[ACIinventor]

The image above describes some R&D work Colt did from the 1960s into the early 1970s.
Anybody have any thoughts on such a pistol made today?
*The Triplex Salvo ammunition was developed at the same time as the squeeze bore barrel. I'm just interested in the squeeze bore barrel concept.

 

[John in AR]

I only thought they did that primarily on anti-tank guns; never saw it in a pistol size package. IIRC, it caused greatly increased chamber pressure and shortened the barrel life expectancy as well. Never heard of the 9mm SSB.

 

[Garand]

If I remember correctly the Germans tried that at the beginning for WW2 and sidelined those anti tank guns with a year or so.

 

[BigEd]

I only thought they did that primarily on anti-tank guns; never saw it in a pistol size package. IIRC, it caused greatly increased chamber pressure and shortened the barrel life expectancy as well. Never heard of the 9mm SSB.

This is what I've been contemplating.
When an arms maker patents a preliminary idea. Then does zilch it's usually first CYA during testing for the patent. But if it goes nowhere I'm guessing epic fail.
Or no interest from buyers.

 

[Dorobuta]

This is what I've been contemplating.
When an arms maker patents a preliminary idea. Then does zilch it's usually first CYA during testing for the patent. But if it goes nowhere I'm guessing epic fail.
Or no interest from buyers.

might have worked, but not provide any real benefits over existing stuff. i.e. looked superior on paper but didn't provide any real advantages in practice. (Sounds vaguely familiar...)

 

[ACIinventor]

If I remember correctly the Germans tried that at the beginning for WW2 and sidelined those anti tank guns with a year or so.

From what I've read, the development of shaped-charge rounds ended the squeeze bore concept.

 

[ACIinventor]

This is what I've been contemplating.
When an arms maker patents a preliminary idea. Then does zilch it's usually first CYA during testing for the patent. But if it goes nowhere I'm guessing epic fail.
Or no interest from buyers.

Maybe the true goal of Colt's endeavor was the Triplex Salvo ammunition. The squeeze bore concept was dredged up from the past in an attempt to make the ammunition feasible. I'm assuming firing three rounds at one time would require more velocity to make the rounds ballistically effective. By squeezing the bore, Colt could get the muzzle velocity higher.

 

[ACIinventor]

might have worked, but not provide any real benefits over existing stuff. i.e. looked superior on paper but didn't provide any real advantages in practice. (Sounds vaguely familiar...)

Perhaps it was an idea ahead of its time.

 

[ACIinventor]

Everybody check out Arthur Langsford's squeeze bore rimfire rifle concept. Interesting.
Guns Magazine, 2011

 

[ACIinventor]

Wikipedia: A wildcat cartridge, often shortened to wildcat, is a custom cartridge for which ammunition and/or firearms are not mass-produced. These cartridges are often created in order to optimize a certain performance characteristic (such as the power, size or efficiency) of an existing commercial cartridge.

I see the popularity of wildcat cartridges growing. One could argue, wildcat cartridges are another way to produce better ballistic performance not unlike the squeeze bore concept. Can anybody see any advantages or disadvantages going this route over a squeeze bore?