if you were a firearms designer

[Alpo]

Would you make the gun and then come up with a cartridge to work in it?

 

Or would you make a cartridge and then build a gun around it?

 

There is a discussion on another board about parent cartridges, and someone mentioned that the 30-06 was a child of the 30-03 and the 30-01.

 

30/01? So I look it up.

 

After the war with Spain we were trying to find an improved cartridge - we were not happy with the 30 us.

 

Eventually they came up with a rimless cartridge they called the 30/01.

 

2 years later when they invented a rifle for it - the 1903 Springfield - they change the name of the cartridge from the 30/01 to the 30/03. That, apparently, is all they did to differentiate. They did not modify the cartridge in any way. They just changed the name.

 

So they made a cartridge and then they built a rifle to work with it.

 

Having never been in firearms design I just kind of assumed that it worked the other way - you build a gun and then design a cartridge.

[Stump Water]

13 minutes ago, Alpo said:

2 years later when they invented a rifle for it - the 1903 Springfield - they change the name of the cartridge from the 30/01 to the 30/03. That, apparently, is all they did to differentiate. They did not modify the cartridge in any way. They just changed the name.

 

While the .30-01 was the predecessor of the .30-03, it was actually a different cartridge.  It was the "thick rim".  The .30-03 was originally called the 30-45, but then it was changed to the .30-03 to indicate the year it was adopted.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.30-03_Springfield

 

When it comes to the military, they usually want a "round" that will do something different, then comes the platform.

[Alpo]

You could be correct. I do not know. Wiki could be correct. They get it right every once in awhile.

 

But the way this reads to me

https://www.cartridgecollector.net/cartridge/30-01-cal-30-ball-model-1901/

they just renamed the 30/01 when they came out with the 1903 rifle.

 

Of course, this guy could be wrong. Or I could be misinterpreting what I'm reading. Both of these have also happened before.

[Subdeacon Joe]

Well, if I were a FIREARMS designer,  I'd design the firearm first.   I might make it to use an existing round if I was satisfied with what was available for what I wanted to do, but was dissatisfied with existing platforms. 

 

If I liked to play with ammunition, make something that was faster,  or hit harder, or played Polyushka Polye on the way to the target,  I'd design the round and see what existing platform could be modified to use it.  Or maybe make some supersplendifferous platform to use my proprietary round. 

 

See my comments on  some thread a month or so ago about wishing some wildcater would get with a gun maker and come out with a .45-47 Trump and a revolver and lever action rifle for it.

[Forty Rod SASS 3935]

Looks to me like they are making cartridges to simply to make something "newer and better" and to make money from suckers who want to be ahead of the trend.

 

As examples I give you the M-16 and 1911 offshoots being manufactured today.  There are many others, but these will do for examples

 

M-16 variations are now in the catalog of dozens (or more) catalog of calibers, many of which are absolutely the same ballistics of others with no real improvement.  I think I even saw one in a shot gun "caliber" / gauge.

 

1911 pistols have been available in several calibers since they were first made, but now there are 1911 derivatives in many calibers and virtually identical basic frame and sizes....some larger, some smaller.... plus the various guns based on the 1911 pattern with some truly cheesy variations. mostly simply cosmetic, that seem to have a lot of "I gotta have it regardless of cost or usefulness just because it's new and cool" fans.

 

Strangely (or not) these are often owned by the same people who add pounds and inches to their pieces in the form of sights, sighting gadgets, strange stocks or grips, lasers, lights, pickaninny rails, bipods, slings, holsters, range finders and anything else they think will make them "cool".  This doesn't even address the ridiculous color schemes that I have seen in the last score of years. 

 

Generally, IMHO, they simply make the guns larger, heavier, clumsier, impossible to carry in almost any civilian situation...and the owners often don't have a clue how to effectively use all this frippery.

 

In my cave man arsenal I have a few truly useable guns.

 

A 1911 nearly stock .45 acp.  Enough stopping power for 99 44/100% of situations. Nicely tuned and prettier than it was originally.

 

A 1947 vintage Colt .38 special with  2" barrel for daily carry.  Again, enough stopping power for me, especially if I load down the  assailant with several holes in appropriate places.

 

A couple of 5 1/2" SAA revolvers in .45 LC.  Same as a above.  Not as practical, but a lot more fun and I seldom miss with them.

 

A Ithaca Model 37 pump gun, 24" inch 12 gauge barrel that will handle 7 -7 1'2 shot that will stop anything I'm apt to encounter in almost anyplace I will likely be.....if I remember to go for a head shot under 25 yards.

 

If I ever get cornered by a mastodon, a polar bear, or a huge dragon I'll use my 1886 Winchester .45-70 rifle.  It's a modern repro and will handle loads that are strong enough to make me wonder if I'd be better off with a tomahawk than suffering the recoil.

 

 I won't tell you how to spend your money (no matter how stupid I think you are for buying something) but don't try to convince me that you are better than I am for what I carry.

 

FWIW, I don't drive a Tesla either.

Edited June 21 by Forty Rod SASS 3935

[Subdeacon Joe]

40 minutes ago, Forty Rod SASS 3935 said:

M-16 variations are now in the catalog of dozens (or more) catalog of calibers, many of which are absolutely the same ballistics of others with no real improvement.

 

Designed to give the same ballistics as existing cartridges but function through the AR platform. Pull 2 pins, swap upper assemblies,  and you're set to go.  Usually less expensive than a whole new rifle. 

 

AND

 

Gun makers have to sell things to stay in business.  In general people won't buy 10 of the same model and caliber of a gun, excluding collectors who will have a dozen,  say, M-1 Carbines by a dozen different manufacturers.  Without putting out different,  New & Improved!!!, products trying to entice people to spend more money,  and possibly hooking people who have never before thought of owning a firearm, they wouldn't have enough sales to stay in business. 

[Sgt. C.J. Sabre, SASS #46770]

I think that if I were designing a gun, I'd go with an existing calibre. I would think that a new gun in a easily available calibre is more likely to sell than one that takes a new calibre, unless it's made for a very small niche market. 

Take, for instance, at the .45 GAP. Trying to fit a big bore in a smaller frame. It didn't sell well except for some of the Glockaholics. I know that Glock stopped making the gun, and I don't think anybody makes ammo for it anymore either, except maybe small batches occasionally.

To a lesser extent, the .357 SIG. Great idea, and it sold well for a while, but I think that 9mm bullet technology advanced to the point that it made the .357 SIG obsolete. 

Except for mostly hunters, the same could probably be said about the 10mm. 

Look at the .45 Wildey. Look FOR a .45 Wildey. Another idea whose time never came. 

How about the Desert Eagle. Great guns, but hardly practical. But how popular would they be if THEY were in a nonstandard calibre?  

Then think about the 1911. 114 years old and still going strong. S&W revolvers. How many model 10s are out there, and how many do they still sell? Must be enough so that they keep them making them. Same with .38 snubbies. They're still selling them even WITH the popularity of the micro 9s. 

Speaking of micro 9s, how well do you think they would have sold if the first few were in some obscure calibre? But make a small, lightweight gun in a common calibre and you have a winner. I think that we can thank Kel Tec for the idea. I believe they started the craze with their P-11, and followed up with the PF9. Then the P-32 and the P3AT. 

Now everybody sells them and it seems that there is a new one every week or two. 

OTOH, I'm not smart enough to design a gun, so what do I know? 

[Dapper Dave]

I'd think it depends on what it is you are trying to do. Design a great hunting rifle? Might want to work within existing rounds since you have a lot of room to play with. Make a new PDW that will fit in an airplane cockpit? Might need to play with both gun and round to find that magic sweet spot. Wanna make yet another A%15 in a new Humdinger of a caliber that will scorch the moon with zero recoil? Yeah, don't do that, I can't take another AR variant...

What do you want to build, what niche do you want to fill, that is how you approach the problem. I can see arguments for both sides.

[Sgt. C.J. Sabre, SASS #46770]

1 minute ago, Dapper Dave said:

I'd think it depends on what it is you are trying to do. Design a great hunting rifle? Might want to work within existing rounds since you have a lot of room to play with. Make a new PDW that will fit in an airplane cockpit? Might need to play with both gun and round to find that magic sweet spot. Wanna make yet another A%15 in a new Humdinger of a caliber that will scorch the moon with zero recoil? Yeah, don't do that, I can't take another AR variant...

What do you want to build, what niche do you want to fill, that is how you approach the problem. I can see arguments for both sides.

"What do you want" is the primary question. Mostly, gun makers, like everybody else, want to make money.

What will best do that?! Everything else is Marketing.

[Subdeacon Joe]

39 minutes ago, Sgt. C.J. Sabre, SASS #46770 said:

Then think about the 1911. 114 years old and still going strong.

 

I think a lot of that is because of the almost mythic qualities and iconic aura from WWII.  Granted, it's a marvelous example of design and engineering, but objectively there are many other pistols that are its equal, and some better.

[Texas Joker]

As an aside if the SHORT act becomes law has anyone given thought to what caliber /guagea modern Lemat  could be chambered in?

[Sgt. C.J. Sabre, SASS #46770]

34 minutes ago, Texas Joker said:

As an aside if the SHORT act becomes law has anyone given thought to what caliber /guagea modern Lemat  could be chambered in?

Originals were either a .42 or .36 calibre, so a modern version would probable do well with .38 Spl. pistol chambers and a 20 Ga. shotgun barrel. I think that a .45 chambered cylinder might be so large as to be unwieldy.

[Texas Joker]

Just now, Sgt. C.J. Sabre, SASS #46770 said:

Originals were either a .42 or .36 calibre, so a modern version would probable do well with .38 Spl. pistol chambers and a 20 Ga. shotgun barrel. I think that a .45 chambered cylinder might be so large as to be unwieldy.

.357/38sp? 20ga

 

454/45 colt 12ga?

 

They were for dragoon troops

[Sgt. C.J. Sabre, SASS #46770]

41 minutes ago, Subdeacon Joe said:

I think a lot of that is because of the almost mythic qualities and iconic aura from WWII.  Granted, it's a marvelous example of design and engineering, but objectively there are many other pistols that are its equal, and some better.

You might be right. But it makes the point about making a new gun vs. an older design. Tried and true over new and unknown. 

It's one of my EDCs.

[Whitey James]

JMB designed the 45 ACP in conjunction with the 1911. I would guess you would want to design a cartridge that meets whatever goals you are trying to accomplish and then build the gun around it.

[Sgt. C.J. Sabre, SASS #46770]

1 minute ago, Whitey James said:

JMB designed the 45 ACP in conjunction with the 1911. I would guess you would want to design a cartridge that meets whatever goals you are trying to accomplish and then build the gun around it.

Don't forget, at that time self contained were a relatively new idea. Even though they'd been around a while, there were far fewer cartridges than there are now, and many of them were still black powder. The .45ACP was a very early pistol cartridge to be able to take advantage of smokeless powder.  

[Pat Riot]

So @Forty Rod SASS 3935 Would you make the gun and then come up with a cartridge to work in it?

[Alpo]

1 hour ago, Whitey James said:

JMB designed the 45 ACP in conjunction with the 1911. I would guess you would want to design a cartridge that meets whatever goals you are trying to accomplish and then build the gun around it.

Actually he designed it in conjunction with the 1905.

 

https://www.nramuseum.org/guns/the-galleries/world-war-i-and-firearms-innovation/case-36-great-inventors/colt-model-1905-45-automatic-pistol.aspx

[Sgt. C.J. Sabre, SASS #46770]

16 minutes ago, Alpo said:

Actually he designed it in conjunction with the 1905.

 

https://www.nramuseum.org/guns/the-galleries/world-war-i-and-firearms-innovation/case-36-great-inventors/colt-model-1905-45-automatic-pistol.aspx

The 1911 was an "improved" 1905.

[H. K. Uriah, SASS #74619]

Well, I already designed the cartridge....



The cartridge on the right is a .45-70.

The cartridge on the left is a .45-70 cut back to .45 Colt length.   I call it the .45-45.   Both are loaded with the same 300 grain .458" bullet  I used data for a .45 Colt with a 300 grain bullet to develop a load.

I "designed" it for use as a sub round in single shot rifles chambered for .45-70 for informal plinking.  It works very well in that context.  No recoil whatsoever.

On a whim, I loaded some into my Winchester 1886, and they worked!  You have to be a little careful, but they did properly cycle.  I also tried them in a Uberti 76 in .45-60.   The double feeded, (Or is that double fed?) so they did not work.   Then I tried them in my large frame Colt Lighting.  Dang it all of they did not function flawlessly and with no need to slow down or be careful.  That made me quite happy.

I did ask the powers that be if the cartridge would be SASS Legal in several different contexts, and I was told no.   No biggie.  I did it for informal reasons to begin with.

But now that the cartridge "exists," it would perhaps be fun if I purpose built gun could be made for it.   It would of course work in those behemoth sized pistols chambered for .45-70, but maybe something only slightly larger than a standard SAA could work with it.  Or some sort of a repeating rifle.  No need to purpose build a single shot rifle, as any .45-70 would do.

Hey!   Maybe a derringer for it would be nice.   As far as I know, the only derringers for .45-70 are single barrel ones, this one could be no more powerful than the hottest .45 Colt loads.  Interestingly, I did not design this to be a "hot .45"  I designed it to be a "mild .45-70."

[Sgt. C.J. Sabre, SASS #46770]

19 minutes ago, H. K. Uriah, SASS #74619 said:

Hey!   Maybe a derringer for it would be nice.   As far as I know, the only derringers for .45-70 are single barrel ones, this one could be no more powerful than the hottest .45 Colt loads.  Interestingly, I did not design this to be a "hot .45"  I designed it to be a "mild .45-70."

Would it work in a Taurus Judge? Or a S&W Governor?

How about a pic comparing it to a .45 Colt? Maybe somebody knows of another .45 Colt with a slightly longer cylinder.

Edited June 22 by Sgt. C.J. Sabre, SASS #46770

[H. K. Uriah, SASS #74619]

2 minutes ago, Sgt. C.J. Sabre, SASS #46770 said:

Would it work in a Taurus Judge? Or a S&W Governor?

If those pistols are chambered for .45-70, yes.

If they are not, no.

[Sgt. C.J. Sabre, SASS #46770]

1 minute ago, H. K. Uriah, SASS #74619 said:

If those pistols are chambered for .45-70, yes.

If they are not, no.

Okay, I guess that any existing pistol except for a BFR or an old Century would be out. Would it be worth it, (to you), to have an SAA, or anything else for that matter, barrel bored out to handle the .458 bullet, and the chamber reamed out for the case? Maybe a .454 Casull like a Taurus Raging Bull. Or might a Super Blackhawk have the beef to handle it.

[Big Sage, SASS #49891 Life]

In the example that Alpo used, it was a cartridge first, then a rifle. 

 

In the Spanish American War the Spanish Army was using smokeless German rifles and our rifle was the 30-40 Krag using BP. The smoke from the 30-40 gave away our positions and because the Spanish were using smokeless we couldn't see theirs. After the war we knew we had to have a smokeless cartridge. The rest is history.

 

Teddy Roosevelt complained a lot about our using black powder in his book about the Rough Riders in this war.

[Dapper Dave]

A LeMat in 357 Mag and 28 ga...

[Alpo]

1 hour ago, Big Sage, SASS #49891 Life said:

and our rifle was the 30-40 Krag using BP

You made a little error there Sage.

 

Just like the 30 carbine was always loaded with non corrosive primers,  the 30 40 Krag was always loaded with smokeless powder. It was the first smokeless powder cartridge used by the US military.

 

All of the other volunteer units - excepting for Roosevelt's Rough Riders - were armed with trapdoor Springfields. So yes, there was much black powder smoke in the air. But none of it came from the Krags.

[H. K. Uriah, SASS #74619]

5 hours ago, Sgt. C.J. Sabre, SASS #46770 said:

Okay, I guess that any existing pistol except for a BFR or an old Century would be out. Would it be worth it, (to you), to have an SAA, or anything else for that matter, barrel bored out to handle the .458 bullet, and the chamber reamed out for the case? Maybe a .454 Casull like a Taurus Raging Bull. Or might a Super Blackhawk have the beef to handle it.

 

Too make a long story short, I did some measuring.   A Walker is not big enough.  Nor is the Uberti SAA clone in .44 Magnum that has a slightly enlarged frame. 

Part of the "problem" is that the .45-70 is not a straight case, it is tapered jus a bit to be wider at the base than the mouth.  Just wider enough that things don't fit.
 

I'd still enjoy finding one of the old Centuries though, just for fun.

[Boggus Deal #64218]

4 hours ago, H. K. Uriah, SASS #74619 said:

 

Too make a long story short, I did some measuring.   A Walker is not big enough.  Nor is the Uberti SAA clone in .44 Magnum that has a slightly enlarged frame. 

Part of the "problem" is that the .45-70 is not a straight case, it is tapered jus a bit to be wider at the base than the mouth.  Just wider enough that things don't fit.
 

I'd still enjoy finding one of the old Centuries though, just for fun.

A New Model Blackhawk or Super Blackhawk would work with a 5 shot cylinder. John Limbaugh used them and the .45-70 case to make the .475 Limbaugh. The .475 is a shortened and straightened .45-70. 

[Boggus Deal #64218]

If you wanted a fixed sight revolver, you could use a Vaquero. Just not a New Vaquero.

[H. K. Uriah, SASS #74619]

Let's assume that there is a revolver on the market that could handle the .45-45.   All it would need would be a cylinder that holds the cartridges, and a barrel with the correct bore.   The latter is easy enough to do.  The former is more questionable, but if a large enough cylinder exists, it could be done.

[Big Sage, SASS #49891 Life]

9 hours ago, Alpo said:

You made a little error there Sage.

 

Just like the 30 carbine was always loaded with non corrosive primers,  the 30 40 Krag was always loaded with smokeless powder. It was the first smokeless powder cartridge used by the US military.

 

All of the other volunteer units - excepting for Roosevelt's Rough Riders - were armed with trapdoor Springfields. So yes, there was much black powder smoke in the air. But none of it came from the Krags.

I checked in the book and they were using the trapdoor springfield and wanted to Krag. The Trapdoor was BP. I got them reversed....my 83 year old brain!!

[Boggus Deal #64218]

33 minutes ago, H. K. Uriah, SASS #74619 said:

Let's assume that there is a revolver on the market that could handle the .45-45.   All it would need would be a cylinder that holds the cartridges, and a barrel with the correct bore.   The latter is easy enough to do.  The former is more questionable, but if a large enough cylinder exists, it could be done.

Nothing to assume. It has been done.  Cylinders made from scratch or I’d look at a Ruger Bisley in .454 should be enough meat to rechamber. It would be only a five shot gun.  Bowen made a .577 Redhawk. 

[Alpo]

2 hours ago, Big Sage, SASS #49891 Life said:

I checked in the book and they were using the trapdoor springfield and wanted to Krag. The Trapdoor was BP. I got them reversed....my 83 year old brain!!

I remember, from the TNT miniseries Rough riders. Roosevelt insisting that his volunteers would have to have the Krag carbine with the smokeless ammunition.

[H. K. Uriah, SASS #74619]

As far as the cartridge LeMat goes, .38 S&W and a .45-70 shotshell.

[Whitey James]

After watching "Westworld" on HBO I thought it would be cool to have a LeMat converted for cartridges.