Lever action 9mm Luger

[rabbit hunter]

I was reading the reader feedback article in the Feb. issue of "Guns & Ammo" magazine wherein someone suggested that a 9mm luger in lever action would make a nice carbine. I totally agree & wonder why it hasn't been done. A light weight Rossi 92 with 16 1/2" bbl would be fine for me. Any thoughts on this?

[Buck Elliott]

That's why neither you, nor the one who posed the Question to G&A are successful gun makers..

The Rossi 92 is a lot more gun than is needed for the pipsqueak 9.. The cartridge is very short, rimless, and would probably be OK in a much shorter, sm.aller action than the 92, maybe along the lines of a .36-cal. Volcanic... A front-loading magazine tube would be in order, or (perish the thought) a single- or double-stack magazine, inserted into the bottom of the reciever, might be the way to go..

[Nath]

32/20 for me...the police can stick to the
military round if they wish.
I dont doubt a Honda engine could be fitted to a Hardley but....why would ya!!

[7.62 Precision]

It has been done already.

There are Rossis in 9mm as well as other '92 clones and '73 and '66 clones.










They are available in 9mm Special. Some even in 9mm Magnum.

[7.62 Precision]

All seriousness aside, .38/.357 gives you the type of cartridge the rifles were designed to run, and equal to far better performance from the rifle than you would get from 9mm. There is just no incentive to go to a 9mm - the rifle would be the same; the performance would suffer.

[Pete44ru]

.

Shucks - Where would the world be, w/o it's dreamers ? .



.

[Griff]

I was reading the reader feedback article in the Feb. issue of "Guns & Ammo" magazine wherein someone suggested that a 9mm luger in lever action would make a nice carbine. I totally agree & wonder why it hasn't been done. A light weight Rossi 92 with 16 1/2" bbl would be fine for me. Any thoughts on this?

Taking the question seriously, (as I'm sure Buck was also); while the conversion to 45ACP is pretty straight forward, just requiring the barrel be set back for the correct chamber dimensions, then the carrier, extractor and ejector all need modified to fit the cartridge length and auto type rim, the 9x19 would require a new barrel, plus all the other same modifications. The .355 diameter of the 9mms don't perform all that well in the .357 of the .38Special and .357mag. And that's just plain forgetting the economics of the whole thing.

So... to date, there's one letter writer G&A and yourself, that have expressed an interest. It's no wonder the manufacturers have overlooked this exciting prospect!

[Streetstar]

I was interested in a 45 ACP carbine at one time myself, but i read a ballistics table somewhere (i've long since forgot where - sorry) that basically stated the semi-auto pistol cartridges do not pick up nearly as much velocity out of the longer tube than the traditional revolver cartridges

And not having a Camp 9 or a Camp 45 to mess around with and chronograph against a pistol, --- i just decided to take it at face value and i've been a .45 Colt guy ever since. I would be curious how many of the stubby little pills you could put down the mag tube of a 20" carbine though --- would truly be bordering on high capacity

[stretch]

was interested in a 45 ACP carbine at one time myself, but i read a ballistics table somewhere (i've long since forgot where - sorry) that basically stated the semi-auto pistol cartridges do not pick up nearly as much velocity out of the longer tube than the traditional revolver cartridges

The basic problem there, most notably with the 9mm cartridge, is case capacity. Ya
simply can't make the 9mm go any faster than we already have without pressure problems.
One COULD go with a 9x21 or 9x23, but with the 357 Magnum and the 357 Maximum, why
would one? I suppose one could make the argument for matching rounds in both the pistol
and the long gun, which makes some sense, particularly if one is enamored of the 45 ACP
cartridge in a handgun - which more than a few of us are!

The 45 Colt hasn't got that problem, nor does the 357 magnum, nor even the
38 Special. Some old fella named Keith got some pretty good velocity out of the
38 Special cartridge once upon a time.

-Stretch

[3leggedturtle]

[quote="Streetstar"]I was interested in a 45 ACP carbine at one time myself, but i read a ballistics table somewhere (i've long since forgot where - sorry) that basically stated the semi-auto pistol cartridges do not pick up nearly as much velocity out of the longer tube than the traditional revolver cartridges

Streetstar I have a !8" TC carbine in 45Auto. WW whitebox only gained 50fps or so. However with reloads and slower powder I easily get a 255gr RNFP going 1050fps and am still under max. Trouble with pushing the 185gr to 200gr bulletst is they shed velocity so quick, it's not worth it other than to bust 2litre water bottles.

I also wish Ruger had made the 96 lever in some rimless pistol cartridges too.

[harry]

Also when shoving rounds in the loading gate the 9mm would turn sidways before it got to the mag tube.

[Streetstar]

Also when shoving rounds in the loading gate the 9mm would turn sidways before it got to the mag tube.

Thats why a tube fed -- like a HEnry , would be good

9mm seems to be quite popular in "tactical" type semi auto carbines --- but they have an entirely different set of parameters they are looking at there ----

but the old overpenetration argument has been put to rest and the various tacticool operators are now using 5.56 for just about everything it seems --- has even made the old MP-5/HK 94 obsolete except for ops needing a silenced weapon

[kaschi]

There was a post a few months back where a guy successfully worked a Rossi over to fire 7.62x25 Tokarev ammo. Anyone else recall that post? There was a video of it as well. Seemed to function nicely.

[44shooter]

Wow, way to rain on a man's parade. Maybe 9mm performance is good enough for him. Maybe he just wants a plinker or a self defense carbine. Maybe he has a pallet of 9mm ammo in his garage.

It doesn't much interest me, but I might be interested in a trapper 45 ACP. It would have higher round capacity than those chambered in revolver cartridges. These days good defense ammo for autos is much cheaper than 357, 44 sp/mag, or 45 Colt. Cutting edge defense ammo is not even available for 218, 25-20, 32-20, 38-40, or 44-40.

I am not slamming any of these cartridges, I love my Marlin in 44 Mag. I could have just has easily went with 45 Colt. A second in 357 would be nice. But, nothing wrong with thinking about the possibilities of a certain platform chambered in a cartridge you may like or think practical.

I also have a N frame in 45 ACP. Doesn't bother me a bit that I'm not shooting 300 grainers out of a long rimmed case.

[7.62 Precision]

The OP's question was why it had not been done by a gunmaker. That is what people were answering, not could it be done, but why it had not been done. No one was trying to rain on anyone's parade, just giving the reasons why:

Would require quite a redesign of the rifle
Would be seen as very non-traditional to a customer base that favors tradition.
Would have to court a customer base that would be more interested in 9mm ARs, MP5 clones, UZIs, etc.
Would be ballistically inferior to similar diameter cartridges that the same rifles are already chambered for.
Would be less useful/versatile than cartridges the same rifles are already chambered for.
Would likely pose serious engineering or reliability problems. Every lever gun manufacturer knows that each lever gun design works best for particular range of cartridge lengths, which is why we have '92s for pistol cartridges, '94s for the 38-55 family of cartridge lengths, etc. It never has worked out perfectly to cross them over, such as pistol cartridges in the '94. The 9mm is substantially shorter and does not have a rim - that would feel pretty scary for any engineer considering modifying the '92 design, and terrifying to the guys who handle the money.
SO, they would more likely consider a rifle designed from the ground up for the 9mm, and modern style leverguns, like Winchester 88s, Rugers, etc. have never sold anywhere close to as well as traditional lever guns. They would be better off designing a semi-auto that would be easier to design and cheaper to build.

Remember when the Miroku 1895s were chambered in the non-traditional .270 Win? Great cartridge, great idea on the practical side; didn't go over well for them. They converted them to .405 Winchester, which, though there were several lever gun cartridges that are very similar in performance and usefulness, sold much better because it was a traditional chambering.

So while we may sit here and say, "Wouldn't it be cool if . . . " the manufacturers have to do market research. They have to consider the development costs. They have to decide if they have the right resources. They have to consider marketing costs.

So when Rossi can sell every .44-40, .38/.357, .44 Mag, and .45 Colt rifle they produce; when they can't produce as many .454s as the market demands, when people are asking for .480 Ruger rifles that they have not made in years, but that they have already designed and built before, you can't expect them to seriously consider a caliber that will be difficult to develop a rifle for, difficult to market, and difficult to sell.

I know how this works. Every week shooters tell me what we should develop. "If you made it, I know you would sell a bunch!" they tell me. Sometimes they are right. We now have the first IWB concealment holsters for the Taurus Judge. We had that many people asking. Generally, though, they just get irate and cuss and complain and tell me how much money we are losing, what an opportunity we are missing out on, but I can't make a $175 tactical drop leg level-3 retention thigh holster system for the Kel-Tec P3AT requiring $20,000 worth of tooling costs. Not gonna happen. I would sell five. In my lifetime.