.410 revolver penetration/velocity data


PDA






Doggieman
October 2, 2006, 10:01 PM
Hi, was interested in whether a .410/45 filled with .410 00 or 000 buck would be a useful HD weapon. I've seen posts here about them but does anybody know if they've done velocity and/or gelatin tests with the above loading out of a 2-3" barrel on one of these guns? Seems like that size shot coming out of that short a barrel would be underpowered but I'd like to see some hard data. Thx!

If you enjoyed reading about ".410 revolver penetration/velocity data" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
vesmcd
October 3, 2006, 12:20 AM
You might want to send this request to the "Box 'O Truth" web site. Those guys like to do this kind of research.

rustymaggot
October 3, 2006, 12:30 AM
i would rather have a regular pistol in a more common proven cartrige. i have serious doubts about a .410 with anything other than a slug or 00 buck. and at that rate why not a .45 acp or .44 magnum. seems like a silly solution to a non existant problem. good for snakes id bet tho.

Doggieman
October 3, 2006, 01:09 AM
If you read my original post I was referring to 00 or 000 buck. :banghead:

If you can get a 3" .410 shell with five 000 pellets in it, five chambers in a revolver, that's 25 projectiles flying at your assailant with 5 pulls of the trigger. The 2.5" .410 shells have three 000 pellets in them: 15 projectiles with 5 pulls of the trigger. If there's any oomph behind 'em it would at least be worth looking into.

Cueball
October 3, 2006, 01:11 AM
I just bought one of those revolvers. The 410 would be for a snake gun/camping or fishing trip and in a HD situation I would have it loaded with 45LC ammo. Using it with 410 ammo for HD purposes would be foolish IMHO

Doggieman
October 3, 2006, 01:12 AM
well ok thank you but WHY would it be foolish?

gp911
October 3, 2006, 10:22 PM
Does anyone have anything real-world to share? Real data? Somebody call the box-o-truth! Brassfetcher, get on it! Wait, he did and the results sucked...


gp911

Skofnung
October 3, 2006, 10:52 PM
A little anecdotal evidence:

I fired a load of .410 OOO buck out of one of those single shot derringers at a fatlighter stump once. All three pellets stuck in the stump and were quite visible; one was only just under halfway stuck and the others were not much deeper. Based on that, Id rather have a .45LC for defense.

The Box O Truth needs to be consulted on this one.

RyanM
October 3, 2006, 11:05 PM
Also note the horrendous performance of the .410 slugs. Nothing but dust and two shards. And 1/5th of an ounce may sound like a fair amount, but it's actually 87.5 grains, lighter than most .380 ACP bullets...

.410, even with buckshot, is only on par with most pistol ammo. By my estimates, each pellet would make a 0.259" hole, on average. So 5 pellets gives a combine cross-sectional area of 0.263 in^2, or the equivalent of a single 0.579" hole. That's about the equivalent of a .40 S&W hollowpoint.

Sunray
October 3, 2006, 11:16 PM
"...foolish?.." Three pellets with not much velocity or mass going who knows where. Any shotshell fired out of a rifled barrel produces patterns with big holes in it due to the spiraling shot string. Those three pellets can go anywhere.

wuchak
October 3, 2006, 11:37 PM
Is it a fully rifled barrel? Some of the .410/45 combo's only rifle the very end of the barrel. Just enought to move it from the short shotgun to handgun classification.

The Real Wyatt
October 4, 2006, 10:50 AM
I know nothing about the effectiveness of a snubbie but I kinda like my 6.5" Taurus 44-Ten. So does my wife ... she stole it from me and it now lives on her bedside table. She does let me take it our for a walk every now and again though.

The two targets below were shot from 7 yards. Both were fairly rapid fire ... each about three seconds. Three 00 buck shotshells and five .410 slugs.

Double-aught:


Then .410 slugs:

Well, I don't know what happened to the pictures. Guess I don't know how to attach/upload 'em.

halvey
October 4, 2006, 11:01 AM
The two targets below were shot from 7 yards. Both were fairly rapid fire ... each about three seconds. Three 00 buck shotshells and five .410 slugs.

Doggieman
October 4, 2006, 07:00 PM
I talked to the box o' truth and he said he doesn't have a .410 handgun so he can't do the test

Zanderbander
October 12, 2006, 11:49 PM
From what I've read, the Taurus 44 ten with a six inch barrel scatters bird shot more than the two and a half inch barrel, because of the rifling. I own two .410 shotguns already, but I would like attempt handgun hunting as well.

Is the shorter barrel the better choice? I don't like fantasing about "Home Defense". That can lead to paranoia... again.

Doggieman
October 13, 2006, 01:05 PM
can someone who has one of these handguns try a wet newspaper/phone book test the next time he's at the range? With 00 or 000 buck especially?

stiletto raggio
October 13, 2006, 10:07 PM
I think the role of a .410 ought to be kept within parameters already given, namely using it against snakes or other common pests at close range. Otherwise, and I mean this sincerely, I see no practical use for the .410 cartridge whatsoever. Survival? Get a .22. Defense? Get a conventional pistol or shotgun. Hunting? A 28 gauge. Even small children are better suited by a shotgun with more oomph.

Show me a situation in which a .410 in any guise is the best choice for a given purpose, because I honestly can't think of one. To each his own, of course.

Doggieman
October 14, 2006, 12:30 PM
here's the thing though.. it's all speculation, until we get the performance tests of the shot. I would argue that if one can shoot 15 to 25 high-performing projectiles at an assailant with 5 pulls of the trigger, that could be a viable defense option. If they're low-performing, it wouldn't be.

So let's forget the speculation and get some numbers. Does anybody have one of these pistols and some newspaper or a phonebook?

Jorg Nysgerrig
October 14, 2006, 01:04 PM
From what I've read, the Taurus 44 ten with a six inch barrel scatters bird shot more than the two and a half inch barrel, because of the rifling.

Zanderbander, do you have more information on this? I've been toying with the idea of getting one of these for fun, and I'd really like to try shooting at some clays with it sometime. If the shorter barrel is better for the shot, that would be very good to know.

Harry Paget Flashman
October 14, 2006, 04:11 PM
Effective or not, there is just something real satisfying about loading a fat steel case Russian-made .410 into a T/C Contender and blasting away. It's got that certain je nais se qua. :)

Zanderbander
October 14, 2006, 11:49 PM
Someone with the handle 'ACE' at another forum owns the Taurus 44 ten in the two different barrel lengths. Here is the hyperlink:

http://airbornecombatengineer.typepad.com/airborne_combat_engineer/2006/05/taurus_44_ten_r.html

RyanM
October 14, 2006, 11:51 PM
Each pellet only makes a hole about as big as a .25 ACP FMJ. If you want to call that "effective," then okay... But each shot of 5 000 pellets is somewhere between a .40 S&W and .45 ACP hollowpoint, in terms of actual amount of tissue destroyed. With vastly more recoil than either.

wdlsguy
October 15, 2006, 09:15 AM
Each pellet only makes a hole about as big as a .25 ACP FMJ.
OOO buckshot is .36 caliber. I would be very interested in chronograph numbers for buckshot rounds out of a pistol.

Doggieman
October 15, 2006, 01:03 PM
right, I'm not sure where they're getting .25" diameter for 00 or 000. #3 buck has a diameter of .25", 00 is .33" and 000 is .36", approx the same size as a 9mm/357/38.

RyanM
October 15, 2006, 02:53 PM
The hole made is about 0.259". Spheres do not crush 100% of their diamater. Look at a hole on any target shot with a regular roundnosed bullet. Small diameter hole is completely gone, the rest of the diameter of the bullet is just bent back. Tissue works the same way, except instead of bending back, it just stretches and flows around the bullet, then snaps back into place.

Spheres are the least efficient crushers of tissue out there. Even spitzer rifle bullets make a bigger hole. A .32 ACP FMJ will make a 0.258" average hole, so okay, it's like shooting someone 5 times with a .32 ACP with each shot. Which is the equivalent of a single shot of .40 or .45.

Coefficient of drag constants, per MacPherson, are:

Sphere, .355
Spitzer, .40
90 degree tip Cone, .52
Roundnose, .57
Semi-wadcutter, .55
Truncated cone, .55
Expanded hollowpoint, .68
Full wadcutter, .83

Divide the coefficient of drag constant by 0.83 to find the percent of possible tissue crushed, relative to a full wadcutter (which is assumed to crush a hole the diameter of the bullet, the whole way through).

.355/.83 = .428

That means that you multiply the potential wound volume by .428 to find the actual wound volume. Assume a 10" thick person, .36" wide sphere, that's

(.36 / 2)^2 * pi * 10 = 1.02 cubic inch. Multiply by .428, and the actual wound volume is .437 cubic inch. Do some mathematical gymnastics to find the effective diameter...

(.437 / 10" / pi)^.5 * 2 = 0.236". Oops, I made a mistake, it's 0.236", not 0.259".

Then let's try a .40 S&W hollowpoint, which expands to 0.65". We'll assume it takes 1" to expand, so it only goes through 9" of tissue while expanded. Let's just assume the first inch has a wound volume of 0, to make it easier.

(.65 / 2)^2 * pi * 9 * (.68 / .83)= 2.45 cubic inches.

0.437 cubic inch (the volume crushed by 1 000 pellet) * 5 pellets = 2.18 cubic inches. Less than the 2.45 cubic inches crushed by a .40 S&W hollowpoint.

Reference: Bullet Penetration: Modeling the Dynamics and the Incapacitation Resulting from Wound Trauma, by Duncan MacPherson

http://www.firearmstactical.com/bulletpenetration.htm

Doggieman
October 15, 2006, 07:59 PM
wow well thanks for that informative post. One thing to keep in mind is that lead shot will deform rather rapidly, sometimes even in the barrel. But I'm not going to argue that a .36" sphere (especially one weighing about half of a 38 spl bullet) is as effective a tissue crusher as a .45 HP. And that's an interesting point you make.

I'd still like to see the chrono/penetration tests of the things though ;)

brett30030
October 15, 2006, 08:13 PM
Doggieman

Why don't you get some newspaper, water, a ruler and do a wet test, or are you looking for someone else to do the heavy lifting?

Doggieman
October 15, 2006, 09:34 PM
uh, I'm looking for someone who actually owns one of these revolvers, as I do not.

halvey
October 16, 2006, 09:38 AM
I talked to a guy this weekend about this issue and he owns a Taurus. Says he's sure a friend of his has a 6" Taurus that is beat to heck on the outside, but the bore should be ok he says. Not sure if the 2" versions are shortened or not. Not sure if the barrel is rifled or not.

Seems to be an interest in getting some solid results, but not sure what he'd want for the Taurus.

RyanM
October 16, 2006, 02:44 PM
If the barrel is rifled all the way through, no legal problems. If it's only rifled at the muzzle end, forget it. Don't even think about it. Never post where you live, or the BATFE will nuke the whole state and sow the glass crater with salt.

Doggieman
October 17, 2006, 01:26 AM
wonder if you went in there and scored some crap "rifling" yourself if that would qualify as a "rifled" barrel?

WC145
October 28, 2006, 10:46 AM
I'm a deputy sheriff in Maine. I just bought a Taurus 4410 a week ago for use as a house and "out in the back field" gun and I'm very happy with it. It is a blued 3" model (yes, the barrels are rifled all the way through). It is not particularly heavy at 29ozs. It carries well in a generic nylon holster that I had lying around the house, the holster was originally for a 4" medium frame revolver.

I've tried it with 3 different shotshells (7 1/2's, 6's, 4's), 000 buckshot, and 2 different 45LC loads (250gr flat nose @ 825fps and 250gr XTP HP @ 925fps). Everything seems to shoot pretty close to point of aim, although my impromptu "test" target was a knot in a 1" thick 15" wide hardwood plank so I haven't tested for any real bullseye type accuracy. I can tell you that from 6yds all of the shotshells patterned decently, covering about an 18" section of the board. Only the 4's had the power to completely penetrate. The buckshot patterned in a triangle with the bottom 2 pellets about 9" apart and the 3rd one centered about 6" above. I also fired the buckshot at 7 feet, all 3 pellets landed in about 4" in a line angling up to the left. The buckshot penetrated the plank easily and then went deep into the pine tree it was leaning on. The .45LC loads hit at point of aim also. Recoil was stout but easily managed.

I'm very happy with it so far, I'll be shooting it more when the weather improves. It is now my new night stand gun and I keep it loaded with a #4 shotshell, 2 000 buck shells, and 2 45LC HP's. I keep a speed loader with 5 more .45's with it as well. It turns out the .44 speed loaders for my Bulldog work perfectly with this gun and the .45's.

I hope this info is useful to you all.

dragongoddess
October 28, 2006, 11:09 AM
Looks like I need to get a morning paper and take it to the range. What distance is the request for.

M2 Carbine
October 28, 2006, 01:41 PM
I've done some tests using my 7 inch .410 barrel TC and 5 ball Sellier & Bellot 410 buckshot shells.

Any gun that might be considered for use as a defense gun should at least go through a wood 2 inch board, agreed?

At two different times I shot a couple 2x6 boards and 1 inch plywood with the 410 buck.
Distance about 6 yards.

The DEEPEST any balls penetrated the boards was 1 inch. The balls would not penetrate a good piece of plywood but did penetrate a weathered piece of plywood and dented the board behind.
I don't know wood but the boards are just the typical wood you use in house construction.

As a compareson. Bullets from my Beretta Minx 22 Short would also not go completely through the 2 inch board but penetrated deeper than the 410 buckshot.

My chronograph shows the buckshot doing 786fps average, with a high of 961fps and a low of 783fps.

The spread was such that only 1 to 3 balls hit a 6 inch board from 6 yards.
But that's determined by the gun more than the buckshot.

Personally, I would not consider a short barrel 410 in any defense roll except shooting snakes.


BTW, I have a range in the back yard. If there's any test of the (7 inch barrel) 410 you would like to see, if I'm able I'll do it for you.

cpileri
October 28, 2006, 02:09 PM
M2 Carbine-
Actually, yours is the first real data i have EVER seen on the velocity drop with a short barrel 410bore! Thanks!

So from a 7-in bbl, the buckshot load was around 786 fps. yes?

So S&B 5-pellet 00B lists at 1190fps from their test barrel ( ??? 24??26?/ i cant find it inches long); so the drop is ~400fps over whatever length it is.
Thanks again!
C-

M2 Carbine
October 28, 2006, 02:23 PM
The brand is 5 ball Sellier & Bellot. As far as I know it's of normal .410 power.

I don't have the box handy. Don't know if the velocity is shown on the box but it would be taken from probably about a 20 inch or longer barrel anyhow.

Yes my TC .410 barrel is 7 inches but three inches is chamber.

It has a effective choke that works good for shot but is removed for buckshot.
(I once ran 23 straight hits on clay birds with it :) )

lbmii
October 28, 2006, 08:04 PM
Ryan,

We are sort of diverting this thread but your numbers would give less tissue crush by semiwaddcutters than by round nose bullets. I do not see this as being correct. Are you sure of these numbers?

Doggieman
October 29, 2006, 12:40 AM
I'm wondering if you can do a wet phone book test with some heavy buck and with any other handguns you have that you would consider for elf defense .. 45? 38? 9mm? That would be wonderful, and thanks to the above posters also for reporting their findings.

RyanM
October 29, 2006, 01:48 AM
Any gun that might be considered for use as a defense gun should at least go through a wood 2 inch board, agreed?

Actually, about 3-4" is a closer equivalent to 12" gelatin or tissue.

-------

Ryan,

We are sort of diverting this thread but your numbers would give less tissue crush by semiwaddcutters than by round nose bullets. I do not see this as being correct. Are you sure of these numbers?

Conventional wisdom is that semi-wadcutters and truncated cone bullets crush more tissue than roundnose bullets. However, MacPherson's tests showed that the particular roundnose bullets he used were more efficient crushers than the particular semi-wadcutters and truncated cone bullets which were tested. IIRC, the meplat diameter was approximately half the caliber, for both.

A very wide flatnosed bullet would probably do better than .55, and a semi-spitzer roundnose would probably do worse than .57, but I don't have any other hard figures.

M2 Carbine
October 29, 2006, 08:40 AM
Doggieman
I'm wondering if you can do a wet phone book test with some heavy buck and with any other handguns you have that you would consider for elf defense .. 45? 38? 9mm? That would be wonderful, and thanks to the above posters also for reporting their findings.

Wet phone books are a heck of a bullet stopper.
This is a test I did with 45ACP defense loads and the FN 5.7. The 5.7 penetrated quite far but the 45ACP was stopped quickly when it mushroomed.

First chance I get I'll try the .410 in WPB.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v135/Bell406_206B/FNphonebooks2.jpg

If you enjoyed reading about ".410 revolver penetration/velocity data" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!