I'm going to be shooting it through heavy clothing also.Originally Posted by Velo Dog
As far as other barriers, I don't think this round is intended as a service caliber since there are no duty size pistols made for it at this point, so maybe not as relevant.
We could isolate Russia totally from the world and maybe they could apply for membership after 2000 years.
Federal has updated its .30SC graphics to reflect a +3 gain relative to 10rds of 9mm:
If we imagine both of these stacks doubled in length, a 20rd 9mm mag would hold 26rd. Tripled a 30rd 9mm mag would hold 39rd.
If other companies take the plunge for .30SC, we could see a G19X 19rd (17+2) length mag that holds 25rd, and a G18 33rd 9mm mag that holds 40-42rd.
The real question for me though is what a 17rd 9mm mag will transfer to. Will it be 20, or 21-22?
A SIG Macro with a 21-22rd flush fit mag would get very interesting, even moreso with 25rd reload mags the length of a Glock 17+2.
That graph is deceptive... the stacks are NOT the same lenghtFederal has updated its .30SC graphics to reflect a +3 gain relative to 10rds of 9mm:
on the left side, 30 Super: 7.5*0.344" = 2.58"
on the right, 9 mm Para: 5.5*0.392" = 2.167" ; if we increase the stack to 6.5 (12 rounds) 6.5*0.392" = 2.548"
Double stack, single feed mags are not compared exactly like this due to the transition zone, but still I very much doubt that apples to apples you would get +3 rounds in a lenght that fits 10 rounds of 9 mm Para.
You could make the gun slimmer, but since the 30 Super has exactly the same recoil impulse of the 9 mm Para, you cannot (apples to apples, using the same design tricks for both) make it lighter. Recoil operated pistols work that way...
I a low recoil load is developed (in physics, not in name only), then the overall weight of the recoiling parts could be reduced, but at the cost of making the gun less than optimal por the "normal" recoil loads.
Thank you for doing the math.
Perhaps it's more a reflection of clever engineering rather than the cartridge alone, but S&W has gotten +3 with the Shield Plus, using an identical mag length/gun size. The flush fit mag holds 13x 30sc vs 10x 9mm.
I guess we must wait and see for what a longer mag will result in capacity wise.
What I had imagined is a dedicated 30SC gun thats a bit slimmer, and comparable in weight to the very lightest 9mm guns.You could make the gun slimmer, but since the 30 Super has exactly the same recoil impulse of the 9 mm Para, you cannot (apples to apples, using the same design tricks for both) make it lighter. Recoil operated pistols work that way...
I a low recoil load is developed (in physics, not in name only), then the overall weight of the recoiling parts could be reduced, but at the cost of making the gun less than optimal por the "normal" recoil loads.
KelTec PF9 = 12.6oz
Rohrbaugh R9 = 13.5oz
KelTec P15 = 14oz
By being slimmer, the 30SC guns could hopefully hit these weights as a matter of course, rather than being oddball ultralights. Hopefully without having to be made by KelTec.
The Shield Plus as a very unique magazine that tapers very early to single stack...
True, but it still holds 3 more rounds then the 9.
We could isolate Russia totally from the world and maybe they could apply for membership after 2000 years.
...that's the "apples to apples" part, this design favours thinner rounds. A normal double 9 mm stack metal mag is no really an impediment to make a thin pistol, unless you really try to squeeze down to the last (irrelevant) mm.
So, this is where Federal needs to make inroads. It is not the same recoil impulse! Try it yourself. I was a huge naysaer, until I shot the Shield in .30. It is loud like a crack, but recoil is brief and almost straight back if that makes sense. I really liked it. I will get a shield when one pops up locally.You could make the gun slimmer, but since the 30 Super has exactly the same recoil impulse of the 9 mm Para, you cannot (apples to apples, using the same design tricks for both) make it lighter. Recoil operated pistols work that way...
I a low recoil load is developed (in physics, not in name only), then the overall weight of the recoiling parts could be reduced, but at the cost of making the gun less than optimal por the "normal" recoil loads.
Reply With Quote
