Name a more botched cartridge launch
>7.62 Tok ballistics
>mogs 5.7 out of a 5" barrel with more mass at the same speed and sectional density
>can match 5.7 capacity in a full size frame
>could have been a five seven with better ballistics at a fraction of the cost and reloading effort
>instead it's stuck as a mediocre subcompact round that struggles to compete with 9mm
It deserved better, bros
>can match 5.7 capacity in a full size frame
Is that so? How would that work, given the larger diameter?
Shh, the extended buttplate doesn't count as added length
If Smith and Wesson can increase the magazine capacity of a smaller gun by 3 rounds at least that many more should fit in a much larger gun. The 5" M&P full size is basically the same size but a little more slim and holds 17 9mm vs 20 5.7. +3 with 30sc would match the capacity but you might get more. It could have been touted as the reasonable man's five seven.
if they tweak a full size to make room for 3 30sc then it could be tweaked to fit 3 or 4 extra 5.7s
5.7 is a bottleneck cartridge with 7.95mm base diameter versus 8.70mm. Caliber is smaller in diameter but the case has a wider diameter than the bullet.
>>can match 5.7 capacity in a full size frame
Not quite, but it's pretty close, and for the ballistics I'd choose it.
But right now there's only subcompacts and $4,000 1911's in it. If Beretta releases the 80x in 30sc that would be pretty sweet.
>if beretta releases a simple blowback gun designed for 21,500 psi for a cartridge that's 50,000 psi it would be pretty sweet
>muh psi bad
S&W shields aren't exploding, quit being gay.
Nah, a straight blowback gun with 9mm pressure already sucks ass, that's not gonna work
The hi point rifle in 30sc is straight blowback but it doesn't really take advantage of the cartridge
you are a fricking mong.
Yes you made me that mad i had to read a fricking captacha insult you, might as well explain you again why is not doable
the beretta 80s are straight blowback, like all the ppk derivatives. It cannot handle the added pressure even of 9mm, let alone of 30sc.
The high point carbine is a carbine it has a heavy ass bolt, like their pistols have heavy slides and recoil springs.
So not only its about having the structural integrity but also the mass to keep the slide shut.
And 30SC is doomed. no one ever raised it not even payd writers and "guntubers" that alone tells you that much.
>this gun that works fine with a completely different operating mechanism means this other one that operates differently will be fine
Do you know what delayed and straight blowback are? Why do you think hi point slides are heavy as frick?
Beretta already knowingly sells guns that crack even with the recommended ammo. Wouldn’t surprise me if their massive 80X has a weaker frame than a tiny plastic S&W.
>memeround designed exclusively to boost shareholder returns delivering zero value to gun owners
>saved by anything
SPIT
>delivering zero value to gun owners
More rounds.
Try to reply without using an argument which .40/.45 fudds could use against 9mm.
+1 capacity for a cartridge that consistently fails to expand anyway is pretty darn irrelevant. 30sc cope is my favorite recurring /k/ topic tbh
>+1 capacity
Sorry, .40 and .45 gays are also capable of lying.
>cartridge that consistently fails to expand
Cartridges don't fail to expand, bullets fail to expand. It's not beyond humanity to make a .312 projectile expand.
Also expansion doesn't kill or incapacitate, hitting and disrupting vital tissues does that, and if you're betting on expansion doing what your aim failed to do then just know the chances are heavily stacked against that happening. There's a much higher chance extra shots will make a difference than expansion.
>t-they dont need to expand anyway!!
lmao like i said 30sc cope never fails to deliver
.40 and .45 gays don't have to cope. Our ammo is still easy to find everywhere. Meanwhile I can't find .30 Stupid Carry anywhere.
>.40 and .45 gays don't have to cope
I remember a solid decade of coping on forums from people shitting on 9mm as it rose in popularity.
>>t-they dont need to expand anyway!!
Expansion is nice, and 30sc does expand, but expansion isn't necessary or anywhere close to the most important thing.
>I remember a solid decade of coping on forums from people shitting on 9mm as it rose in popularity.
Countercoping was popular too. There are still tards who will foam at the mouth at the mere sight of a period followed by a 4. Still, it's easier to find .30 Luger than SC.
>It's not beyond humanity to make a .312 projectile expand.
Cool, so why didn't Federal make it work before releasing this failure?
They did.
>Also like I said in my first post a 55k psi round out of a 3” barrel sucks to shoot.
Everyone who's shot one says it feels like 9mm.
>Why don’t you explain why it’s better
More rounds while still penetrating to FBI specs with expansion, which .380 doesn't do. Also if you carry extra mags they can be thinner.
>Why not call it .30 super and market it as a complete upgrade? Why focus on just the carry market?
Yeah, that was dumb marketing and there should have been at least a compact chambered for it on launch, if not full size.
>Everyone who's shot one says it feels like 9mm.
What all 3 of them who aren’t guntubers? Also
>recoils like 9mm
>worse penetration and expansion than 9mm
>marginal increase in capacity
At least when 9mm compares to .40 and .45 it has lower recoil to go along with the performance loss. You admitted .30SC doesn’t. Now it’s not like it’s a lot of recoil, but it’s noticeable in small guns.
>.380 doesn’t expand
That’s true in small guns like LCPs. In something larger like a PPK or Bersa Thunder than can with stuff like XTPs. Those are similar size/weight to shield. The low pressure and reduced power of .380 lets you use tiny guns like LCPs
>>.380 doesn’t expand
No, I said .380 doesn't penetrate WITH expansion, which it doesn't. It does one or the other, not both. .30sc does both.
>What all 3 of them who aren’t guntubers? Also
>You admitted .30SC doesn’t.
So you accept my "admission" that 30sc recoils like 9mm (despite no-one saying otherwise) AFTER dismissing it as "guntuber" nonsense? Pick one. Either it's an admission or it's a lie.
>worse penetration and expansion than 9mm
Penetrates comparably to 9mm, depending on load it can pen more. The SD ratio between them is 1.295, so a 100gr 30sc has the SD of a 129.5gr 9mm.
>marginal increase in capacity
0.878 is the ratio. A 12rd 30sc stack fits 10.53 9mms, but 30sc is thin enough for it's length that single-feed might not be necessary, making the stack more space-efficient. The main reason it's not done with 9mm is because it fricks up ergonomics. Like 5.7, 30sc is probably narrow enough for it to work but it'll need a gun made specifically for it.
>So you accept my "admission" that 30sc recoils like 9mm (despite no-one saying otherwise) AFTER dismissing it as "guntuber" nonsense? Pick one. Either it's an admission or it's a lie.
Lighten up Francis. It was a joke that no one can know because no one buys it. But I see you are too dense to pick up on that and also have difficulty reading.
I said that it recoils like 9mm, per your words, which means it does not recoil LESS than 9mm. 9mm recoils less than .40 and .45 which is an advantage. It's really not hard to follow.
>No, I said .380 doesn't penetrate WITH expansion, which it doesn't. It does one or the other, not both. .30sc does both.
Again, context you Black person. Expansion and penetration was implied. And again, .380 can't do that from short barrels like a LCP but can from longer ones like you'd see on a Shield sized gun. Which is a valid comparison size piece for .30 SC.
>Penetrates comparably to 9mm, depending on load it can pen more.
The inverse can be true also. This is irrelevant. A .32 FMJ will penetrate more than some .30SC while a .44mag Buffalo Bore 240gr soft lead HP (their "Deer Grenade") probably penetrates less.
>The SD ratio between them is 1.295, so a 100gr 30sc has the SD of a 129.5gr 9mm.
See above. Bullet selection changes this more than anything. But do the same calc with 147gr 9mm.
You asked
>Try to reply without using an argument which .40/.45 fudds could use against 9mm.
I did. That a 55k psi round from short barrels isn't pleasant to shoot because of the blast. You admitted it does not recoil less than 9mm. 9mm vs .40 and .45 has a capacity advantage, recoils less allowing for faster follow up shots, more people shoot accurately because of less recoil (this is a training thing mostly), all while costing less. 30 SC has capacity. That's it. You got a legit answer and you don't like it.
Do .30 SC gays really have to cope this hard so they don't admit they got suckered?
.30 SC has a capacity advantage, comparable terminal performance, comparable recoil, and should cost less once all else is equal due to less materials cost and being able to fit more of them on a pallet. The only thing stopping .30 SC from being better than 9mm is 9mmgays being so wrapped up in their devotion to 9mm for its own sake that they can't follow through on their own post hoc rationalizations for why they prefer it over other common service calibers with better terminal performance but lower capacity and higher cost and recoil.
>if I ignore everything someone else said I’m right
It’s not comparable recoil, it’s even or more. It’s not comparable terminal performance, it’s worse. It “should” cost less but it doesn’t and it never will. Both .380 and .32 should cost less than 9mm because they use less materials and can fit more on a pallet. So why don’t they? That’s what you said right? You can fit more 5.7 on a pallet than .45 so why does it cost the same or more?
Ignore the capacity argument. That is the same as 9mm vs whatever. You have less recoil, and easier to shoot gun, while costing less if you use 9mm vs other calibers. You have none of those with .30 SC. You won’t ever make up ground on price and you even admitted it recoils the same.
Do .30 SC gays really have to cope this hard so they don't admit they got suckered?
>It’s not comparable recoil, it’s even or more
>how dare you use my words in arguments against me
You said
>Everyone who's shot one says it feels like 9mm.
Which means it's equal at best but really it's a nice way to say it's slightly more. If it recoiled LESS they would say it's less. What is so hard for you to grasp about this? Are all .30 SC gays moronic? That would explain a lot actually.
>it's not comparable
>it’s even or more
>if I don't acknowledge the issues with .30 SC they don't exist
See I can post smug pictures too. What you can't do is defend a shitty cartridge with logic
>"It’s not comparable recoil"
>"so here's how the recoil is comparable"
Not sure what good logic is when, apparently, I have to teach you English first.
Apparently you can't read either which is ironic you're accusing me of that.
>That a 55k psi round from short barrels isn't pleasant to shoot because of the blast. You admitted it does not recoil less than 9mm. 9mm vs .40 and .45 has a capacity advantage, recoils less allowing for faster follow up shots, more people shoot accurately because of less recoil (this is a training thing mostly), all while costing less.
Is this true for .30 SC? Yes or no.
>Both .380 and .32 should cost less than 9mm because they use less materials and can fit more on a pallet. So why don’t they? That’s what you said right? You can fit more 5.7 on a pallet than .45 so why does it cost the same or more?
Why did you not answer this either?
>>That a 55k psi round from short barrels isn't pleasant to shoot because of the blast. You admitted it does not recoil less than 9mm. 9mm vs .40 and .45 has a capacity advantage, recoils less allowing for faster follow up shots, more people shoot accurately because of less recoil (this is a training thing mostly), all while costing less.
>Is this true for .30 SC? Yes or no.
Is what true? There's like 5 statements in that paragraph, and you've previously indicated that one of them isn't serious. My opinion of 30sc is the opinion of people who have shot it, and they say it's similar to standard pressure 9mm to shoot. So slightly punishing in a subcompact, unpleasant to fire hundreds of times in the guns it's currently chambered (might soon change, PD10 etc.)
>Why did you not answer this either?
Because it wasn't addressed to me and the answer is both trivial and a tacit argument for nothing to ever, ever, ever change, and for new cartridges to never, never, never be made.
9mm is a hyper-competitive, saturated market, that's why it's cheaper. But all things being equal 30sc would be cheaper. But before BOM can be relevant it's both a scale question, and a competition question, neither of which have anything to do with the cartridge itself, which is all I'm interested in talking about.
>Is what true?
Pretending to be dumb isn’t going to save you.
9mm recoils noticeable less than other popular rounds like .40 and .45. This allows people to faster. Yes or no? .30 SC doesn’t not recoil noticeable less than 9mm. Yes or no?
These aren’t hard to answer. We both know what the answers are. But that doesn’t jive with your
>hurr durr 9mm gays can’t take the same argument against their round they’ve used for it
Get fricked you Black personhomosexual
>hurr durr 9mm gays can’t take the same argument against their round they’ve used for it
Well, you clearly can't. The only things 9mm has going for it are cost and availability of guns/ammo, which are both downstream from it having been in military use for 120 years.
>9mm recoils noticeable less than other popular rounds like .40 and .45. This allows people to faster. Yes or no? .30 SC doesn’t not recoil noticeable less than 9mm. Yes or no?
Why don’t you answer these? I’ve asked multiple times.
By all accounts, there's no perceptible difference in recoil between the two, which makes it a tie.
Of course, in guns like the Shield the recoil is either tolerable or it isn't, and nobody's done an equivalent test with $8K worth of 1911s.
So that's a non-answer for the 1st and a "no" to the 2nd. Cool. Thanks for admitting 9mm has an advantage over other calibers that .30 SC does not.
Was that so hard?
>Thanks for admitting 9mm has an advantage over other calibers that .30 SC does not [have over 9mm]
Or are you suggesting, without evidence, that .30 SC kicks harder enough than 9mm to make it comparable to .40/.45?
No I'm directly stating it does not recoil less than 9mm, while 9mm does recoil noticeable less than .40 and .45. That is an advantage 9mm has over those two that .30 SC does not have over 9mm.
Again, you pretending to be stupid doesn't get you around this. You know exactly what I mean and you don't want to admit.
objectively speaking, it has slightly more recoil impulse than cheap 9mm range loads and slightly less than the average carry load. the average user will not be able to tell the difference while a gun is going bang two feet from their face
>the average user will not be able to tell the difference while a gun is going bang two feet from their face
While I agree the recoil difference is neglible, I'm going to assuming the blast/noise isn't because of the pressure. Having not shot it I can't say. Regardless that doesn't matter if it's equal or not.
My whole point is an advantage of the 9mm vs xx caliber is that is DOES recoil less and it IS noticeable. You can argue if that's good or bad or matters, but people notice less recoil and have better split times. That's factual. This is NOT true with .30 SC and why the "it's just 9mm vs xx argument and 9mm gays can't cope" isn't a true statement.
But .30 SC gays are moronic. Which the other guy is doing a miraculous job of proving.
I rented a shield plus in .30 last year to see what the fuss was about. the bang was about the same as a 9mm too. and when I say "about the same" I mean I honestly couldn't even guess which one would read as louder on a decibel meter. anyway, I thought 13+1 in that neat little package sounded pretty tempting, but capacity is literally all this cartridge has going for it. even if you wanna trust that tiny bullet, it's just as miserable to shoot as any 9mm pocket pistol, and the practice ammo costs twice as much
It’s only available in subcompact guns. A 55k psi round from a 3” barrel is going to produce an excessive amount of flash and noise that’s not worth it.
>try to reply without bringing up why the round sucks and isn't competitive.
Intetesting strategy anon
Yeah, he really thinks he's doing the round a favor by not letting people compare it to any round that beats it.
>Try to reply without using an argument which .40/.45 fudds could use against 9mm
You will never get that, as the 9mm won't even take their own medicine
I already said it here
but no retorts. I wonder why…
>but no retorts. I wonder why…
One of the launch guns for 30sc was a 1911.
It's not even an argument against the cartridge, it's a complaint about how there's not much chambered in it.
Oh a $4000 nighthawk. Man I wonder why nobody is buying it…If you’re paying 4 grand for a custom 1911 it’s in .45, 9mm for competitions where you can already run extended mags, or a more powerful round like 10mm, .45 super, etc.
Why the hell would you market a smaller carry round in a full sized steel frame 1911? Yes this is an indictment of the round. Federal always talks about in from a concealed carry viewpoint so measuring it in 3” barrels which are now the norm is appropriate. Saying that no one who carries a full sized 1911 is going to switch calibers to .30sc is appropriate. If it excels in a G19 sized gun why doesn’t federal point that out? It’s either because it doesn’t and they know it, or it does but they are moronic for not saying that in which case we still should ignore it.
Once again no attempt at a criticism of the cartridge.
>If it excels in a G19 sized gun why doesn’t federal point that out? It’s either because it doesn’t and they know it
I'm waiting with bated breath for the advanced fuddology which leads you to believe a longer barrel makes 30sc perform worse. It's not true for any other caliber ever, but go ahead. All I'm hearing so far is b***hing about marketing.
>I'm waiting with bated breath for the advanced fuddology which leads you to believe a longer barrel makes 30sc perform worse
That’s not what I said dipshit. I said that it doesn’t outperform its competition in that size range. Why not call it .30 super and market it as a complete upgrade? Why focus on just the carry market?
Also like I said in my first post a 55k psi round out of a 3” barrel sucks to shoot. That’s a legit criticism despite you ignoring it. The concealed carry market is the largest and most important in todays market and the round isn’t better than alternative existing options which are cheaper.
Why don’t you explain why it’s better rather than expecting others to explain why it’s worse?
post decibels of ear rape
no.
it and your opinions are shit
30sc does not expand and will never be adopted in the US. euro/south american cope-round is a possibility but the truth is production will wind down before that happens.
>30sc does not expand
wow it goes from being .32 cal to .45 cal
should've just shot a 45 fmj instead
52cal actually.
What do you think the purpose of frontal area is? Knowing which variety of fuddlore you subscribe to is the first step in curing it.
No test will satisfy you, just say that and save time.
A FMJ makes a wound tract that's usually smaller than the diameter of the bullet due to elastic restitution.
>380 will expand in naked gel too
Funniest part about 380 ACP hollow points is the designs that only pass FBI penetration standards by clogging the cavity and acting as FMJ. Task failed successfully.
>Maybe it shouldn't have been released amidst a massive ammo shortage
Shit was probably in the pipeline for a couple of years before the coof, they had a date set for release and couldn't just go "aw shucks, tell the boys to switch all the production line to 9 mil" and lose all the money they invested.
It sounds moronic when it happens and you wonder why they picked the worst possible time to release something new, but they really did make a decision to release 30 SC way before anyone could have seen a massive spike in buying or global shipping getting stalled. At that point the only way is through.
>they had a date set for release and couldn't just go "aw shucks, tell the boys to switch all the production line to 9 mil" and lose all the money they invested
Yes you absolutely can. Project delays happen all the fricking time in all industries. Ignore market conditions when launching a new product is negligence.
Let’s say you’re a gun company with a serious market presence. You’ve spent the last 5 years working on a bullpup as an AR killer. Let’s say it fixed the common bullpup issues too. Now there was a EO that passed a AWB nationally. Would you launch your product in 2023-2024 knowing only LEO can buy it or would you wait until after 2024 with potentially a new administration or the pending court case settles and overturns it? You’d obviously focus on existing sales and launch that when people can buy them at will.
Making it literally illegal to sell the product isn't comparable. If the state bans your rifle that's a whole different ball game.
Nevertheless, you already invested in the production line. Halting it until a new administration reverts the changes will just cost you money. At that point, your choice is between losing money selling to LEO or losing money not selling to anyone.
>reverts the changes will just cost you money. At that point, your choice is between losing money
Temporarily but you could use that capacity for the other guns. That’s the point. It’s way fricking easier to change equipment from .30sc to 9mm than tooling for one rifle to another. Even in my extreme example you can still repurpose machinery for the barrels and receivers. Lathes still turn metal. Milling machines can be reprogrammed for new dimensions. Unless you do a ton of injection molding it’s not that big of a problem.
You are massively overestimating the impact of waiting a year or two. Projects get delayed all the time. They get scrapped when 75-80% done too.
>Shit was probably in the pipeline for a couple of years before the coof,
This is quite literally the sunk cost fallacy. Either federal and S&W fell for it too, or they completely misunderstood market demands at the time.
>This is quite literally the sunk cost fallacy.
In this fallacy's case, the sunk cost is meant to be a cautionary tale against doubling down on bad choices simply because of your initial investment. You have to learn to let it go sometimes. However, in this case, you are losing money no matter what you do. Killing a product line in the womb and breaching a bunch of contracts would still incur costs, come with the obvious drawback of killing a potential new market segment, and the fricking boomers would still line up in front of stores every morning so they could buy up all the 9mm boxes and resell them. The end result is mostly the same with the shortage maybe ending a month early.
>Killing a product line in the womb
You don’t have to kill it. You shelve it for a year or two. Timing matters. Also is selling an assload of 9mm, 40, and 45 at slightly higher prices between than selling minimal .30SC at a much higher price? I don’t know and we can’t know without Federal’s numbers but my hunch is yes.
In regards to timing, .260 Remington came out in 1997 and is largely forgotten despite it sharing .308 parent case and performing the same as 6.5 creedmoor. It beat 6.5 creedmoor by 10 years, is better for reloaders but never took off. Timing matters.
This is why there are so many fricking cartridges, because it’s 95% luck of the draw on if the market happens to like whatever performance at a given time.
Most cartridges are by ballistics autists for ballistic autists though.
Ballistics autists who refuse to hand load
What can 6.5 creedmoor do that .243 Winchester can’t do, loaded with a different bullet, in a barrel with a different twist? not much
Tell me about .243 Win loads with comparable BC to 6.5 Mememore.
Literally just the same loads
I have a tc encore chambered in 243 with a faster than usual twist for 243, I can load 6.5 creedmoor clones or I can acceptably shoot off the shelf 243
There’s no real reason for any of this, just because I like 243 is the only reason to do this
I’ve been typing 6.5 instead of 6 sorry about that
Get LEO to buy it, so you have some sales and field testing down to give you a good reputation and any improvements nessescary. Then if there's a governmental change and you can select it to civilians you are there ready to go with good word of mouth.
Glocks spent years getting military and law enforcement contracts before becoming dominant in the civilian market.
>Glocks spent years getting military and law enforcement contracts before becoming dominant in the civilian market.
Which was their intention from the start. I love you doubled down on sunk costs. Tells me all I need to know
What the frick are you on about. If you want to sell a new gun but can't sell it to civilians you have to sell it to police or military. No company will just sit on it in the hope something will change diwnctye line.
It’s an extreme example to prove a point. And you are fixated on the example rather than try to figure out how it applies to .30SC. You are absolutely following be sunk cost fallacy saying that because they spend time and effort on it and it’s ready they have to launch NOW. Why not wait a year? What was so special about early 2022? When people were struggling to find the most popular pistol ammo (at least and not awful prices) why is it a good idea to release a “competitor” that’s more expensive? Why would 2023 or 2024 been a worse time to release? For the 3rd time, projects get delayed all the fricking time in all industries.
>but they can’t make 9mm with .30SC machines
Mostly yes they can with minor tweaks. The rounds are very similar. This isn’t just me saying this in theory. Hornady does this every ammo panic and most election cycles where they stop on the somewhat obscure rifle rounds and focus on the most popular ones.
380 will expand in naked gel too just carry that instead
You might call tokarev anons tom walkers but in that thread he had a 30sc barrel in that tok.
>Mogs
Does it penetrate armor better than 5.7? Does it leave a bigger hole than 45 ACP? No?
Then it's just another pistol round, no better than the others.
Yes and yes
It can break 2200fps out of a full size barrel with 60 grain bullets. With pointy solid copper bullets it'd penetrate where 5.7 fails
>With pointy solid copper bullets it'd penetrate where 5.7 fails
please show me where a heavier fatter bullet matches these velocities from a straight-walled cartridge
Black person 9x25 doesn’t hit 2200fps with 77gr copper bullets and a 6” barrel. There is no chance .30 SC is hitting 2200fps
Maybe it shouldn't have been released amidst a massive ammo shortage when people were paying 40c a round for 9mm. I understand that people desire higher capacity, but the timing was messed up with the launch of this cartridge.
>>mogs 5.7 out of a 5" barrel with more mass at the same speed and sectional density
show me the bodies family
5,7 has reciepts
homosexual ass super 30 has none is just smaller lol 9mm
Lol the one gay that fell for it is still trying this hard to justify it with his samegayging on fricking 4chin
It wasn't a botched launch.
It got a huge push by just about everyone in the firearms community and a bunch of manufacturers.
There just wasn't any demand.
It's almost as if it's a pointless meme round that costs more. has zero availability. does nothing better than basicb***h 9mm besides fit 2 more rounds in a mag and has a tryhard to sound legit name of "super carry"
>a bunch of manufacturers
>only ammo from federal and the other vista ammo brands
>only guns are mid af S&W pistols and hi point carbine
There was no attempt to provide ammo or pistol variety
If anyone acknowledged it's value as a 5.7 competitor it could have taken off like crazy
A $300 20+ round full size pistol that shoots ammo that costs less than 5.7 but shoots heavier bullets as fast or faster than 5.7 with its lighter bullets is a lot more exciting than a subcompact that's almost as good as 9mm but you get a couple extra rounds to make up for it. If the full size performance was memed up the subcompact would have been way more successful.
5.7 never took off.
Calling your gun a 5.7 competitor is dumb because that is a market that doesn't exist.
plenty of new guns available for it over the past few years. Admittedly it took a while, but its approaching mainstream now.
this samegay is also the one dumbass that bought a 327 snubbie
Disagree on the .327 federal. That has way more merit. Going from 5 to 6 rounds in the same size is more significant than 10 or 11 to 13. Also being able to shoot all the various .32 rounds is nice. Super nice if you reload
I just wish they'd made some double stack full size pistols in .30 SC. So far, only Hi Point has even made a carbine. I've seen some great deals on S&W super carries, but who wants a higher pressure cartridge with likely worse performance in a subcompact?
>high pressure
>.32 caliber
They were so close, bros. Make it bottlenecked and use 6.8 SPC/.30 Rem as a parent case. Make OAL fit in a 10mm frame. Sell it with low weight high antimony JHPs that won't fragment when moving 2400 fps. These companies are so incredibly close to a rifle round in handguns and they keep blueballing me.
>These companies are so incredibly close to a rifle round in handguns and they keep blueballing me.
.22TCM has been around for a while, if you are still blueballed it is your own fault
>.22 TCM
2000 fps with a tiny 40gr bullet is too slow and too light.
>7.5 FK already exists
>"exists"
Proprietary bullet caliber, weird meme bullet construction, zero reloading support, and OAL intentionally longer than 10mm. It's like 5.7x28, but you can't even load common bullets that kept 3rd party support alive like they did for 5.7. It's a meme until a major manufacturer breaks it it out of its proprietary status. The round is doomed and ultra-niche if that doesn't happen.
>Proprietary bullet caliber
Not really, you'd be fine with .308" bullets down a .307" bore. The real issue is there aren't any bullets, in any .30-.32ish caliber at all, suitable for it. Rifle bullets are all too long, .32 ACP bullets are built for much lower velocities. You might get somewhere with certain bullets made for .327 Federal, maybe?
But contrast to 9x23 Winchester and 9x25 Dillon (just use most .357 SIG bullets) or .40 Super (just use 10mm bullets); any .30-.32 caliber, 2000-ish fps effort is going to require specially made bullets, or extremely specific selection of factory bullets, to get useful terminal ballistics.
>OAL intentionally longer than 10mm.
If this were the only issue, you could always give it the TCM-9R treatment -- steal the case, load it to 1.26 OAL. You'll need special stubby-ogive bullets, but since you need purpose made bullets anyway -- no problem.
But the other issues really do make it a hard sell. It's barely offers any advantage at all vs. your own personal wildcat, necking down 9x25 or .40 Super/9mm Super to your choice of .308-.312
>The real issue is there aren't any bullets, in any .30-.32ish caliber at all, suitable for it
You could use .32 FMJs for target ammo no problem, which would already be a massive step. All the practical bullet design needs is a Critical Duty scaled down to .307" and 60-70gr. Hornady is really shooting themselves in the foot by not using that bullet tech for high velocity applications.
>.32 ACP bullets are built for much lower velocities. You might get somewhere with certain bullets made for .327 Federal, maybe?
Try ye old .30 carbine then.
I wonder how hard it would be to cast 7.5 fk bullets with modified .308 win tooling.
32 fmjs would work at high velocity, 45 acp fmjs mushroom out nicely at 450 bushmaster velocities. A slower twist would help the lighter bullets not explode in mid air
If you want a ~7.62 bullet stuck in a 10mm-ish parent cartridge: 7.5 FK already exists.
>I wish someone would make a straight-wall centerfire .25 pistol/small rifle cartridge
This. We need a proper .25 and .32 Super.
>This. We need a proper .25 and .32 Super.
moron, 30 supercarry is 32 super acp
.312" = 32 caliber
I said: a proper .32 Super. .30 Shitty Crapcase is not Super(b) in terms of performance, nor does it use existing infrastructure (parent case, magazines) to enable quick and easy integration into existing weapons. At least .38 and .45 Super easily slot into the 1911 platform, this doesn't even use an existing slide/barrel combo because of the stupid high pressure.
>nor does it use existing infrastructure (parent case, magazines) to enable quick and easy integration into existing weapons
How would a .25super do this? It could share a bore but nothing else really.
Sometimes we just need new shit.
>7.5 FK already exists.
You mean weaker 9x25?
>We need a proper .25 super
Very based
>32 Super
No go with .30 super. You already have 110gr bullets for the .30 carbine. If you crank the pressure up to 55k like in .30SC you could hit M1 carbine performance in a pistol
I wish someone would make a straight-wall centerfire .25 pistol/small rifle cartridge, would be a great varminting round and could compete favorably with .22wmr and 5.7x28
There's nothing wrong with 30sc, it penetrates and expands fine. It got some people mad because they're moronic and thought that manufacturing a new cartridge meant Federal was turning off the 9mm taps, while in fact they expanded their production capacity in response to a shortage. So exactly the company doing something about the shortage was blamed for aggravating it.
>It got some people mad because they're moronic and thought that manufacturing a new cartridge meant Federal was turning off the 9mm taps,
While they weren’t turning off the taps, they could have used all .30SC production to make more 9mm, which would have been smarter. Adjusting powder throws and switching dies isn’t that hard.
>commercial ammunition manufacturers operate just like bubba's reloading bench
>missing the forest for the trees
There is very little difference in the manufacture of two similar pistol rounds. They could have expended 9mm production, sold a shitload, and continue to sell everything they can make through today. Or launch a round that no one is buying. Great choice.
I want the opposite of this. I want a pure-lead .32 semiturdcutter that's cut to flower lengthwise and bend widthwise. It's heavy as a brick and maximized for short barrels.
>Cannot match 5.7 for capacity, since it uses a bigger base diameter
>Uses a special snowflake case, as opposed to a common parent cartridge (e.g. .30 Carbine)
>Said special snowflake case is not supported by any magazines, requiring bottom end (magazine, feeding) redesigns for most pistols
>Uses ridiculous overpressure to achieve results, meaning even the top part (slide, barrel) has to be redesigned
>Shitty name, should have been called .32 Super
>Attempts to outgun 9mm, as opposed to mogging the .32/.380 ACP market
.30 Shitty Carcass got exactly what Federal deserved: nothing.
Pic related however, deserves a second chance.
to outgun 9mm, as opposed to mogging the .32/.380 ACP market
This was my first thought when I saw the round. They should have marketed it (and designed guns for it) as a better alternative to .380, no one that already owns a .380 or 9mm was going to make the switch but a bit of honesty and integrity would have helped shooters consider it when they were looking for their first pocket pistol.
Yeah, nobody wanted to buy the same gun that's already chambered in 9mm but in a new, more expensive cartridge that doesn't do anything better except have a couple extra rounds in a mag. 30 Super Carry needed small guns built specifically for it, like a polymer single stack designed to be as skinny as possible. The market sort of abandoned making really tiny guns after the P365 came out.
>like a polymer single stack designed to be as skinny as possible
This was also my line of thinking when they first announced the cartridge.
Nobody is complaining about capacity anymore; .30 Luger +P would be fine. You could push it hard enough to defeat HG2 soft armor easily enough and there are tons of guns designed for the parent case that could be readily converted.
Bottleneck cartridges that can be used in 9memeter handguns by swapping only the barrel deserve more interest and development.
Finally, someone designed FTF: the cartridge.
should feed just fine.
Oof what could the v0 be on that from a five inch barrel be?
It was 2400-2500 fps with a 45gr bullet
I'd be happy with a modern 7.62x25 gun with double stack mags.
Corvus makes an extended A3M1 rail now, if that appeals to you.
https://corvusdefensio.com/shop/corvus-defensio-extended-m1-se-receiver-rail/?lang=en
>.30 Luger +P would be fine
that's called 7.62 tokarev
9×19mm is literally .30 Luger blown out to 9mm; 7.62 Tok is from a completely different family of cartridges and wouldn't have any of the onboarding benefits .30 Luger +P would.
Tok is from the same family. Just a different branch.
7.62 Tok is distantly-related enough that it and 9mm could get married in Tennessee and nobody would mind. If nothing else, it's too long to fit in the magazine of any 9mm Luger gun that isn't itself converted down from a longer round, like 9mm 1911s or a PSD with the 9mm +P+ conversion installed.
Yeah sorry you're fricking wrong. 7.62 Tok is nothing but 7.62 Mauser +P, and 9mm Luger is 7.62 Mauser necked up to a 9mm projectile and shortened to fit better in the P08 magazine.
They're closely related cartridges with identical case heads and taper geometry. That's also the reason that basically every 7.62 Tokarev submachine gun can be converted to 9mm with nothing but a barrel swap.
>and 9mm Luger is 7.62 Mauser necked up to a 9mm projectile and shortened to fit better in the P08 magazine
Completely wrong. 9mm Luger is 7.62 LUGER necked up to a 9mm projectile, and not shortened, because they're the same length and can use the same magazines.
>and not shortened
7.62x21
9x19
>because they're the same length
7.62x21
9x19
So what happens to the length of something when you widen it?
Hey pal, you just blow in from stupid town?
Yeah it was shortened and then necked up. Case head and taper remains the same. The fact that .30 Luger exists as an intermediate step doesn't discredit anything I said.
The diagram
is helpful
Okay lads, the x19 and x21 is the length of the brass itself. The case overall length, that is the loaded round, is something like 5 thou different, i.e. frick all in terms of magazines. They're the same length.
You don't neck up the overall dimensions -- you neck up the case.
So a sentence about "necked up and shortened" is implicitly talking about case dimensions, and is exactly what you have to do to a .30 Luger case to make a 9mm case out of it.
>set the bullet back
He's proposing a longer C.O.L., not shorter. Factory ammo would be fired as-is.
>take modern 9mm cases, and crimp them to 7.62.
You can do that, but it leaves you with very little neck, see
>You don't neck up the overall dimensions -- you neck up the case
I have no idea what you're on about here. You don't neck up SHIT when your specifying a new cartridge, you manufacture new brass to the new specs. That's why you can't (unless you're Bubba'ing it) load 357 SIG in .40 brass.
>He's proposing a longer C.O.L
No he isn't, moron. COAL on 30 Mauser is something like 35mm. 32mm is .45/10mm mags.
Jesus christ never touch a press if you like your fingers.
*you're
mother fricker
COAL of the .30 Luger is the same as for the 9x19mm.
Do try to pay attention to the conversation.
You pay attention moron. YOU're talking about Luger and not realising that tooling is what matters not manufactured brass and HE's talking about Mauser.
Do try to keep up.
Jesus it's just not getting through is it.
Parabellum is not Mauser. The conversation has been about Parabellum/Luger from the start.
Yep, it's like fricking titanium in there isn't it.
>9mm Luger is 7.62 Mauser necked up to a 9mm projectile
I'm calling your handler to come pick you up, never post here again.
7.62 Mauser is 9mm Luger's parent case. I don't know why you morons are so slow to grasp that. For a tactile example, I suggest you buy some .300 BLK and shoot it through a 5.56 weapon.
>that's called 7.62 tokarev
So long it doesn't even fit in most 10mm frames. Meme cartridge.
>botched launch
>Launch
>Only guns in 30 super carry is a shield plus, shield ez, and a hipoint carbine
Nah this is following the 5.7 formula mostly to a T with the exception that there's 3 guns instead of only 2 and it has zero (0) screen presence on movies or vidya gays. Give it ~30 years and we might actually see more than one in the wild.
>It deserved better, bros
Nah. Market said no not interested. Federal pushed it too hard too fast in too few guns.
And in an economic hard time who tf wants to swap out a near universal pistol caliber for a hyped-up 9mm? The normies don't care about a 1-2% increase in capacity. That's already available for days in normie 9mm pistols.
General public has been trimming down their caliber variety for years now. The big five are the big five even more so now because people want quantity and a proven track record.
Industry seems to think every frick into guns is plugged into the tuber community and will go forth and buy whatever shit they serve up. The cartridge's failure could be seen miles down the road.
Literally none of what you claimed is true.
I'm not sure gun manufacturers are ready to start making pistols chambered in a cartridge that is loaded to rifle pressures, OP
All the common cartridges are in the 35-40k psi range, not including the fossils like 45 acp down at 20k psi. You can't just take an existing frame and double the pressure and expect things to just werk. It took 5.7x28 a lot of time and a ton of shilling by FN for people to start picking it up. I think high pressure cartridges are going to be the next big thing but not for another 20 years and I think 30 sc was too early to the party. It might have a second Renaissance though as higher pressures become more widespread.
I want 7.65 Parabellum upped to modern pressures and with an OAL of 32mm.
You can do that. You'll have to handload of course or do what the moronic 1911 guys do with Tok and set the bullet back so it fits the mag.
Probably the best way is to use a Glock barrel with a liner. Glock 10mm mags should hold the rounds okay.
Yeah, I used 10mm and .45 as a baseline for a reasonable upper limit to pistol cartridge length. 5.7 is 40mm, 7.62x39 is ~50mm. I guess you could take modern 9mm cases, and crimp them to 7.62.
Starline makes 30 Mauser.
Not a bad comparison, if a bit long for my vision. I'm envisioning a .30 to .355 caliber bullet out of a 32mm long full cartridge, that can be subsonic without underloading it, and take modern pressures. Basically, I think 9mm is almost perfect but underachieves in the size category. I realize now that's just .38 Super with modern design and metallurgy to improve the pressure limit, or can use .38 Soup as a starting point if I want a smaller caliber.
Yeah, good point, limits of the case. I guess I really am just talking about a high-pressure .38 Super that can take heavier bullets with the same powder.
Good news, that exists already in two flavours, 356 TSW or 9x23 Win. Gaymer rules killed them commercially but you can get any 9mm barrel reamed for it. 356 TSW has the edge, slightly, but in practice it's the same thing.
Will read up, thank you
Capacity is a meme.
I wouldn't necessarily go that far (even though I occasionally carry a six-shot N-frame) but once you get into 12+ shots it's definitely a matter of diminishing returns.
>oh no this gun the size of a J-frame only holds 2.5× as much ammunition, my death innaboulevard is assured