MUH THOMPSON-LAGARDE! will be the cry.

But an M17 in SC would be a good service handgun.

So an almost 33% jump in mag capacity in some cases, a vastly more efficient cartridge that's easier to shoot and easier to make hits at distance with that can also do 3a AP etc with no exotic materials or onerously expensive projectile manufacturing and has a laundry list of other advantages that just so happen to alleviate many of the most commons wants or laments about 9x19 doesn't do enough?

The only thing that proves is that the people in charge of western small arms programs don't actually know what they're doing, which is a hell of a reason to argue against something.

Did I mention that super carry is actually a really compelling smg/mp cartridge too?

Like, extremely compelling.

It doesn't take a genius to look at the super carry cartridge and things like the dagny dagger definitely not a legal workaround to give civilians access to pistol AP ammo and understand the potential there as well.

Especially when you find out that from longer barrels the 9mm dagny daggers have penetrated uhmwpe based "level 3 plates" pretty reliably in testing.

When we talk about the bullet hose tactic being questionable and not necessarily something you want to rely on, that right there is an eye opener especially since a super carry dagny dagger would be far more potent.

Potent enough to blow straight through the ballistic helmets and at least some of the ballistic armor we most frequently encounter our reference threat forces issuing/wearing.

All This is before we get cute with lightweight cases and wildly overpressure vs saami spec loads and etc. 

Combine all of this and as I said above it's far from a matter of not being worth it and much more a matter of our procurement idiocy being extremely severe.

Also 30 super carry is an almost ridiculously conservative example of what could be done pretty trivially with a new handgun cartridge if you started from a blank sheet.

There was a lot of "we need a longer range cartridge than 5.56x45" for a long time, though. 

Yeah man ... Call me funny but a decently double digit percentage capacity bump even in double stack to single feed along with the massive ballistic improvements and "growth potential" vs current factory loads seem pretty significant to me. 

Heck you could do double stack very near double feed and still have a comfortably thin grip width.

Idk though man, considering the state of military small arms procurement and development in the west currently if anything western militaries thinking such a thing isn't worth doing is a bloody well ringing endorsement at this point!

I mean they just bought a 6.7 pound unholy expensive glorified tec 9 for their psd guns 2 years ago.

And anyone who thinks the glorified tec 9 part is hyperbole, tfb did an interview with b&t people where it was outright stated that the apc9k is a "product improved" tec 9.

A hyper expensive, still using 9x19, closed bolt blowback, heavier than several unloaded m16 variants 4.5 inch barrel glorified tec 9 with a qd suppressor mount...

Yeah, feeling pretty comfortable with my opinion diverging with western small arms procurement officials here.

As a child of the 80s, I would buy an improved Tec-9. Just not at B&T prices.

I suspect what holds back our 30SC service pistol is 1. "Hey, it's 9mm recoil and energy, so why change"? 2. "Who cares about pistol capacity"? 3. An attitude that any big improvement in military handguns isn't worth the effort.

Farmplinker said:

I suspect what holds back our 30SC service pistol is

Well what we really need - and what 30SC needs if it is to survive - is a service size pistol that makes the public say 'Wowza! Gotta get me some of that!' 

The initial guns launched in the caliber are uninspiring. 

My hope is S&W will adapt its new S&W MP5.7 to 30SC, as the case diameters are similar as is the SAAMI pressure. 22rd 5.7 should be ~21rd .30sc.

Farmplinker said:

I suspect what holds back our 30SC service pistol is 1. "Hey, it's 9mm recoil and energy, so why change"? 2. "Who cares about pistol capacity"? 3. An attitude that any big improvement in military handguns isn't worth the effort.

I think you summed it up very well, except I don't see where 30SC can be considered a "big" improvement in military handguns.

In regard to item 2, the military does care about pistol ammo capacity.  But 30SC offers a mere 20% increase in capacity vs 9mm.

A 20% increase in mag capacity is negligible.*  That would mean 20 rounds of 30SC versus 17 rounds of 9mm for the M17 pistol.

If such a small jump in mag capacity is desired, it would be much easier and far more cost effective to just issue the 21-rd mags.

*20%?  LOL.  When the Army switched to 9mm half a century ago, magazine capacity of the service pistol increased by 114%!!!

stancrist said:

20%?  LOL.  When the Army switched to 9mm half a century ago, magazine capacity of the service pistol increased by 114%!!

And the US had been aware of the 9mm and 13 shot 9mm Browning Highpower for decades before, but stuck with their 7 shot .45's, further supporting the argument that 30SC is a wayyyys off.

Farmplinker said:

There was a lot of "we need a longer range cartridge than 5.56x45" for a long time, though.

Well of course there has been the 7,62 vs 5,56 debate.
But there has been very little debate and allmost none in official chanels that something more powerfull than 7,62x51 as standard rifle cartidge is needed.
I mean the transition from full length M16 rifle to M4 carbines as standard issue happend around 2005. The Marine corps switched even later. So at this point in time the official opinion obviously has been that even less effective range then that of the 20" M16 rifle is all that is required.

stancrist said:

All I'm saying is that if the Army were to change its opinion on 9x19, there would be signs of dissatisfaction with the caliber well in advance of an announced decision to change.

Yes.
But this dissatisfaction could come once there is the comparision to something better. As you mention 9x19 is servicable. I agree on that. Especially if you want to use large numbers of handguns and not use an additional ammo type using 9x19 for handguns, SMGs and PDWs makes some sense. 9x19 is like .50 cal in this regard. It worked 100 years ago. It works now. Its the traditional, low risk, high inertia solution.
IF a SCHV PDW would be prooven to be superiour, which ironically can really only happen by fielding it in large numbers as standard issue preferable to be used in anger, there quickly could be dissatisfaction with 9x19 because there is something better around now. I think it would be the same with .50 cal. If something proven to be better would appear there quickly would be dissatisfaction and a move to replace it. Since this has not happened yet its the best thing proven to work.