In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
Options
Offeror & Whiteclouder: Results are in.
Ampersand
Member Posts: 235 ✭✭✭
#65279;I will admit that the differences in velocities between the 2" and 4" .38 Special revolvers were not nearly as much as I expected. The 158 grain bullet over 5.0 grains of Unique clocked an average of 858 FPS from a 4" K frame revolver and averaged 807 from the 2" gun. This is only 51 FPS difference and I was shocked.
But before you send me an FFL, the difference with higher performance loads was more pronounced. The 125 JHP over 7.0 grains of Unique ran 1122 FPS vs. 1005 for a difference of 117 FPS. Again, less than I expected. Just for fun I tested a 4" .357 magnum and averaged 1101
so there seems to be a small loss when .38s are fired from a magnum chamber. The same bullet using 14.0 grains of 2400 produced 988 in the 4" and 890 in the 2" or 98 FPS less.
So, as a result of this admittedly limited test, I figure a standard .38 load will give up about 50 FPS when going from 4" of barrel to 2" while the high performance loads lose 100-125 FPS.
Also, the variance, or spread between high and low was greater with the shorter barrel.
Just for fun I shot a 110 JHP with 8.2 grains of Herco from a 6" revolver for an even 1,300 FPS average and this same load from the 2" gun averaged 1025. Maybe the 250 FPS drop I had in mind was from a 6" to a 2"?
BTW- Tested some Peters .22 LR from guns with 8, 6, 4 and 2" barrels. The 8" average was 1128, the 6" was 1112, the 4" was 1050 and the 2" was 900.
Man, did I have a bunch of guns to clean!
&
But before you send me an FFL, the difference with higher performance loads was more pronounced. The 125 JHP over 7.0 grains of Unique ran 1122 FPS vs. 1005 for a difference of 117 FPS. Again, less than I expected. Just for fun I tested a 4" .357 magnum and averaged 1101
so there seems to be a small loss when .38s are fired from a magnum chamber. The same bullet using 14.0 grains of 2400 produced 988 in the 4" and 890 in the 2" or 98 FPS less.
So, as a result of this admittedly limited test, I figure a standard .38 load will give up about 50 FPS when going from 4" of barrel to 2" while the high performance loads lose 100-125 FPS.
Also, the variance, or spread between high and low was greater with the shorter barrel.
Just for fun I shot a 110 JHP with 8.2 grains of Herco from a 6" revolver for an even 1,300 FPS average and this same load from the 2" gun averaged 1025. Maybe the 250 FPS drop I had in mind was from a 6" to a 2"?
BTW- Tested some Peters .22 LR from guns with 8, 6, 4 and 2" barrels. The 8" average was 1128, the 6" was 1112, the 4" was 1050 and the 2" was 900.
Man, did I have a bunch of guns to clean!
&
Comments
With the very lightest 110-gr. I'm not too surprised you managed to get an even greater difference. You've illustrated pretty well that the light bullets are much more easily batted around by environmental factors than the heavy bullets, and if one is shooting a marginal caliber it may be better to go with a good heavyweight than a mediocre lightweight. I only shoot lighter bullets when I'm getting increased foot-pounds in CorBon or Hornady XTP, personally.
Winchester loads their 110-gr. factory ammo for a +P muzzle velocity of about 1,000 fps and their +P+ load to about 1125 fps. Even CorBon's 110-gr. load is only rated at a muzzle velocity of 1250 fps. You loaded yours to 1300 -- not a proof load, but pretty fast, so it was bound to fall off fast. My guess is the lighter and faster the load, the quicker the drop-off with less barrel -- and there should be some gain with an extra-long barrel, but only up to a point. A too-long barrel drags a round down as surely as a too-short barrel, as you no doubt know.
Anyway, thanks for checking it out. You proved there is an optimum round for every handgun. As for the 51 fps drop-off with the 158, though we were on the mark, it's the least important result of your efforts. I never felt we had a bet -- I wagered nothing and so risked nothing -- I just thought you were illustrating the depth of your belief, which is why I was happy to see you offer to try it out. I've said I'll eat my hat before, but I never meant it literally -- I don't even wear hats, much.
And why should you needlessly distrust a compact or a snubbie gun in a good factory load, for no reason? As long as 50 fps less doesn't bother you, you can carry a compact or snubbie with confidence -- just buy a little hotter load to make up the difference. Same is true with porting by the way, which effectively shortens the barrel to the length of the nearest port to the chamber. Port a typical handgun 2" down, and the results of your gun test would be essentially the same. Add a compensator of course, and you should lose nothing, since you didn't shorten the barrel.
Many people who are "convinced of things that are not necessarily so" are not as eager as you were to test your data, or if they do they spin it to support their conclusions. Congratulations on a good, honest test. That takes some humility, which is a good quality to have.
Of course, if you insist on sending me a free gun, and you really hate snubbies...... [:D][:D][:D]
Life NRA Member
T. Jefferson: "[When doing Constitutional interpretation], let us [go] back to the time when [it] was adopted. [Rather than] invent a meaning [let us] conform to the probable one in which it was passed."
Appreciate you posting your results. Would have been so much easier to simply stand by your original statement and let it go at that. To go to the trouble to dig out the empirical data, taught all of us some more about velocity changes, but more important, it taught everyone here something real important about you.
Clouder..