I only have two single-stack 9mm Luger pistols, and they are the same model S&W 3913, but I can't say I've ever had feed problems with them. I understood that, at least theoretically, the taper is an advantage in reliability due to extraction being simpler- the case only has to move a very short distance before it is no longer contacting the chamber walls.
I could be remembering that wrong. I'm sitting in a dentists chair at the moment with a numb face, after all.
It is a plus for extraction, and perhaps even feeding into the chamber. As a reference, the 9x19 body taper is virtually identical to the 5.56x45, and about 37% larger than the 308 Win.
It is a drawback in the sense that makes tuning the geometry of the stack of rounds in a straight magazine more complicated, since the interaction between rounds is ever changing. That's why newer HK MP5 mags are curved, to help present every bullet into the feeding lips the same way. Most modern high capacity rifle mags are designed to be curved for this reason, even with the modest body taper of most rifle calibers.
But as Chuck pointed out this mostly theoretical, since there are many VERY reliable guns in 9x19 with straight mags. In pistols (relatively short column in the stack) this is even less of an issue, since the cumulative angular play is smaller. This is also why rifle rounds work OK with straight mags up to 20 rounds or so.
"A straight-walled case dramatically improves cartridge feed angle and feeding reliability."
It's pretty hard to imagine how one could "dramatically" improve the feeding reliability of the 9mm cartridge...
Last edited by j.d.allen; 08-05-2016 at 03:08 PM.
Don't forget the 7.62 Schwartzlose and Mannlicher, pretty much the same as Borchardt.Originally Posted by TiroFijo
The usual explanation I have seen for the 7.65x25 Luger was that Ol' George wanted to put both the magazine and the action spring in the gun butt, so he shortened the round to allow for a comfortable grip size. Unlike the later CZ52.
I don't know how standard 9mm was before the Para, a couple obscure revolvers are all I know. After the Luger came the 9mm Steyr, Bergman, and Mauser.
Could the basic brass be opened up to take a .366" bullet? There were all manner of 9.3mm rifles to get everybody comfortable with the caliber.
For that matter, why did no major designer and manufacturer bring out an 8mm pistol? Everybody and his brother in Europe were making 8mm rifles. Talk about a non-funny caliber. The only thing I can think of without research was the 1892 French revolver. If Borchardt and Luger had gone 8mm, would the German Navy, et al. have pressed for a 9mm?
What's needed is a reliable medium and spirit guide to put us in touch with the designers so they can explain the development.
Nambu.
And the 8mm Roth Steyr
It's interesting that the bottle necked 8mm Nambu was actually weaker in power than the straight walled 8mm Roth Steyer. Either way, calibers smaller than 9mm kinda disappeared from service use after WWII. Maybe those smaller calibers developed an undesirable track record during the war, while larger calibers demonstrated more desirable effects? There was a LOT of caliber changes made by many counties as a result of the lessons learned on the WWII battlefield. The Italians found their 6.5mm rifles inadequate, and were converting to a 7.35mm cartridge. The Japanese found their 6.5mm rifles also inadequate, and were in the process of converting to a 7.7mm cartridge. Then of course the there was the birth of the true intermediate assault rifle cartridges in Germany and Russian, not to mention the Russians ditching the 7.62 Tokarev in favor of the 9x18mm. Realistically though, WWII was the last major conflict where pistol calibers were used in combat in such huge numbers. We will never see a major world conflict again where pistol calibers are used at even a small fraction of the numbers that were used in WWII. Now days we understand that caliber effectiveness can be improved with technologically advanced projectiles, but there is something to be said for the HUGE observation data points in WWII.
Last edited by Hauptmann; 08-06-2016 at 12:00 PM.
There was a lot of this silliness going on back then;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mod%C3%A8le_1892_revolver
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nagant_M1895
In matching pistol bore size to rifle bore size to keep tooling cheaper. But rudimentary designs, R&D, trying to figure out what worked and what didn't, and WW1 put a monkey wrench into a lot of that, and people went with what they could get, right now, what somebody already paid the R&D on, etc. Hence things happening such as the French issuing the .32acp Ruby pistols en masse.
Post WW1 we had good ideas shot down due to the amount of stuff left over from the war, hence the US sticking with the 30-06 and forcing the Garand to be redesigned, the Depression, etc.
I am the owner of Agile/Training and Consulting
www.agiletactical.com
Of course, this "need pistols right now" thing is what gave us the 1917 and moon clips.
I do love all those weird and wonderful old pre WWI automatics from back when they were still trying to get everything figured out, and every national arsenal wanted their own unique cartridges.
Well darn. There WERE 8mm autopistols that slipped my mind. The 8mm Nambu was dead ended when WWII was over. They went 9mm P with the New Nambu which looks like a Commander, now issue a license built P220.
The 8mm Roth Steyr is interesting and no Pussycat. But the Austrians then went with the proprietary 9mm Steyr in the Steyr Hahn.
So I don't guess there WAS a wide market for an 8mm pistol.
Reply With Quote