Why do they call it "30 SuperCarry"? Looks like .32 to me!

S

stinkeypete

New member
I was just looking on the internet at "30 Super Carry"... which looks to me like ".32 S&W Long, +++P, rimless".

Why they made the bullet diameter 0.314 is baffling when there is plenty of 0.312... which we call 32 caliber. Since my Ruger seems a little bit "open", I am looking forward to more .314 cast bullets being readily available!

I'm trying to think of why I might want this, because something tickles my fancy about it. Throwing the perfectly good brass into the weeds isn't one of those things.

Do we get moon clips for our .327 LCRs?
For our single actions? Wait, no, that'll never work.

I saw Paul Herrill shooting meat targets, and it's pretty clear that the bullets need work for self defense. That's fixable. Having the same recoil as 9mm.. we can load down and replace springs. Throwing the brass away, we can make a revolver and rimmed cartridge. Wait, we already do.
 
J

Jim Watson

New member
Well, the patent calls it "an 8mm cartridge" and there are some early references to 8mm Super Carry.

I assume that Federal wanted avoid confusion with existing lower powered .32s.
 
R

RickB

New member
How close is it to the old .30 Pedersen round (which is apparently a dimensional ringer for the old French 7.62 or .65 pistol round)?
 
R

reynolds357

New member
stinkeypete said:
I was just looking on the internet at "30 Super Carry"... which looks to me like ".32 S&W Long, +++P, rimless".

Why they made the bullet diameter 0.314 is baffling when there is plenty of 0.312... which we call 32 caliber. Since my Ruger seems a little bit "open", I am looking forward to more .314 cast bullets being readily available!

I'm trying to think of why I might want this, because something tickles my fancy about it. Throwing the perfectly good brass into the weeds isn't one of those things.

Do we get moon clips for our .327 LCRs?
For our single actions? Wait, no, that'll never work.

I saw Paul Herrill shooting meat targets, and it's pretty clear that the bullets need work for self defense. That's fixable. Having the same recoil as 9mm.. we can load down and replace springs. Throwing the brass away, we can make a revolver and rimmed cartridge. Wait, we already do.
Click to expand...
I don't know. Why is a 38 special a 38 and not a 357?
It does look interesting. In 115 gr, it matches non +p 9mm.
 
Last edited:
R

Rob228

New member
I walked through Sportsman's Warehouse in Wilmington NC yesterday and they had more 30 SC than any other pistol ammo except 9mm. Not a great choice of defensive rounds in 9mm either.
 
J

JohnKSa

Administrator
Why do the .218Bee, .219Zipper, .220Swift, 22-250, .222Rem, .223Rem, .224TTH, and .224 Valkyrie all use the same diameter bullet? :D

When you name a cartridge you get to choose the name. Some name it with the actual bullet diameter, some choose something different.

I suspect in this case they were trying to differentiate from the existing handgun cartridges that are currently associated with the .32 designation.
 
T

TruthTellers

New member
IDK, I would have thought a .32 Super would have caught on. Also, .32 is bigger than .30 and to the lame brain casual gun owners and shooters bigger is always better.

To call it .30 tho, there's only 3 other handgun calibers with .30 in their names and it's Mauser, Luger, and Carbine. This .30 isn't any more Super than those, in fact I think it's weaker than all of them. .30 Super Carry... should have called it .30 Pooper Crappy, cuz that's pretty much what it is.
 
C

CorvZ061

New member
I bought a Shield EZ in 30SC. I've put a couple hundred rounds through it, shot some simtest with it, as well as other not scientific bullet tests and with 115gr loads it performed identically in my tests.

I don't expect it to be for everyone, there are a couple posts above me that prove the narrow mindedness of some, but more SD ammo choices aren't a bad thing IMO.
 
R

reynolds357

New member
CorvZ061 said:
I bought a Shield EZ in 30SC. I've put a couple hundred rounds through it, shot some simtest with it, as well as other not scientific bullet tests and with 115gr loads it performed identically in my tests.

I don't expect it to be for everyone, there are a couple posts above me that prove the narrow mindedness of some, but more SD ammo choices aren't a bad thing IMO.
Click to expand...
I don't see any narrow mindedness. The cartridge has potential. My fault lies with the advertising IMO (propaganda really) that Federal is using. They cleverly word their comparisons to make this round seem superior to the 9mm, 380, and 45 ACP. It has its niche. I might even buy one. But Federal has stoopped pretty low in their advertising campaign for it.
It will really interest me when they start making 25 round, Glock 19 sized pistols in this cartridge.
 
Last edited:
C

CorvZ061

New member
Maybe I read your reply with the wrong mindset, this is a cartridge that seems to have a lot of people against it for one reason or another. I do agree with you about how Federal is advertising it, though I do think it's better than 380 as a SD round.

I have only shot one box of the 100g loads and they were soft shooting IMO. the 115's feel and hit almost identical to the 9mm of the same weight.
 
4

44 AMP

Staff
It's new, its up against rounds with long histories, and its only "improvement" seems to be holding more rounds than some designs.

I think that while the marketing will no doubt interest some people, it will turn others off.

Personally, having my needs and my wants covered, I've little interest in the latest, newest whiz bang wonder round. AFTER a decade or so, when its clear if the round will survive and have ammo available, I might reconsider.

Basically the same reason I never bothered with the .17 rimfires, I remember the 5mm Remington Magnum....:rolleyes:

There are a lot of very fine rounds that never got beyond moderately popular, and are now niche rounds, and more than a few that are barely hanging on even there. Come up with a round that doesn't do anything that isn't already done by established rounds, I'll wait until I know its going to hang around, rather than wind up with something I can't get (or make) ammo for.
 
T

TruthTellers

New member
CorvZ061 said:
Maybe I read your reply with the wrong mindset, this is a cartridge that seems to have a lot of people against it for one reason or another. I do agree with you about how Federal is advertising it, though I do think it's better than 380 as a SD round.

I have only shot one box of the 100g loads and they were soft shooting IMO. the 115's feel and hit almost identical to the 9mm of the same weight.
Click to expand...
Of course it's better than .380, but the .30 Super was never intended to be put in .380 sized pistols, nor to compete with .380. The .30 is meant to be an alternative to 9mm, one that holds more rounds in the mag, but doesn't sacrifice in ballistic performance.

I don't understand why people can't seem to grasp that .30 Super isn't going to be made in the LCP or Glock 42. It's meant for 9mm sized frames only.
 
S

stinkeypete

New member
To my mind, it's a .327 Lite for semi-autos. Which is to say, .32 H&R mag rimless but without the restriction of needing to be so long for safety/historical reasons.

I like .380 but admit it could use more power. But there is also a big niche for not so much recoil. Anyways, 9mm light loads would work.. but what I really want is...

a 10/22 rifle scaled up to take this little guy. But that will never happen.

My expectation is that it will be less popular than .327 Fed mag.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top