Ring of Fire in the Zines
- Thread starter Jim Watson
- Start date
That’s just it. There isn’t even an empty spot. The 9x23 Win is squarely in the spot that the ROF is supposed to fill. It was designed to fit the 1911 package and provide higher performance than the 9mm Win Mag.
The guy who set out to design the 9x23 Winchester had a very similar idea—he wanted the capacity of a 9mm with major power factor (back then that was 175 which corresponds to a 125gr bullet at 1400fps) and a round that would fit into commonly sized pistols. He started with the 9mm Win Mag like the ROF designer did. His size constraints drove him to a COAL of about 1.3”—very similar to the ROF.
However, because he understood basic internal ballistics, he knew that shortening a case and then asking for more performance from it would result in higher pressure. Therefore he strengthened the case as part of his design process. So he ended up with a cartridge that would more or less duplicate 9mm Winchester Magnum ballistics in a 1911 sized cartridge—but that had to operate at about 10KPsi higher pressure to achieve that goal.
That means that anyone who wants a non-bottlenecked 9mm that will fit in a 1911 and more or less duplicate .357Mag performance is in luck. That cartridge already exists in the form of the 9x23 Winchester. They may also find some comfort in the fact that the case is specifically designed to handle the inevitably higher pressures required to provide the performance of the parent cartridge in a shorter case.
People who are interested in this topic would probably enjoy reading through the discussions about the ROF on TFL—they go back as far as 2015.
It is a possibility, but quite unlikely. Both because that kind of effect would be pretty minimal in a pistol length barrel, and because the load data provided in the article doesn't suggest anything unusual or proprietary about the propellant.
Of course, even if that turns out to be the case, it wouldn't actually mean that the ROF outperforms the parent cartridges, because with the same propellant the parent cartridge would still retain the advantage. It must because of the limitations of internal ballistics.
here is something that I just realized. The 9x23 case is obviously supposed to be 23 mm long. the 10mm is supposed to be 25 mm long. Wait a minute. what? He cut them to a longer length?
Now we have the idea that the case has a slightly higher capacity. But, does that case capacity increase matter at all? If the OAL isn't adjusted outward, your actual firebox isn't changed at all. Then we are also stuffing 200 grain rounds in where there were only 125s used.
What the heck? what are the oal figures for those things? If they are even longer than the 9x23, won't that make it a bit hard to work with, and maybe, just maybe, cause occasional misfeeds? It just passed confusing and went right into acid trip.
Now we have the idea that the case has a slightly higher capacity. But, does that case capacity increase matter at all? If the OAL isn't adjusted outward, your actual firebox isn't changed at all. Then we are also stuffing 200 grain rounds in where there were only 125s used.
What the heck? what are the oal figures for those things? If they are even longer than the 9x23, won't that make it a bit hard to work with, and maybe, just maybe, cause occasional misfeeds? It just passed confusing and went right into acid trip.
Overall length is limited by what will fit in the magazine. With these cartridges, 357 ROF and 9X23 Winchester, designed to fit in a 10mm or 38 Super magazine, OAL is not going to exceed 1.300" (the OAL of the 9X23), and in some instances that will be too long. 1.300" rounds won't fit properly in my 38 Super magazines without rubbing the front wall.
A more realistic OAL will be 1.280" or perhaps shorter, depending on the bullet nose profile. I'm not sure how long the round can be and still fit in the Glock magazine. In either case, magazine fit limits how long they can be loaded.
Correct. The OAL is constrained by the magazine dimensions and in turn, the OAL constrains the case capacity.
So, for example, given a 1.3" OAL limit imposed by the magazine dimensions, the case length could be 23mm (the bullet would stick out about 10mm beyond the mouth of the case when loaded to maximum OAL), 24mm, 25mm (the bullet would stick out about 8mm beyond the mouth of the case with the bullet loaded to maximum OAL), or theoretically even all the way up to 33mm. The last scenario would have the nose of the bullet even with the top of the case--it would look strange and it obviously wouldn't feed very well.
In all of those situations, in spite of the varying length of the cartridge cases, the effective case capacity would be exactly the same. Within the range of reasonable/usable cartridge case lengths for a given magazine size, the effective cartridge capacity (the available space to put propellant) isn't dependent on the length of the case, it is determined by the volume between the inside base of the cartridge and the base of the bullet.
Since the bullet can't be loaded out any farther without making a round that won't fit into the magazine, the space remaining in the case behind the bullet with the bullet loaded to the maximum OAL is what is really important.
John, Thanks for taking the time to attempt to explain that just lengthening the case, if OAL is the same, doesn't somehow result in more velocity at less pressure,etc. I've tried to get that across in discussing the ROF cartridge, as well as other cartridges on other forums. I think you illustrated it best though by the example of increasing case length to 33MM, wouldn't get you any greater effective case capacity. I recall that years ago, Maj. George Nonte wrote of rechambering a Model 39 S&W barrel to .38 Super, then having to deep seat bullets to fit within the Model 39 magazine. I wondered if even Maj. Nonte didn't understand at the time that the longer case, restricted to 9X19 OAL, wouldn't really improve ballistics?
BTW, I agree that the 9X23 Winchester is already filling the slot the 357 ROF is supposed to fill.....
BTW, I agree that the 9X23 Winchester is already filling the slot the 357 ROF is supposed to fill.....
Jim Watson
New member
Without digging through my Nonte books, I recall that he used lightweight bullets for that, so he did realize a gain in working volume because the seating depth of a 90 would give a shorter 9mm than the magazine would accommodate and the longer Super would push that back out.
Jerry "Varminter" Gebby pointed out that by rechambering the M39 to .38 Super, the case would gain volume by fireforming into the taper of the residual 9mm chamber. Scary stuff in the pre-Algore days.
That would probably work. Lighter (shorter) bullets increase the effective case capacity. Heavier (longer) bullets do the opposite. That's why when a smaller case is asked to perform as well as a larger case by upping the pressure, it tends to have the most trouble performing with heavy-for-caliber bullets.