Why is this cartridge so shit? It's got a longer case than, say, 9x19, and it's only got a 100gr projectile. It should be launching that thing crazy fast, but it doesn't even reach 1000fps out of a 4.5in barrel. What's wrong with this cartridge?
Nobody knows?
Jap metallurgy wasn't so good at the beginning of the 20th century.
>>35195087
Shitty powder loads?
>>35196016
So it's an issue of weak brass forcing a low powder charge?
It was designed before 9mm. More closer to 7.63 mauser
>>35196016
Low velocity its a powder problem not a metallurgy problem
Look at the Mark 1, the Nambu supposedly being the inspiration, and its round. The design may not be able to take higher pressures, or we would see Ruger the ruger mark series in actual pistol rounds.
Mind you you could probably reproduce the gun in 380. or 32. without it ripping the gun apart.
Its the gun at fault not the round, designed in a low pressure era, so the round is bound to the guns capabilities regardless of case capacity.
Compare M2 ball with modern 30-06 for a similar situation.
>>35196061
No, it's because the Nambu was a poorly-designed piece of shit made of pot metal.
>>35196073
Lol, do you reload?
If it was a metallurgy problem, and you thought the solution was more powder, you're in for a real surprise...
They may have needed slower/moderate burning powders just to get that thing moving ~1000fps without making a hand grenade.
>>35196156
>Compare M2 ball with modern 30-06
But M2 ball was already a download from the WWI loadings.
The problem was that the M1 Gayrand is a shitty canadian design.
>>35196367
This being my point the ammo was designed for the rifle, not the full capabilities of the round.
>>35195087
But is it shit? It's about as powerful as a .380ACP is. The most common military pistol caliber at the time was .32ACP.
>>35196016
>Jap metallurgy wasn't so good at the beginning of the 20th century.
No, it was just fine.
>>35196213
It wasn't made of pot metal, it just had a weak locking system.
>>35196367
>But M2 ball was already a download from the WWI loadings.
M2 Ball is almost exactly the same as the M1906 loading.
>The problem was that the M1 Gayrand is a shitty canadian design.
It had nothing to do with the M1. The change from M1 ball to M2 ball had only to do with the rifle ranges not being long enough for M1 ball.