Why No Bottleneck Cartridges?

mmattockx

mmattockx

CGN Ultra frequent flyer
Rating - 100%
108   0   0
Location
Done with sheeple
Why is it that bottleneck cartridges in general are not very successful in handguns? Is this just an issue with not being able to burn more powder in a short barrel than a straight walled case can hold?

Yes, I know about the 7.62x25, but there aren't really any other calibres that come to mind after that.

Mark
 
489713.jpg
 
It has to to with manhood and caliber. .30 Luger made some fellows feel inadequate, hence 9mm.
It is a waste of space in the magazine, and sometimes setback issues with revolvers.
 
I seem to remember that years ago, Ruger tried one or 2 bottleneck cartridges in their revolvers. What they found out was that there was a problem with the fired case backing up in the cylinder & locking up the gun. I may be wrong but I remember that the cause was gas blowing back on to the shoulder of the case & pushing it back .

The guns were not a success and they were discontinued.
 
problem with bottleneck cartridges:
-bullet setback
-extra step when reloading
-if not reloading, prices are out of this world
 
Pretty much everything that needs doing with an auto pistol or revolver can be done by cartridges with straight walled cases. There just isn't the potential given size limitations for dramatic increase in velocity comparable to, say, going from the .45-70 to the .30-06. Handguns generally don't produce enough kinetic energy to produce rifle-like wound effects.

To name one example, the .357 SIG offers terminal performance no better than 9mm at the expense of greater recoil, lower magazine capacity, and greater ammunition cost. The .40 S&W cartridge, on which the .357 is based, has greater potential given bullets of comparable construction.

Furthermore, the availability of carbide dies makes for less effort to reload straight-walled cases compared with necked ones, which require lubing.
 
How about the mighty 9X25 Dillon. It is a necked down 10mm case to accept a 9mm bullet. Try 2000 ft/s from a 100gr bullet!

Can't wait to convert my Glock 20 to 9X25!
 
Kc.338Lp said:
Theres lots . 5.7x28 , 4.6x30hk , 7.62x25 , .357 sig , 440 corbon , 40 super , 30 luger , i think theres a few more oddballs but cant think right now too tired lol .
Click to expand...

I wouldn't exactly call any of those mainstream cartridges.

I was thinking of use in a semi, hadn't even thought about the setback issues in a revolver. Given the limited power of all handgun rounds, I guess the best choice is to use a straight walled case and put the biggest bullet in front that will fit the case. I had been thinking about this before I started the thread and wanted to see if that was a common opinion on the use of bottleneck cartridges in handguns.

jawsman said:
How about the mighty 9X25 Dillon. It is a necked down 10mm case to accept a 9mm bullet. Try 2000 ft/s from a 100gr bullet!

Can't wait to convert my Glock 20 to 9X25!
Click to expand...

That sounds like some fun, let us know how the conversion turns out.

Mark
 
For bottlenecks to work in revolvers it helps if both the case and the chamber are absolutely free of any oil or residue oil, etc, to the extreme!
 
tjhaile,

You've got to be kidding when you say the 357 Sig has the same terminal effects as the 9mm and that the .40 S&W is better. You may not have access to the same data that I have but I can tell you first hand that .357 Sig is devastating in Officer Involved Shootings; with subjects being shot having a very poor survival rate compared to 9mm and .40 S&W.

Rich
 
Bottle-necked cartridges have significant advantages for feeding, but they can be cumbersome to load into magazines if there is a large difference between base and neck diameters. And as said earlier, they are a pain to load since carbide dies are not available for them. And I speak from experience, having used a 30Luger for CF matches in Bullseye NRA. Gets tiresome after the first thousand.

Dr Jim
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom