Bottlenecked Pistol Cartridges: Why don't they ever catch on?

[Echo40]

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?

 

[weatherby]

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

 

[tlawler]

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

If anything they feed better than straight walled cartridges.

 

[colt_saa]

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?

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

 

[lrrifleman]

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.

 

[malph]

If anything they feed better than straight walled cartridges.

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

 

[oddshooter]

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

 

[malph]

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.

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.

 

[colt_saa]

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

 

[Driswalds]

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

No harder to reload than a rifle cartridge.

 

[Echo40]

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

 

[Rudi]

Don't forget the 8mm Nambu.

 

[tlawler]

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.

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!

 

[Kurusu]

Why don't they ever catch on?

It's a mistery to me.

 

[kreuzlover]

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.

 

[Bullet Bob]

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

 

[DWalt]

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

No harder to reload than a rifle cartridge.

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.

 

[CZU]

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.

 

[Dave_n]

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

 

[Driswalds]

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.

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.