CAR16 9mmSuperMagnum

What do you fellows think about this.

http://www.hunt101.com/img/491115.JPG

What do you fellows think about this.

http://www.hunt101.com/img/491115.JPG

I don't think that cartridge case has enough capacity to l launch speakers on a flat trajectory. I think you'd be giving up quite a bit to a well-thrown brick. Also, at speeds over 100fps, the cones in the speaker would likely tear. :D


PS: ROTFLMFAO

It makes sense to me - with all the alternative calibers popping up such as the .45 Bushmaster a straight walled case from a .223 would probably sell.

Feed from existing .223 magazines with slight lip modifications should be great. Same capacity as .223 mags.......

You could keep the pressures fairly low and still push 9mm pistol bullets to very high velocities. It should also work well in shorter 10" and 14" barrels with full powder burn. You should post it in the PDW discussion thread.

Roy I'll have you know that that is launches the Speaker Shuttle quite well.

Rob...exactly. We all know how well the 9mmx19 performs in a submachinegun, so with this round we could have a bit more penetration especially with special projectiles. Certainly wouldn't be any bolt problems either. Be easy for the brass manufacturers too, just eliminate any taper and necking down process.

What do you say Bill?

How about the 9mm Solidpoint or the 9mm Reginald?

Joe

This could be a viable PDW cartridge if it fed from existing .223 magazines like someone already said and was optimized to burn in a 10" barrel like the Knight 6mm round. Just put a 10" AR variant with this caliber for support troops and see what happens. Of course it would actually have to be a good round, but hey speculation is fun!

EDIT: I just re-read what Reginhild said and he pretty much said what I said except smarter-er so I digress...

This is exactly what I was thinking when I formed the round up for photos. You know too that the projectile can be made even heavier then the 115 gr that's in the picture. So image a bullet between 115 and say 175, or even 200 grs moving out well over 1500 fps. I think there is a lot of avenue here to investigate.

Joe

This is a very amusing, yet interesting thread. :D I am curious if this has not been thought of before? It seems like SOMEONE would have thought of it! I mean hell, Marty TerWeme is putting 7.62x25 brass with 125gr rifle bullets into Berretta 92's and AR's, so it seems someone would have though of sticking a 9mm bullet in a .223 case. It is a cool idea for sure! I gotta get that book about wildcat calibers. This stuff is so frigging fascinating! This might also give me the impetus to have a "pistol" caliber AR, but not really. I wanted a .45acp or 9mm AR, but unless you got a SBR, what's the point?

Hopefully Bill will pipe in here and give his thoughts. Here sure does have them thoughts afterall!

I have a 14" contender barrel in 10mmMAG. I can get 2080fps with 20gr AA#9 and a 135 nosler HP. I've wondered about this myself.

This is a very amusing, yet interesting thread. :D I am curious if this has not been thought of before? It seems like SOMEONE would have thought of it! I mean hell, Marty TerWeme is putting 7.62x25 brass with 125gr rifle bullets into Berretta 92's and AR's, so it seems someone would have though of sticking a 9mm bullet in a .223 case. It is a cool idea for sure! I gotta get that book about wildcat calibers. This stuff is so frigging fascinating! This might also give me the impetus to have a "pistol" caliber AR, but not really. I wanted a .45acp or 9mm AR, but unless you got a SBR, what's the point?

Hopefully Bill will pipe in here and give his thoughts. Here sure does have them thoughts afterall!


Curly,

I have a Thompson and an HK UPC Carbine, both is 45acp..so i don't need a 45acp AR.

Heck another interesting round would be to make the 375 Winchester (the rimmed lever-action round) rimless, shortened, and chambered to the AR.

Joe

This is exactly what I was thinking when I formed the round up for photos. You know too that the projectile can be made even heavier then the 115 gr that's in the picture. So image a bullet between 115 and say 175, or even 200 grs moving out well over 1500 fps. I think there is a lot of avenue here to investigate.
Joe

I think a 115gr JHP @ 2,000 fps is more like it. I would also try for a bit more aerodynamic shape. Something in the .25-.30 BC range, and use the full 5.56 COAL. Maybe one of those new JHP with polymer-filled "hollow" to keep the MV & BC up and grain-weight down. This would make an awesome SBR rifle cartridge out to about 150-200 yards. I'd see the effective range being similar to a .22WMR, even if drop & drift would be somewhat greater. Now make me a race gun for USPSA Open class with a built in double-tapper and I'm a happy camper! :D

PS: Plus, the system would have some THUNDEROUS bass! :cool:

Joe,
How does this compare with the WW-II 30 caliber carbine round?

Well Roy, first you joked and made fun, now you're asking questions. Guess you didn't think anyone would take it seriously.

Well let's see, the average velocity of the 30 carbine's 110 gr bullet is 1900 to 1970 fps. That gives us approx. 882 ft pounds at the 1900 fps velocity. Say we have a 115 gr 9mm moving at 2000 fps, the me would be about 1022 ft pounds, quite a difference.

Joe

What do you fellows think about this.

http://www.hunt101.com/img/491115.JPG


Looks like a taller 9mm Winchester Magnum. What's the case length?

Interesting, to say the least. I've thought of this before as well and it would make hogs in Georgia cry and run.


Another idea - take a .308 cartridge, cut it at about 25mm and neck it down to 9mm - use .357SIG bullets - should make a supreme PDW/pistol round. Out of a short barrel, it should rattle the nuts off a rottweiller.


There are plenty of options out there - all it takes is a nutcase and some money.

Mike,

It's a 5.56 case just necked out and you can plainly see how it shortened necking it out. It's much longer then a 9mm Magnum.

Joe

Feed from existing .223 magazines with slight lip modifications should be great.
I hate to burst another bubble, but it'd almost certainly require new, cartridge-specific magazines. With standard .223 mags, there'd be excessive friction between the cartridge case and the front reinforcing ribs, which are dimensioned for the much smaller neck diameter of the .223 case.

I don't think so Stanc.

Joe

Well Roy, first you joked and made fun, now you're asking questions. Guess you didn't think anyone would take it seriously.

Well let's see, the average velocity of the 30 carbine's 110 gr bullet is 1900 to 1970 fps. That gives us approx. 882 ft pounds at the 1900 fps velocity. Say we have a 115 gr 9mm moving at 2000 fps, the me would be about 1022 ft pounds, quite a difference.

Joe

Joe,

Did you go and get thin-skinned on me? :eek: I just find it hard to believe the world is in desperate need of yet another cartridge.

Oh hell no Roy, I'm just teasing...sorry forgot to put the kidding smiley in there.

Yeah you may be right, but just about everyone comes out with one every month.

Joe

Some guys have taken 10mm down to 9mm to make a 357 sig on steroids. I think there is also a 224BOZ which is another 10mm offspring. The problem I run into with the 40 cals pills in the magnum is they can't take being pushed past 2100fps without the accuracy falling off really quick. This would be even more of an issue with the current 9mm's available. I got a 229 in 357 sig when they first came out and had dies made. The first year was kinda frustrating as no one made .355 cals that could be pushed to the full potential. Even thoughthat has all changed, it would be smart to stick with .357's just for the greater pill selection.

I don't think so Stanc.
On what do you base this opinion, Joe?

According to JD Jones, creator of the 300 Whisper, he experienced this mag friction problem with that round when loaded in some makes of .223 AR15 mags. Since the 300 Whisper was only contending with the .308" diameter of the bullet, but your 9mm Extra Extra Long would have the much larger (circa .378") diameter near the case mouth, how could it not cause excess friction...and resulting feeding unreliability?

Maybe you're right Stanc, guess we'd have to use not so available 300 Whisper magazines...or something else.

Joe

On what do you base this opinion, Joe?

According to JD Jones, creator of the 300 Whisper, he experienced this mag friction problem with that round when loaded in some makes of .223 AR15 mags. Since the 300 Whisper was only contending with the .308" diameter of the bullet, but your 9mm Extra Extra Long would have the much larger (circa .378") diameter near the case mouth, how could it not cause excess friction...and resulting feeding unreliability?

.50 Beowulf feeds fine out of .223 mags with slight lip modifications.

I was thinking similar to .30 Carbine when you posted - the big difference is using .223/5.56 bolt head and partially finished brass production would make this a quick low-cost do-able project for the AR15 platform.

Considering 5.56 pressures, .50 beowulf velocities, 115gr bullet weight, larger than Grendel rear surface area...I'd bet on 2700+fps with pressures under 50K on a 5.56 bolt face!

Rob, I see what Stanc meant, it's not that it would feed or the lips and all, it's the rounds down inside the magazine. There's ribs where the necks are for the 5.56 and being my round is fatter there, also that there are two abreast, there would be friction like Stanc said. Don't forget the 50 Beowulf is single column loaded so as long as it fits between the mag ribs it's fine.

Yes, I still think it would be a good round for intended purpose.

Joe

.50 Beowulf feeds fine out of .223 mags with slight lip modifications.

I was thinking similar to .30 Carbine when you posted - the big difference is using .223/5.56 bolt head and partially finished brass production would make this a quick low-cost do-able project for the AR15 platform.

Considering 5.56 pressures, .50 beowulf velocities, 115gr bullet weight, larger than Grendel rear surface area...I'd bet on 2700+fps with pressures under 50K on a 5.56 bolt face!

Well, that might be a little optimistic, but even if 2,500 fps, with it's low BC it wouldn't make much difference. What it would do is get most of the MV it will ever have in SBR length barrels. For more punch and better accuracy and a higher BC I would go with a 124gr JHP. Somebody makes a 9mm JHP that is so closed at the nose that it almost looks like an OTM. That would be a good balance between opening like a flower and longer range. Nobody needs a high MV for 20yrd work.

I have to wonder if the Germans and Russians didn't go through this same investigation process before settling on the 7.92 Kurtz and 7.62x39. The Germans in particular were looking for a machine-pistol with longer range when they came out with their assult rifle. Of course, they may have chosen the cartridge because 7.92 bullets and barrels were available and a whole new caliber might not have been a war-time option.

Personally, I'd rather start with a 6.8 SPC case and blow that out to 9mm. Since the SPC was supposed to be a special tool for CQB it's a real head-scratcher as to why they didn't do this in the first place. My calcs have a MV from the 6.8SPC case with a 9mm 124 gr at 2,311fps.

Probably why they didn't do this with a 6.8 SPC is because they were looking more towards a rifle round then a close range machinepistol/carbine round. If we got with the 6.8 case we're back to the getting away from the stronger and more plentiful 5.56 bolt and the special magazines too. Remington didn't just reintroduce the 30 Rem brass, the case the 6.8 is derived from has the same head and dimensions of the 30 Rem yes, but it's web is much much thicker because they knew the pressures would be much higher.

As for not needing high velocity at 20 work, yes you do, bullet material and high velocity are what penetrate bullet proof vests and armor. Don't sell the old WWII 7.62x25 Tokarev round short, as it's high velocity is it's virtue.

Joe

I'd be more afraid of the 7.62x25tok brass flying at me than the guy shooting the CZ52 running at me! That crap flies like 25yds or so!!!

The Germans just about shit their pants when they first encountered the Russians PPSH41 submachineguns firing that round. 79 round drum, around a 900 rpm cycling rate and the muzzle blast was deafening.

Joe

Probably why they didn't do this with a 6.8 SPC is because they were looking more towards a rifle round then a close range machinepistol/carbine round. If we got with the 6.8 case we're back to the getting away from the stronger and more plentiful 5.56 bolt and the special magazines too. Remington didn't just reintroduce the 30 Rem brass, the case the 6.8 is derived from has the same head and dimensions of the 30 Rem yes, but it's web is much much thicker because they knew the pressures would be much higher.

As for not needing high velocity at 20 work, yes you do, bullet material and high velocity are what penetrate bullet proof vests and armor. Don't sell the old WWII 7.62x25 Tokarev round short, as it's high velocity is it's virtue.

Joe

If you want to penetrate vests, forget going to a larger caliber. Its the wrong direction. Maybe before you start bending brass you should decide what it is intended to do.

If you want to penetrate vests, forget going to a larger caliber. Its the wrong direction. Maybe before you start bending brass you should decide what it is intended to do.

Yes, I'm aware of that Roy...that's why I talk much of the Tokarev round. I was just saying by adding a lot of velocity to my 9mm round, especially with a special purpose bullet, it could probably achieve that mission.

Joe

Remington sold a high power 9mm carbine and cartridge many years ago. it's called the 350 Remington magnum and was the most powerful cartridge available for the model 660 bolt action carbine. I have one. It's a 6 lb rifle that kicks like a mule shooting 250 grain .358 diameter jacketed soft points at 2400 fps from an 18" barrel. It wouldn't fit in an AR-15 but an AR-10 could be made to work.

Hey Lou? If you have a camera could you break it down a bit, put the interesting bits on a mirror, add a lot of light, and take some pics for us? A goose-necked halogen desk lamp works great.

Just found this stuff:

http://www.rifleshootermag.com/gun_accessories/rem_350_mag/index.html

http://www.cabelas.com/information/cabelas-field-guides/Firearms-Techniques/Remingtons-600-Revisited.html

http://www.chuckhawks.com/rem_673_rifles.htm

http://www.remington.com/products/firearms/centerfire_rifles/model_673_specs.asp

It is the new version of course, but I just figured that info might help the discussion!

Weren't some of the wildcats that led to 9x23 based on .223 Remington brass?

With the right bullets, this could also be to 5.56x45 what 9x39 is to 7.62x39.

Why not use the 6.5 MPC and optimize it for a full burn in a 10" barrel? In one of stanc's Guns for Military and Police articles he mentioned that you can use the .223 brass, but just resize it to accept the 6.5 bullet. Think about it, as a PDW weapon it would be perfect. As the current M16's, M4's etc. are retired install 10" barrels and possibly a gas piston system to get a folding stock capability and voila-instant PDW! You can use the same magazines, bolts, muscle memory from training and all that. On a PDW application, I don't think a piston system would be a big deal because support troops arent looking for precise accuracy and the super short barreled DI's have problems anyways.

Stanc I would appreciate any clarification on this subject, since you did an entire article on it!

Chili, I'm not sure what more I can tell you, that I didn't include in the article. Can you be a bit more specific as to what additional info you're looking for?

Well first of all, would it be a good idea? Its definitely a good idea logistics wise because you just rebarrel at the minimum, but if you wanted to spend money I guess they could just buy HK416 upper receivers. I was just trying to add another idea to the using of .223 brass for a PDW round and thought of your article. I just wanted to know what you would think about it in a PDW type of role. Any thoughts on your part would be appreciated because, like I said earlier, you did a whole article on it!

Well, if you want a short-barreled carbine for the PDW role, I'd say yes, the 6.5 MPC would be an excellent choice. Like Knight Armament's 6mm TSWG, the 6.5x42mm round was created specifically for short carbines.

Yes that's the same vein that I was thinking in except that you wouldn't have to buy any proprietary weapon because the 6.5 MPC uses all the original .223 systems. I guess thats the main point I was thinking of. I also enjoyed how even though the MPC isn't as optimized of a rifle round that the Grendel is, it still beats the 6.8 SPC in a lot of areas! Sorry to ask one more question, but realistically, do you think the 6.5 MPC or the Grendel would be a better choice to succeed the .223?

Yes that's the same vein that I was thinking in except that you wouldn't have to buy any proprietary weapon because the 6.5 MPC uses all the original .223 systems. I guess thats the main point I was thinking of. I also enjoyed how even though the MPC isn't as optimized of a rifle round that the Grendel is, it still beats the 6.8 SPC in a lot of areas! Sorry to ask one more question, but realistically, do you think the 6.5 MPC or the Grendel would be a better choice to succeed the .223?

Both Grendel and 6.5 MPC would IMO be better choices than 5.56, as would 6.8SPC.

What I like about the 6.5 MPC is that it supposedly works very well out of short barrels, and that the only drawback it has against 5.56 is slightly increased weight.

But, unfortunately, it would not be as capable as the Grendel, to be able to eclipse 7.62 NATO in most roles... But, still, you would save some weight and allow for larger magazine-capacity...

I think a better choice to secede the 5.56 and if the military wants to stay with an M16 type platform (notice I didn't say nor mean the M16 platform currently in use) the should go to what I can a medium size M16 (thats is inbetween the current M16 and the AR10) with a whole new round that isn't more cartridge then the system can handle, feed 200 percent reliable, and is of at least 6mm or larger, preferably 6.5. That would include loading the bullets all the way out of the powder capacity of the 6.5 and we could utilize the entire cases volume...possibly even go up in bullet weight if needed.

Joe

Sorry to ask one more question, but realistically, do you think the 6.5 MPC or the Grendel would be a better choice to succeed the .223?
All things considered, it looks to me like 6.5 MPC would be the better choice. My reasoning:

(1) The M4 carbine seems to be replacing the M16 rifle (in the US Army, at least), and the evidence indicates that a version of the M4 with a barrel of circa 10-inch length may (in the near future) be issued for PDW use, so it seems logical to fire a cartridge optimized for short barrels.

(2) The 7.62mm M240 machine gun isn't going away anytime in the foreseeable future. Since the two-caliber system will continue, I think that carbine ammo weight should be kept as low as possible. Weight of 6.5 MPC is significantly less than 6.5 Grendel.

(3) Magazine capacity of 6.5 MPC is greater than for 6.5 Grendel (30 rds vs 25-26 rds).

(4) Existing magazines, stripper clips and guides made for 5.56 NATO can be used with 6.5 MPC, which is a logistical and fiscal advantage over 6.5 Grendel, which requires completely new manufacture of those items.

(5) 6.5 MPC uses substantially less strategic metals (brass and lead) and gunpowder than 6.5 Grendel.

Oh yeah, one more thing:

(6) Conversion of the M249 LMG is much, much simpler and less expensive for 6.5 MPC than for 6.5 Grendel.

But, unfortunately, it would not be as capable as the Grendel, to be able to eclipse 7.62 NATO in most roles... But, still, you would save some weight and allow for larger magazine-capacity...
Which is exactly why I am advocating it as a PDW round! I also like OldJoe's position that we should adopt an entire new M-16 "type" (whatever that means :p ) platform with optimized 6.5 bullets. I really think that you are onto something there, OldJoe! It would be my dream to develop the Kel-Tec RFB as that new platform as I love bullpups. Also, since the Army has expressed sincere interest in purchasing suppressors for its regular troops in the future, if they were to adopt a 6.5 PDW round and an optimized 6.5 rifle round, couldn't the suppressors be interchangeable? That could definitely save in logistics and interoperability concerns. Just design it tough enough for the rifle round and it should work fine for the smaller round, right? I read somewhere that Surefire had thought about trying to use the 7.62 suppressor also for the 5.56 weapons so they wouldn't have to use specific suppressors. Am I right, or I am way off the mark?

Once again, thank you Stanc for answering all my questions, but just one more. I always enjoy your articles, do you have any coming up?

Oh yes, as for the actual gun that I would propose, I was reading Guns and Weapons for Law Enforcement May 2007 issue and came upon the CMMG KISS carbine. It weighed in at 5.5 pounds with a 14.5" lightweight barrel, A1 carry handle sights and what looks like a CAR collapsible stock. First of all, put in a lightweight 10" barrel, possibly a ABS carbon fiber one (I am such a dreamer!), use a retired A4 flattop receiver so you can mount Aimpoints, EOtechs, etc. That is pretty much an off the shelf type of deal, but it could go further to make it more compact and better suited to its PDW duties. Since support troops aren't trying to take 300 yard headshots, put in a gas piston system like a LW or a HK416 or whatever gets rid of the buffer spring in the buttstock so a skeletonized folder could be used. The only rail that should be on the gun is on the top of the receiver, otherwise lightweight handguards should be used. I'm sure that it could be made into a dry weight of 5 pounds or less and very compact. Just avoid unecessary add one like rail systems, which are pointless for support troops anyways and you'd have yourself one heck of an effective, light, and familiar PDW! Assuming, of course, that it has a real round behind it!

Once again, thank you Stanc for answering all my questions, but just one more. I always enjoy your articles, do you have any coming up?
You're welcome, Chili.

I can't say for sure as to whether or not there's an upcoming article. A few weeks ago, my editor asked (via e-mail) if I could send him one for the next issue of Special Weapons. I had to decline to write one because of the need to make preparations for moving. (Which is something I'm still doing -- it's mindboggling how much stuff I've accumulated over the years! :rolleyes: ).

In my reply I asked him if he could use the "Guns of the Russian Army" that I'd sent him over four years ago, but which had been "bumped" by articles about Operation Iraqi Freedom, and has apparently been forgotten in his files ever since. He never answered, so it may or may not get printed in the upcoming issue.

Sounds interesting, I look forward to (possibly) reading it!

Oh yes, as for the actual gun that I would propose, I was reading Guns and Weapons for Law Enforcement May 2007 issue and came upon the CMMG KISS carbine. It weighed in at 5.5 pounds with a 14.5" lightweight barrel, A1 carry handle sights and what looks like a CAR collapsible stock. First of all, put in a lightweight 10" barrel, possibly a ABS carbon fiber one (I am such a dreamer!), use a retired A4 flattop receiver so you can mount Aimpoints, EOtechs, etc. That is pretty much an off the shelf type of deal, but it could go further to make it more compact and better suited to its PDW duties. Since support troops aren't trying to take 300 yard headshots, put in a gas piston system like a LW or a HK416 or whatever gets rid of the buffer spring in the buttstock so a skeletonized folder could be used. The only rail that should be on the gun is on the top of the receiver, otherwise lightweight handguards should be used. I'm sure that it could be made into a dry weight of 5 pounds or less and very compact. Just avoid unecessary add one like rail systems, which are pointless for support troops anyways and you'd have yourself one heck of an effective, light, and familiar PDW! Assuming, of course, that it has a real round behind it!

This should be very close to a perfect REMF rifle...
http://www.kel-tec.com/su16d.html

or

http://www.kel-tec.com/plr16.html Just add a retractable stock...

Extremely lightweight, compact, accepts STANAG mags, and is reasonably reliable and very simple to maintain and operate.

Wow, that is a great option. 4.7 pounds loaded is seriously an great candidate. Good find!

I've got a PLR.

Lots of muzzle blast. But really fun and piston powered!
Seems to be accurate, but I haven't had time to do much
with it. I think a PDW cartridge would be better suited for
that short barrel.

The PLR is begging to be grendelized, but I'm not sure
the bolt would stand up to the 6.5 Grendel case.
**I think** the direct impingement design is best for
the stoner style bolt. **I believe** the bolt should be
re-designed if you want a piston powered gun in 6.5
Grendel. The XCR bolt would be an excellent choice (again,
**just my opinion**, and you know what that's worth) .

Check out the new Magpul 5.56 pdw they are working on . I seem to have lost the link, but...

here:

http://www.defensereview.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1011

Personally, I like the version that the guy is holding just the frame of, with the verticle fore grip out front. It seems like the one the guy is shouldering brings your front hand hold really close to your trigger hand. Of course, I usually shoot with my hand back pretty far, but I am sort of partial to the MP5 sort of look, like that frame shown. It will be interesting to see what comes out of this. Looks like it can't really be a pistol, so civies would never see this unless they slapped a stupid looking 16" carbine barrel on it. Man that would be a nice little pdw to have kicking around the house!! Especially in 6.5G!!

Actually, a 16in carbine barrel if done similar to how they did the Ps90 wouldn't be too bad, or an extended handguard/quad rail maybe.

What do you fellows think about this.

http://www.hunt101.com/img/491115.JPG

I got some un-necked tracer brass a few years back from River Valley Ordinance.
It's 1.9" long 223 "Basic" brass with no shoulder or neck.

I loaded some of this up with 9mm bullets and ended up with almost exactly what you have in the picture.

It won't work in normal AR mags due to the rib at the normal shoulder location.

It also won't feed properly because it's too straight/long to go around the corner into the chamber.

They do look neat though.