The Firing Line Forums

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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old September 11, 2019, 08:48 PM   #51
briandg
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 4, 2010
Posts: 5,422
44

Since the 210 seems to be the biggest one available for the max, I believe that it would be better than the lighter ones but still not great. So, If we can get past the problems of getting a revolver in max, we are still holding a 210 grain bullet set at 1,600. The velocity I quoted was sourced from accurate by the site that I got it from. Accurate doesn't list it now, if they actually did.


This was listed as a contender load at 16 inches at a barrel maker's site.

https://matchgrademachine.com/encore...pment-results/
Quote:
225 Grain Sierra SBT Remington Case
25 Grains Lil’ Gun Seat O.A.L 2.365″
Remington 7 1/2 Primer Velocity: 2,028 @ 14′
100 Yards: .598″ 200 Yards: 1.871″ 300 Yards: 3.562″
Here's what accurate lists now for handguns, with other loads for contender. I don't know what this barrel length is.

Quote:
200 (L) CP WLNGC 20.9 1,542 2
Now, seriously, if we can get this 1,500 in a revolver at 200 grains, would it possibly be better than a 240 .44 magnum at 1,200 factory? I think that it might, but once we get past that, like I said earlier, the maximum can't hold a candle to the brutal .44 rounds, and it's nothing compared to the really big guns.

Yes, the 200 grain in a handgun for the maximum at 1,500 fps is approaching the 2,000 fps of the remington in a rifle. You're right, in context, that's pretty good drive getting there. I should have left that out. but when we screw around with all of the other thoughts that we can compare things to, such as the .500 smith, 300 grains at 2,000 fps eats them all alive.

The whole discussion is just a million bits of 'what if' and I just put some numbers there to think about. From the beginning the maximum seemed to be doomed, it wasn't a good idea. Now that we have all of the other alternatives, there's very little reason for it to exist.
__________________
None.
briandg is offline  
Old September 11, 2019, 11:06 PM   #52
JohnKSa
Staff
 
Join Date: February 12, 2001
Location: DFW Area
Posts: 22,499
I don't know of any 16" revolvers. Not saying there aren't any, but they're certainly not common.

I'm willing to bet that no one who is using a handgun for bear self-defense would consider using one with a 16" barrel, certainly not a single shot like the Encore.

The Contender is another single-shot hunting-type handgun. Typical barrel lengths are 12" to 14" or so. Again, not a handgun or handgun barrel length anyone would choose for bear self-defense.

Keep in mind that some of those loads are not only being tested in what amount to rifles, they may be loaded so that they are too long for a .357Max revolver chamber.

In a repeating .357Max handgun, one that would be a fairly reasonable choice for bear self-defense, I think that 1600fps is pretty optimistic for a 210gr bullet. I'm thinking that 1500fps in a 7.5" revolver barrel with a 190gr bullet might be doable. But 30gr heavier and 100fps faster? A tall order.
__________________
Do you know about the TEXAS State Rifle Association?

Last edited by JohnKSa; September 12, 2019 at 01:16 AM. Reason: Clarified caliber comments.
JohnKSa is offline  
Old September 12, 2019, 12:55 AM   #53
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 20,139
Quote:
I think that 1600fps is pretty optimistic for a 210gr bullet. I'm thinking that 1500fps in a 7.5" revolver barrel with a 190gr bullet might be doable. But 30gr heavier and 100fps faster? A tall order.
In a .35 cal cartridge, out of a revolver, with a barrel length of say 8" or less, yes, its a tall order. In a .44Mag 1600fps from a 7.5" barrel is possible with a 200gr bullet.

Now, here's a question, why bother comparing the hottest possible (factory?) loads in .357 Max with the "factory 1200fps" .44 Mag loads which are NOT the hottest possible factory loads in that caliber?

Seems to me to be a bit like comparing a Maverick with a V8 (and yes they did make them) to a Mustang with a straight 6 engine. It simply not a valid comparison in many ways.
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is offline  
Old September 12, 2019, 01:17 AM   #54
JohnKSa
Staff
 
Join Date: February 12, 2001
Location: DFW Area
Posts: 22,499
Yup, edited my post to clarify things.
__________________
Do you know about the TEXAS State Rifle Association?
JohnKSa is offline  
Old September 12, 2019, 11:39 AM   #55
briandg
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 4, 2010
Posts: 5,422
44

I wasn't saying that it was a fair comparison between the strongest of one to the weakest of the other, I pretty clearly said that once you get past the bottom line of factory .44 the maximum was left in the dust.

I guess that part of the point that I was trying to make is that if we have co compare the most extreme measures of capability, the .357 maximum is just not the answer for bear protection, even if you could get one. Bear rounds for the .44 are ubiquitous. Too bad they can't be loaded with .38 special, since that seems to be one of the only benefits to the maximum. (other than it would probably be a good deer round.)

I do, however, like the idea of a custom made ruger 16" buntline and if I ever find one at the pawn shop I'm probably going to replace my current carry weapon with it. that doggy will get twenty inches of penetration in jelly nothing will. Well, maybe a pistol that would reach my knees might not be a great carry weapon.

https://news.guns.com/wp-content/upl...ntline-saa.jpg

(guns.com)

Oh, boy, wouldn't that just be too cool to have one in .454 casull? I'd draw that baby out at the local range, and everybody would be talking about how cool I am.
__________________
None.

Last edited by briandg; September 12, 2019 at 11:49 AM.
briandg is offline  
Old September 12, 2019, 11:45 AM   #56
briandg
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 4, 2010
Posts: 5,422
Quote:
Seems to me to be a bit like comparing a Maverick with a V8 (and yes they did make them) to a Mustang with a straight 6 engine. It simply not a valid comparison in many ways.
I saw a maverick with a V8 once. Back then I thought that it was one of the coolest things that I had ever seen, but I also thought that about the Opel GT. Times and minds change.

After the mustang II was released with a 302 V8, we essentially had a pinto with a V8. things don't change much.
__________________
None.
briandg is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

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 04:20 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2018 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.05092 seconds with 9 queries