What would the ballistic performance of a 9.5x40mm cartridge

similar to 9x39.

>>31932262
This.

>>31932255
Mediocre, but probably good for suppressed SBRs since it's a very underbore cartridge

stating a cartridge's dimensions means nothing, we need to know bullet weight and velocity before any assumptions can be made.

>>31932255
Is that a Famas?

>>31932262
however i would say there is the presumed improvements in propellants because FUTURE. So i would assume that it would go faster than you would assume from the case volume.

>>31932315
yes

>>31932255
I don't know if that's supposed to be the caliber of a battle rifle. But if so, I'd assume it's an ultra high velocity round due to space magic, and 500 years metallurgy/powder improvement.

So what I'm getting here is that assuming modern day smokeless powder, such a cartridge would only be able to achieve subsonic velocity and therefore unfit for longer ranged engagement?

>>31932303
Assuming brass and lead X gunpowder I'd say 115gr-230gr at 2300fps-990fps

>>31932315
No

>>31932315
It's a Futuramas.