Ruger p90 conversion ?

Help Support Ruger Forum:

WolfeGypsy

Bearcat
Joined
May 9, 2006
Messages
2
Location
Bloomfield, New York, USA
Just curious as I love my Para Ord P16-40 that has been converted to 10mm. I'm typically a Ruger owner, but other than their great MkIIs/IIIs I don't have one of their autos. Has anyone or can the Ruger P90 be safely converted to the 460 Rowland? I think this would make the P90 a great hunting auto....Thanks....WG
 

COFFEE POT

Bearcat
Joined
Mar 16, 2003
Messages
54
Location
Prescott, Arizona
Nope! The gun was designed around the .45 ACP cartridge. The slide is too light and the timing is wrong for any high power conversion.

------------------
Coffee Pot

"He who knows others is wise, He who knows himself is enlightened"
 

aaronrb204

Bearcat
Joined
Oct 30, 2005
Messages
75
Location
bowling green, va
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face=" Verdana">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by COFFEE POT:
<B>Nope! The gun was designed around the .45 ACP cartridge. The slide is too light and the timing is wrong for any high power conversion.

</B><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What about the .400 Corbon load? I have seen conversion barrels for the P90 and was just wondering if that is a horrible idea?
 

COFFEE POT

Bearcat
Joined
Mar 16, 2003
Messages
54
Location
Prescott, Arizona
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face=" Verdana">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by aaronrb204:
What about the .400 Corbon load? I have seen conversion barrels for the P90 and was just wondering if that is a horrible idea?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I've seen them, too. Also in .45 Super. By the numbers, it's not a good idea. I doubt you'll blow up the gun, but you will surely beat it to death in a short time.

------------------
Coffee Pot

"He who knows others is wise, He who knows himself is enlightened"
 

protoolman

Hunter
Joined
Oct 15, 2001
Messages
2,159
Location
ND
Not to start up old rumors but we have been hearing for years that the Ruger P-90 was designed to 10mm specs but never appeared in that caliber. Has anyone actually seen a P-90 converted to that caliber or any other caliber for that matter. I seem to remember Sportsmans guide or somebody offering alternate caliber barrels in some cart. or other?
 

COFFEE POT

Bearcat
Joined
Mar 16, 2003
Messages
54
Location
Prescott, Arizona
There were many rumors around at the time the P90 was released that it would also be available in 10mm. I can tell you, as a fact, that although the 10mm was considered, the gun was never altered or designed to handle the higher impulse of the 10mm cartridge. The impulse of the 10mm cartridge is significantly higher than that of the .45 ACP and would have required extensive alterations to the P90 platform. After talking to the ammunition manufacturers and determining the amount of annual sales and predicted future sales, it was decided that the expense of the redesign would not be justifed by the expected demand for the product. Therefore, the idea was scrapped.

There have been conversions offered out there to .400 Corbon and .45 Super that I have seen. I think they were offered by Olympic Arms. As far as I know, they are no longer available. The P90 was designed around the .45 ACP, I know because I worked on it. It's a wonderful gun for that caliber, but the conversions I've seen have never worked out well at all.

------------------
Coffee Pot

"He who knows others is wise, He who knows himself is enlightened"

[This message has been edited by COFFEE POT (edited 04-19-2007).]
 

protoolman

Hunter
Joined
Oct 15, 2001
Messages
2,159
Location
ND
Thanks Coffee POt that will put the rumors to rest for me. I like mine in .45 anyway. Its a good caliber.
 

COFFEE POT

Bearcat
Joined
Mar 16, 2003
Messages
54
Location
Prescott, Arizona
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face=" Verdana">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Friday:
<B> Not necessarily saying you're wrong but I've seen the FBI's 10mm Notes and they mention Ruger as one of the companies working on a 10mm.

As most companies use the same platform for 10mm/45 I find it odd that a big tough pistol like the P90 that can easily handle .45 +P ammo would fall apart in a 10mm version. I've always considered the Ruger's at least as tough as a Glock, and Glock had no trouble make both a 10mm and a .45 based on the same platform. Why can companies like Glock, Tanfoglio, Kimber and Dan Wesson all build 10mm's using the same platform as their .45s but Ruger can't?

Not trying to be rude but perhaps you could tell us what "facts" you are basing your statements on. Considering that at the time everyone either had or was developing a 10mm it seems quite likely that the P90's big tough design could well owe a lot to it's being considered as Ruger's 10mm offering. While it may have never went into production as a 10mm it certainly could have influenced the design.

The P90 is definitley one of the toughest .45s on the market and it seems quite likely this could well be because it was considerd for use as a 10mm.

Personally I would think that the meteoric fall from grace of the 10mm and the equally meteoric rise of it's bastard child the 40S&W amongst LEOs, had a lot more to do with there being no 10mm P90, than the P90 being too weak to handle 10mm loads.

.

[This message has been edited by Friday (edited 04-21-2007).]</B><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You are partially right, but not completely. When the 10mm first came out, everybody slapped it on their .45 platform. They soon found out that the .45 platform was insufficient for the 10mm impulse and the guns started falling apart, everybody's. Those that are out there that are holding together were designed around the 10mm and dropped to .45. Those that originally had all the failures went back and redesigned their platform to hold down the 10mm. Unfortunately, by the time they got them to market, the 10mm was already dying in favor of the .40. The successful 10mm guns out there were designed for the 10mm and then also used for .45. Actually, even the .40 is harder on a gun than the .45 because of its higher operating pressure. The .40 has a higher impulse than the .45. For example:
9mm - .7 lb-sec impulse
.45 ACP - .9 lb-sec "
.40 S&W - 1.1 lb-sec "
10mm - 1.4 lb-sec "
The impulse is the force/unit time which is affected by the velocity, weight of projectile, operating pressure and several other factors. Because of the higher operating pressure the recoil energy is dissipated over a shorter period of time. It's like pushing on a nail with a hammer or hitting it with a hammer. The recoil forces of the 10mm are high, but not unmanageable if you design for it. The P90 was not.

------------------
Coffee Pot

"He who knows others is wise, He who knows himself is enlightened"
 

COFFEE POT

Bearcat
Joined
Mar 16, 2003
Messages
54
Location
Prescott, Arizona
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face=" Verdana">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Friday:
<B>Interesting COFFEE POT, I have heard that excessive wear was a factor in why Colt dropped the Delta Elite and why S&W dropped dropped their 10mm's.

If there is a weak spot to the P90 preventing it's use with 10mm it's the Aluminum frame IMO.

All the 10mm's either use polymer or steel frames. I would disagree that all the successful 10mm's were designed for 10mm. The only one that's a ground up 10mm is the Glock G20. Tanfoglio, and the Kimber and Dan Wesson 1911s, were all based on these companies .45 offerings. Now I'm sure there have been modifications but still except for the Glock these are all converted .45s not 10mm's dropped down to .45.

The only thing that I see that they have in common is that none of them use an Aluminum alloy frame. The Glock is polymer, Tanfoglio offers both steel and polymer 10mm's, and the 1911 variants are all steel framed.

I wonder if a steel framed P90 could would hold up or perhaps a 10mm P345?

I dunno I still think a lack of demand is a greater factor than durability. Building a stronger frame is obviously not a huge problem as other companies have been successful at it, but would the added costs and lower demand make it cost effective.

And be that as it may it still doesn't answer the question of what effects of being considered as a 10mm had in the overall design of the P90? Were any 10mm prototypes ever built or was it decided in the design stages that the pistol could not handle the 10mm loads?

</B><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I would like to go deeper into the design of the P90 with you regarding the 10mm concept, but alas, I can't. All design criteria and development information is Ruger proprietary information. The engineering profession requires quite a bit of discretion, even after the fact. Legalities notwithstanding, Ruger treated me very well for 18 years and I wouldn't consider compromising their trust. I have a ton of information that would convince you of what I say regarding the design of a pistol suitable for the 10mm cartridge, but I can't talk about it. Please, just believe me when I tell you that the P90 design is not suitable for the 10mm without extensive modification.

You are definitely correct in your assumption that the demise of the 10mm contributed greatly to Ruger's decision not to build one. I can tell you that the aluminum frame material was not a factor.

After the FBI decided that the 10mm recoil was too much for the majority of agents and asked for ruduced loads, which led to the .40 S&W, the popularity of the 10mm dropped to the point where the required modifications to the P90 to allow for the more potent cartridge wasn't economically practical. Therefore, as I stated before, the project was dropped.

The .40 S&W cartridge, however, has a very interesting past that I would be happy to share as I heard it if anybody is interested in listening.



------------------
Coffee Pot

"He who knows others is wise, He who knows himself is enlightened"
 

COFFEE POT

Bearcat
Joined
Mar 16, 2003
Messages
54
Location
Prescott, Arizona
OK, let's start with the demise of the P91. Actually, the P91 was good pistol, just a victim of timing. The development of the the P93 and P94 (both 9mm and .40 S&W) was just getting underway about the time the P91 was released. The P93 and P94 were originally intended to replace the P89 and P91. The .40 cal at that time was the poorest selling of the 'P' series calibers, accounting for only a small percentage of the overall sales. The lion's share went to the 9mm, followed by the .45 ACP. It was determined that with the introduction of the P94 (.40 cal), the P91 would no longer be a viable product financially. The sales of the P89 remained high even after the introduction of the P93 and P94 so it was retained. Without the P91, the public's only choice if they wanted a Ruger .40 was the P94. There was never anything wrong with the P91, it was just a victim of the redesign to the P93, P94 configuration.

As for the development of the .40 S&W, this information came to me through a friend in the ammunition industry.

When the FBI determined the 10mm was too much gun for the average agent to handle, they requested a reduced load, something hotter than a 9mm and about equivalent to the .45 in power. But they wanted to retain the higher capacity that the smaller diameter cartridge would allow with a double column magazine. I don't know who their ammunition supplier was, but in conjunction with S&W they decided that with the reduced load, they no longer needed the long case of the 10mm and could make a .40 cal cartridge with the same OAL as the 9mm and put it on the 9mm platform. However, they wanted to retain the heavier bullet weights. Thus came the truncated cone bullet shape for two reasons. One, the cartridge was quite similar to the 9mm and to make it easier to differentiate between the two cartridges, they didn't want a round nose bullet as with 9mm ball ammo. Also, to keep the heavy bullet weight and yet have sufficient case volume they couldn't have a round nose, it would make the cartridge too long.

The only problem was that the truncated cone shape was difficult to feed. The firearm manufacturers did various things like deepen feed ramps, thus reducing case head support, or making their chambers oversize allowing for excessive case expansion to get their guns to feed. After a short time on the market they started receiving many complaints about case head separation. Many loading manuals added a note to their .40 cal data cautioning the loader to contact the firearm manufacturer to ask if the case head was fully supported. To obtain the required performance, the cases were being pushed to the limit. Then when sombody tried to reload it back to factory specs, they blew case heads. The ammo manufacturers immediately jumped on the issue and redesigned their .40 cal cases. They are all on their 2nd generation cases with a few on their 3rd generation case. Ever wonder why you don't see a +P loading for the .40 like you do for the 9mm or .45? That's why. The normal load is as hot as they can go and retain case integrety. Very few manufacturers operate their ammo at SAAMI spec. They tend to keep the loadings fairly light. Exceptions being the +P, +P+ and military loads.

The bottom line is that the .40 cal was rushed into existance without sufficient development time. The SAAMI spec for the .40 is 35,000 psi as is the 9mm, but with the larger dia cross section and heavier bullets, the impulse was significantly higher as they had to operate at SAAMI spec to get the required performance. The .40 is harder on a gun than the .45 due to its heavy bullets and high operating pressure. The impulse isn't really all that high, but if you break it down mathematically into its force and time factors, the energy is dissipated over a considerably shorter time than the 9mm or .45 thus transferring more of it to the gun. A .45 platform would be more appropriate for the .40 than the 9mm, that is of course, unless the 9mm was beefed up to handle the additional stresses incurred. I'm sure those of you that shoot both the .40 and .45 have noticed that the perceived recoil of the .40 is much snappier than the .45. That is the result of the rapid transfer of impulse energy to the gun.

That's pretty much the story of the .40 S&W as was told to me and also what I've seen during the development of .40 cal pistols. Some of you may have more info or some questions. Please feel free to add your 2 cents worth.

------------------
Coffee Pot

"He who knows others is wise, He who knows himself is enlightened"
 

COFFEE POT

Bearcat
Joined
Mar 16, 2003
Messages
54
Location
Prescott, Arizona
I wasn't advocating the use of a .45 platform for the .40 cal. As you said, they could have just gone with the reduced 10mm loads. I was merely pointing out that the cartridge impulse of the .40 would be more suitable to the larger platform of the .45, easier on the gun and wrist.

I agree that the use of the 9mm platform was an excellent idea for all the reasons you mentioned above as long as they strengthened it to handle the more powerful cartridge.

------------------
Coffee Pot

"He who knows others is wise, He who knows himself is enlightened"

[This message has been edited by COFFEE POT (edited 04-25-2007).]
 

COFFEE POT

Bearcat
Joined
Mar 16, 2003
Messages
54
Location
Prescott, Arizona
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face=" Verdana">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JGoates:
<B>Wow, the 40 has a 1.1 lb-sec impulse. That would probably explain the use of heavy springs on my KP-944.

Coffee Pot: Was the dual spring arrangement found on the 944 necessary because of this higher impulse, or does it have to do with the guide rod being shorter than on say a P89? Just curious.

Please do tell anything you'd be willing to share about the 40.</B><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The P944 and the earlier P91 both had a heavier spring because of the impulse, but the dual spring arrangement was because of the shorter barrel and less space to put in the required amount of spring.

------------------
Coffee Pot

"He who knows others is wise, He who knows himself is enlightened"
 

COFFEE POT

Bearcat
Joined
Mar 16, 2003
Messages
54
Location
Prescott, Arizona
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face=" Verdana">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Friday:
<B> Actually Glock didn't really do much of anything to their .40s. If you check part numbers the recoil springs and frames are the same and just about every thing else except the barrel and slide.

Same with Tanfoglio and their 10mm and .45 pistols. They do use a different recoil spring but other than the slide and barrel all the parts have the same numbers whether they are for a 10mm or a .45. I was reading that what Tanfoglio did was to change the angle of the locking lugs, so that when the barrel and slide seperate it creates more of a downward force than the .45s. Rather than the full force going rearward like the .45s, it's directed into more of a downward motion.

It would seem that these companies have been able to offer 10mm and .40 pistol with only a minimum of modifications and I haven't heard of Glock .40s or Tanfoglio 10mm's falling apart after a few rounds.

</B><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>The .40 has been out for some time now and many manufacturers have made many changes during that period. The only way you could tell what modifications they made would be to have a parts list from the days before they offered the same model in .40 cal. I'm sure that in today's production, the 9mm and .40 cal guns are of the same model are quite similar. You would have to go back 15 years or more to find what changes they made in their 9mm guns to handle the .40 cal round. The same with the 10mm/.45 issue. Those cartridges aren't new and you have no way of knowing what the manufacturers have done over the last 15/20 years.

I'm not here to get into a pissing contest over this issue. I was merely passing on what occurred at the time of the introduction of both the .40 and 10mm cartridges and the technical differences that required the manufacturers to modify their guns to handle them at that time. Guns produced today are a completely different issue.



------------------
Coffee Pot

"He who knows others is wise, He who knows himself is enlightened"
 

gandog56

Bearcat
Joined
Oct 2, 2005
Messages
3
Location
Mobile, AL.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face=" Verdana">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Friday:
<B>
All the 10mm's either use polymer or steel frames. I would disagree that all the successful 10mm's were designed for 10mm. The only one that's a ground up 10mm is the Glock G20.</B><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


The Dan Wesson RZ-10 Razorback only comes in 10mm, so I have to assume it was designed from the ground up as a 10mm.
 
Top