Quote Originally Posted by Dutch110 View Post
No worries. I didn't take your comment as being argumentative at all. I watched the review with the Federal rep and even with the 50,000 PSI chamber pressure they were quoting numbers that were mush lower than +P or +P+ 9mm rounds. Check out the Federal comparison chart / marketing. Notice they only compare it to standard 9mm defensive loads and make claims that its just as good as. But once you measure it against a stouter 9mm load it falls behind pretty quickly in all areas.

https://www.federalpremium.com/30supercarry.html

I like to use this chart for comparison. Sure, if Federal cherry picks which 9mm load they want to compare it to they can make those claims all day long. But there are rounds on this chart that leave it in the dust. To me I don't the two rounds extra capacity as enough reason to switch from 9mm.

http://ballistics101.com/9mm.php


Also note in their marketing material they are marketing it squarely as "more power than a 380 and more capacity than a 9mm." Was that really a void that needed filled?
This seems typical of Federal’s new cartridge marketing. Perhaps everyone’s, but I notice it with Federal. They cherry pick an existing cartridge and load, then make a comparison that it’ll barely live up to. Then when everyone decides that it doesn’t do much more than that, it slowly dies. .338Fed was marketed as having muzzle energy like a 7mm magnum, but fits in a short action, where it also competed well in muzzle energy. Sure, with a light-for-caliber bullet, I guess. .327…. More power than .38, more capacity than .357. That one should have been more successful; it does those things well, in a niche that needs those things. .224 Valk is another one that looks good with specific comparisons, but turns out to not be all that special.