• ODT Gun Show & Swap Meet - May 4, 2024! - Click here for info

new pocket pistol caliber question

For .32 ACP ammo, I'd like to see that case lengthened from 17 to 19 or 20 mm, the case volume increased by about 5 grains of water, and given a stronger powder charge that would push 70 grain bullet at 1200 ft./s from a 3" barrel.
Call it the .32 AutoMagnum or something or .30 Mauser 0r 7.62 Tokerev.

7.62 should be more common in modern guns, but of course, it is a "commie" round, with no patrimony from John Browning.
 
762 Tokarev is a Soviet round, but not the 7.63 Mauser (25 mm case length) it was inspired by.

The .30 Luger / 7.65 Parabellum (21 mm case) is similar, but all 3 of these cartridges have a case nearly 10mm wide. They're both longer and fatter than I envision for a pocket pistol with mild recoil.

I'd go with a straight -walled .32 caliber, but not the .32 ACP, because the case is too short, the case is semi-rimmed (can cause reliability problems in semi autos), and you can't have factory .32 acp ammo loaded extra hot or +P because of all the cheap Saturday Night Specials and 100+ year old antique guns still out there.

We need a new .32 self-loading pistol cartridge that won't fit in common .32 handguns on the market today, and is loaded hot.
 
Less recoil in a small pocket pistol. I can't imagine that shooting 9mm out of an lcpII sized gun would be very fun.

I wonder how the 22 tcm would do in something LCP size? Would recoil be more than 380, close to 9mm?
One description of the 22tcm is a 22 in a 9mm case, but I don't know how recoil compares. Have find someone with a RIA 22tcm/9mm to see how those two compare in the same gun.
What I've seen, 22tcm has a lotta flash.
 
One description of the 22tcm is a 22 in a 9mm case, but I don't know how recoil compares. Have find someone with a RIA 22tcm/9mm to see how those two compare in the same gun.
What I've seen, 22tcm has a lotta flash.
I had one in a full size 1911. Recoil was just like shooting a 22 out of that gun. They don't make pocket pistols for the caliber so nothing really to compare it to.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
 
Actually, a bowling ball dropped from orbit impacts with no more force ("power") than one dropped from say, 300 feet. Once an object reaches its terminal velocity due to gravity, additional height doesn't increase velocity.

Similarly, any bullet so powerful it blows a hole through the 'target' will cease imparting energy ("power") once it exits the target. That's not to say power isn't beneficial: additional power can provide more penetration which certainly helps if an adversary uses hard cover (vehicles, walls, etc.). Even if penetration is not achieved, a projectile with more energy can damage up to including killing an adversary wearing a protective vest through blunt force trauma.

I just wonder where the 'sweet spot' is on power vs portability/convenience. I think it's a matter of choice backed by personal preference presented as rationale. As rigorous studies have shown, there's a lot of hype that isn't supported by terminal ballistics. But if bullet diameter and power is the 'fix all', let's all carry .44 Magnums or a Linebaugh .500.

I mean, even being "realistic" in the area of EDC, there are 5-shot revolvers in .44 Special which are not significantly larger or heavier than many .38 Special revolvers designed for concealed carry.

A lot depends on the threat. I don't expect to be attacked by grizzly bears wearing protective vests on my property so I don't pack a bear gun. Of course, if I expected or assessed even a moderate risk of bear attack, I'd probably carry a rifle.

In the realm of terminal ballistics, the most powerful handgun is a poor substitute for most rifles. Studies of Old West shootings reveal that rifles/carbines were usually the weapons of choice brought to the fray when known it was for sure going to hit the fan.

Of course, just don't take an M1 Carbine (no knockdown power) or a Mini 14 (inaccurate).

;-)
 
I just wonder where the 'sweet spot' is on power vs portability/convenience. I think it's a matter of choice backed by personal preference presented as rationale. As rigorous studies have shown, there's a lot of hype that isn't supported by terminal ballistics. But if bullet diameter and power is the 'fix all', let's all carry .44 Magnums or a Linebaugh .500.

Of course, if I expected or assessed even a moderate risk of bear attack, I'd probably carry a rifle.

In the realm of terminal ballistics, the most powerful handgun is a poor substitute for most rifles.

Of course, just don't take an M1 Carbine (no knockdown power) or a Mini 14 (inaccurate).

;-)

I think these parts of your post are the important ones that can get lost when the conversation becomes completely about ballistics. All handguns are a compromise. Evan a .500 Linebaugh is more "convenient" than a long gun. For EDC concealed carry, even more compromises have to be made. I would add personal ability with the weapon to power and portability/convenience on the list for determining and individual 'sweet spot'.

And yeah, I'm the guy that had the inaccurate mini-14. Actually sold it because of my wife's ongoing medical bills not it's lack of accuracy. The funniest part of the story is I still occasionally see the guy I had that conversation with (hey, it's a small town) and 5 years later he can still barely be civil with me. :laser::mad2:
 
Funny how that works. Before I sold my mini-14, some guy at the range would always start talking smack about how inaccurate they were. My standard reply was, "Start running. Stop when you feel safe."
Funny. Local gun shop owner brought that up about the minis once in conversation. I wish I had thought of something that clever to say! Lol
 
Well...the "early" Mini-14's were often lacking in accuracy. But...

The latest Minis are more accurate.
The Mini has long suffered from a reputation among many users for poor accuracy. Theories abound as to why that is the case: My own is that the considerable mass of the operating slide impacts harshly against the gas block, which is bolted directly to the relatively thin barrel, not allowing the barrel to return to its precise point of rest between shots. But in 2005, Ruger retooled the Mini-14 production line and most shooters agree that, beginning with the 580-prefix series guns made since then, shooting 2" groups at 100 yds. is not out of the question. Again, it may come as a surprise to some, but not everyone needs a half-m.o.a.-capable rifle. Many tasks just don’t require that level of accuracy. In fact, most hunting and self-defense situations are in that category. Also, my experience is that accuracy and reliability in semi-automatic rifle actions is usually inversely proportional. So, anything that the Mini lacks in the way of accuracy is, practically speaking, likely more than made up for in reliability and cleanliness of operation and in lack of ammunition sensitivity.

https://www.americanrifleman.org/articles/2016/3/22/five-reasons-to-reconsider-the-ruger-mini-14/
 
Back
Top Bottom