I decided to try a bit of an experiment for this month’s Q&A, and took questions from Forgotten Weapons Patreon and Utreon supporters to ask directly to exhibitors at SHOT Show 2022. It turned out quite a lot shorter than I was anticipating, but I think I got some good answers for you. Thanks to all the companies who showed up to SHOT this year, and to the folks willing to come on camera for me!
00:00 – Introduction
00:40 – H&K: Will you introduce a 10mm pistol?
01:48 – M+M I industries: Will you release your 18″ DMR rifle in the US instead of just in Canada?
02:17 – Aimpoint: Will you offer a reticle other than just a plain red dot?
03:43 – S&W: Will you reintroduce the J-frame in .327, maybe with moon clips for .30 Super Carry?
04:14 – S&W: To what extent is the CSX a development of the 2011?
05:07 – Remington: What is the path forward for Remington firearms production?
07:02 – Brownells: What would it take to bring back the complete Retro rifles?
08:17 – Kalashnikov USA: Will you produce Dragunovs?
10:05 – Walther: How about larger capacity micro-compact pistols?
11:21 – DesertTech: Are you developing a BLK LBL bipod for the HTI or SRS bolt action rifles?
Ian, this was a good idea. I just missed the announcement asking for questions. Please do it next year and I promise to give you a question.
I did find it odd that such big names were not at the show. Were you able to sort out a reason for this?
Not sure about all, but several announced cancellations due to COVID concerns before the show.
Not to forget regulations who is allowed to travel and under what circumstances changes like daily in times of COVID-19. Making a headache for foreign firms and their foreign personnel to attend shot show.
Yeah, I’d like to know if Ruger (for example) is going to start making red-dot-ready pistols as a standard thing?
I must say, Ian, I much prefer this approach to your SHOT Show coverage than your approach in previous years with Karl, which seemed snarky and mean-spirited and seemed like a departure from the usual tone on your channel.
Wish Rheinmetall or HK would bring in MG3 parts kits or semi-auto receivers.
Would like 10mm MP5’s to come in.
Lastly, anyway to get the remaining (if any) MAS 44s, 49s, FR-F1s and 49/56 (& MSE) rifles from France brought here?
200 years? That’s amazing considering UMC was founded 1866.
He very probably referred to the founding of Remington in 1816, but as you correctly state UMC was acquired much later by Remington. Remington ammuniiton should rebrand back to UMC IMHO, as they are divorced nowadays anyway.
1) Eliphalet Remington, founder of Remington Arms was a gunsmith in the eastern U. S. in the early to mid 1800s Therefore there is close to 200 years of gun making history connected to the Remington name, and yes, his sons expanded the company and kept it going into the 20th Century. UMC was bought by Remington early in the 20th century.
2) .30 super carry what a novel concept. The 7.65 Luger or &7.62 Tokarev with a heavier bullet and stupidly high pressure for the type of gun it is designed for. Maybe in a full size 1911, it will hold up otherwise the guns will need to be reengineered for durability.
“(…)stupidly high pressure(…)”
What is that exactly? I was unable to unveil C.I.P. specification for this cartridge.
“(…)7.65 Luger or &7.62 Tokarev(…)”
Said cartridges are bottleneck, whilst 30 Super Carry is not.
This also containing more cartridge in magazine of same size.
Also if you mean 7,65×21 Parabellum then this is covered by page for that cartridge
https://www.federalpremium.com/30supercarry.html
How does 30 Super Carry differ from cartridges like the 7.65×21 Parabellum, 7.65×20mm Longue, 32 Auto and others?
While there might be some coincidental similarities, 30 Super Carry was fully developed from the ground up with no parent cartridge. Utilizing modern materials and designs, it provides vastly superior performance to seemingly similar historic cartridges.
“(…)Maybe in a full size 1911, it will hold up otherwise the guns will need to be reengineered for durability.”
I think it is too early to judge. We need to wait, until manufacturers will attempt of adjusting their designs for said cartridge.
When a cartridge smaller than a 9mm Luger is running pressures higher than many rifle cartridges and all but a very few handgun cartridges (.454 Casull, 500S&W etc) then with the standard production guns designed for 9mm Luger pressures have a durability problem, although that probably won’t be an issue as there will not be enough ammo available for a long time to accelerate the wear through consistent and proper practice. Yes, it fills the gap between .380 Auto and 9mm Luger, but so does the 9mm Makarov. I agree with you that developments may make it more useful than it appears to be, but with the plethora of 9 mm guns and people and organizations issuing and/or carrying the 9mm the .30 SC seems to be somewhat less than reasonable to introduce with the ammo supply still not back to normal levels.
.30 Super Carry has only been SAAMI specified. So no C.I.P. standardization yet. And maybe it will never get one, as the market in Europe is smaller and it is a very small gap between .380 and 9mm it fills and there is not much daily carry of firearms most countries. So outside the USA I do not see much market opportunity. Plus you can put a .380 or 9*18 mm in a unlocked pistol design, whereas the new .30 Super Carry certainly needs a locked action because of the higher pressures. Making pistols more expensive and then, why not go to the ubiquitous 9*19? .30 Super Carry is a niche caliber for concealed carry. For everything else I do not see much reason to use it.
It seems like a successor to 7.65 x 17 Browning (.32 ACP) with greater energy available.
The logical foreign market would be countries that prohibit “military” or “police” issue caliber weapons from civilian use. Such as Italy’s laws that resulted in Walther P.38s and Beretta M92s in 7.65 Parabellum forty-plus years ago.
Although today, such countries (if not the entire EU) are more likely to declare a permanent ban on civilian firearms, period, dot.
The ideal for the EU (and the US, in the case of our “Utopians”) is what W.H.B. Smith called a state in which the only time a citizen is permitted use of a firearm is when it is handed to them along with a uniform and a demand for obedience.
cheers
eon
Actually because of EU harmonization (making laws across the EU similar) 9 mm Parabellum and other military calibers are now legal in Italy. But yes, it could be interesting for such markets as well. Just like the 9×21 mm IMI cartridge, which is just 9 Para with a longer case to be different from the evil verboten 9×19 cartridge. But these are really limited markets and these amrkets also have laws forbidding concealed carry I think. So, yeah, a very niche cartridge.
I have nothing against better mousetraps. Maybe one day one comes along that is much better than the others. But in this case the market will be limited to people that consider such things like capacity to caliber ratio to size of the pistol. Most people just walk into a gun store and buy something the salesman advises. So some .38 revolver or a small 9 mm.
The Aimpoint guy totally has the mad scientist vibe. Thanks for this, well done.
I see some appearance similarity with Engineer Garin from first adaptation of The Hyperboloid of Engineer Garin, see 2nd image from top https://www.moriareviews.com/sciencefiction/hyperboloid-of-engineer-garin-1965.htm
Kalashnikov USA domestic manufacturing: Boris, with a $2 shovel from a Vermont driveway sale, fire, a hammer, and vodka, and a drill press.
Addendum- the ballistics of the cartridges I mentioned 7.65 Luger and 7.62 Tokarev and the French .32 Longue all have ballistics very close to the .30 SC and therefore why did Federal not try to make a significantly more powerful cartridge for this application. They could have simply modified the M1 Carbine round to give the desired effectiveness of the cartridge. I like new cartridges when the design fills a specific role or function. The .30 SC seems to be neither fish nor fowl. The reason for no CIP standards is most likely they have not had an opportunity yet to get testable quantities and appropriate firearms for the cartridge.
“They could have simply modified the M1 Carbine round to give the desired effectiveness of the cartridge.”(С)
I wonder how?
Supply it with atomic bullets? 😉
Even in the carbine, these cartridges have been the subject of criticism all their lives due to their weak stopping power and mediocre ballistics.
This attempt is more like a blank hitting a workbench with a hammer to simulate activity.
However, like the whole exhibition.
110-grain bullet @ 1,850 for 870 FPE from an 18″ barrel is hardly “weak”. At 300 yards, it still hits harder than a 9 x 19mm or .45 ACP from an SMG-length barrel does at the muzzle.
The .30 USC does look puny compared to a .30-06. But considering that it was intended as a replacement for a pistol SMG or shotgun with troops not normally armed with the M1 Garand, it was and is a sensible design and loading for a “PDW”.
The mistake is trying to put that loading into a handgun. Any barrel length less than `10″ is going to create low MVs plus enormous blast and flash, as anyone who has ever fired a Ruger Single-Six .30 has learned first-hand.
Loading the .30 USC for handgun use results in essentially a hot-loaded .32-20 Winchester, which actually isn’t bad. Today, the .327 Federal makes the entire exercise rather irrelevant.
.30 SC seems to be an attempt to get the .32 ACP up to something like 9 x 19mm performance, without risking blowups in older .32 ACP pistols. In that respect, the idea makes perfect sense.
Also, a locked-breech compact .30 SC can have more rounds in a double-column magazine than most similar “micro” 9mms. So that is a consideration, as well.
cheers
eon
And again do we come to the question “Why is it needed”?.
Already it was approximately with dozen similar cartridges.
Where are they all?
In the dustbin of history.
Why?
Then you can think for yourself.
And yes.
Some people overestimate the importance of pistol collimators.
No magical red dots can replace the muscle motor skills that are developed by exercise.
It’s like a laser on a gun. Which is very useful for training in “offhand” shooting, but only distracts and interferes in real situations.
In addition, they greatly impair the “portability” of weapons and overall reliability.
Although, for the bespectacled in the shooting range, the red dots on the pistol are very useful.
They do make an 11mm, it’s called the .44 automag.
Very good idea to relay the Questions from your patreons. This has more on point information than the usual SHOT show videos. 🙂
Loved the Red Dot answer !