10mm guns could be chambered in 9x23 win?

[RickB]

I see the 9x23 as a useful step between 9mmP and 10mm, and I actually bought a 1911 chambered in 9mmP just to convert it to 9x23, but someone wanted that gun more than I did, so the project never really went anywhere.

357 SIG appears to have come a ways from its one-trick-pony origins, but I'd prefer 9mm capacity with my 9mm bullets (while acknowledging a single stack anything doesn't hold a lot of bullets).

But the 9x23 derived from the 38 Super and not the 9mm.

9x23 is a tapered, rimless round like 9mmP, not a straight-walled, semi-rimmed round like .38 Super, so I'd say 9x23 was intended to improve upon Super, but the only similarities are length and the bullet itself.

 

[tipoc]

9x23 is a tapered, rimless round like 9mmP, not a straight-walled, semi-rimmed round like .38 Super, so I'd say 9x23 was intended to improve upon Super, but the only similarities are length and the bullet itself.

Once again, the cases are different, but the 9x23 was born from the Super. Same length and diameter with a slight taper to the case to ease in extraction of the round.

The Super ruled the roost in compensated guns. John Ricco developed the 9x23 to make a round stronger than the Super. He named the round the 9x23 Super. In those days the 1980s, a competitor easily made major power factor with the Super (175 was major) but there was a danger of overloading the round. The Super dominated competitive shooting from the late 1980s to the the early years of this century.

Ricco brought the round to Winchester. When Winchester developed the 9x23 for sale they made a slight change to the cartridge and called it the 9x23 Winchester. They tried to cut Ricco out of the picture as the developer of the cartridge and introduced it in 1992. Ricco sued.

Ricco developed the cartridge to operate at higher pressures than the Super, though it has lower case capacity by a small bit. It easily made major without the danger of overloading. It was designed to beat, or improve on, the Super at the game the Super was winning at. This is why it's generally acknowledged that the 9x23 derives from the Super.

The 9x23 has a case the same length as the Super, .900" But where the Super has only a .001" taper the 9x23 has a neck diameter of .380 and tapers to a base diameter of .390". A taper of .010"

In contrast the 9mm has a neck diameter of .380 and tapers to .392 over it's shorter length of .754"

From here the story is pretty well known as to why it did not take off. Though if folks don't know the connection between the Super and the 9x23 they may also not know why the 9x23 did not take off. That's another story.

tipoc

 

[rock185]

I like the 9X23 Win., and I'd be all for it. But, surprised if a major manufacturer did it. Magazines are no problem, at least in 1911 type pistols. I've just used 38 Super magazines without issue. FWIW, if starting with a 10mm/.40 breech face, a dedicated 9X23 slide is not required. I've used 9X19mm, 38 Super, 38 Super Comp and 9X23 Win. in Kimbers with .40/10mm breech faces. There were no reliability issues............ymmv

 

[74A95]

Reading Ricco’s patents (5,187,324 and 5,277,119) it looks like he is clearly describing his round based on the 9mm cartridge, and refers specifically to the 9mm Nato (9x19), 9x21, and 9x23 (possibly Ricco’s own CP 9X23 Super +P), as mentioned in Layne Simpson’s book.

The patent describes it as: “An improved 9 mm cartridge casing having greater strength and reliability . . .”

It’s one thing to say that the 9X23 was designed to compete with the 38 Super, by offering a cartridge of the same length for guns of the same size but with stronger walls to handle the pressure required for its use in competition to make major pawer factor, which it most surely was. But the 9X23 shares critical dimensions with the 9mm Luger (9X19), both tapered cases with virtually identical rim, head and mouth dimensions (see below). The 9X23 sure as hell looks like a long 9mm, so that would be in most people’s minds the ‘parent cartridge’, and especially given how Ricco describes it in his patents, and not the 38 Super which is dimensionally a different animal.

Also, the 38 Super does not have a .001 taper. It is cylindrical, as noted below.

I’m not sure where tipoc is getting case dimensions, as some do not fit the SAAMI specs.

SAAMI specs — from: https://saami.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/Z299-3_ANSI-SAAMI_CFPandR.pdf

9mm Luger
rim: .394
head (.200” from base): .3910
mouth: .380
length: .754
bullet: .3555

9X23 Winchester
rim: .394
head (.200” from base): .3911
mouth: .381
length: .900
bullet: .3560

38 Super
rim: .406
head (.200” from base): .384
mouth: .384
length: .900
bullet: .3560

 

[tipoc]

The dimensions come from "Cartridges of the World".

“An improved 9 mm cartridge casing having greater strength and reliability . . .”

Yes but as he describes not an "improved" version of the 9mm Parabellum. The Super is also a 9mm cartridge.

In the 9mm family we have the 9mm Styre which was a 9x23 (now obsolete but known) the 9mm Largo, 9mm Browning Long, 9mm Winchester Magnum, 9x21, 9mm Mauser, and others.

The argument here begins from the wrong place. The technical. Why another 9mm cartridge to add to the pile? The answer is provided here...

It’s one thing to say that the 9X23 was designed to compete with the 38 Super, by offering a cartridge of the same length for guns of the same size but with stronger walls to handle the pressure required for its use in competition to make major pawer factor, which it most surely was.

The origins of the 9x23 Winchester built by Ricco begin with the Super and it's role in competitive shooting at the time. Not in an exercise to produce a wildcat of the 9mm for the joy of engineering.

The 9X23 sure as hell looks like a long 9mm, so that would be in most people’s minds the ‘parent cartridge’, and especially given how Ricco describes it in his patents, and not the 38 Super which is dimensionally a different animal.

It does look like that and one could conclude that unless you know the story. It only looks that way in "most people's minds" if they are unaware of it's development. Then you know it was developed to beat it's daddy in terms of performance.

Simpson's 1992 book explains very well the role the Super played in the 80s up till the initial introduction of the 9x23, before it's release by Winchester was delayed.

The 9x23 or 9x21 did not dethrone the Super as Simpson speculated they might, that was eventually done by lowering the power factor to 165 to allow for the 9mm to make major. The 40 S&W was introduced in 1990 and that began a slow impact. The 38 Super lost it's place in competitive shooting shortly after the turn of the century except in the Bianchi Cup and a few other areas.

tipoc

 

[JohnKSa]

Interestingly enough, the Wikipedia entry for the 9x23Winchester lists the 9mm Winchester Magnum as the parent case--not the .38Super or the 9mm Parabellum. It's hard to say for sure that is really true, but it does seem that the key case dimensions of the 9x23 Win match those of the 9mm Win Mag more closely than they do either the .38Super or the 9mmP.

 

[tipoc]

The Super is the parent cartridge, so to speak, of the 9x23.

In all that I said the "so to speak", in my first post on this subject, is the key part. Ricco wanted to best the Super. So he built a cartridge to do that. It was not, and I never said it was, physically derived from the older Browning designed 38 acp (which is the 38 Super, same cartridge different name.) There was plenty of inspiration for tweaking the various 9mm rounds available.

The 9x23 though is clearly not simply a stretched out 9mm Parabellum.

tipoc

 

[tipoc]

The 9mm Winchester Magnum was developed in 1977 according to Bussard's Ammo Encyclopedia specifically for use in the Wildey Pistol. The intent was that it become a useful hunting and Silhouette round. It did about 1,475 from a 5" barrel with a 115 gr. bullet. OAL length of the cartridge was .900 (This is incorrect, thanks to 74A95, the case length of the 9mm Win Magnum was 1.160)

Ballistics were similar to the older 9mm Mauser (developed in 1908 for the Mauser pistol) which put a 128 gr. bullet moving at 1362 fps (Barnes, Cartridges of the World).

Wildey went under though and no one stepped up with another gun for this round. IMSSU shooters preferred heavier bullets and revolvers in general. So, according to Bussard, the round hung around for about 10 years and faded away. Winchester kept it in mind.

So along comes Ricco. He tweaks the ideas and comes up with his 9x23 Super which Winchester produces as the 9x23 Winchester and tries to cut Ricco out of the picture. Ricco sues, a few years go by, and by the time he wins the power factor has been lowered from 175 to 165, both the 40 S&W and 357 Sig are in play and widespread (the 40 certainly and folks are aware of the 357 Sig). The window for the 9x23 to make a big splash closed.

Custom gunsmiths make barrels for it and some like Dane Burns praise it over the years, as do others. Very good hunting round and good for self defense.

tipoc

 

[COSteve]

Rather than go the 9mm bullet route in a 10mm G20, you're better off going with just a 6" barrel and slide; i.e. a Glock G40 instead. My custom G20/21L I developed way back in 2004, shoots my hot 10mm 165grn loads at 1,589fps producing 925ft/lbs of ME.

Coupled with the longer 6" slide and barrel producing a 28% longer sight radius, the package is surprisingly lower recoiling than one would expect, a lot lower. Muzzle rise is minimal with recoil producing more of a strong push due to the 37,500psi SAAMI peak pressure rather than the harsh snap of the higher pressure 9mm+P at 38,500pis, 357Sig at 40,000psi, and 9x23 Winchester at 55,000psi.

As far as capacity is concerned, my G20/21L runs with +2 mag bases on the mags giving me 17+1 rds of fire breathing 10mm power in a package that loaded, is actually lighter than a 6" barreled S&W 357mag 686 pistol with only 6 rds of 158grn ammo on board. Further, I handload for both calibers and comparing performance with a 6" barrel on both platforms, the larger, heavier, 10mm actually produces a slightly higher MV than my hot 357mag loads in a pistol.

(However, that can't be said if you extend the barrel out to carbine and longer length leverguns when the 357mag's larger charge of magnum pistol powder out 'velocitys' the 10mm by hundreds of fps.)

 

[RickB]

Ballistics were similar to the older 9mm Mauser (developed in 1908 for the Mauser pistol) which put a 128 gr. bullet moving at 1362 fps (Barnes, Cartridges of the World).

The parent cartridge of 9mmP.
Some have characterized 9mmP as an un-necked .30 Luger, but the former is closer to a shortened 9mm Mauser.

 

[74A95]

The parent cartridge of 9mmP.
Some have characterized 9mmP as an un-necked .30 Luger, but the former is closer to a shortened 9mm Mauser.

According to the Wiki description, the 9mmP was developed from the 30 Luger, therefore people's inclination to think that. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9×19mm_Parabellum

"Georg Luger developed the 9×19mm Parabellum cartridge from his earlier 7.65×21mm Parabellum round, which itself was derived from the original 7.65×25mm Borchardt cartridge in the Borchardt C-93 pistol. "

 

[74A95]

Coupled with the longer 6" slide and barrel producing a 28% longer sight radius, the package is surprisingly lower recoiling than one would expect, a lot lower. Muzzle rise is minimal with recoil producing more of a strong push due to the 37,500psi SAAMI peak pressure rather than the harsh snap of the higher pressure 9mm+P at 38,500pis, 357Sig at 40,000psi, and 9x23 Winchester at 55,000psi.

I suspect that the 9mm+P, 357 SIG and 9X23 would feel like they had less snap than the 10mm if there were fired in your same 6" slide gun.

 

[COSteve]

I've fired my hot 10mm loads in my neighbor's rock stock G20, fired 357Sig from a G31, and fired 9x25 Dillon from a G20 as well. My hot loads in his G20 have less muzzle snap than do any of the other 2 calibers. High pressure loads produce a lot of muzzle snap in my experience but it's an individual choice as to what each of us wants.

I for one, don't own a 9mm as I prefer my SA pistols in 38spl, 357mag and 45 Colt and my semi-auto pistols in 40s&w, 45acp, 10mm and 45 Super, however, YMMV

 

[74A95]

Not sure where tipoc gets his numbers, but the 9mm Winchester Magnum case length is 1.150-1.160", and the loaded cartridge length is listed as 1.575".

https://www.starlinebrass.com/brass-cases/9MM-Win-Mag-Brass/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9mm_Winchester_Magnum

With an overall cartridge length of 0.900", it would be shorter than a loaded 380 Auto.

 

[74A95]

I've fired my hot 10mm loads in my neighbor's rock stock G20, fired 357Sig from a G31, and fired 9x25 Dillon from a G20 as well. My hot loads in his G20 have less muzzle snap than do any of the other 2 calibers. High pressure loads produce a lot of muzzle snap in my experience but it's an individual choice as to what each of us wants.

I for one, don't own a 9mm as I prefer my SA pistols in 38spl, 357mag and 45 Colt and my semi-auto pistols in 40s&w, 45acp, 10mm and 45 Super, however, YMMV

The G31 weighs 4.6oz less than the G20. That's not a fair comparison.

I'm not convinced that the peak chamber pressure of a cartridge predicts snappiness in recoil when so many other factors contribute to the recoil impulse: bullet weight, velocity, powder.

Edited because I wrongly looked at the 'with loaded magazine" weight instead of the gun weight. The difference now correctly shows the difference in gun weights.

 

[74A95]

Originally Posted by COSteve
I've fired my hot 10mm loads in my neighbor's rock stock G20, fired 357Sig from a G31, and fired 9x25 Dillon from a G20 as well. My hot loads in his G20 have less muzzle snap than do any of the other 2 calibers. High pressure loads produce a lot of muzzle snap in my experience but it's an individual choice as to what each of us wants.

The G31 weighs 6.7oz less than the G20. That's not a fair comparison.

I'm not convinced that the peak chamber pressure of a cartridge predicts snappiness in recoil when so many other factors contribute to the recoil impulse: bullet weight, velocity, powder.

AND . . . the 10mm has a higher max pressure limit (37,500) than the 9X25 Dillon (36,259), so the 10mm should have more muzzle snap to it than the 9X25 according to your hypothesis.

 

[tipoc]

The 9mm Mauser (9x25 Mauser, 9x25 Export) round was not directly related to the 9mm Luger (aka, 9x19, 9mm Parabellum, etc.) The Mauser round was built for the Mauser C96 pistol specifically for export to areas where dangerous game was abundant, mostly Africa and Latin America as it turned out.

You can read more about it here.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9×25mm_Mauser

The 7.63x25 Mauser is apparently the parent cartridge.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7.63×25mm_Mauser

tipoc

 

[tipoc]

What I'm vague on is why convert a 10mm to 9x23? The 10mm is a larger diameter cartridge so would not the extractor and ejector not function properly? The mags also would need to be different. The breech face would be different as well.

In a 10mm the 9x25 Dillion would make more sense. Or the 357 Sig with different mags.

I don't see the use, actually the how, of trying to convert a 10mm to a 9mm without asking for issues.

tipoc

 

[tipoc]

Not sure where tipoc gets his numbers, but the 9mm Winchester Magnum case length is 1.150-1.160", and the loaded cartridge length is listed as 1.575".

https://www.starlinebrass.com/brass-...Win-Mag-Brass/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9mm_Winchester_Magnum

With an overall cartridge length of 0.900", it would be shorter than a loaded 380 Auto.

My bad then, I took the information from Bussard's Encyclopedia and the dimensions given there for the cartridge on page 712. But you are correct the case length is 1.160 and the same is given by Barnes. Bussard clearly had the wrong sketch.

.900 is the case length for the 9x23 and the 38 Super.

tipoc

 

[5whiskey]

At the end of the day, converting a 10mm pistol to 9x23 isn't super cheap and simple. There's a barrel change, mag swap (or modification), and for reliability i would want a slide dedicated.

FWIW 9x23 is capable of 357 mag ballistics with all bullet weights, in a pistol with roughly the same dimensional capacity as 9mm. Glock should partner with Winchester and be all over this. There would be a market for true, full 357 mag capabilities in a service sized high capacity semi-auto.