.7x28 that doesn't get nearly enough recognition, IMO. If someone ever develops a tri/quad stack magazine mod for the PS90 you'd have near SAW capacities on tap for not much more bulk)

TCB

 

[justin22885]

well, id rather focus on better performance in a carbine.. if the grip becomes too large for some people since it shares the same COAL and base diameter as 357 magnum, one could just chamber this new cartridge in a 686 or a GP100 requiring just a barrel change and moon clips

 

[barnbwt]

Cool-cool. Just gotta know what's driving the design, is all. So if you're focused on Carbine ballistics, the next logical step would be figuring out what mags to use (don't even entertain the thought of making your own mags for the prototype; it'll never happen. Even on a forum full of people as ambitious as Weaponsguild, I'm only aware of magazine modifications being done with any regularity. It's just too difficult and expensive to tool up for unless you have the backing to generate massive quantities of them). So the first step of that first step is to settle on an OAL, and start looking into what is available that's close enough to that goal.

If you want something longer than even 10mm (which is doable in PPSH/PPS mags) I think you'd want to see about using M1 Carbine or P90 mags. The M1's are convenient since there are straight and curved versions which would be workable for a pistol/carbine respectively (though a giant pistol). The P90 mags would need a whole lotta work to feed a fatter round, but it is certainly doable (the magazine is actually quite simple in function). There's other options like Destroyer mags and CZ26 stuff, but it's all so hard to come by that I wouldn't base a design around it unless I had it already.

A helical mag would also be a good choice. The mag body is always the hardest part to fab yourself, but a helical mag uses a piece of round tube for this critical part. You'd just have to make caps, and axle/paddles, and a slinkie spring that forms the helical internal guides. They made these in the 1860's for the Evans lever rifles, so I'm certain any garage today can make one as well. And unlike a stick mag, this one is flush with the broad contours of the gun, so maintaining a volume is easier.

TCB

 

[justin22885]

well, if starting out with something like 22 spitfire, it only makes sense to start out with m1 carbine magazines.. heck.. may just use an M1 carbine action for the carbine with some modifications

the primary goal of this carbine is to deliver better performance, better range, and better armor piercing capabilities than a pistol in a platform that can be very light, very compact.. P90 is a great platform for all this but as stated before, the 5.7x28 cartridge is very uncommon, difficult to find, expensive, and difficult to reload for, so 5.7x28 and the P90 itself is out of the question

so what can penetrate as well as a .223 fired from a 10-12 inch barrel, offers a greater range to a pistol, (say out to, or beyond 100 yards) and would be fairly cheap to buy or produce?.. id be willing to consider existing cartridges if they can do all these things

looking at the P90, its 5.7lbs, looking at the M1 carbine its 5.2lbs, 7.62x25 doesnt have as much penetration as would be needed.. i mean, it offers a lot, but nothing on the level of the 5.7x28.. 22tcm looks to have poorer ballistics than the 5.7... can the .22 spitfire be loaded with spitzer bullets?.. if so, its ballistics look very nice.. with the right load, the right powder and with the same bullets as the 5.7x28, i may be able to get everything i look for in the 22 spitfire.. something to note is that .30 carbine brass is cheaper than .223 brass by the same brand

so heres a question.. with such low powder capacities such as those found in the 30 carbine.. is there even enough powder capacity to max out the 55,000 PSI of .223 brass or is 38,500 psi about the limit for something so small?

so what i may actually do is maybe start out with the M1 carbine (i believe i have blueprints for most the components of the M1 carbine and maybe make a few tweaks and modifications in this, to shorten it up, make it into a more compact, smaller package and chamber it in 22 spitfire.. perhaps a bullpup conversion

or design something new, designed to use M1 carbine magazines, designed to be a small, compact bullpup rifle

for the pistol.. i was thinking the frame to use a carbon fiber construction for the grip/magwell so it could be very thin, yet very strong and rigid.. this grip.magwell would attach to a stainless steel upper section of the frame.. to paint a better picture of this.. imagine those polymer 1911 frames i believe STI used to sell that had a grip section separate of the frame rails.. this allows the grip to be significantly slimmed down vs an all steel frame, also saves weight

now, using M1 carbine magazines for the carbine, i could not rake the grip back on the pistol and still use these magazines.. id have to make my own.. but the carbine is going to be my first priority.. and itll fit a role i currently have open, with nothing to fill it, i dont have an M1 carbine, i dont have a P90 and my rifle of choice tend to be bolt actions in larger calibers for the range and distances often found in my state

 

[barnbwt]

Tokarev or 22TCM with spitzers would fit in a Carbine mag, spitfire with long bullets would not.

 

[Jim Watson]

.221 Fireball will fit a Carbine magazine but only if loaded with blunt Hornet or Bee bullets. Factory OAL spitzers are too long.

 

[justin22885]

well i looked at the COAL of the 5.7x28 and .22 rimfire, subtracted from each of one the case length of its cartridge and found the space allowed for the bullet to be roughly the same.. 5.7mm bullets from the 5.7x28 would fit the .22 spitfire

 

[barnbwt]

That picture I posted suggests otherwise (the 5.7 bullet is longer by the whole blue tip), but I have no way of knowing how close to max OAL the Spitfire bullet shown is. What you need is an interior length measurement of the mag you want to use

Lookie what I found;

They are: 243, 223, 221, 22 Hornet, 19 Badger, 5.7x28, 4.6x30HK, 22TCM, 17HMR

http://saubier.tempwebpage.com/forum/showthread.php?p=163331
The 19 Badger adjacent the 5.7x28 looks very interesting (it's a 17 Spitfire) but that's too small for even for a micro-magnum fan like me to take seriously . Also, this lineup really makes the 22TCM look like that kid that gets picked last for dodgeball teams (right after the scrawny-lookin' Hornet)

Pick one and run with it

TCB

 

[justin22885]

i get about .1" length difference when doing the subtractions with the 5.7 having a bullet sticking out .459" from the case, and the 22 spitfire sticks out .36" from the case.. and if you look at the 5.7x28mms bullet it looks like it could be pushed back just a little further

i think it could work and i think some of the photos i seen of the .22 spitfire had spitzer bullets

 

[justin22885]

im going to design a short carbine/bullpup in .221 fireball i believe.. then focus on shorter cartridges in a pistol/pdw/smg

for pistol/pdw calibers there are a couple ways we could go about this.. smaller, higher velocity, bottle necked cartridges, like the .357 sig, 9x25 dillon 7.62x25 (id definitely go this route over the .22tcm for its widespread availability and long standing history).. or go for raw power, like the 9x23mm winchester, 10mm auto, or .460 rowland (.460 rowland is basically .308 winchester brass cut to 45acp length and loaded to over 35,000 PSI (230 grain projectile at over 1,300fps producing roughly 1000 ft/lbs energy out of a 5 inch barrel)

and of the .22 mmj spitfore and 30 carbine, i really like the spitfire