Unfortunately neither the .327 or .41 is offered with the side-gate (at least not on the Henry website).
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
New Handgun Cartridge Development
- Thread starter jackstrawIII
- Start date
Unfortunately neither the .327 or .41 is offered with the side-gate (at least not on the Henry website).
You can dream up all the wonderful uses that you want for ".41 Luger".
Better perhaps is the not quite a success of the .41 Avenger, a .45 ACP, or better yet, .451 Detonics (seen any of that around lately) necked down to .41 in a 1911 frame from JD Jones of SSK.
Lots of comments. Not read them all as of yet. To me the biggest constraints is that it's a handgun. Your hand has to fit around the grip. Which holds the Magazine and ammo. This severely reduces the possible over all length and width of the cartridge. Also most handguns are not bolt or gas operated limiting chamber pressures to what a delayed blowback system can handle.. Rifles do not suffer these problem, the actions are much longer, thus a lot more room to work in, and much stronger actions generally available.
I think the era of new handgun cartridge development was the 60s through the 90s. There were new cartridges introduced and guns to go with them, some of them are still with us, others not. 9mm Federal, 32 H&R, 327 Federal, 41 Magnum, 22 Jet, 256 Winchester Magnum, 45 Winchester Magnum, 44 Auto Mag, 357 AutoMag, 9mm Winchester Mag, 9X23, 9x21, 10mm Magnum, 10mm Auto, 40 S&W, 357 SIG, 45 GAP, the list goes on. They didn't provide enough of an increase in performance to make people want a new gun, or they were too much. I feel the same way about some of the new rifle cartridges, either too much or not enough to bother with.
Your hand has to fit around the grip. Which holds the Magazine and ammo.
only in a semi auto, and now only thanks to stupid laws that define handguns with magazines out side the grips as assault weapons, (and as such prohibited in some states). Think of some Olympic match pistols and the classic C96 "Broomhandle" Mauser, which do not have magazines in the grip frame.
Or, for that matter, an AR "pistol". None of these has cartridge length limited by what an average person can get their hand around.
Also.
Also most handguns are not bolt or gas operated limiting chamber pressures to what a delayed blowback system can handle..
Some are bolt action and some are gas operated, I have examples of both, but they are not common and not what most people look for (and by most I mean volume of numbers). The standard service pistols for over a century have mostly been locked breech, not delayed blowback, but that is not for pressure reason, its for size and weight limitations.
The "roller lock" system used by H&K for 50K+psi rifle rounds is a delayed blowback. And the Astra 600 is a straight blowback 9mm Parabellum.
its not that a certain locking system can't/won't contain high pressure, its the PRACTICALITY of making one that will, small enough and light enough to not only work as a handgun, but also be acceptable to the market. (And, the govt).
I understand there are many types of pistols. However semi auto, magazine in grip, and revolvers still reign as the primary forms. The others are absolutely awesome and I have the utmost respect for them, but they are generally the exception to the rule based on what I have seen.only in a semi auto, and now only thanks to stupid laws that define handguns with magazines out side the grips as assault weapons, (and as such prohibited in some states). Think of some Olympic match pistols and the classic C96 "Broomhandle" Mauser, which do not have magazines in the grip frame.
Or, for that matter, an AR "pistol". None of these has cartridge length limited by what an average person can get their hand around.
Also.
Some are bolt action and some are gas operated, I have examples of both, but they are not common and not what most people look for (and by most I mean volume of numbers). The standard service pistols for over a century have mostly been locked breech, not delayed blowback, but that is not for pressure reason, its for size and weight limitations.
The "roller lock" system used by H&K for 50K+psi rifle rounds is a delayed blowback. And the Astra 600 is a straight blowback 9mm Parabellum.
its not that a certain locking system can't/won't contain high pressure, its the PRACTICALITY of making one that will, small enough and light enough to not only work as a handgun, but also be acceptable to the market. (And, the govt).
In relation to AR Pistols type. While I understand that they are technically pistols, I don't consider them to be. In GENERAL, I don't consider Rifles or Sub machine gun designs that have had their stock removed to be classified as pistols, to be pistols. This is my personal opinion on the matter, simply how I look at it, not trying to make waves, just trying to clarify the view point from which I am coming. I am happy for them and the people that like them. I think they need to abolish NFA.
In relation to the single shot and bolt action target type pistols, most follow the lines of precision bolt cartridges and wildcats in relation to cartridge development from what I have seen.
Last edited:
You’re right, to say that I’m only interested in 3 pistol cartridges is a gross exaggeration. And people with different needs/interests (such as handgun hunting, “duty use” whatever that means, pocket guns, cowboy action shooting, and more) have a much broader set of interests than I do.
But, I guess that’s the point. With so many handgun shooters in the world with such a wide distribution of interests, and with the known shortcomings and limitations of the rounds that exist… why doesn’t “the industry” give us more new options on a regular basis? And again, the reason I ask is because they’re tripping over themselves to release new rifle cartridges, so they obviously are making money doing it. Why is there no money in new pistol development?
I have some theories, but I want to hear other people’s ideas.
Why? Physics. Rifle cartridges operate at much higher pressures and longer barrels. These two factors give a lot of flexibility for cartridge creativity.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
wild cat mccane
New member
Armscor released the 22TCM. Armscor released more gun options than the 5.7 has right now. Federal still makes 5.7 ammunition to this very tight 9mm only manufacturing climate.
Gun options were/are the Armscor 1911 22TCM/9mm, MAPP full, MAPP compact.
22TCM is still cheap. 22TCM hollow point box of 50 can still be found for 9mm FMJ.
If gun buyers didn't buy that, there basically isn't going to be a new handgun caliber made in an serious level of production. Ever.
Prove me wrong.
Gun options were/are the Armscor 1911 22TCM/9mm, MAPP full, MAPP compact.
22TCM is still cheap. 22TCM hollow point box of 50 can still be found for 9mm FMJ.
If gun buyers didn't buy that, there basically isn't going to be a new handgun caliber made in an serious level of production. Ever.
Prove me wrong.
Jim Watson
New member
Consider the .357 SIG cartridge, by all accounts it is a fantastic round which statistically duplicates the performance of the legendary .357 Magnum Law Enforcement loads, yet it has practically fallen completely out of the race when it comes to what Law Enforcement officers and civilians alike are carrying. Why?
Also it performs like a .357 Magnum revolver but it also shoots like a .357 Magnum, only moreso because the usual Glock is a lot lighter than a revolver. Loud report and hard recoil make it a demanding gun to shoot well, especially for "small statured officers" and low training budget departments.
.44 Auto Mag was designed in the 60s and came out in commercially in 1970. Only chambered in the Auto Mag pistol, as far as I know
Cut the case down, say to 10mm length, work up loading data.
We discussed that in the ".44 Russian Auto" thread and I pointed out that the .44 Auto Mag has the same head diameter as .45 ACP, so shortening it for a .45 ACP or 10mm length gun would just mean more taper down to a .44 neck. That would get you a wide selection of .44 bullets but those are not shaped to feed in an auto.
Consider the .357 SIG cartridge, by all accounts it is a fantastic round which statistically duplicates the performance of the legendary .357 Magnum Law Enforcement loads, yet it has practically fallen completely out of the race when it comes to what Law Enforcement officers and civilians alike are carrying. Why? Because if you shoot it into a block of gelatin it just doesn't appear to do anything that the 9mm Luger cartridge cannot. But how can that be? It's just a more powerful 9mm, right? It's higher velocity and delivers more energy than 9mm Luger, so in must be better. Indeed it is, but without a proper testing medium to adequately showcase the advantages, it just doesn't look any better.
I would say that the .357 Sig was DESIGNED and INTENDED to duplicate .357 magnum performance. However Based on what I have seen it falls far short of the 357 magnum and perhaps only meets 9mm +P or +P+ loadings.
I pointed out that the .44 Auto Mag has the same head diameter as .45 ACP, so shortening it for a .45 ACP or 10mm length gun would just mean more taper down to a .44 neck. That would get you a wide selection of .44 bullets but those are not shaped to feed in an auto.
I don't understand what your concern about the taper is. Looking at the case drawings the .44 Auto Mag has exactly the same difference in size between the case head and the case mouth that the 9mm Luger does, 0.014"
Yes, shortening the .44 case back to 1" or even less would increase the angle of taper slightly, but I can't see where that would be a significant, let alone detrimental thing. Most of the time, a tapered case is an aid to feeding, not a drawback.
Other point, as a .44 Auto shooter, I can tell you with certainty that there are quite a number of .44 bullets that will feed just fine in an auto (or at least in mine). Virtually every jacketed .44 bullet common will work fine.
I've used jacketed bullets from Speer, Sierra, Hornady and Remington in my .44 autos and they've all done just fine, without any need for polishing, or otherwise tuning the guns to get them to feed a bullet. And those bullets are all I feed my Desert Eagle and Auto Mags in weights from 180-240gr.
Even the Remington "scallop jacket" 240 JHP, where the front 1/3 of the bullet is exposed lead fed just fine. And if any slug was going to hang up, I'd expect that design to be the one, but it doesn't, in my guns, anyway.
Fwiw, I have run a handful of (hard lead) SWC loads through my Auto Mag, and they fed fine, as well. SO, in my experience the jacketed .44 bullets are shaped to feed in a semi auto, even if that was not the designer's primary intent when they were created.
However, I cannot say with certainty that all would feed in a shorter .44 case. By necessity, the magnum length rounds must present flatter in order to feed in a pistol due to their length. They cannot make the "sharp turn" that short rounds like 9mm Luger and .45ACP do in some of the guns designed for them. And this might make a difference in whether or not a specific .44 bullet will feed well, or not. It will depend on the way the gun used to shoot it is made, I think.
jackstrawIII
New member
My first theory on why we don't see as much handgun cartridge development:
In the rifle world, there is the belief that "speed kills" and "speed beats armor." This phenomenon can be debated, but regardless, the terminal benefits of speed (disproportionate wounding beyond caliber size) don't really start to show up with small bore bullets until impact velocity reaches approx 2600 fps or so.
When you come to handguns (I'm talking self-defense type handguns, which are unquestionably the vast majority of the market)... that level speed is simply unattainable due to short barrels and other limitations of the platform, without turning to ridiculously small/light projectiles that would bring in their own set of issues.
So, we must rely on bullet size and mass to "do the work." That's why we've seen increasingly larger and more powerful revolver rounds come to market in the past. But here again, reality comes crashing in and the limitations of a handheld shooting platform that you can carry in a holster severely limit how big and heavy we can go.
What am I saying? Basically, the innovation window for the handheld self-defense handgun is relatively small due to physical constraints that won't be surmountable until the technology dramatically changes.
Ps. The 5.7x28 cartridge came close to beating these restrictions... but I'll discuss that cartridge when I post my next theory.
In the rifle world, there is the belief that "speed kills" and "speed beats armor." This phenomenon can be debated, but regardless, the terminal benefits of speed (disproportionate wounding beyond caliber size) don't really start to show up with small bore bullets until impact velocity reaches approx 2600 fps or so.
When you come to handguns (I'm talking self-defense type handguns, which are unquestionably the vast majority of the market)... that level speed is simply unattainable due to short barrels and other limitations of the platform, without turning to ridiculously small/light projectiles that would bring in their own set of issues.
So, we must rely on bullet size and mass to "do the work." That's why we've seen increasingly larger and more powerful revolver rounds come to market in the past. But here again, reality comes crashing in and the limitations of a handheld shooting platform that you can carry in a holster severely limit how big and heavy we can go.
What am I saying? Basically, the innovation window for the handheld self-defense handgun is relatively small due to physical constraints that won't be surmountable until the technology dramatically changes.
Ps. The 5.7x28 cartridge came close to beating these restrictions... but I'll discuss that cartridge when I post my next theory.
jackstrawIII
New member
My second theory is more philosophical.
Here's the difference:
- In most circles (excluding military and LE) the vast majority of rifles/cartridges are designed/purchased with recreational purposes in mind. Hunting, target shooting, plinking, etc.*
- In most circles (excluding competitive shooting) the vast majority of pistols/cartridges are designed/purchased with self-defense purposes in mind. Civilian, military, LE, wilderness survival, etc.
Why this matters:
- Because our rifles are being used recreationally, we love to experiment, tweak, fiddle, mess with, innovate, etc. Since the stakes are low, we use our "rifle resources" towards a lot of UNNECESSARY "playing" which leads to constant innovation.
- Because our pistols are being used for defense, we focus our energy on training with something we know will work, instead of playing around trying to find something better. Since the stakes are so high, we use our "pistol resources" towards developing the NECESSARY skills needed to survive.
This pragmatic view towards handguns makes sense. Let's use 9mm as an example, (realizing that the same is basically true for 45 acp, 40sw, 38 spl, etc):
- 9mm is (relatively) cheap, therefor I can shoot more of it, to become more proficient with my chosen weapon
- 9mm is (relatively) slow, and won't punch holes through my steel targets
- 9mm is (relatively) quiet, and won't blow my eardrums out if I have to use it
- Etc.
Whereas, something like the 5.7x28 (which has been one of the more successful "new" handgun rounds since the 90s):
- is more expensive, so I can shoot it less
- is relatively fast and will ruin my steel targets (though still not over the approx 2600 fps needed to cause disproportionate to caliber wounding)
- is insanely loud and I would never want to shoot it without ear protection
- etc.
This is not a bash of the 5.7 (which is a cool little cartridge in its own right)... I'm just postulating that we (the consumer) approach pistol and rifle rounds from a different place philosophically, which impacts how the industry meets consumer desires.
Thoughts?
*Yes, I know many people purchase AR type rifles exclusively for self defense use. But that is a very small piece of the pie, as seen by the explosion of AR type rifles in various hunting configurations.
Here's the difference:
- In most circles (excluding military and LE) the vast majority of rifles/cartridges are designed/purchased with recreational purposes in mind. Hunting, target shooting, plinking, etc.*
- In most circles (excluding competitive shooting) the vast majority of pistols/cartridges are designed/purchased with self-defense purposes in mind. Civilian, military, LE, wilderness survival, etc.
Why this matters:
- Because our rifles are being used recreationally, we love to experiment, tweak, fiddle, mess with, innovate, etc. Since the stakes are low, we use our "rifle resources" towards a lot of UNNECESSARY "playing" which leads to constant innovation.
- Because our pistols are being used for defense, we focus our energy on training with something we know will work, instead of playing around trying to find something better. Since the stakes are so high, we use our "pistol resources" towards developing the NECESSARY skills needed to survive.
This pragmatic view towards handguns makes sense. Let's use 9mm as an example, (realizing that the same is basically true for 45 acp, 40sw, 38 spl, etc):
- 9mm is (relatively) cheap, therefor I can shoot more of it, to become more proficient with my chosen weapon
- 9mm is (relatively) slow, and won't punch holes through my steel targets
- 9mm is (relatively) quiet, and won't blow my eardrums out if I have to use it
- Etc.
Whereas, something like the 5.7x28 (which has been one of the more successful "new" handgun rounds since the 90s):
- is more expensive, so I can shoot it less
- is relatively fast and will ruin my steel targets (though still not over the approx 2600 fps needed to cause disproportionate to caliber wounding)
- is insanely loud and I would never want to shoot it without ear protection
- etc.
This is not a bash of the 5.7 (which is a cool little cartridge in its own right)... I'm just postulating that we (the consumer) approach pistol and rifle rounds from a different place philosophically, which impacts how the industry meets consumer desires.
Thoughts?
*Yes, I know many people purchase AR type rifles exclusively for self defense use. But that is a very small piece of the pie, as seen by the explosion of AR type rifles in various hunting configurations.
Last edited:
In most circles (excluding competitive shooting) the vast majority of pistols/cartridges are designed/purchased with self-defense purposes in mind.
Purchased, sure, the majority of rounds purchased are in the common self defense cartridges. Vast majority designed with self defense in mind? I'm not so sure. Majority, perhaps, but vast majority?
SO, help me out here, which rounds, (and lets just go from the end of WWII on up) do you feel have been designed with self defense in mind as their primary purpose (and I'll include LEO use in that).
I can think of the .40 S&W, and .357 Sig, possibly the 10mm but I don't see anything bigger being designed with self defense as the main focus. None of the magnum class rounds were intended for that. And I can think of several cartridges designed for advantage in different shooting games, which while they could serve as self defense rounds, (anything can, with pros and cons,) but they were not designed for that.
There have been a few new .32 cal rounds in recent decades, but none of them, even the most powerful, is generally considered to be a good self defense round.
And then there's the 5.7mm. Designed by FN to be an armor piercing round, able to go through helmets and Soviet body armor. However, those rounds are not legal for civilian sale in the US. What is available is pretty close to .22WMR ballistics. And both the gun and the ammo are comparatively spendy.
You are entirely right about the size and weight limits a handgun requires restricting variation more than in rifle rounds. Here's another point to consider, a LOT of the guns and ammo bought in the last few years has not been bought by "shooters". A lot of those people don't practice much, if any, they're not interested in "honing their skills" they just want a gun to have for emergency use, only. And those people, most who have little knowledge of firearms and ammo have very low interest in new (and unproven) rounds.
They are quite likely to have heard, and believe, the hoary old myths about different cartridges (and guns), OR they want what they saw used in a movie.
Consider also, that perhaps, the innovation you're expecting as new handgun cartridges isn't going into new cartridges, but into new improved BULLET designs for existing rounds.
People take reliable JHP bullets as a given today, but I remember well the days when that was not the case. I can even remember the days when the big ammo makers didn't even OFFER JHP bullets in anything other than one or two (magnum) cartridges. Regular revolver rounds were loaded with lead bullets and semi auto rounds were all FMJ. If you wanted something else, you got it by handloading, because the makers of bullets for handloading offered JHPs and other things the big ammo makers did not.
And I also remember the days when the big makers began offering JHPs and how it took some time (years in some cases) before they achieved reliable, dependable performance.
Another point to consider, is, wildcatters. There are still people who create new cartridges and do it just for their own satisfaction without plans to make them commercial items.
One fellow I knew loved small bores and created several cartridges on his own by necking DOWN .32 and .25ACP. One of his favorites was what he named the ".14 Flea" a necked down .25 acp case. Neat round, fun, too, but never intended for self defense or marketability.
Popularity and market success in only ONE way to measure the worth of a cartridge. Its the way ammo and gun makers, who sell those things for a living and a profit measure things, but its not the only way.
There are literally tons of good rounds (mostly rifle but not all) that did a fair, decent, or even a good job but didn't sell well enough for the makers to keep them in production. Remington alone created and then later abandoned lots of rifle rounds in the last 50 some years, and Winchester has done its share of that, as well.
I’m not sure what could be developed that hasn’t already been made, tried, found lacking or, found favor and is still around.
From .22 short to the S&W 500.
If you asked me to develop a new handgun cartridge, I have no idea what I could come up with. That’s hasn’t been done before.
From .22 short to the S&W 500.
If you asked me to develop a new handgun cartridge, I have no idea what I could come up with. That’s hasn’t been done before.
Handguns exist because of the need for firearms that are small and easy to carry. Otherwise, no one would have invented them and we would only have long guns.
Some of that purely practical consideration is a bit blurred these days by legal definitions, but the bottom line is that handguns were born out of a need for compact, portable, light and potentially concealable firearms.
That places (admittedly vague) top limits on the size and weight of practical/traditional handguns.
People don't have an unlimited tolerance for recoil, so that's another limit--albeit another vague limit.
Recoil is related to performance--in the form of muzzle momentum which is the product of projectile weight and velocity at the muzzle. It's also related to the weight of the handgun by the principle of conservation of momentum.
Modern manufacturing and metallurgy, combined with practical size and weight limitations place top limits on the discharge pressure.
None of that applies so much to the "novelty" handguns like the super-magnum revolver cartridges (e.g. 500S&WMagnum, .454Casull) or handguns designed to shoot rifle cartridges--obviously if you are willing to stretch the size/weight constraints or tolerate really high levels of recoil and rifle pressure levels then you can push the performance limits much higher. What I'm talking about is more directed towards more traditional handguns in terms of size/weight/applications.
In addition, because traditional handgun applications are relatively short range, not all bullet design advantages that have benefited rifle cartridges are especially applicable to handguns.
Anyway, wrap all of that into one big package and the result is not only a practical top limit on the performance of handgun cartridges that are intended for traditional handgun uses, but also a limit that is relatively constant. I think that means that barring some sort of significant technology advances, or perhaps laws that push the basic limits around in some fashion, there's unlikely to be a lot of innovation in terms of new handgun cartridges. The ones we have cover the spectrum of reasonable handgun performance very well and you have to look really hard for gaps that can be filled in by new cartridges.
Some of that purely practical consideration is a bit blurred these days by legal definitions, but the bottom line is that handguns were born out of a need for compact, portable, light and potentially concealable firearms.
That places (admittedly vague) top limits on the size and weight of practical/traditional handguns.
People don't have an unlimited tolerance for recoil, so that's another limit--albeit another vague limit.
Recoil is related to performance--in the form of muzzle momentum which is the product of projectile weight and velocity at the muzzle. It's also related to the weight of the handgun by the principle of conservation of momentum.
Modern manufacturing and metallurgy, combined with practical size and weight limitations place top limits on the discharge pressure.
None of that applies so much to the "novelty" handguns like the super-magnum revolver cartridges (e.g. 500S&WMagnum, .454Casull) or handguns designed to shoot rifle cartridges--obviously if you are willing to stretch the size/weight constraints or tolerate really high levels of recoil and rifle pressure levels then you can push the performance limits much higher. What I'm talking about is more directed towards more traditional handguns in terms of size/weight/applications.
In addition, because traditional handgun applications are relatively short range, not all bullet design advantages that have benefited rifle cartridges are especially applicable to handguns.
Anyway, wrap all of that into one big package and the result is not only a practical top limit on the performance of handgun cartridges that are intended for traditional handgun uses, but also a limit that is relatively constant. I think that means that barring some sort of significant technology advances, or perhaps laws that push the basic limits around in some fashion, there's unlikely to be a lot of innovation in terms of new handgun cartridges. The ones we have cover the spectrum of reasonable handgun performance very well and you have to look really hard for gaps that can be filled in by new cartridges.
gbclarkson
New member
- is more expensive, so I can shoot it less
Economics, me thinks, is the limiting factor. Newly introduced handgun cartridges are more expensive than established; new shooters will exclude the new ammo because of the cost; high-volume recreational shooters (formerly me) will also; occasional budget shooters (like me) certainly will not buy a novelty round; manufactures hesitate to introduce guns for new cartridges because they will not sell initially. A huge chunk of the consumer market is priced out thus a new and expensive niche cartridge is destined from the start to become an permanent and expensive niche cartridge. So, why try to make a new handgun cartridge?
Glock still has .45 GAP advertised on their website. Did anyone else make a pistol for .45 GAP? Is Sig giving up on .357 SIG? The P226, their flagship pistol, has 4 options listed on the website, all 9mm. .357 is mentioned as an option at the bottom of the page.
jackstrawIII
New member
SO, help me out here, which rounds, (and lets just go from the end of WWII on up) do you feel have been designed with self defense in mind as their primary purpose (and I'll include LEO use in that).
I can think of the .40 S&W, and .357 Sig, possibly the 10mm but I don't see anything bigger being designed with self defense as the main focus. None of the magnum class rounds were intended for that.
44 AMP,
I’m surprised that you don’t think the magnums were developed for self defense. 357, 44 mag, etc. If not, then what were they created for? Genuinely curious.
As far as others since WW2 for self defense/military, besides the magnums, I can think of:
- 327 Fed
- 45 Gap
- 32 NAA
- 5.7x28
I’m sure there are more… but it’s certainly not many in the last 75 years.
357 - LE, and possibly hunting. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.357_Magnum
44 - hunting. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.44_Magnum
44 - hunting. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.44_Magnum
My only wish is for someone to put a revolver rim on a 10mm and 40S&W case and chamber it in a 6 shot GP-100 or L-Frame S&W. No need for the goofy moon clips that I do not like. Just a real revolver round in a not so huge gun.
Make the internal case dimensions the same so you can use the already existing load data. I would like that better than the 5 shot 44 special Ruger makes. If they still make it.
Other than that I can't see another handgun round needed. And this isn't needed. I just want it. I thought the 40S&W was the best round ever given to LE. More capacity than a 45 and similar energy. I reload and like a gun that doesn't throw my brass all over the place.
Or just put a rim on a 10mm case. Then you can load to any power level you want.
Make the internal case dimensions the same so you can use the already existing load data. I would like that better than the 5 shot 44 special Ruger makes. If they still make it.
Other than that I can't see another handgun round needed. And this isn't needed. I just want it. I thought the 40S&W was the best round ever given to LE. More capacity than a 45 and similar energy. I reload and like a gun that doesn't throw my brass all over the place.
Or just put a rim on a 10mm case. Then you can load to any power level you want.