So, I recently ordered a Romanian MilSurp Tokarev TT33 chambered in 7.62x25 Tokarev and have since been doing some research on the cartridge to keep me busy in the meantime. Based on what I've read, it seems to be an excellent little cartridge which launches an 88gr .31cal projectile at anywhere from 1400-1800fps, delivering anywhere from 390-500ft-lbs of energy, yet the cartridge was never really popular outside of ComBlok countries, and the military in that part of the world dropped it in the 1950s in favor of the 9x18 Makarov cartridge.

This got me to thinking, why is it that bottlenecked pistol cartridges never seem to catch on? They all tend to boast higher velocities, deeper penetration, and faster expansion than other cartridges in their "weight class" for lack of a better term, yet they always end up niche at best in terms of mainstream appeal.

Many of them have come and gone (figuratively speaking) since the early days of semiautomatic pistols, and although some of them were semi-successful for a time like the 7.63x25 Mauser, most of which never really gained mass market appeal. 7.62x25 Tokarev, 9x25 Dillon, 5.7x28 FN, .32 NAA, .25 NAA, .357 SIG, .22 TCM, just to name a few. Granted that not all of them had a clearly defined niche, but 5.7x28 FN and .357 SIG did, were backed by big name companies, and even saw some use in various Law Enforcement Agencies. However, they never broke into the mainstream market, in spite of offering something of tangible value like the equivalent performance of a 125gr .357 Magnum out of a 4" Revolver barrel in a semiautomatic pistol.

What is it that prevents bottlenecked pistol cartridges from achieving mainstream popularity? They clearly have their advantages, yet they always seem to get passed on in favor of more established cartridges. Why?

__________________
Shooting Comfort is bilateral.

Maybe they don't feed as well from a magazine?

__________________
Paul
S&WCA #2726

If anything they feed better than straight walled cartridges.

__________________
USS Brewton FF1086
SWCA#3597

My view is that Hand Loadersare what drove the market

Those that started out or only shoot handguns have taken us to straight wall cases.

The 32-20 and 44-40 cartridges have gone away since modern metallic hand loading has evolved and both of those cartridges were solid within their market.

Today's high pressure cartridges make resizing more difficult than when your old time limits were 10,000 - 14,000 PSI

__________________
"Acta non verba"

DHC, I would like to hazard a guess, but in doing so, I will be addressing only the 357 Sig.

Unlike the 357 Magnum, the 357 Sig doesn't have the ability to accommodate a less expensive/powerful round, out of the box. A rhetorical question, but when law enforcement agencies issued the 357 S&W Magnum, how many actually had officers carrying full power Magnum rounds as opposed to a +P or +P+ 38 Special? First strike is ammo interchangability.

Second, more from the perspective of the recreational shooter, how many people are willing to reload bottlenecked handgun cartridges? From what I have gleaned from the temple of YouTube, reloading the 357 Sig requires additional care and time for reloading. Additionally, bullet selection appears to be quite limited, and it seems to be a round mandating jacketed bullets, not cast. I would offer as a second strike, it is a relatively non-reloadable cartridge.

Third, the round seems to be rather proprietary, with regular offerings coming only from Sig and Glock. IIRC, it has never been offered by S&W, but can be fired when using an aftermarket barrel. Third strike being a proprietary round.

Will these three strikes keep me from buying a 357 Sig barrel for my P229 when I take possession? I doubt it, but ammunition selection and expense will be the greatest hurdles in making that purchase.

__________________
Judge control not gun control!

You are right. They are more forgiving as far as feeding goes.

Please don't say the 32-20 is going away.
It may be my favorite for the last 60 years.

That little bottleneck got a second chance at life with the Ruger Buckeye Convertible. That built-like-a-tank Ruger took the 32-20 into the 1400fps range and pure joy in my heart. Of course that's been 32 years ago now.

It was one of the very first cartridges developed and it is still with us, if just barely.

The OP's question is interesting, but impossible to answer outside of opinions. Colt_SAA"s idea that it is harder to handload is viable; since the only difference is the bottleneck. I think in the 32-20, it was first matched by the 32 H&Rmagnum, and then surpassed with the 327federal magnum. It's hard for me to get too far from the 32-20; but the 327 round offers such versatility, in being able to shoot all the 32"s, that it is hard to compare. That may be the nail in the coffin that keeps the lid closed on the 32-20. Maybe the Italian reproductions will keep us going.


Prescut

You have some good points. A little harder to reload. A little more expensive because it's more of a niche.

And it ran up against the 9mm juggernaut. 357Sig, might be "better" in some ways than 9mm but is it enough better to justify the expense, increased muzzle blast and recoil, lesser capacity, ... to justify buying it over a 9mm?

For most, the answer to that is no.


And so more people buy 9mms, more companies make 9mm ammunition driving down 9mm ammo cost and it perpetuates itself.

Dirty Harry Callahan sorry for a bit of hread drift here

As a advocate of the 357 SIG cartridge, I would like to address some of these points. I am not saying they were not contributory, I just want to look at them from a different aspect.

This is revolver thinking, not semi-auto thinking. With the revolver, power does not matter because you are not using the recoil energy to cycle the firearm

When you put a less powerful cartridge in a semi-auto, it has failures to function unless the weight and springs have been changed to accommodate the less powerful cartridge.

There are NO Semi Autos in the market place that can shoot alternate less powerful ammunition.
This is a fear that most folks have when they first encounter the cartridge. That fear is absolutely a HUGE factor in the down fall of bottleneck handgun cartridges here in the USA. I admit I had the same fear until I started working with the cartridge back in 1992.

The die setup is a bit different, but I can load 357 SIG on my progressive press just as fast a 45 ACP or 357 Magnum

Jacket bullets are not a requirement, but bullets of the proper shape are. Most projectiles intended for the 9MM family of cartridges have an ogive that curves down into the 357 SIGs neck thus reducing neck tension. Over the last 25 years, Mold makers have stepped up to the plate and now offer projectile shapes that will work in all .355 bore auto loaders

Smith & Wesson has indeed offered the 357SIG in several of their models. The first one was the 357 SIGMA back in the 90s. To this day, Smith & Wesson still manufactures the M&P in 357SIG even though it is not a cataloged item.

Several 1911 manufactureers currently offer 357SIG as a caliber choice, AMT had the backup in 357SIG, the Mauser M2 was offered n 357SIG, one of the FN striker pistols (can't recall model)is available in 357SIG. HK has offered the 357SIG starting back in the USP line and extending to the P2000 line, I am not sure of the P30 line.

The are not as mainstream as a firearm in 45 ACP or 9MM, but if you want one they are still out there.

__________________
"Acta non verba"

My 4513 currently sports a 400 Corbon barrel along with my Kimber 1911.

No harder to reload than a rifle cartridge.

Granted, but there's not exactly cheaper/less powerful variants of 9mm Luger, .40 S&W, or .45 ACP either, and seeing as no Law Enforcement agencies in the United States that I know of are still issuing .38 Special/.357 Magnum Revolvers, it seems like a moot point. Besides, the .357 SIG was actually issued in quite a few high profile Law Enforcement Agencies including the United States Secret Service, United States Federal Air Marshals, and the Texas Rangers, it's the civilian market where it really failed to make waves.

This is actually a good point that I hadn't really considered since I myself am not into reloading, but it makes sense.

Incorrect, Smith & Wesson offered a Sigma chambered in .357 SIG, (The SW357V) but it was a special order option which was only in the catalog for a year or two until it was dropped completely because it just wasn't in high demand. Furthermore, the M&P used to be chambered in .357 SIG at the beginning, (which can be seen with M&P40 magazines which were stamped for both .40 S&W and .357 SIG) but due to a combination of some serious teething issues which resulted in a number of LEOs sending back their M&P357s en masse for service repeatedly until they eventually gave up on it and traded them in for other M&P models chambered in other cartridges, as well as lack of strong sales on the civilian market.

Expense of ammo has always been something of a gray area for me due to my own specific philosophies regarding Self-Defense. Weighing out the pros in contrast with the cost.
While .357 SIG is more expensive than Standard Pressure 9mm Luger by a wide margin to be sure, it's also significantly more powerful, and when it comes to premium 9mm Self-Defense ammunition, especially of the +P variety, the price difference is more narrow. So to me, it's worth it. In fact, if it weren't for the lack of availability, it could easily be my primary carry cartridge.

Lastly, (and again, this is just my own philosophy) I feel that training at the range begets diminishing returns once you've established your carry load's point of impact, ergo I don't subscribe to the belief that shooting 1000 rounds at stationery or otherwise predictably moving targets every weekend at your leisure during daylight hours at the range will be very helpful in a real self-defense scenario, so the cost of ammo doesn't hurt as much as it might to those who feel more confident/capable doing high volume, live-fire drills on a regular basis. However, considering that I seem to be the odd man out when it comes to SD Philosophy, point taken.

__________________
Shooting Comfort is bilateral.

Don't forget the 8mm Nambu.

__________________
No baby we aint

Back when I was a novice reloader(ok...only a couple of years ago) I took it upon myself to try reloading the .357 Sig. I bought some second hand dies and a bunch of .356 projectiles. After a few fits and starts, I had a couple hundred loaded and headed to the range. About 150 were flat point hard cast 125 grain and the other 50 were .356 round nose cast 124 grain. I shot the 150 hard cast first with no issues and tried to load some of the RN rounds. Of course they were too long because of the round nose. I didn’t want to pull the bullets, but was determined not to let them go to waste. I grabbed a pair of Klein's out of my toolbag and nipped the tips off all of them, loaded ‘em up and proceeded to shoot them with no issues. So handloading them requires a little attention to detail, but it ain’t rocket surgery!

__________________
USS Brewton FF1086
SWCA#3597

It's a mistery to me.

Attached Images

	20190903_183628.jpg (74.0 KB, 658 views)
	20181202_004050.jpg (79.7 KB, 664 views)
	20181014_041419.jpg (80.7 KB, 650 views)

__________________
Expect the unexpected

Don't forget the King of bottleneck pistol cartridges, the .357 AMP. Loaded to top levels, it had more foot-lbs than the .44 magnum. I could never understand why Magnum Research never chambered the Desert Eagle for either of the AMP pistol cartridges. Exact same case length as .44 magnum.

Oh man, guess I should throw out my boxes of .38-40, but then what would I do with my 2006 SAA?

Anyone with a Government Model .45 can instantly convert it to .400 Cor-Bon by simply changing only the barrel and nothing else. Cases are easily formed by one pass of a .45 ACP case through a .400 CB sizing die. Ballistic performance can approach 10mm if desired. Feeding is flawless, never a misfeed. Yet it just never caught on. One main reason is that none of the handgun or ammo manufacturers (other than Cor-Bon) supported it.

7.65mm Luger, been around for over 120 years. My favorite bottleneck and the best caliber IMO for the Luger pistol. Ruger offered barrels in this caliber for the P85 and Colt built a LW Commander in this caliber for the Italian market.

I also have a Star BM in 7.65 Luger which goes with the Mauser 7.63, the Tokarev and a couple of pistols already used for those, and I load 32-30 for a S&W dating fro mthe early 1920s. Dave_n

Underwood currently offers 400 Corbon.

Word of caution with the Underwoods and 1911's.
400 Corbin needs a roll crimp, that is not a issue as it head spaces on the shoulder. Corbon does use a roll crimp Underwood does not.
In a 1911 you can get bullet setback with the underwoods. My 4513 never has that issue.

Early on the Ruskies, Chinese, and Germans had it figured out.

This is my Korean War vintage Chi-Com model 54 Tok.

__________________
John

And the .38-40 is a low pressure round from the XIXth Century. Limited only to the strength of the weakest gun it was chambered for.

Nevertheless it can. In a revolver with a 5 1/5 barrel lauch a .40 180 grains bullet at over 1100 fps using the original blackpowder load. The same load in a 20 barrel carbine will reach over 1500 fps.

Yes the .38 in .38-40 is a big fat lie. I guess they didn't want to call it the .40-40. Or better, the .40WCF.

__________________
Expect the unexpected

in AZ who creates proprietary cartridges by bottle necking existing cartridges, .454 to .44, .44 to .41, .41 to .357, etc. He does a lot of revolver cartridges and builds the custom guns too. He does a lot of two-toned guns and guys just drool all over them, which is fine, I'm just not one of them. Great hunting rounds if you are a re-loader, not something you would find on the shelf at a gun shop in the middle of Montana.

Bottle neck cases can cause some issues when they expand upon firing, pushing back from the chamber more than a straight walled case. One of the reasons S&W discontinued the .22 Remington Jet was that is the cylinders had oil in them and the ammo was not clean, the cylinder could get locked up.

Both my 7mm Baby and my 8mm Nambu have issues with both feed and eject, though they were both manufactured by Tokyo Electric and probably have some quality issues.

Bob

__________________
Sag Harbor & Manhattan, N.Y.

I had issues with the frame getting battered in my .400 Cor Bon 1911 - just like I had with a 10mm 1911.

-----

In general though, bottle necked cartridges like the .400 Cor Bon or .357 Sig offer no more magazine capacity than their straight wall parent cases. For example, you get 9 rounds of 10mm in a 1911 magazine, compared to 8 rounds with .40 Cor Bon.

The effect is magnified in a double column single feed magazine. For example the 9mm BHP holds 15 rounds of 9mm luger, but just 10 rounds of .40 S&W.

Similarly and following from that, the .357 Sig is limited to the same magazine capacity as the parent .40 S&W cartridge, which puts it at a disadvantage in contrast to straight wall cartridges firing a .355" projectile.

Pistol "class" bottle necked rounds back in the day like the .44-40, .38-40, .32-20, and 25-20, had a slight bottle neck and a tapered body for a reason.

The slight bottle neck helped the cartridge seal to the case mouth much faster at the comparatively low black powder pressures. That reduced fouling in the chamber and reduced extraction forces.

The tapered body ensured that as soon as the cartridge started to move aft during extraction, the entire case came out of contact with the chamber, and that also reduced extraction forces.

Those features allowed them to be used in lever action rifles.

The lack of those features on the .45 Colt is why there was never a Model 1873 or Model 1892 chambered for .45 Colt back in the black powder era. However, the straight walled design of the .45 Colt allowed it to maximize powder capacity. Ejection was achieved by an ejector rod, which meant the rim was only there for headspace, and could be kept small to minimize cylinder diameter. However, even with rod ejection in the SAA, Colt tapered the chamber by .007" to reduce ejection forces, which is why case life is poor for the .45 Colt.

Another downside of a bottle necked case is that they tend to grow a lot more than straight wall cases. Over the last 43 years I've loaded .32 ACP, .380 ACP, 7.62 Nagant, .30 Carbine, 9mm Luger, .38 Special, .357 Magnum, .45 ACP, .45 Colt and .45 Win Mag as well as .38-55, .375 Win and .45-70 by the thousands, tens of thousands or in the case of 9mm and .38 Special well over a hundred thousand and I've never trimmed cases. The necks crack or the case body gets spider cracks before they ever grow enough to need trimming.

That is not the case with a bottle necked case.

Go reload/handload 100 rounds of 38 special and then reload 100 rounds of 32-20 and you will know why bottleneck calibers are "less" common/popular.

Okay, I gotta ask... Are the majority of handgun owners into reloading, because I always just sort lf presumed that the average handgun owner just bought factory loaded ammunition, and thus I would presume that the difficulty of reloading bottlenecked cases wouldn't be all that much of a detriment towards bottlenecked cartridges achieving mainstream popularity.

__________________
Shooting Comfort is bilateral.

A bottleneck cartridge offers no more capacity than its straight walled counterpart. And most people want more capacity when they use a smaller projectile. The higher capacity of 9mm pistols compared to 40 versions is one reason they are more popular.

Bottleneck cartridges also have a reputation for being more susceptible to bullet setback. I don't know if this is a real problem but this perception does hurt the popularity of bottleneck cartridges.

Modern bullets are not as dependent on high velocity as they used to be. You really don't need a 1500 fps velocity to get reliable expansion these days.

High velocity is great for barrier penetration but if you need something that will penetrate into the vital organs of something like a wild boar or bear you want a heavy bullet, not a light fast one which favors a straight wall cartridge. Barrier penetration and defense against wild animals are both niche applications but more people are concerned with the latter.

You can often get pretty close to the ballistics of a bottleneck cartridge by choosing a light for caliber bullet in the straight wall equivalent. If you think the 125 grain 357 Sig is the ultimate cartridge for self defense compare its ballistics to a 135 grain 40 S&W load from the same manufacturer.

And finally, the reason I decided against getting a 357 Sig pistol, those suckers are LOUD. No high pressure round is going to be quiet but the bottleneck cartridges use slower burning powder and are louder than straight walled cartridges generating similar ballistics. I have never shot them back to back in the same range session but the 357 Sig seemed louder than a 357 magnum revolver.

I like bottleneck pistol cartridges. As a practical matter, the bottle neck cartridges really shine in pistol caliber carbines or submachine guns. The 7.62x25 is, in essence, a 7.63 Mauser +P so it is important not to mix them up.

The PPS-43 does not give away a whole lot of utility to an M2 carbine with some of the hotter Warsaw Pact ammo getting a 85 grain bullet to 1800 fps.

Attached Images

	C96.jpg (81.3 KB, 25 views)
	CZ_52_pistol.jpg (120.6 KB, 27 views)
	Gulag Guard.jpg (92.7 KB, 48 views)

I have three in .32-20 and yes, I reload (and yes they are a PIA to reload when compared to straight wall cases). In fact, other than .22's and shotgun shells, I don't think I've bought factory ammo in 45 years. I even reload for the one 9mm handgun that I own. Here's one of 'em (it's a USFA that I bought just before they ended production of SA's):

My guess would be that despite their higher muzzle velocity and energy in their own calibers, any increase in their terminal ballistics/wounding capacities over those of straight wall cartridges didn’t offset the extra cost of manufacturing them.

In the end, they’re still only pistol cartridges and as such, and in almost all cases, they can’t emulate the additional wounding mechanisms of rifle rounds.

That being said, .357 SIG does provide useful benefits when shooting through automobile glass and car bodies is necessary.

One of the traps that befalls bottle neck cartridges. is....

Once they are introduced, people quickly figure out that the can remove the bottle neck and increase the caliber of the bullet.

Consider, after the 7.63 cal. Luger was introduced... it was quickly figured out that with minimal work you could have a 9mm.

.357 Sig was introduced, and Police Departments went to the .40 S&W in droves.

Why buy a .25 NAA, when I can have the same cartridge casse in .32.ACP, etc.,etc,,

I'm not a reloader, and I have three .357 SIG pistols, and I shoot them a lot. So it's me who's keeping the .357 SIG ammo manufacturing lines humming.

Eh, what's that again?

__________________
What, me worry?

Who say bottle necked (more commonly called shouldered) cartridges are not popular? You?, Me? Some guy on the street?

Technology is generally what determines what works. Shouldered cartridges and the automatic pistols or revolvers the feed are the products of multiple technologies! Primarily two, Metallurgy and Chemistry. Neither of those technologies stand still for long.

Case development started with paper wrapped powder and ball, Went to machined metal and coiled wire, then what we are most familiar with extruded metal. there is even a move towards caseless ammo

Or the 44-40

__________________
213th FBINA

The market at large. Bottlenecked cartridges haven't achieved mainstream popularity in spite of their many advantages.

Okay, I'm not sure what bearing this has on the topic of discussion though, unless you're trying to say that bottlenecked cartridges are obsolete or something.

Yeah, I really don't understand what you're getting at here. Yes, cartridges have advanced, but it's not as if bottlenecked cartridges only ever existed to aid in feeding nor that such is their sole benefit, so the advances in technology and improved reliability of straight-walled cartridges has not in any way rendered bottlenecked cartridges obsolete.

__________________
Shooting Comfort is bilateral.

I load the .357 sig with both jacketed and cast boolits. it shoots the 124 grain truncated conefrom a Lee mold quite well. Loading itself isn't more complicated, you just need to lube the brass when resizing much like you do bottlenecked rifle cartridges. It does take an extra step, but I have also discovered 9mm are much easier to resize if you lube them, they are tapered wall and for some reason a lot more friction than a straight walled case. Lee makes a crimp dies that works perfect in the sig, much like their rifle crimp dies.

My opinion is that reloading isn't necessarily more difficult, just maybe takes a tad more thought and maybe many folks are scared it is a challenge and steer clear. I like challenges so I took it head on and found it not so bad.

Rosewood

I think it is about velocity. You can put a smaller bullet in the case and push it faster. Speed tends to do more trauma to what it hits than a slower heavier bullet, even though slow and heavy tends to penetrate more. If you go to light in a larger caliber, the bullet is short and can affect accuracy if it tumbles. Small diameter can be longer and stabilize better. Not sure this matters much in pistol cartridges, just some thoughts.

Rosewood

The sale of ammo is dictated by people who buy loaded ammo. Reloaders have nothing to do with it.


Remember every time the FBI switched calibers, sales of guns and ammo went up with it. Then they went back to 9mm and all of sudden the 40SW dropped like a rock. Ammo and guns.
Consumers are not gonna buy expensive ammo.

__________________
Still Running Against the Wind

A Majority of shooters across the nation? Absolutly not. Most Americans purchase their ammunition

However a Majority of the regular contributors to this Forum are absolutely hand loaders

__________________
"Acta non verba"

It's John Moses Browning's fault.

__________________
I've still got it made.

People like bigger, albeit slower, bullets in handguns.

Tapering the case down to use a smaller bullet is less efficient. But it can be fun! I bet that Tokarev is a hoot! Does anyone make guns for the 7.62X25 now?

Also note that at larger calibers - .357 Sig, specifically - there is little performance gain to be had. A properly loaded 38 Super is its equal.

__________________
I've still got it made.

I am getting 1430 fps across the chronograph with a 124 grain XTP using longshot powder in the sig P229 3.9" bbl. Can you get that with a 38 super in equivalent length barrel? That is 563 ft*lbs of energy. I am asking because I don't know, never loaded a super. Hard to get that energy out of a .40 S&W also.

Rosewood

I have to disagree with that.
It is not possible to get the 125 grain 38 SUPER to the same velocity levels that the 357SIG can achieve without exceeding SAAMI pressure standards

However, both the 356TSW and the 9x23 Winchester are designed to work at higher levels and do achieve 357 Magnum performance in the 125 grain loadings

SAAMI Max Pressure
38 SUPER - 36,500 PSI
356TSW - 50,000 PSI
9x23 Winchester - 55,000 PSI

__________________
"Acta non verba"

And the sig does it with 40,000 PSI

10.4 grains of N105 in da Super.

https://www.vihtavuori.com/wp-conten...20_USA-www.pdf

__________________
I've still got it made.

Tell us what your REAL WORLD velocity is, not an over inflated manufacturer's claim that was achieved out of a 5 1/2" Test barrel

What can that load do out of a SIG P220?

__________________
"Acta non verba"

I have one thing to say, Carbide Dies do NOT require lube. That's enough reason for me to never consider bottleneck pistol cartridges.

Supposedly. I have found that the 9mm even with the carbide dies, loads much better when lubed. Granted it isn't exactly straight walled, but all straight walled resize so much easier than 9mm. The 9mm resizing is so tight, it makes me think there is something wrong, so I started lubing them with Hornady 1 shot.

Guess you will never load bottle necked rifle cartridges then?

Rosewood