The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > Hogan's Alley > Handguns: The Revolver Forum

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old September 9, 2012, 04:50 PM   #26
Vireye
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 21, 2012
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 202
I used to carry a S&W 640 all the time. I (regrettably) since traded it for other firearms...

Weird as this sounds, I prefered the recoil of a 158gr .357mag round out of that snubbie over a full-size autoloader in .40 S&W. I have no idea why, but the .40 just annoys me.
Vireye is offline  
Old September 9, 2012, 05:40 PM   #27
Webleymkv
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 20, 2005
Location: Indiana
Posts: 9,889
Originally posted by Blue Train
Quote:
To WebleyMkV, while what you say is correct in that a faster burning powder is more efficient in a shorter barrel, because it's more likely to all be burned within the barrel, I don't think that's necessarily the way to measure efficiency. It may or may not be true that the faster burning powder will produce a higher velocity, though it will probably produce less muzzle flash or blast. I would be more likely to believe that a heavier charge of slower burning powder may in fact produce a higher velocity even at the cost of less efficiency as far as burning powder is concerned. Even so, there's more to it than that.
The key to getting the highest possible velocity is maintaining peak pressure for as long as possible. Whether a fast burning powder or slow burning powder is best for the task depends on both bullet weight and barrel length. Generally, for light bullets and/or short barrels, faster burning powder is preferable. This is because pressure is at or peak when the bullet leaves the case and the powder is mostly, if not completely, burned by the time the bullet leaves the barrel. Slower burning powders are not preferable for short barrels or light bullets because the bullet will likely be well down if not out of the barrel and a good percentage of the powder will burn after the bullet has already left the barrel.

Conversely, slower powders are better for longer barrels and/or heavier bullets. This is because a larger percentage of the powder will burn before the bullet exits the case, thus ensuring that peak pressure is not reached too soon, and because the powder will continue to burn until the bullet is out, or almost out, of the barrel. Slower burning powders are less preferable for light bullets and short barrels because peak pressure is likely to be reached well before the bullet leaves the case, thus reducing the length of time it can be maintained while the bullet travels down the barrel, and because the powder will likely we burnt up well before the bullet exits the barrel thus reducing pressure quickly and allowing the friction of the barrel to slow the bullet's velocity.

Quote:
If you have a variety of handguns, particularly of the same caliber, you may not want to customize the loads that much. In other words, there's no point in having the same caliber if you use different loads in different guns, though I still understand the object. One might want to use different loads even though you only had one gun. In addition to having a load suitable for shooting 1957 Chevrolets, which would be detestible, you might still have use for wadcutters in your pet .357 revolver.
Sticking to one loading for a given caliber is understandable enough as I do it myself. Both my 2 1/2" S&W M66 and my 4" M28 are loaded with Remington 158gr SJHP. This loading is among the most efficient in my snub and I do not feel that it is markedly inferior to lighter, faster .357 Magnum loadings even from a longer barrel. Of course, I've long thought that 158gr bullets were the best "all purpose" weight for a .357 Magnum.

Quote:
Ultimately, you can only measure the efficiency of the load by measuring the velocity of the load--in your own gun. That's true for factory ammo, too, about which you may not know anything about the powder. Of course, muzzle flash and blast can still be a concern that you will still want to take into account no matter what the velocity comes out to be.
Yet another reason that I prefer the heavier 140-158gr bullets in a .357 Magnum is that, with full power loadings, the blast and flash does not seem nearly as pronounced though they're still not what I'd describe as "kind and gentle".
__________________
Smith, and Wesson, and Me. -H. Callahan
Well waddaya know, one buwwet weft! -E. Fudd
All bad precedents begin as justifiable measures. -J. Caesar

Last edited by Webleymkv; September 10, 2012 at 07:39 AM. Reason: typo
Webleymkv is offline  
Old September 9, 2012, 07:43 PM   #28
Sgt127
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 13, 2002
Posts: 609
Quote:
Remember, that flash work both ways. You may be as/more blind than him come the next shot.
That, Sir, is a lie.

After the first shot in a snub nose .357 Magnum, particularly one of those danged Airweight versions from S&W...your eyes will be shut everytime you pull the trigger anyway.

At least, mine are......


Sgt127 is offline  
Old September 9, 2012, 08:34 PM   #29
tomrkba
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 29, 2011
Posts: 611
A regular 357 Magnum load out of a short barrel is going to generate a higher velocity than a regular 38 Special or 38 Special +P load. See Stephen Camp's article on this topic.

Now, if you're getting 1150 FPS out of a 125 grain JHP, then you have just duplicated what a Glock 19 does with Speer Gold Dot 124 grain JHP. If you break 1200, now you're seeing some improvement.

Last edited by tomrkba; September 9, 2012 at 08:40 PM.
tomrkba is offline  
Old September 9, 2012, 09:17 PM   #30
warningshot
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 7, 2009
Posts: 995
I call bunk to SGT127's post.

There is plenty of footage of pedestrain as well as drive-by creeps blasting away with Uzis & AKs and all kinds of pistols at night time and the shooter(s) clearly have both eyes wide open before, during and after the 1st shot.

There has also been plenty of night fighting in WW1 thru Afghanistan with guns much bigger, and throwing just a wee bit bigger flash, than any Snub .357 does. Check a history book. The evening wartime combatants fired more than just once before they closed their eyes and called it quits until daybreak.

Now if SGT127 is giving use advice on how he invisions his own behavior after the fight starts, well that is another story.

Last edited by warningshot; September 9, 2012 at 09:28 PM.
warningshot is offline  
Old September 9, 2012, 09:57 PM   #31
jglsprings
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 7, 2009
Posts: 1,467
Quote:
I call bunk to SGT127's post.
There is plenty of footage of pedestrain as well as drive-by creeps blasting away with Uzis & AKs and all kinds of pistols at night time and the shooter(s) clearly have both eyes wide open before, during and after the 1st shot.

There has also been plenty of night fighting in WW1 thru Afghanistan with guns much bigger, and throwing just a wee bit bigger flash, than any Snub .357 does. Check a history book. The evening wartime combatants fired more than just once before they closed their eyes and called it quits until daybreak.

Now if SGT127 is giving use advice on how he invisions his own behavior after the fight starts, well that is another story.
I really think he was trying to be funny. Did you see the emoticon?

Lighten up Francis.
__________________
Let's eat Grandma.
Let's eat, Grandma.

Commas save lives...
jglsprings is offline  
Old September 9, 2012, 11:27 PM   #32
warningshot
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 7, 2009
Posts: 995
Are you sure?

In the olden days, when police agencies had the, 'PAL', sports league for city youth, PAL used to teach boxing lessons. Yes, that kind of boxing. Anyway, the inexperieced fighers would start swinging with their eyes open but would have both eyes tightly closed for the 2nd-3rd-4th and 5th swings.

Not only do I think sgt127 carried this optical childhood fighting notion with him, but I also think sgt127 is predicting or recommening or linking his idea of.357 snub-nose work for you too. Naw, he wasn't joking.
warningshot is offline  
Old September 10, 2012, 07:20 AM   #33
Hal
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 9, 1998
Location: Ohio USA
Posts: 7,435
Quote:
The only way you're going to get a .38 Special or 9mm to meet or exceed the ballistics of a .357 Magnum are to either cherry pick the most powerful .38 Special and 9mm Boutique loadings against the mildest .357 Magnum loadings or to compare the 9mm and .38 from long barrels against the .357 Magnum from short barrels
@ which point, I'm going to go back to my original post....

Which is after all what the OP had brought up - shooting a .357 out of a snub..


I fail to see any significant difference between a 124 gr 9mm out of a Browning Hi Power or any 125 gr . 357 out of a 3" or less snub.

I've also commented before on this.
BBTI does a wonderful job - kudos to Jim for that.
However..
W/out publishing hi - low - extreme spread and standard deviation figures, the data is simply too rough to make any meaningful determination out of.

.357 loads of any weight quite often have a swing of 200 fps from hi to low for 5 shot strings.
Hal is offline  
Old September 10, 2012, 07:31 AM   #34
BlueTrain
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 26, 2005
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 5,825
I for one liked Sgt127's post. It reminds me of Bill Jordan's description of the first time he fired a .357 magnum. He said he never found out where that shot went either, which was a mystery to him. He was so certain that the gun was on target when he closed his eyes and pulled the trigger.

However, back to Mr. WebleymkV, who kindly responded to my comments. Please don't take my comments as criticisms but just friendly conversation.

Are you sure about what you said in your response concerning slow burning powders. I think you made an error and contradicted yourself. But I'll let you read it again first.

In my case, for any cartridge, most but not quite all, of my shooting was done with handloads that were not full power. I always felt that factory ammunition was perfectly fine for just about anything, the handloads were used for economical reasons. In fact, I was always a little surprised at how much more powerful the factory loads appeared to be.

Now, on a slightly different subject, do some powders produce more muzzle flash than others? I have seen it stated that some ammuntion, such as GI .45 auto ammunition, had an anti-flash something added. I believe it was Chuck Taylor who said that. Does some ammunition produce more flash than others? I don't recall that 125 grain .357 produced all that much flash on a dimly lit indoor range but I suppose it might if it were fired in total darkness. We did night firing in the army with all sorts of small arms but unfortunately, that was nearly 50 years ago and my memory of some things is hazy.
__________________
Shoot low, sheriff. They're riding Shetlands!
Underneath the starry flag, civilize 'em with a Krag,
and return us to our own beloved homes!
Buy War Bonds.
BlueTrain is offline  
Old September 10, 2012, 07:40 AM   #35
Webleymkv
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 20, 2005
Location: Indiana
Posts: 9,889
Originally posted by Blue Train
Quote:
However, back to Mr. WebleymkV, who kindly responded to my comments. Please don't take my comments as criticisms but just friendly conversation.
No worries, I took your post in exactly the spirit it was intended

Quote:
Are you sure about what you said in your response concerning slow burning powders. I think you made an error and contradicted yourself. But I'll let you read it again first.
You're right, I made a typo and my post has been edited

Quote:
In my case, for any cartridge, most but not quite all, of my shooting was done with handloads that were not full power. I always felt that factory ammunition was perfectly fine for just about anything, the handloads were used for economical reasons. In fact, I was always a little surprised at how much more powerful the factory loads appeared to be.
I also handload practice ammo for economic reasons (.357 Magnum ammo just aint cheap). I've found that a 158gr LSWC over 14gr of 2400 with a Winchester Small Pistol Primer (non-magnum) duplicates the recoil and POI of a factory 158gr JHP fairly well.

Quote:
Now, on a slightly different subject, do some powders produce more muzzle flash than others? I have seen it stated that some ammuntion, such as GI .45 auto ammunition, had an anti-flash something added. I believe it was Chuck Taylor who said that. Does some ammunition produce more flash than others? I don't recall that 125 grain .357 produced all that much flash on a dimly lit indoor range but I suppose it might if it were fired in total darkness. We did night firing in the army with all sorts of small arms but unfortunately, that was nearly 50 years ago and my memory of some things is hazy.
There are flash suppressants that can be added to powder, but I really don't know all that much about them. I do know that the more powder which burns after the bullet has already left the barrel, the greater the flash and blast will be. If one wanted "fireworks," a light bullet over a large charge of slow burning powder in a short barrel would be a good way to get it.
__________________
Smith, and Wesson, and Me. -H. Callahan
Well waddaya know, one buwwet weft! -E. Fudd
All bad precedents begin as justifiable measures. -J. Caesar

Last edited by Webleymkv; September 10, 2012 at 07:46 AM.
Webleymkv is offline  
Old September 10, 2012, 08:22 AM   #36
Jim Downey
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 5, 2009
Posts: 203
Hal, if you go to the Raw Data page on BBTI, you can download the entire data sets for each test sequence, which show each and every individual chrono reading. Everything is there for anyone who wants to do a little deeper digging into the data - we just haven't done the work for you.

Cheers!
__________________
James Downey
http://www.ballisticsbytheinch.com/ - BBTI handgun cartridge research
http://www.guns.com/author/jim-downey/ - Guns.com where I'm a features/review writer
http://www.communionofdreams.com/ Communion of Dreams - my current novel.
Jim Downey is offline  
Old September 10, 2012, 11:21 AM   #37
Hal
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 9, 1998
Location: Ohio USA
Posts: 7,435
Jim,
Fabulous!
Thank you so much for that info.

I didn't want to come across as slamming you or BBTI for not making that info clearer.
On the contrary, I believe what your doing is exemplary - even if it didn't include the discussed figures - having that info is icing on the cake.

Keep up the good work!

Anything that helps make an informed decision and helps fit the ballistic pieces of the puzzle together is a good thing.
Hal is offline  
Old September 10, 2012, 01:14 PM   #38
AZAK
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 15, 2008
Location: the object towards which the action of the sea is directed
Posts: 2,103
Quote:
.357 loads of any weight quite often have a swing of 200 fps from hi to low for 5 shot strings.
This has not been my experience; or perhaps I am not understanding your statement.

I am wondering if you can give a bit more detail on how you arrived at this thought; are you talking snub nosed only... or ...?
__________________
The lowest paid college major/degree in this country after graduation...
Elementary Education.

Now, go figure...
AZAK is offline  
Old September 10, 2012, 01:18 PM   #39
kinggabby
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 22, 2011
Location: OKC
Posts: 473
Nothing to add except I love the pretty pretty guns.
kinggabby is offline  
Old September 10, 2012, 02:14 PM   #40
Sgt127
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 13, 2002
Posts: 609
Quote:
I call bunk to SGT127's post.
There is plenty of footage of pedestrain as well as drive-by creeps blasting away with Uzis & AKs and all kinds of pistols at night time and the shooter(s) clearly have both eyes wide open before, during and after the 1st shot.

There has also been plenty of night fighting in WW1 thru Afghanistan with guns much bigger, and throwing just a wee bit bigger flash, than any Snub .357 does. Check a history book. The evening wartime combatants fired more than just once before they closed their eyes and called it quits until daybreak.

Now if SGT127 is giving use advice on how he invisions his own behavior after the fight starts, well that is another story.
Quote:
Are you sure?

In the olden days, when police agencies had the, 'PAL', sports league for city youth, PAL used to teach boxing lessons. Yes, that kind of boxing. Anyway, the inexperieced fighers would start swinging with their eyes open but would have both eyes tightly closed for the 2nd-3rd-4th and 5th swings.

Not only do I think sgt127 carried this optical childhood fighting notion with him, but I also think sgt127 is predicting or recommening or linking his idea of.357 snub-nose work for you too. Naw, he wasn't joking.

Really?

No. REALLY?

Perhaps your eyes were closed when I posted this:

Just so you don't miss it:

Last edited by Sgt127; September 10, 2012 at 03:48 PM.
Sgt127 is offline  
Old September 10, 2012, 03:34 PM   #41
Hal
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 9, 1998
Location: Ohio USA
Posts: 7,435
Quote:
This has not been my experience; or perhaps I am not understanding your statement.

I am wondering if you can give a bit more detail on how you arrived at this thought; are you talking snub nosed only... or ...?
Shot to shot variance can be as high as 200 fps with - well - just about any caliber.
The magnums, due to their higher velociteis, are more prone to that large a figure, however, it's still not unheard of with a non-magnum.
A very common and typical hi/low spread is somewhere around 75 fps.

BTW - it's not my thoughts on the subject, it's pure hard fact.

Just :
Reload a lot and chrono your loads.
Check any and all sources on the web and/or anywhere else and look at the individual velocities for each and every shot.

I've said this numerous times in the past. I don't get all excited about a couple/three hundered fps for one load or caliber vs another.
Why?
Simple, there's a significant chance that two round, fired back to back from the same revolver, can vary by a couple hundred fps.
Hal is offline  
Old September 10, 2012, 03:55 PM   #42
BlueTrain
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 26, 2005
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 5,825
That sounds awfully high. In the case of a cartridge producing a nominal 1,000 fps velocity, that would amount to a 20% to 30% variance. For something like a .45 auto or a .38 special, the percentage variance would be even higher. I realize that different handguns may produce different velocities, even with the same barrel length, but the same lot of ammunition fired from the same gun should produce more consistent results, don't you think?
__________________
Shoot low, sheriff. They're riding Shetlands!
Underneath the starry flag, civilize 'em with a Krag,
and return us to our own beloved homes!
Buy War Bonds.
BlueTrain is offline  
Old September 10, 2012, 04:22 PM   #43
SIGSHR
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 13, 2005
Posts: 3,076
When S&W introduced the 2.5" M-19 Skeeter Skelton was quite enthused about it, later he said the increased muzzle blast, flash, recoil and reduced velocity convinced him it wasn't such a Great Idea. Jeff Cooper noted that all the Magna are dependent on a long barrel to reach their full potential. One of my Dan Wessons does the job when I want to fire a short barreled .357.
SIGSHR is offline  
Old September 10, 2012, 04:33 PM   #44
AZAK
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 15, 2008
Location: the object towards which the action of the sea is directed
Posts: 2,103
Quote:
Simple, there's a significant chance that two round, fired back to back from the same revolver, can vary by a couple hundred fps.
Again, that does not show up in my experience, or on my chronograph; specifically when looking at .357 mag data.

My last outing that I measured with Buffalo Bore Heavy .357 mag in 180 grain had the following:
HI 1489
LO 1416
AV 1452
ES 73
Sd 51

Maybe your particular revolver has quite a difference in cylinder gap between those "two round".
__________________
The lowest paid college major/degree in this country after graduation...
Elementary Education.

Now, go figure...
AZAK is offline  
Old September 10, 2012, 05:29 PM   #45
Webleymkv
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 20, 2005
Location: Indiana
Posts: 9,889
Originally posted by Hal
Quote:
I fail to see any significant difference between a 124 gr 9mm out of a Browning Hi Power or any 125 gr . 357 out of a 3" or less snub.
The difference is that you're comparing a full-sized service gun to a compact CCW gun. If you want to compare a 9mm to a .357 Magnum snub, do so in comparable guns. For example, a S&W M60 with a 2 1/8" barrel is 6.56" long while a Glock 26 with a 3.43" barrel is 6.54" long. If you start shortening the barrel of the 9mm to 3" or 3 1/2" (common lengths for compact or subcompact 9mm's) then the .357 Magnum is going to be going substantially faster. Also, I think there's a pretty substantial difference between a 147gr bullet from a Browning Hi Power and a 158gr bullet going 100-150fps faster from a .357 snub, much less if you chronograph the 147gr 9mm from a small gun.

Quote:
I've said this numerous times in the past. I don't get all excited about a couple/three hundered fps for one load or caliber vs another.
Why?
Simple, there's a significant chance that two round, fired back to back from the same revolver, can vary by a couple hundred fps.
That's pretty bad news because a couple hundred fps is more than enough difference to be inside or outside a particular bullet's designed velocity window. In nearly every chronograph test I've ever seen or read, an extreme spread of 100fps or more is highly unusual and may indicate a problem with either the gun or ammunition such as a weak recoil spring or inconsistent powder charges.
__________________
Smith, and Wesson, and Me. -H. Callahan
Well waddaya know, one buwwet weft! -E. Fudd
All bad precedents begin as justifiable measures. -J. Caesar
Webleymkv is offline  
Old September 10, 2012, 06:22 PM   #46
Hal
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 9, 1998
Location: Ohio USA
Posts: 7,435
Quote:
The difference is that you're comparing a full-sized service gun to a compact CCW gun. If you want to compare a 9mm to a .357 Magnum snub, do so in comparable guns.
Please refer to my first post...
I made the comment that I placed the Hi Power right down on top of the model 66 - and guess what???
They were nearly the same exact size.

Nope - I''m making a 100% fair comparison there.
If two guns are the same size and weight, where's the difference?

A snub nose K frame is a pretty hefty piece.
The small grips tht S&W has can reduce the size a litte - but - not by a whole lot.

Quote:
Also, I think there's a pretty substantial difference between a 147gr bullet from a Browning Hi Power and a 158gr bullet going 100-150fps faster from a .357 snub, much less if you chronograph the 147gr 9mm from a small gun.
Excuse me - but - did you bother to read what I posted?

Who (but you) said anything about a 147 gr and/or a 158 gr.

I said 124 gr and 125 gr...

Now - let's look at the 124 gr from a Hi Power - a 124 gr +p clocks at ~ 1100 fps.
A 125 gr from a Kframe - either model 19 or 66 - clocks at .....~ 1100 fps..

Those aren't my figures BTW - the late Steve Camp posted a wealth of information on both on his web site.

Quote:
That's pretty bad news because a couple hundred fps is more than enough difference to be inside or outside a particular bullet's designed velocity window. In nearly every chronograph test I've ever seen or read, an extreme spread of 100fps or more is highly unusual
Then I strongly suggest you go to the site you're referring to - BBTI - and peruse the raw data.
A spread of 100 fps is very common.

Very first one - 115 gr Corbon - hi - 1445, low - 1274 - ES 171 that's from a S&W.
The Python w/a 6" barrel doesn't fare much better
`115 gr Cor Bon - hi -1356, low - 1193 - ES - 163.
Well - maybe that's just beacuse it's a 110 gr Cor Bon eh?
Let's move on down the list to something else....

How about a Federal 125 gr...
Hi - 1523, low, 1357 ES 163...
What's significant here is that two shots were in the 13's and two were in the 15's..
That's from the S&W
Python - hi - 1433, low - 1300 ES 133

You know what?
I'm really tired of this...feel free to look it up yourself...there's plenty more that are in the mid 100 fps range..
I already know what I know...


Is 200 extreme?
Of course it is - but - it's not unheard of.
Just look around at the data people publish.
It's rather sobering how inconsistant velocities are.
Hal is offline  
Old September 10, 2012, 09:25 PM   #47
Jim Downey
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 5, 2009
Posts: 203
Hal - no worries, I didn't take it as a slam at all. For those who are of a more statistical/scientific bent, the raw data is there for them to play with - and has resulted in some very interesting insights which I hadn't considered, which I think is very cool. For most people the simpler graphs and charts are sufficient - but we always try and emphasize that the data is indicative, not conclusive.

Cheers!

Jim
__________________
James Downey
http://www.ballisticsbytheinch.com/ - BBTI handgun cartridge research
http://www.guns.com/author/jim-downey/ - Guns.com where I'm a features/review writer
http://www.communionofdreams.com/ Communion of Dreams - my current novel.
Jim Downey is offline  
Old September 11, 2012, 06:58 AM   #48
Hal
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 9, 1998
Location: Ohio USA
Posts: 7,435
Jim,
There are some real eye openers in that data to be sure.

The Cor Bon 110 gr DPX load for instance. That's a very popular load (based on postings here and elsewhere).
Again - I go back to what I said earlier.
Based on your real world results, how in the world can you begin to expect any consistant results when one shot clocks @931 fps and another shot clocks in @ 1149 fps.?
That's a whopping 218 fps. swing from one shot to the next.

It really makes you wonder how many real world failures to stop are caused by, what amounts to, faulty ammunition, then blamed on something like poor placement or an act of God or something.

My hat's off to you for going to the trouble and expense to compile that information.
Hal is offline  
Old September 11, 2012, 12:07 PM   #49
Webleymkv
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 20, 2005
Location: Indiana
Posts: 9,889
Quote:
Quote:
The difference is that you're comparing a full-sized service gun to a compact CCW gun. If you want to compare a 9mm to a .357 Magnum snub, do so in comparable guns.
Please refer to my first post...
I made the comment that I placed the Hi Power right down on top of the model 66 - and guess what???
They were nearly the same exact size.

Nope - I''m making a 100% fair comparison there.
If two guns are the same size and weight, where's the difference?

A snub nose K frame is a pretty hefty piece.
The small grips tht S&W has can reduce the size a litte - but - not by a whole lot.
Please refer to my previous post. A K-Frame is one of the larger .357 snubs made. Most of the people looking at .357 Snubs these days are looking at small frame guns like a S&W J-Frame, Ruger SP101, Ruger LCR, or Taurus 605/650/651 all of which are smaller than a Browning Hi Power. You're cherry picking one of the larger .357 Snubs while ignoring the smaller and more common ones. If you want to look at full size autos, then let's consider the following: a Beretta 92 FS with a 4.9" barrel is 8.5" long while a S&W M67 (same size as a K-Frame Magnum) is 8.88" long. In comparing velocities of those sorts of guns, we find on BBTI's data that all the 125gr .357 Magnum loads broke 1400fps from the 4" revolver barrel but none of the 124-125gr 9mm loads could break 1300fps from the 4.9" Beretta's barrel.

Quote:
Quote:
Also, I think there's a pretty substantial difference between a 147gr bullet from a Browning Hi Power and a 158gr bullet going 100-150fps faster from a .357 snub, much less if you chronograph the 147gr 9mm from a small gun.
Excuse me - but - did you bother to read what I posted?

Who (but you) said anything about a 147 gr and/or a 158 gr.

I said 124 gr and 125 gr...

Now - let's look at the 124 gr from a Hi Power - a 124 gr +p clocks at ~ 1100 fps.
A 125 gr from a K frame - either model 19 or 66 - clocks at .....~ 1100 fps..

Those aren't my figures BTW - the late Steve Camp posted a wealth of information on both on his web site.
I brought it up because comparing only one bullet weight does not tell the whole story. Many people, myself included, prefer heavier bullets and in that respect the .357 Magnum has an even greater advantage.

Also, I don't know what data from the late Mr. Camp you're looking at, but here we see a Remington full-power 125gr .357 running 1243fps from a 2 1/2" M19

http://www.hipowersandhandguns.com/38vs357snub.htm

Here we have Federal and Remington full-power .357 loads running 1244fps and 1205fps respectively from a 3" GP100 and the Remington Golden Saber, which is not a full power loading, running 1189fps.

http://www.hipowersandhandguns.com/R...er%20GP100.htm

Here we have the mid-range Remington Golden Saber again running 1189fps this time from a 3 1/16" barrel Ruger SP101 (the 145gr Winchester Silvertip is running slightly faster with a heavier bullet because it is a full-power loading).

http://www.hipowersandhandguns.com/R...1%20Report.htm

Here we have the mid-range Remington Golden Saber running 1141fps from a 2 1/2" M66 (and again the full-power Winchester Silvertip is both heavier and faster).

http://www.hipowersandhandguns.com/F...20dash%202.htm

The data of Camp's that comes closest to supporting your comments is the 125gr Cor-Bon DPX averaging 1133fps from a 2 1/2" M19, but the DPX is not advertised as a full power load (advertised velocity is 1300fps from a 4" barrel) and Camp noted that this particular lot had trouble making advertised velocity even from a 4" barrel.

http://www.hipowersandhandguns.com/C...DPX%20Ammo.htm

Quote:
Quote:
That's pretty bad news because a couple hundred fps is more than enough difference to be inside or outside a particular bullet's designed velocity window. In nearly every chronograph test I've ever seen or read, an extreme spread of 100fps or more is highly unusual
Then I strongly suggest you go to the site you're referring to - BBTI - and peruse the raw data.
A spread of 100 fps is very common.

Very first one - 115 gr Corbon - hi - 1445, low - 1274 - ES 171 that's from a S&W.
The Python w/a 6" barrel doesn't fare much better
`115 gr Cor Bon - hi -1356, low - 1193 - ES - 163.
Well - maybe that's just beacuse it's a 110 gr Cor Bon eh?
Let's move on down the list to something else....

How about a Federal 125 gr...
Hi - 1523, low, 1357 ES 163...
What's significant here is that two shots were in the 13's and two were in the 15's..
That's from the S&W
Python - hi - 1433, low - 1300 ES 133

You know what?
I'm really tired of this...feel free to look it up yourself...there's plenty more that are in the mid 100 fps range..
I already know what I know...
Guess what, the Colt Python and S&W 686 in the test were both running lots of high extreme spreads. I wouldn't be surprised to learn that those guns have cylinder gaps that are excessive or at least on the high side of normal.

Also, if you look at Camp's data where extreme spreads were provided, you'll find that there was only one case of an extreme spread over 100fps (ES of 114fps with the Remington full-power 125gr load from the 3" Ruger GP100).

An isolated incident of an extreme spread over 100fps is not really much cause for concern, but if I have a gun that's consistently giving extreme spreads well over 100fps with a variety of ammo or a loading that consistently giving extreme spreads well over 100fps from a variety of guns, then I'm going to start being concerned about something being wrong with the gun or ammo.

An extreme spread of 200fps is simply unacceptable as that's enough to be outside the velocity window of many loadings. For an example of this, look at the problems that were experienced when the .357 Sig was first introduced. Rather than develop caliber-specific bullets, the ammo manufacturers originally just took 124gr 9mm bullets (which were designed to be driven at 1150-1250fps) and ran them at 1400-1450fps. The result was that the bullets simply came apart and penetrated shallowly. By reducing the velocity of most .357 Sig loadings to the 1300-1350fps we see commonly today, they were able to bring the 9mm bullets back into, or at least closer to, their designed velocity window.

Likewise, a bullet moving too slow can give us problems too. Take for example, Winchester's 158gr LSWCHP .38 Special +P "FBI Load". Winchester advertises this loading at 890fps from a 4" barrel, so we can safely assume that it's designed to work at approximately that velocity.

http://www.winchester.com/PRODUCTS/h...es/X38SPD.aspx

In Stephen Camp's testing, it averages 807fps from five different S&W J-Frames, which is less that a 100fps velocity reduction.

http://www.hipowersandhandguns.com/F...om%20Snubs.htm

However, Camp found that while it expands well from a 4" barrel, it barely expands at all from a 2" barrel when fired into water (in ballistic gelatin, wetpack, or just about any other test media we could safely expect expansion to be even worse).

http://www.hipowersandhandguns.com/3...r%20LSWCHP.htm

The point is that, depending on where your particular loading lies in your bullet's velocity window, an extreme spread of 200-300fps is easily enough to make the bullet overexpand, fragment, and/or penetrate shallowly or fail to expand. Because of this, an extreme spread of 200-300fps with a gun and ammo intended to be used for self-defense is, IMHO, completely unacceptable.
__________________
Smith, and Wesson, and Me. -H. Callahan
Well waddaya know, one buwwet weft! -E. Fudd
All bad precedents begin as justifiable measures. -J. Caesar
Webleymkv is offline  
Old September 11, 2012, 01:51 PM   #50
Hal
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 9, 1998
Location: Ohio USA
Posts: 7,435
Quote:
Guess what, the Colt Python and S&W 686 in the test were both running lots of high extreme spreads. I wouldn't be surprised to learn that those guns have cylinder gaps that are excessive or at least on the high side of normal.
& that negates the results how?
You're talking nonsense now and grasping at straws.
How can you dismiss real world results?


Actually - I'm having quite a bit of difficulty even reading what your posting to be perfectly honest.
You keep trying to put words in my mouth & say things that I never said..

Quote:
Please refer to my previous post. A K-Frame is one of the larger .357 snubs made. Most of the people looking at .357 Snubs these days are looking at small frame guns like a S&W J-Frame, Ruger SP101, Ruger LCR, or Taurus 605/650/651 all of which are smaller than a Browning Hi Power. You're cherry picking one of the larger .357 Snubs while ignoring the smaller and more common ones. If you want to look at full size autos, then let's consider the following: a Beretta 92 FS with a 4.9" barrel is 8.5" long while a S&W M67 (same size as a K-Frame Magnum) is 8.88" long. In comparing velocities of those sorts of guns, we find on BBTI's data that all the 125gr .357 Magnum loads broke 1400fps from the 4" revolver barrel but none of the 124-125gr 9mm loads could break 1300fps from the 4.9" Beretta's barrel.
#1 - I didn't, as you claim, *cherry pick* anything.
I had a model 66 snub in my hands.
I'd just finished cleaning my Hi Power and it was laying on the table.
I layed the 66 on top of the Hi Power and discovered they were the same size.
That was the last straw for the 66 as far as I was concerned.

How is that cherry picking?

Last edited by Hal; September 11, 2012 at 01:57 PM.
Hal is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:57 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.15488 seconds with 7 queries