View Single Post
Old January 11, 2012, 11:10 PM   #31
JohnKSa
Staff
 
Join Date: February 12, 2001
Location: DFW Area
Posts: 18,423
Quote:
But, I still blame SAAMI for creating the situation where a cartridge that was designed to produce 1500 fps with a 158 grain bullet from a 8-3/8" barrel...
It is my understanding that those figures were obtained with a 15" unvented test barrel, NOT an actual 8-3/8" revolver.

Yes, there have been some cases where loads have been made more mild, but a lot of what people perceive to be lighter loadings today are simply the result of the fact that once chronographs became inexpensive, it became impossible for manufacturers to make, shall we say, "highly optimistic" velocity claims.
Quote:
Of course it is true that shooting hot loads will wear out a gun faster than shooting warm loads. And it is also true that shooting warm loads will wear out a gun faster than shooting "mouse-fart" loads. But, those are not SAFETY issues.
That's correct. Unless you exceed the strength of the gun with a load that generates too much pressure, the wear from shooting is primarily from recoil--parts being banged together as the gun jumps around in recoil. The more recoil, the harder the parts get banged together.

However, at some point, going lighter on the loads isn't going to help much because of the fatigue properties of steel. In other words, moderate loads may not really shorten the life of a well-designed gun compared to really light loads because the gun is designed to tolerate moderate loads indefinitely. That's not to say it won't wear out. It will still wear out from the wear of internal parts, etc. but lightening recoil past a certain point won't affect that.
__________________
Did you know that there is a TEXAS State Rifle Association?
JohnKSa is offline  
 
Page generated in 0.05133 seconds with 7 queries