omnia1911 Posted December 13, 2002 Share Posted December 13, 2002 This is strictly a hypothetical question: If L10 Division decided to allow 9mm/38super etc. to score major, would you switch from your .40 or .45 to one of these smaller calibers? There is no capacity advantage. Are you a believer in the idea that the smaller caliber = less recoil at the same power factor? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Dunn Posted December 13, 2002 Author Share Posted December 13, 2002 I would not switch until I was losing matches by 0.5 seconds or less, too many areas for me to improve on before caliber would make any observable difference. OTOH it would be a good excuse to get a new gun. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BSeevers Posted December 13, 2002 Share Posted December 13, 2002 I would switch in a second to simplify my life. One kind of brass, powder, bullet. I know keeping the lots separated would be a challenge. Lighter bullets equates to less recoil but there is a cut off point. There are 135 grain bullets for .40 but hardly anyone uses them. It is a VERY small difference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ErikW Posted December 13, 2002 Share Posted December 13, 2002 *Shuddering at thinking of shooting my 115 gr Super foo-foo ammo in a Limited gun.* I'd switch to Production. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lynn jones Posted December 13, 2002 Share Posted December 13, 2002 if someone shot limited all the time, he would have to switch to 38 super to stay competitive because of the magazine capacity. but, since that's not part of your question, yes, i'd change to be able to use lighter bullets, less recoil. lynn jones (Edited by lynn jones at 10:42 am on Dec. 13, 2002) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Ankeny Posted December 13, 2002 Share Posted December 13, 2002 Erik Warren: I shot some 115 grainers loaded with 3N37 to 168 PF through a Kimber. Oh my, I would rather shoot 230 hardball in a .45 any day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ErikW Posted December 13, 2002 Share Posted December 13, 2002 Even some Minor 9mm loads bite back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Thomas Posted December 14, 2002 Share Posted December 14, 2002 Yes, I'd switch. <gasp! the crowd recoils in shock> There might not be a capacity advantage but you can get 10 shots of .38 Super/.38 TJ/.38 SC/9x23 in a standard length 1911 magazine - which I find handles a bit more smoothly than a long 10-shot .45 mag. My only hesitation is that it's fairly easy to get a .45 magazine feeding correctly, and easy to not have problems with loaded rounds bumping the slide stop and locking the action open with ammo still in the magazine. But with a .38 Super, etc. and especially in 9mm Para, the magazine, and the mag/slide stop relationship have got to be absolutely spot-on on you're gonna have problems. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
omnia1911 Posted December 14, 2002 Share Posted December 14, 2002 This is a very eclectic set of replies to my question. I gather from the answers that there is no decisive competitive advantage to shooting 38super, as opposed to .40 and .45, when done at the same power factor and the same magazine capacity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chriss Grube Posted December 14, 2002 Share Posted December 14, 2002 Some stages there would be an advantage with the extra couple of rounds. Most stages it would be a wash. So it comes down to making major with a light, fast bullet that gives a whole lot of muzzle flip and blast or a heavier, slower bullet that doesn't blow the RO's glsses off. There are lighter bullets in the .40 but they are not used much because of this blast. When I was shooting .40 in Open I grabbed the wrong ammo and loaded some open ammo into my limited gun damn sure won't make that mistake again! My hat ended up 3 bays over! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j1b Posted December 14, 2002 Share Posted December 14, 2002 IF I were to change - it would be only to avoid loading ammo (cheap 9mm ammo). I don't believe there would be any performance difference between a 9mm or a .45. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Dunlop Posted December 14, 2002 Share Posted December 14, 2002 I've shot light bullets in 40 and don't really like the sensation. Its just a little too sharp for me, but saying that Matt B won that IPSC North American Champs with 150gn 40cal bullets so its doable! I'd expect a super to feel similarly snappy if everything else was the same, and the downside is the smaller diameter bullets would be less likely to cut the line. P.D. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Thomas Posted December 14, 2002 Share Posted December 14, 2002 "Some stages there would be an advantage with the extra couple of rounds." The question was about Limited-10, not Limited. There's no question how many rounds there will be in the magazine, with either caliber: 10. The question is whether you want those 10 rounds in a long tube (.45) or a standard length tube (.355). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Chiavacci Posted January 8, 2003 Share Posted January 8, 2003 The extra diameter of the .45 is an advatage in my opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JFD Posted January 8, 2003 Share Posted January 8, 2003 No way would I change from my .45 auto. The recoil/blast from my .38 Super is nasty with major loads. My .38 Super is only used for IDPA with the piss weak loads needed to be competitive in ESP. I'm too cowardly to try shooting minor in L-10. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Dunn Posted January 31, 2003 Author Share Posted January 31, 2003 Just wondering why the .40 takes a small primer when the parent case (10mm) takes a large pistol primer. Any idea what gives? (Edited by John Dunn at 6:45 am on Jan. 31, 2003) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogmaDog Posted January 31, 2003 Share Posted January 31, 2003 Just a newbie guess: The 10mm has a larger case volume, so it needs a larger primer to get a bigger flame and higher initial pressure inside the case, in order to ignite the powder. With a smaller case volume, it doesn't take as much of a priming flame to increase pressure in the case to ignition levels. Sound plausible?? DogmaDog Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ErikW Posted January 31, 2003 Share Posted January 31, 2003 Because the .40S&W was designed for manufacturers to convert their 9mm pistols with as little re-engineering as possible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Thomas Posted January 31, 2003 Share Posted January 31, 2003 Geez, am I the only guy who read those articles on designing the .40 S&W cartridge all those years ago? They went to a small primer because they were concerned about the ejector possibly hitting the edge of a large pistol primer and causing a detonation out of battery when racking a live round out of the chamber. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BSeevers Posted January 31, 2003 Share Posted January 31, 2003 I thought they flipped a coin? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogmaDog Posted January 31, 2003 Share Posted January 31, 2003 Duane, Is that a concern with the 10mm then? (If not, why not?) Huh. DD Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dirtypool40 Posted January 31, 2003 Share Posted January 31, 2003 no, they just didn't want all those 9mm's to have........PRIMER ENVY!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Dunn Posted January 31, 2003 Author Share Posted January 31, 2003 Duane, Why did the 10mm use large pistol primers if detonation was a concern? Was it a different extractor on the Bren Ten, or did D&D and Norma have the original design wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ErikW Posted January 31, 2003 Share Posted January 31, 2003 Duane, right, because they were using 9mm designs and didn't want to change the guns, like I said! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Thomas Posted February 1, 2003 Share Posted February 1, 2003 Just my personal opinion, but I do feel the large pistol primer in the 10mm is a design flaw. Obviously the folks designing the .40 S&W felt the same, and took the opportunity to rectify that while they were at the drawing board, so to speak. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now