Is .30 Super Carry already dead?

[T.O.M.]

Local gun store has Smith Shield Plus for $229, and the Shield EZ for $199.  Both are chambered in .30 Super Carry.  Other calibers are about $100 more.  My immediate thought is that the .30 must be a dead caliber, as those prices are ridiculously low enough to catch my attention.  Hell, a Shield Plus for under $250 might catch my attention if ammo was going to be available.  Anyone have any inside info on this?  Google didn't help...

[Hawkmoon]

.30 Super Carry is another answer to a question nobody asked. Taking $100 of the price of the gun wouldn't be enough to entice me to even look at it. I won't say they'd have to pay me to take one home, but I wouldn't pay money for one. If they're giving them away, I guess it can be used as a paperweight.

[Perd Hapley]

Since I've been carrying a .380 for the past several months, I can tell you that every time I look for .380 ammo at local stores, I see at least as good a selection of .30 SC on the shelf. Maybe better. I guess someone must be buying it, or they wouldn't keep it in stock.

True, .380 is not the most popular caliber, either, but it has a very long head start. 

[K Frame]

I'd really be enticed to get a .30 SC at that price. For no other reason than to add another .32 caliber handgun to my collection.

[WLJ]

Looking on Buds I see only a few S&W models and a Hi-Point carbine are currently for sale chambering the round.
I could have sworn there were more makes and models chambered for the round when it first came out but that could be fuzzy memory.
Either way that doesn't bode well. But hey, 10mm stuck around and then pretty much came back from the grave.

Now I shoot 357Sig which a bit of niche round but at least with it I have the option of switching out the barrel for a 40SW barrel if it came to that.

[MechAg94]

I have a 357Sig barrel for one of my 40 cal pistols (old police trade-in P226).  To me it is just a home defense alternative to 40 cal.  I need to find a barrel for my P229.  357 Sig at least has a decent track record of effectiveness even if it doesn't seem to show that in testing.  Throwing a giant fireball at a home intruder along with the bullet may not be a bad thing.

I think I understand what they were going for with 30 super carry, but they were trying to compete with 9mm and didn't offer enough advantage to make it worth the change.  And I don't know if it really offered enough advantage over 380 either.  Why would I switch to a caliber that might be a hair weaker than 9mm just to get one or two more rounds?  Mostly I am waffling between 9mm, 40 cal, and 45 ACP handguns for carry.  I don't need a fourth option.

[WLJ]

I have a 357Sig barrel for one of my 40 cal pistols (old police trade-in P226).  To me it is just a home defense alternative to 40 cal.  I need to find a barrel for my P229.  357 Sig at least has a decent track record of effectiveness even if it doesn't seem to show that in testing.  Throwing a giant fireball at a home intruder along with the bullet may not be a bad thing.

I think I understand what they were going for with 30 super carry, but they were trying to compete with 9mm and didn't offer enough advantage to make it worth the change.  And I don't know if it really offered enough advantage over 380 either.  Why would I switch to a caliber that might be a hair weaker than 9mm just to get one or two more rounds?  Mostly I am waffling between 9mm, 40 cal, and 45 ACP handguns for carry.  I don't need a fourth option.

I was eyeballing just for fun one of the ported Glock 357Sig. They throw up and out one heck of a fireball.
A 357Sig carbine would be interesting. Looking at the Ballistics by the Inch website 357Sig out of 16" barrel is rather interesting, ~850 ft/lbs

I could see a point in 30SC if everybody hadn't come out with a bunch of 1.5 stack 9mm's right before it's release. After that not so much.

[HankB]

Choosing an oddball round with (as MechAg94 observed) a little less performance than a 9mm in order to get a round or two more capacity isn't a tradeoff I'm interested in.

Carbines? The only reason to get a .30 SC carbine when the .30 carbine exists is because High Points are cheaper.  But if you're getting a High Point because it's cheap, they're also available in 9mm, 10mm, .45, .40 . . .

It's kind of like the present day infatuation with the 5.7x28 round and its ballistics that sort of split the difference between .22 rimfire mag and .22 Hornet. It's kind of an interesting round in the P90 subgun (which isn't available to me anyway) but I don't get the attraction of using it in the AR15 platform which has a lot of other choices available including - believe it or not - .223/5.56.

[230RN]

...

[230RN]

NEW! IMPROVED! POST BY 230RN!

"The answer to a question nobody asked."

Anything "NEW" is bound to be a sales-getter whether it has realisitic advantages or not. 

Think "NEW!   IMPROVED!  Distilled water." That turns the eyeballs of the grocery cart pushers disunirregardless of any supposed advantage.

Besides, the development research costs are usually IRS-deductible.  And who knows, you might actually get a long-term winner.

As far as I can tell, there are no actual honest-to-G-d  "performance gaps" in the ammuition selections presently available.  But this doesn't mean a MFR can't pump one up with enough propaganda.

And we're all suckers for propaganda.

Terry, 230RN

[230RN]

What we rally need is a .292 Super Mag cartridge to fill that glaring performance gap !

And "Two-Ninety-Two" is such a euphonious name !

[MechAg94]

The other side of things for me:  With self defense and pistols, I figure the most critical part is getting that first 2 or 3 rounds off accurately and quickly.  After that, any sort of extended gun fight is going to involve everyone moving and running where accuracy is less likely.  Using a slightly less effective round to get slightly more capacity doesn't seem like a smart move, especially when I am considering taking a bigger hit on capacity and carrying 40 cal or 45 acp to make those first few shots more effective. 


I like 5.7 as an option.  To me is makes a better alternative to rimfire rounds that some people prefer.  The biggest self defense issue with the PSA Rock and others is the length of the grips are usually longer.  I figure people with grip issues may not like that.  Otherwise, someone like my Mother might prefer it.  Easy to shoot with little recoil. 

[Northwoods]

In the context of self defense the median gun fight involves something like 3 shots total between all sides combined.  Not sure what the standard deviation is but I’d SWAG it that a 6-shooter would not require a reload in more than 3/4 of cases.

Handguns are inherently underpowered.  Carrying the most powerful one you can shoot accurately and quickly will be you best hedge.  Practicing (and carrying) reloads is likely more important than carrying a larger capacity gun.

[JN01]

Since I've been carrying a .380 for the past several months, I can tell you that every time I look for .380 ammo at local stores, I see at least as good a selection of .30 SC on the shelf. Maybe better. I guess someone must be buying it, or they wouldn't keep it in stock.

True, .380 is not the most popular caliber, either, but it has a very long head start.

Or maybe it's in stock because no one bought it.

[HankB]

. . . I like 5.7 as an option. . . . someone like my Mother might prefer it.  Easy to shoot with little recoil.

That's a valid argument - some folks simply can't handle a "serious" self defense round due to some infirmity, but they're still mentally sound enough to understand their need for self defense. A centerfire is highly likely to be more reliable than most of today's rimfire ammunition, and if they can handle the manual of arms for a small caliber pistol and it's reliable in their hands, well, when it comes to self defense the difference between bare hands and a small caliber is larger than the difference between a small caliber and a .45.

And of course, the 5.7 isn't a toy. (Didn't the crazy Moslem shrink who shot up Ft. Hood use a 5.7 pistol?)

[griz]

If handguns sales are like rifle sales, all they have to do is neck the 30SC case down to 6.5 mm, and make up something about superior downrange ballistics.  They'll sale a boatload of them.

[Hawkmoon]

What we rally need is a .292 Super Mag cartridge to fill that glaring performance gap !

And "Two-Ninety-Two" is such a euphonious name !

Bystander to T.O.M.: "Why do you carry a 30 SC?"

T.O.M.: "Because they don't make a 31 SC."

[WLJ]

If 30SC had come a few years before all these micro 1.5 stack 9mm's came out it could have had a chance to grow some legs. As it is I think it will likely be forgotten in another 3 years or so, maybe less.

[AZRedhawk44]

Choosing an oddball round with (as MechAg94 observed) a little less performance than a 9mm in order to get a round or two more capacity isn't a tradeoff I'm interested in.

Carbines? The only reason to get a .30 SC carbine when the .30 carbine exists is because High Points are cheaper.  But if you're getting a High Point because it's cheap, they're also available in 9mm, 10mm, .45, .40 . . .

It's kind of like the present day infatuation with the 5.7x28 round and its ballistics that sort of split the difference between .22 rimfire mag and .22 Hornet. It's kind of an interesting round in the P90 subgun (which isn't available to me anyway) but I don't get the attraction of using it in the AR15 platform which has a lot of other choices available including - believe it or not - .223/5.56.

For awhile I kind of liked the idea of a 5.7 equipped AR with an empty mag with no follower or spring as a brass catcher.  Then again, you can do the same with a normal 5.56 AR and a basket hanging off the side of it.

[MechAg94]

At one time I had one of the brass catcher attachments.  My memory is hazy on how it attached.  I recall it was easy for it to get hung up such that it blocked the cases from ejecting. 

There is that 5.7 AR upper.  Looks interesting to me, but I haven't decided to put money down for it yet.  I mainly like the idea of something that uses the 50 round magazines.  It would be better as a pistol, but I hate to invest in that until the bump stock stuff is resolved.

[230RN]

At one time I had one of the brass catcher attachments.  My memory is hazy on how it attached.  I recall it was easy for it to get hung up such that it blocked the cases from ejecting. 

....

100% ditto.  Got it because my AR threw empties forward, into the forbidden area of the indoor range.  Included it when I transferred the gun.  I made no representations as to how well it worked.

[WLJ]

5.7 makes sense in a tiny full auto gun like the P90 with the 5.7 low recoil enabling you to put a lot of rounds in a small area thus compensating for the somewhat weak power of the round. In a larger semi auto platform like an AR I just don't see the point.

[lee n. field]

Choosing an oddball round with (as MechAg94 observed) a little less performance than a 9mm in order to get a round or two more capacity isn't a tradeoff I'm interested in.

Arguable, that's kind of how we got to 9mm as standard. 

We optimize in the bounds of all kinds of constraints.  9mm is popular now.  Being popular it becomes cheaper to get than other options.  Positive feedback.

And current thinking seems to be "make lots of holes quick". More positive feedback favoring the relatively inexpensive 9mm.

That's a valid argument - some folks simply can't handle a "serious" self defense round due to some infirmity, but they're still mentally sound enough to understand their need for self defense.

Arguable, that's kind of how we got to 9mm as standard. 

The other side of things for me:  With self defense and pistols, I figure the most critical part is getting that first 2 or 3 rounds off accurately and quickly.  After that, any sort of extended gun fight is going to involve everyone moving and running where accuracy is less likely. 

Not me.  Not running, not moving fast.

[MechAg94]

Arguable, that's kind of how we got to 9mm as standard.

We optimize in the bounds of all kinds of constraints.  9mm is popular now.  Being popular it becomes cheaper to get than other options.  Positive feedback.

And current thinking seems to be "make lots of holes quick". More positive feedback favoring the relatively inexpensive 9mm.

Not me.  Not running, not moving fast.

On that last, You may not move, but your target(s) likely will.  That is what I see in a lot of the videos that get shared around. 

I agree that there is some compromise with 9mm already.  And some compromise further to smaller calibers they are more comfortable shooting.  I can't carry a rifle everywhere and I am not going to carry a 45/70 derringer so I am fine 9mm up to 45 cal.