The Firing Line Forums

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

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old October 7, 2012, 12:38 PM   #26
481
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 18, 2011
Posts: 469
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pond, James Pond:
Cool!!
Thanks a lot! I knew there was a good reason for ordering that chrono, the other day!!

Don't worry about PMs filling your inbox anytime soon however, as I doubt I'll have any data for you for at least a couple of months!!

Any bullets ordered will arrive in November at best, January or Febraury at worst!!
Then I have to load them up... in an outdoor garage... with no heating or electricity... in the middle of an Estonian winter!!
Whenever you want, is fine with me.

Gotta touch of arthritis in my right shoulder (the result of an occupational injury) that doesn't respond very well to cold and the simple thought of having to reload under those conditions just made me run for another Ibuprofen 800mg- I don't envy you that task.
__________________
My favorite "gun" book -

QUANTITATIVE AMMUNITION SELECTION
481 is offline  
Old October 8, 2012, 12:21 PM   #27
481
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 18, 2011
Posts: 469
During the course of exchanging a few PMs with the OP (a very nice guy BTW!) I ran some hypothetical examples through the Schwartz and MacPherson bullet penetration models to illustrate the effect of sectional density upon penetration. I thought that others might be interested in seeing what these two models offer in terms of predictions so I offer their results here-

Quote:
Originally Posted by 481:
For the .44 Magnum (diam. = 0.4285") pushing a 300 gr. FMJFN at 390 mps (~1214 fps), the predicted soft tissue penetration and permanent crush cavity weight estimates will be-

Schwartz Model: Pen.= 126.61cm (49.85 in.), P.C.C.= 81.14g (2.86 oz.)
MacPherson Model: Pen.= 140.79cm (55.43 in.), P.C.C. 89.91g (3.17 oz.)

For the .44Magnum (diam. = 0.4285") pushing a 240 gr. FMJFN at 470 mps (~1542 fps), the predicted soft tissue penetration and permanent crush cavity weight estimates will be-

Schwartz Model: Pen.= 111.85cm (44.04 in.), P.C.C.= 71.68g (2.53 oz.)
MacPherson Model: Pen.= 123.95cm (48.80 in.), P.C.C.= 79.15g (2.79 oz.)

As you can see, the MacPherson model is a little more "optimistic" in its predictions of penetration and permanent wound mass. Having a more pragmatist approach, I tend to err towards the more conservative estimates of the Schwartz model; either way they do agree that the 300 gr. FMJFM will penetrate farther and, as a result, damage more soft tissue than the 240 gr. FMJFNs, making the 300 gr. FMJs more preferable- at least to my thinking.
- and I've added the conversions from metric to English units (in parantheses) for those of us who don't "do" the metric system.
__________________
My favorite "gun" book -

QUANTITATIVE AMMUNITION SELECTION

Last edited by 481; October 8, 2012 at 12:45 PM.
481 is offline  
Old October 8, 2012, 12:48 PM   #28
powell
Junior Member
 
Join Date: September 25, 2012
Location: Iowa
Posts: 4
jmortimer

I think you are on the right track, get a decent meplat aka flat nose. The meplat will do the work, the flat nose crushing and cutting. A 300 grain non-expanding "FN" bullet will out penetrate any expanding bullet be it a .375 H&H or otherwise. That's why they use solids on dangerous game.

+1, I agree with the FN bullet being devastating on large game.
__________________
Regards
powell is offline  
Old October 8, 2012, 04:00 PM   #29
Stevie-Ray
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 22, 2007
Location: The shores of Lake Huron
Posts: 4,494
I busted up a scope pretty good with 300 gr. Barnes loads out of my Redhawk about 25 years ago. Scopes then weren't too good with recoil, unless they were Burris or Leupold, especially Burris. Replaced the scope with a Burris 2X and scrapped the 300 gr idea. Eventually settled on Elmer Keith's load of 22 gr of 2400 atop his 250 gr LSWC (429421) for somewhere close to 1400 fps. That would probably be the gun and load I'd have with me, in all seriousness, if I found myself in the unenviable position that's the subject of all those big bear threads. It's still my favorite load for the .44 Magnum, supremely accurate in my personal gun, and I still have some left from several years ago. Reminds me, it's been years since I shot that gun. Maybe it's time.
__________________
Stevie-Ray
Join the NRA/ILA
I am the weapon; my gun is a tool. It's regrettable that with some people those descriptors are reversed.
Stevie-Ray is offline  
Old October 9, 2012, 09:05 AM   #30
Rifleman1776
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 25, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 3,309
Assuming you are talking about a .44 mag. (you don't say), I believe, as others have stated, the 240 gr. hard cast SWC is plenty gun for (almost) anything.
I loaded and shot many thousands of rounds in my Redhawk. I am not very big but handled the recoil without a problem up to max loads and 245 gr. bullets.
But, the 300 gr. with max-max loads (tested for safety) were more recoil than I care to experience.
Plus, the recoil brought the point of impact up so high my sights would not crank down far enough to get any kind of accuracy with the 300 grainers. Only use I can think of is when Brownie is so close you can smell him and you don't want to be his lunch.
Rifleman1776 is offline  
Old October 9, 2012, 09:38 AM   #31
Nanuk
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 2, 2005
Location: Where the deer and the antelope roam.
Posts: 1,690
Do those formula take into account meplat or only total diameter?

I know Elmer Keith was not a scientist by today's standards, he did however understand that the meplat on a bullet was one of the most important attributes to its penetration. Keith liked the meplat at 70% of the bullet diameter as any wider and it would hinder penetration at the velocities he used.

One of the bullets I want to try is the 300 grn WFNGC from beartooth. A hard cast 240 LSWC at 1400-1500 FPS will penetrate any North American game animal, provided the cast is not too hard and brittle.
__________________
My rifle and pistol are tools, I am the weapon.
Nanuk is offline  
Old October 9, 2012, 06:21 PM   #32
Hook686
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 22, 2005
Location: USA The Great State of California
Posts: 1,903
The 300 grain bullet is listed by the 'Jello Shooters' to be the best .44 magnum load.

http://www.m4carbine.net/showthread....ght=.44+magnum

This might be due to the momentum the heavier bullet might have. I am partial to the 300 grain XTP/HP.

__________________
Hook686

When the number of people in institutions reaches 51%, we change sides.
Hook686 is offline  
Old October 9, 2012, 10:33 PM   #33
481
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 18, 2011
Posts: 469
Hook686,

Yeah, I like the 300 gr XTP, too. It's a real sledge-hammer.

I think that the .44 is a fine hunting pistol/revolver, but due to extended recovery time between shots and its large size, I'd be reluctant to use it as a SD choice.

If I did, I probably load up with the 225 gr. Barnes-

http://www.m4carbine.net/showthread....ght=.44+magnum

Corbon 225 gr XPB (DPX44M 225/20 1350 fps) fired from 5" S&W 629 at ave vel of 1308 f/s; single shots:
BG: Pen = 19.3", Ave RD = 0.70", Ave RL = 0.63", Ave RW = 225.2 gr
4LD: Pen = 18.9", Ave RD = 0.70", Ave RL = 0.64", Ave RW = 225.5 gr
AG: Pen = 19.3", Ave RD = 0.47", Ave RL = 0.77", Ave RW = 225.6 gr
__________________
My favorite "gun" book -

QUANTITATIVE AMMUNITION SELECTION
481 is offline  
Old October 9, 2012, 10:37 PM   #34
jmortimer
Junior member
 
Join Date: January 24, 2010
Location: South West Riverside County California
Posts: 2,763
O/P is talking bull moose and brown bears and any expanding bullet would be a serious compromise and mistake in my opinion. You don't want a two foot wound channel, you want four foot plus.
jmortimer is offline  
Old October 9, 2012, 11:10 PM   #35
481
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 18, 2011
Posts: 469
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmortimer:
...you want four foot plus.
Yeah, and a .44 cal. 300 gr. FMJFN @ 1214 fps will do it!
__________________
My favorite "gun" book -

QUANTITATIVE AMMUNITION SELECTION
481 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 08:01 AM.


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 0.09570 seconds with 7 queries