Why isn't there a demand for a short/low recoil/affordable .50 caliber pistol round?

[drastic_quench]

If .50 is the biggest you can go without hassle (non-sporting, destructive device, etc.) it would make sense that there would be a demand for the capability to put .50 caliber holes in an assailant in a concealed carry / defense scenario. EXCEPT OF COURSE, that's laughable because .50 cal pistol rounds are hot, hard kickin', and necessitate a strong, heavy hand cannon be it a Desert Eagle or a S&W X-frame -- and they're the definition of overkill in a defense setting. But it would still be nice to make the biggest hole allowed.

The .50 GI meets these criteria. It's a bigger .45 ACP with approximately the same felt recoil. But it's proprietary, pricey, and rare. That offering is hamstrung right out of the gate, but I love the idea. Why won't someone else do it right, and why isn't it desired in the first place? It's American to want the biggest possible! And 50 cal should be affordable as well. With less brass and powder and less gun needed to take the lower pressures from a short round, why can't there be a working man's 50 cal?

While the diameter makes a short .50 a bad fit for a defense revolver as it limits its capacity without an over-sized cylinder, a single stack semi-auto would be ideal for carry. With the reduced power compared to 500 S&W, 500 WE, 500 Linebaugh, 50 AE, et al. - it could fit in a concealable gun and shoot with easily managed recoil all while punching 50 caliber holes in one's target. I don't need or want a cartridge with 1500 - 2500 ft lbf of energy nor the pricey gun that those numbers necessitate. Give me 350 - 500 ft lbf out of pistols that start at $600 chambered in a reasonably priced .50 cal, and I'm happy.

Imagine a major roll-out of this hypothetical cartridge by one of the big manufacturers. Put a video on youtube of some 125lb waif shooting it like a champ, popping off quick and accurate follow-up shots and wrecking ballistics gel torsos. If it was actually supported to the point where you could just pick up the ammo at Walmart and not relegated to an obscure handloader's cartridge I could see it outshining the success of the .40 S&W.

 

[Phaedrus/69]

Welcome, drastic_quench. This is just a guess on my part but I suspect the laws of physics work against a .50 cal for CCW. There's a minimum velocity whereby any projectile would no longer expand or penetrate; my guess is that a bullet needs around 850-900 fps to offer usable performance (eg bullet flight time, trajectory, penetration and expansion). To get decent interior ballistics a bullet must have a certain amount of mass for its diameter (ie sectional density). This would mean there's a practical minimum size that a bullet would have to be to be usable. Aside from a few gimmick rounds that are niche products you don't see many 9mm loadings under 115gr and the sweet spot seems to be in the heavier rounds. A useful .50 cal bullet might have to be 250gr at the low end, maybe heavier. So there's a minimum amount of recoil and mass associated with such a hypothetical gun.

And of course there would be little point of just duplicating the .45 ACP in a larger caliber round, so the loadings would probably end up being more like 300-325gr or so. That's gonna pack a kick to match the wallop on the other end.

Ultimately the size will also mean very limited capacity. The size of the human hand and body is pretty standardized; handguns must be engineered to be a certain size to fit the hand. That size almost must competitive with other handguns and be concealable to be useful.

So the new .50 can be no larger than existing guns (or very close) and limited to lower capacity. If a single stack compact 1911 holds 6+1 you're maybe looking at 5+1. So you're gonna have to convince folks that the performance of this round is good enough to offset the loss in capacity. Probably a tough sell since the pendulum seems to have swung the opposite direction towards 9mm and very high cap mags (iirc the G17 holds 17 rounds).

Personally I don't think there'd be much market for it but I've been wrong before!

 

[joeschmoe]

 

[Zaydok Allen]

And of course there would be little point of just duplicating the .45 ACP in a larger caliber round,

Correct

Ultimately the size will also mean very limited capacity.

Correct

The .50 GI meets these criteria. It's a bigger .45 ACP with approximately the same felt recoil. But it's proprietary, pricey, and rare.

You answered your own question here.

With 45 acp being popular, effective, and relatively cheap to shoot compared to any 50 cal, the market would be so limited that any manufacturer that made the gun you describe would lose a lot of money.

There's a minimum velocity whereby any projectile would no longer expand or penetrate; my guess is that a bullet needs around 850-900 fps to offer usable performance

This is a good point too. Not to mention that a well made .45 will expend to a large diameter. How much bigger of a hole do you really need? If a .45 isn't gettign the job done, then I doubt a .50 will serve you much better.

The market would be way too small, and the benefits of a slightly larger bullet would be vastly outweighed by the cost to make it.

 

[Jim Watson]

You can get a .50 GI upper for a Glock. $600.
http://www.brownells.com/magazines/...nversion-system-for-glock-reg--prod27083.aspx

There are two answers to the Internet Question "Why don't they make..."
1. Because they don't think you and your buds are enough of a market.
2. They actually do and you haven't done your research.

 

[ATLDave]

Others have made most of the points. Let's look at one more angle.

A .45 diameter circle will have an area of .63 inches. A .50 circle will have an area of .78 inches. That's a ~123% increase in area. And that will mean an equivalent increase in volume for a cylinder of that diameter. So to get that extra .05" of width, you've got to either accept a quarter again as much bullet mass (with that much extra recoil), or you've got to give up sectional density and make the bullet shorter front to back (which will reduce penetration, and may negatively influence accuracy by reducing bearing surface). And the larger surface area would be even more susceptible to drag, making it be an even less flat-shooting round than the .45ACP.

So those are downsides. What would be the upside? A .45 will penetrate well enough to get through a human being. A .50 in a handgun will not be launched fast enough to predictably create hydrostatic shock or trigger any remote wounding mechanisms/phenomena. Total wound volume would likely be very similar to that of a .45 slug, and likelihood of intersecting a vital structure would be virtually identical.

In short, it's not clear that you gain anything meaningful. It's also pretty clear that you would sacrifice quite a bit. At a time when there is real question about whether the .45ACP affords any meaningful advantage over 9mm or .40/10mm projectiles, there's just no case to be made for the .50.

Which is why it is uncommon. And that, in turn, is most of why it is expensive.

 

[hentown]

Just no need in a handgun caliber.

 

[aarondhgraham]

In my state you couldn't carry it,,,

In my state you couldn't carry it,,,
Oklahoma placed an upper limit of .45 caliber on concealed carry.

I'm fairly certain that the limit still applies,,,
Even though we now have licensed open carry.

Besides, it would be (pardon the pun) overkill.

Aarond

.

 

[rockhopper46038]

In any reasonable single stack scenario you lose a round of capacity to the .45 which already loses one round to the .40, and two rounds to the 9mm/38 Super. I carry a Wilson BWC every day and lament losing a round to my CQB. I don't think I'd give up another. In fact, I'm working with a smith (as soon as I gather a shopping bag full of cash) to build a 9x23 Win 1911 because even though I love the .45ACP, I think the 9x23 Win provides a better carry package. If I just wanted a bigger, more powerful round (without any of the other attendant concerns for carrying) I'd probably just carry my .460 Rowland.

 

[easyg]

I wouldn't have the money for the practice ammo.

 

[jmr40]

Other than being a novelty it wouldn't offer any advantages over existing rounds.

 

[s4s4u]

I don't know that there is much more that a .50 could do that a .45 cannot when it comes to 2 legged critters.

 

[OcelotZ3]

I shot one of those 50 cal flintlock pistols 2 days ago. What a blast!

 

[Zaydok Allen]

Something I think would be a cool novelty, but near useless is a 2 shot under/over .500 magnum deringer made by Bond, but shaped like an old Howdah pistol so it was controlable.

Total waste of money though and there would be no market. I picture an all stainless handle wrapped in leather, like an antique sword handle.

 

[TestPilot]

Because there is noting much to be gained by it.

Power level wise, 40S&W and 45ACP is at the top of common defense caliber, with most 40S&W loads having slight edge in muzzle energy.

There are certainly more powerful calibers, but anything more powerful than that comes at a penalty of reduced recoil control. If controllability is to be retained, then the muzzle velocity has to be lowered, meaning higher caliber bullet shot at a lower velocity. For what?


So, the answer is that it is generally not possible to go to a higher caliber than 45ACP without significant sacrifice in controllability and capacity. Also keep in mind that 45ACP already comes at a capacity reduction penalty. The penalty only gets worse with a .50 caliber.

 

[buck460XVR]

It also seems that with the modern technology in bullets, both in factory ammo and available as components, that smaller and faster is the trend in CWC. Big bulky guns that shoot slow moving bullets are looked over for small pocket and other more easily concealed type guns that shoot a bullet fast enough to get the same penetration while still expanding and making a similar size wound channel. While the .45ACP cartridge and the platforms that use it are very efficient for SD purposes, the size and weight makes them undesirable for many folks for CWC as compared to other options. This comes back to demand and market viability. R&D, tooling and machining costs are very high nowadays. When one introduces a new product, if and how fast these costs are recouped and a profit made is a prime consideration.

 

[Zaydok Allen]

While the .45ACP cartridge and the platforms that use it are very efficient for SD purposes, the size and weight makes them undesirable for many folks for CWC as compared to other options.

That's where the XDs shines. It certainly isn't for everyone though.

 

[orangeninja]

Trust me, if a major federal US law enforcement agency or the military decide to develop and issue a .50 caliber handgun, they'll saturate the private market with them as well...ala the .40 S&W when the 10mm and the 41AE already existed.

The 9mm, .38 Special, .357 Magnum, .40 S&W, and .45ACP have all been service rounds for a long, long time and they are also the most common handgun rounds. The .44 Magnum is kind of an odd duck that seems to have an unusual longetivity to it (I blam Dirty Harry).

 

[OrangePwrx9]

I think a .50 would make a very effective "1-shot-stopper" from what I've seen lobbing full caliber .50 muzzleloader bullets at deer. I've been less impressed with .44 cal. saboted bullets shot from the same rifles. Even with a good hit, the deer run too far and don't bleed out as fast as with a full caliber .50 or a .54. Stands to reason, bigger hole, bigger leak especially if there are two holes.

Not sure the argument about expansion really holds water in this case. An 800-900fps lead Keith SWC (or full WC) would do a lot of damage without expansion, especially with good penetration. Probably need close to 300 gr. bullet weight, though...so not a girl's gun. Might call it the .50 Special.

What will bring it about? As others have posted, a move in that direction by the military or LE.

I'd like to think that if the politicians limit magazine capacity across the country like they have in NY, the response will be the appearance of more effective rounds. Already, in NY, any capacity beyond the standard 7-round 1911 magazine cannot be legally utilized. That being the case, why not make the few rounds you can have in the magazine stoppers?

Of course, I'm dreaming.

 

[barnbwt]

A 50cal case shooting an expanding 30cal sabot round or even 22cal would be incredibly nasty. Low pressure (so low noise and recoil/momentum transfer), but extremely high velocity. The speed-demon benefits of 5.7, without the drawbacks of its high pressure operation, though your capacity would obviously not be 20+1. May or may not stabilize, though.

A large diameter, short round has its own geometric shortcomings, however, in that it gets easier and easier to jam when it is pushed up a ramped slope. Especially since its rounds get more and more blunted.

TCB

 

[Zaydok Allen]

Might call it the .50 Special.

There is a 500 special cartridge out there.

 

[shooter54]

Because if you can't get the job done with a 45, a 50 cal probably won't matter either. Shot placement is the key. A cool shooter with a 22 is more leathal than a poor shooter with a 44 mag. Although I think 45 ACP is proven , a 9mm is more than sufficient. depends what you shoot better, not so much the caliber IMO.

 

[HankR]

Oklahoma placed an upper limit of .45 caliber on concealed carry.


Is that a nominal, or actual limit? My 45s are .451, .452, and .454. Would they be legit, or would it have to be .45000000?

 

[SC Shooter]

Most CWP instructors will tell you that you have a right to defend yourself from attackers, but you also have a responsibility to not incur collateral damage. The higher the caliber, the more likely your round will penetrate more than your attacker.

 

[torqem]

Too many people know the facts of the matter about bore diameter and momentum's effects on stopping power, (almost none) Many others "think" that a 380 is 'enough". It adds up to the fact that almost nobody will buy such a .50 rd or guns.