Firearm & Gun Forum - FireArmsTalk.com

Firearm & Gun Forum - FireArmsTalk.com (http://www.firearmstalk.com/forums/)
-   Ammunition & Reloading (http://www.firearmstalk.com/forums/f30/)
-   -   9x19 to 9x17 and a question for casters (http://www.firearmstalk.com/forums/f30/9x19-9x17-question-casters-47739/)

BigByrd47119 09-04-2011 01:17 AM

9x19 to 9x17 and a question for casters
 
Allow me to start off by saying thanks for the patience! I know at least the first question must have been covered before.

Can the 9x19 be trimmed to 9x17? I cant see an issue with this, but I dont want to find out you cant the hard way...

For you casters out there: What can be done voluntarily to effect change in the .380 round to allow for more reliable expansion? Is the issue related to the jacket? Perhaps a softer bullet itself would facilitate more effective expansion? Could a deeper cavity make the change I would like to see? Can any of these things be done without bleeding off massive quantities of penetration? Please! Someone create a .380 round that will end this ".380 isnt effective" debate that we always hear!

Thanks again.

noylj 09-04-2011 05:23 AM

Of course you can trim a 9x19 case to same length as a 9x17.
However, the 9x19 is a very tapered case with a case head diameter of 0.394", while the 9x17 is much less tapered and has a smaller case head.
It "might" work, but why ruin good brass?

c3shooter 09-04-2011 12:45 PM

2 Attachment(s)
Developed by different people at different times and different places. Not a good idea to try swapping.

Attachment 32555

Attachment 32556

Lindenwood 09-04-2011 03:07 PM

For reliable expansion, the .380 is simply limited by power.

For reliable expansion, you need velocity. But, for reliable penetration of an expanded bullet, you need heavier mass for the caliber. The .380 doesn't have the power to achieve both of these consistently. Usually what you end up with are lighter bullets that expand well and penetrate poorly, or heavy bullets that don't consistently expand.

There are two options, IMO: A lighter bullet but with a small cavity, so that expansion is relatively moderate for the bullet weight. This will keep the bullet from opening up too much and stopping the bullet too early. Otherwise, a heavy bullet but with a large cavity, to hopefully allow for expansion at the lower velocities. But, those are just conjector.

If I carried a .380, it would be with truncated-cone (because it's still more effective than round-nosed Ball), non-expanding bullets. That way I KNOW that if I can put the bullets where they need to go, they'll make it the rest of the way. I wouldn't like the idea of not knowing whether or not my bullets are just going to stop in the BG's bicep to let him shoot me with his other hand.

BigByrd47119 09-05-2011 01:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by noylj (Post 574369)
It "might" work, but why ruin good brass?

Because I no longer own a 9mm and 9mm casing is literally less than a dime a dozen.

Quote:

Originally Posted by c3shooter (Post 574430)
Developed by different people at different times and different places. Not a good idea to try swappin.

Point taken. Its a real shame I have to say. I might have to do some more research into the topic and see if anyone else out there has done it and what kind of results they have got. Thanks for saying so though, god knows what I mighta done to myself ;)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lindenwood (Post 574490)
For reliable expansion, you need velocity. But, for reliable penetration of an expanded bullet, you need heavier mass for the caliber. The .380 doesn't have the power to achieve both of these consistently. Usually what you end up with are lighter bullets that expand well and penetrate poorly, or heavy bullets that don't consistently expand.

There are two options, IMO: A lighter bullet but with a small cavity, so that expansion is relatively moderate for the bullet weight. This will keep the bullet from opening up too much and stopping the bullet too early. Otherwise, a heavy bullet but with a large cavity, to hopefully allow for expansion at the lower velocities. But, those are just conjector.

If I carried a .380, it would be with truncated-cone (because it's still more effective than round-nosed Ball), non-expanding bullets. That way I KNOW that if I can put the bullets where they need to go, they'll make it the rest of the way. I wouldn't like the idea of not knowing whether or not my bullets are just going to stop in the BG's bicep to let him shoot me with his other hand.

This pretty much falls in line with what I expected. How would one go about creating such an experimental bullet? Or perhaps a better question is why hasnt anyone done so?

My theory on JHP .380 ammo is this. If the round fails to expand due to bullet failure (clogged cavity) then I have essentially a ball round. No harm no foul. However, if the round does expand, I am happy with 10 inches of penetration. Ballistics that I have seen consisting of gel, pork ribs, a cotten shirt, and a heavy coat have indicated that 10 inches of penetration are consistently possible with certain rounds. Oddly, the one round that did horribly was Hornidays Critical Defense, which penetrated the ballistics gel to about 3 inches and shreded itself to 25+ pieces. Not confidence inspiring. Golden Sabber however was a different story.


All times are GMT. The time now is 08:45 PM.

Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.