A new cartridge

[5of7]

Dreaming up new cartridges is a passtime of mine....it helps me go to sleep at night. So, I have been thinking...what would be wrong with a revolver cartridge that shoots a .386" diameter bullet?

It fills the nitch between the .357 and the .41 Mgs. and I think that one could use 41 LC brass offered by Starline.

Actually it would be pretty much a .41 LC with a properly dimensioned barrel. It would fit nicely in a Smith L frame, or a GP100, and in such guns would be able to handle pressures of 35 to 40K with no problems.

The only question would be why? But if we started asking why, there would be a LOT less cartridges to choose from.... 8)

 

[Bob Wright]

The demand for a mid-sized cartridge has greatly diminished with the law enforcement community now adopting auto-loaders in .40 caliber.

Law enforcement officers pined away for a mid-sized rimmed revolver cartridge that could be contained in a S&W K- Framed size revolver. The .41 Magnum, loaded with its "police" load, still required an N- framed size revovler, which was simply too large for the average officer to handle in double action shooting with any degree of accuracy and control.

As to sporting use, field or hunting, there is really no "gap" between .357 Magnums and .44 Specials, or the .44 Magnum. A .357 Magnum revolver covers an extemely broad range of uses, and covers these applications with cartridges ranging from mild 110 gr. .38 Special up to 180 gr. .357 Magnums. And the .44 Magnum revolver, with a wide range of ammunition available for it, starts somewhere just before the .357 leaves off and goes from there.

Bob Wright

 

[willk]

I think it already exists. A .38-40 and a 10mm (and the 10mm Special AKA .40 S&W)

 

[Jimbo357mag]

The 41 magnum isn't as popular as it should be so let's try again with something just a little bit bigger and with a little less pressure than a .357 magnum. I'm with you all the way.

 

[22/45 Fan]

The 41 magnum isn't as popular as it should be so let's try again with something just a little bit bigger and with a little less pressure than a .357 magnum. I'm with you all the way.

Well, the .41 Mag is as popular as it deserves to be, that is not very. It has a vocal but rather small following. It requires a larger, heavier frame than the .357 mag but isn't quite as powerful as the .44 mag and was a dismal failure as a police cartridge. Bob Wright has it, uh..., right. The gap between the .357 mag and the .44 mag is filled by the .357 mag and the .44 mag.

 

[CraigC]

I'd rather see new versions of the .41Colt and .401Powermag that utilize the existing Starline .41Colt brass and a new longer version for the .401. Both utilizing existing .400" - .401" .40S&W/.10mm/.38-40 bullets.

Call them the .400Spl and .400Magnum.

 

[Jim Puke]

The 41 magnum isn't as popular as it should be so let's try again with something just a little bit bigger and with a little less pressure than a .357 magnum. I'm with you all the way.

Well, the .41 Mag is as popular as it deserves to be, that is not very. It has a vocal but rather small following. It requires a larger, heavier frame than the .357 mag but isn't quite as powerful as the .44 mag and was a dismal failure as a police cartridge. Bob Wright has it, uh..., right. The gap between the .357 mag and the .44 mag is filled by the .357 mag and the .44 mag.

X 2

But, that is no reason to not develop a new cartridge...never stop folks in the past.

 

[The Blackhawk Kid]

:arrow: It could be called the 400 Spl, use 41 spl brass, custom bullet mold for .390 diameter LSWC. I'd just use 41 mag brass, Unique or 231? Hmmm, interesting. :mrgreen: Bhk JMHO

 

[22/45 Fan]

But, that is no reason to not develop a new cartridge...never stop folks in the past.

Yep, developing them is one thing, selling the guns and ammunition is quite another. Ask the people who developed the .32 H&R Magnum and the .32 Federal Magnum.

 

[5of7]

I'd rather see new versions of the .41Colt and .401Powermag that utilize the existing Starline .41Colt brass and a new longer version for the .401. Both utilizing existing .400" - .401" .40S&W/.10mm/.38-40 bullets.

Call them the .400Spl and .400Magnum.

Unless Starline .41 long Colt brass is dimensionally different than the old brass, I don't think it is large enough internally to accept a .400" bullet.

I could be wrong of course, but I think it is designed to accept a .386" diameter bullet as the original .41 LC featured a heeled bullet. 8)

 

[Rclark]

Ask the people who developed the .32 H&R Magnum and the .32 Federal Magnum.

Well, they should have hit the market a year or so ago while the .22LR shortage was/is in play . Right now I am in the more than ripe 'mood' for at least a .32 H&R Magnum Single Action as a .22LR replacement revolver. I can at least then reload this caliber and shoot as much as I want of it at .22 velocities. Slightly more expensive, but worth it to still be able to shoot fairly cheaply.

I don't see any gaps either. I have four calibers that I use .22, .357/.38, .44spec/.44Mag and .45 Colt/.45ACP. And really, I could drop the .44Mag in my line-up and never look back as the good o' .45 Colt covers it nicely.

While it may be 'fun' to think up new calibers and wildcat it.... It no longer is 'practical' to market it with all the current calibers out there that cover every application under the sun (and in case of the big boomers, even put down those animals that have been fossilized for millions of years).

 

[Jimbo357mag]

Who would have thought the almost dead 44 special and 44 special guns would make a big comeback like they have. A couple of years ago you could only find one loading for the cartridge if you were lucky, then cowboy action shooting came along and it has been doing well ever since.

 

[Jim Puke]

But, that is no reason to not develop a new cartridge...never stop folks in the past.

Yep, developing them is one thing, selling the guns and ammunition is quite another. Ask the people who developed the .32 H&R Magnum and the .32 Federal Magnum.

I said that I agree...that is what "X 2" meant.

You are not the only one that understands the challenge of marketing a new cartridge.

However, there have been PLENTY of cartridges developed that did not meet with marketplace success and were not necessarily developed to do that...
Sometimes people are satisfied with the accomplishment of having done it, without the need of it being affirmed by others...i.e.marketplace, you or me.

I see no reason to stymie his interest.

 

[Chuck 100 yd]

How about this one???

 

[gramps]

How about this one???

Why tha is just......obscene!
gramps whose mind is in the gutter from the moo post

 

[Varminterror]

I think the indications are out there for the likelihood of success for something like this...

There has developed a natural gap between hunting pistol cartridges and defensive pistol cartridges. Step over 400-500ft.lbs. of muzzle energy and things get a bit too exciting for defensive pistol work for most shooters, which would be better served by something below that gap - defensive pistol ceiling 'roundabouts 357mag, 45acp, 40S&W, with the 10mm a loner on the roof. But then the chosen specification for hunting makes the leap up to ~1000ft.lbs. and beyond, with that ~1000ft.lbs. being sort of a coincidental convenience, as it seems to be roughly to be the ceiling for what most shooters might handle without dedicated training and practice. A tip of the hat to the power of larger hunting cartridges like the .454, .480, Linebaugh's, or large S&W Mags.

Naturally, there are down-reaching exceptions, many people might hunt with a .357mag, just as someone might use a .380acp or 9mm as a defensive pistol, that gap stands.

Possibly that ~1000ft.lbs. comes from the OGW tables, as so many guys cite 1000ft.lbs. as the minimum impact energy for dealing with deer. Maybe it simply comes from that fact that guys start having trouble with more energy in big revolvers, just as they start having problems with pistol cartridges more powerful than the .45acp/10mm.

As much comfort as I'd feel if I had a a 40-45cal 5 or 6 shot mid-frame revolver weighing about 36oz with a 2" barrel that trucked about 750-800fps with a 225-240grn pill, I don't know that such makes sense. Arms like the Charter Bulldog do just that with a .44spcl, or close to that with a 45acp moon clip, but they're none too popular. So few shooters believe in things like momentum or Taylor KO factor these days, such that big ball pistols have lost favor, and big ball, low recoil defensive pistols just don't have a niche. Nobody likes moon clips except the guys that REALLY like moon clips either, so it's just not prudent to chamber pistol cartridges in revolvers.

Then again, most civilian defense weapons trend behind LEO trends, which probably doesn't necessarily make sense either - at its core - but such is the nature of this thing.

 

[gramps]

Welcome to the forum. 10 mm on the roof? Huh? Deer must be dropped with a cartridge of 1000 ft lbs? All this is news to me! Good thing the settlers didn't know it!
gramps

 

[Hondo44]

5 of 7,

I see nothing wrong with it. And it doesn't have to be picked up by the manufacturers to be a one-of-a-kind fun gun success to build and shoot, as Jim Luke said. Using a later .41 Colt barrel with .386" bore, a custom DA or SA Ruger would not even be an expensive proposition. Rethread the Colt barrel and ream a mid frame Ruger Blackhawk .357 cylinder, and you're in business. Plenty of old moulds available too.

The .32 Mag / .327 Mag may have not been a long lasting market success, but so what, those that produced them opened up a new market, made a tidy profit from them and ammo makers are still making profits off of the ammo. Plus many .32 enthusiasts are having a blast with our niche .32s of regular production models and/or customs like a 3 way convertible single six with extra 327 Mag and 32-20 cylinders.

My new one-of-a-kind .218 Bee Short or 22 CF Super Mag, whichever name one prefers, in a standard single six frame is a very fun gun to load for and shoot. When you handload, the sky is the limit.

 

[5of7]

Thanks for the responses guys.

If any one else has an idea for a wildcat, please post it here. It always makes for interesting conversation. 8)

 

[BearBio]

Or, do what I do: Shoot a 41 long colt or a 38-40

 

[dbarale]

What about a 10mm auto rim that could be used in a factory produced moon clipped GP100 chambered for 10mm/.40.
That's right Ruger, I did say FACTORY PRODUCED. ;0

 

[5of7]

What about a 10mm auto rim that could be used in a factory produced moon clipped GP100 chambered for 10mm/.40.
That's right Ruger, I did say FACTORY PRODUCED. ;0

I have been wishing for a GP in 10MM for a long time. 8)

 

[22/45 Fan]

What about a 10mm auto rim that could be used in a factory produced moon clipped GP100 chambered for 10mm/.40.
That's right Ruger, I did say FACTORY PRODUCED. ;0

If you are going to use moon clips why do you need a 10 mm auto rim? Standard 10 mm ammo will work fine with clips.

 

[6gun]

I think it already exists. A .38-40 and a 10mm (and the 10mm Special AKA .40 S&W)

I was thinking 38-40 also, I have it in a original Winchester but not a revolver.

 

[dbarale]

What about a 10mm auto rim that could be used in a factory produced moon clipped GP100 chambered for 10mm/.40.
That's right Ruger, I did say FACTORY PRODUCED. ;0

If you are going to use moon clips why do you need a 10 mm auto rim? Standard 10 mm ammo will work fine with clips.

Just to create a new cartridge/caliber....

 

[GunnyGene]

What I'd like to see in pistol calibers is boat tail bullets with a soft ballistic tip. That would go a long way towards improving the external ballistics of any pistol cartridge. The G1 BC of a large cal HP is right around .20 , which is like firing a brick when it comes to trajectory. :roll:

 

[Bob Wright]

How about this one???

Chuck100 yd, your round is very similar to the one I dreamed up severl years ago. Except I found the .30 Carbine case better suited to a front loading revolver, the lack of rim, you know.

Planned revolver was a modified Ruger Olde Army with custom cylinder to accommodate the rebated cartridge head. Also, the spring loaded rod ejector had to be located behind the cylinder, in the are occupied by the capping groove. And a frame mounted firing pin was required.

Generated no interest, whatsoever.

Bob Wright

 

[Hondo44]

Bob,

An ejector wasn't needed in the old guns that used front loaded cartridges; the hammer was used. After snapping the hammer on the empty cases it would dislodge and knock them forward in the chambers to fall out of the cylinder when turned to the loading position.

 

[Jimbo357mag]

What I'd like to see in pistol calibers is boat tail bullets with a soft ballistic tip. That would go a long way towards improving the external ballistics of any pistol cartridge. The G1 BC of a large cal HP is right around .20 , which is like firing a brick when it comes to trajectory. :roll:

Those Hornady LEVERevolution Bullets go a long way towards reducing drag.

 

[Bob Wright]

Bob,

An ejector wasn't needed in the old guns that used front loaded cartridges; the hammer was used. After snapping the hammer on the empty cases it would dislodge and knock them forward in the chambers to fall out of the cylinder when turned to the loading position.

Those were black powder and much lower chamber pressures.

Bob Wright