Definition of "Big Bore"

[w1mnk]

What is definition of "big bore" when applied to handgun caliber's? .357 and up? .400 and up? Any and all comments welcome. This is a similar topic to "what is a big block engine" in automotive circles. Thanks.

[HSMITH]

.429" and up.

[BigG]

HSMITH said it. :D

[tc300mag1]

i say .429 and up reading john taffins book say .357 mag and up

[Vern Humphrey]

Teddy Kennedy.:D

[w1mnk]

LOL, Vern. Being a refuge from MA, I always think a body opening whenever Ted the Bridge man comes up. Thanks for lightening up my Friday :neener:

[popbang]

.429 seems reasonable although I can see .410, as the .41 Mag may be included.

[foghornl]

Dang it Vern, I just got another "Diet Coke through the nose" sinus treatment....
And I'm still wiping down the monitor

:neener:

[Ala Dan]

popbang nailed it, the .41 magnum must be included,
so therefore .410 defines "big bore". :D

Another thought, you can't include the .400 caliber cuz it
seems like everybody and his brother owns at least one
weapon chambered for the .40 S&W. Begining with .410
shooters are in an entirely different class!

Best Wishes,
Ala Dan, N.R.A. Life Member

[cratz2]

Different people have different definitions... My definition would probably be anything over .40" as I consider the 41 Magnum to be pretty formidable but the 40S&W does not leap to mind when pondering 'big bores'.

And why is it that the 10mm kinda creeps in there but not the 40S&W? Personal bias, I suppose. :p

So yeah, I guess .410 and up.

[OEF_VET]

Here's another vote for .410".

[mete]

Bore defines caliber, don't confuse this with power. For handguns and rifles, 40 caliber and above is big bore. This is important. Hunting dangerous game in africa , big bore is recommended because they have found it does make a difference. Handguns also, big bore makes a difference and that has been noted for over 100 years. On woodchucks and things I have found 40 S&W and 45 acp about the same, both are noticably better than the 9mm.

[Boats]

I think the "big bore" distinction is more important in rifles than in handguns. In a rifle the choice is really between momentum and trajectory flatness to a way greater degree than the spread of performance in most handguns 9mm to .44Mag or so.

In handguns normally employed in self defense roles, my distinction is more made along the lines of "power" rather than "bore." The .380, the .38 Super, the 9mm, the .38 Sp., the .357 Mag, and the .357 SIG all use the same bore, but I know which of those rounds I respect more than the others in terms of ballistic performance. The same goes for .40S&W and 10mm and others with overlapping bullet sizes/weights but wildly differing terminal performance numbers in terms of energy.

[Bill Hook]

10mm on up.

[surfinUSA]

Any caliber designation that begins wiith 4 or larger.

[schromf]

I think the FBI said it best anything that starts with 4

[caz223]

Think metric, 10mm+.

[Majic]

.40 cal and up which will include the 10mm.

[Intune]

If you're ever looking down one you'll recognize it.

[gulogulo1970]

.40cal and up in my opinion.

[agtman]

"Big Bore" defined ...

First, distinguish between revolvers and autoloaders:

:scrutiny:

- among revolvers, a "Big Bore" means 10mm AUTO & up (e.g., S&W 610);

- among autoloaders, a "Big Bore" means 10mm AUTO & up (e.g., Delta Elite).

:D

:cool:

[Wanderer]

I'd say .40

[New_comer]

If there's big bore, then there should be mid-bore and obviously the small bores

For me, the range would be:

small bores range in dia < 6.5 mm
mid-bores 6.5 mm< xx < = 10mm
big bores > 10 mm

41 mag is a big bore, 10mm/40SW mid bore

[Vern Humphrey]

To my way of thinking, a big bore is Colt .45, +P+ (that is, for Rugers and T/C only), and midbores are between that and .357.

[BluesBear]

Anything with a bore diameter greater than .4" I consider to be a big bore.

[caz223]

I'm in agreement with agtman.
To call a 10mm a small bore, or medium bore is, I don't know, maybe understating it a little bit.
While a .40 is the same diameter, I don't think it should really earn the distinction big bore, because of the lack of similarities between it and the "true" big bores, esp. magnums. (Not calling .45 acp, .45 colt and .44 spl "false" big bores, just they were designed before the magnums, so they kinda make up the rules as they went along...)
Whatever your personal beliefs on the subject, the FBI seems to think that .40s are big bores.
Whatever.
I'll just be in the minority and be happy that not everybody thinks like me...
:D

[jc2]

I'd have to go with .41 and above for big bores---10mm and 10mm lite just don't cut it. The .41 Magnum represents a significant increase in performance over even the hottest 10mm (which are not even quite as hot as the hottest .357 Magnums).

I tend to think of .35 to .40 (9mm to 10mm) as medium bores and .32s and below small bores--e.g., the .32 H&R would be a small bore (as would the .32 ACP and .25 ACP, etc.).

[Sean Smith]

Jc2,

With that reasoning, .41 AE makes it but 10mm Magnum doesn't. Not very illuminating. Big bore doesn't mean bigger power, anyway, just bigger, so the power per se is irrelevant.

My take? .41 is still too small. Make it .429+ (to include modern ".44 caliber" cartridges). .44 Special is a big bore, .357 SuperMag isn't.

[George Hill]

Is this actually important?

It's relative.
If all your other guns are .17's and .22's then your 9MM is the Big Bore.


Ted Kennedy - classic.

[seeker_two]

Typically, .400" and above are considered "big bores" w/ .357Mag/Max considered "honorary big bores".

But I've also heard "If S&W made an N-Frame for it, it's a big bore." Hard to argue with that logic...:D

[mountainclmbr]

Is a Thompson Contender in 30-30 a small bore while the same gun in 45ACP could be considered a big bore?

I would say that any Democrat candidate is a big bore. Over 100 million dead in the last century by socialist governments should top the Evan-Marshall stopping power list. We should close the communist loophole!!!! I wish I had a democrat in my pocket to attack my worst enemies. Ok. Ok, cannibalism is OK with democrats!!!

[patentnonsense]

check out http://www.doubletapammo.com/main_site/index.html -
the 10mm specs there seem fully competitive with .41m.

[jc2]

Not hardly--but they are close to the .357 Magnum.

[Majic]

I see some define big bore by power level, but what does the power of the cartridge have to do with the bore diameter of the barrel?
Using power as the basis and the .44mag is defined as a big bore. Then what is the .44 special as it uses the same barrel?

[Traveler]

I've never heard the term "big bore" (when refering to firearms) used for anything other than rifles. With rifles, and classic cartridges, .404 Jefferys is the smallest (usually accepted) caliber. The .410's, .416's, and .425's definitely are considered big bore.

I think a large part of this lack of mention of handguns in this context is the general acceptance of the .44/.45 bore as a standard at the time most of the nominclature in use today was developed. Certainly what todays shooter considers a large diameter bore is much slimmer than the cartridges of the classic period.

Certainly Elmer Keith, who felt that large diameter cartridges were best, and believed that rifles should all be over .375, felt that .44 was just a beginning for handguns.

[agtman]

"...but [10mm specs] are close to the .357 magnum."

:scrutiny:

Only if you factor-in for a long-barrelled .357 revolver do the "specs" of the hotter .357 loads exhibit parity with those of the hotter 10mm loads. (Here, "specs" = fps/fpe).

Example: Buffalo Bore's "Heavy .357 Magnum":

From a 3" S&W J-frame firing a 125gn Gold Dot load, BB claims 1476fps/604fpe;

From a 5" S&W Mod. 27 firing the 125gn GD, BB claims 1543fps/661fpe;

From a 6" Ruger firing the 125gn GD, BB cites just over 1700fps/802fpe.

Example: DoubleTap's high performance 10mm 135gn Nosler HP load:

From the Glock 20's 4.6" barrel, DT claims 1600fps/768fpe.

For comparison of other load data, see:

http://www.buffalobore.com/ammunition/default.htm#357

http://www.doubletapammo.com/php/cutenews/show_products.php

[jc2]

You're just a little selective in your data, aren't you agtman? :scrutiny: You sort of overlooked the 158-grain bullet at 763 fpe, the 170-grain bullet at 740 fpe and the 180-grain bullet at 783 fpe, didn't you? While you looking, did you see the .41 Magnum at 1072 fpe and 1074 fpe?

In common .357 Magnum barrel lengths (four to six inches), the .357 Magnum is generally a little (albeit, very little) hotter than the hottest 10mm in common 10mm barrel lengths (and the .41 Magnum represents a significant increase in performance over even the hottest 10mm).

[Sean Smith]

OK, let's leave out the more obscure folks like Double Tap for 10mm and Buffalo Bore for .357 Magnum and see what we get with factory ammo...

http://www.geocities.com/mr_motorhead/10tech.html#ballistics

;)

You're just a little selective in your data, aren't you agtman?

I think his point was that to match the actual claimed BB ballistics from a real gun, you needed a 6" barrel, whereas the DT loads are from a 4.6" barrel, hence the claim of BB .357 Magnum ammo being ballistically superior is spurrious.

In common .357 Magnum barrel lengths (four to six inches), the .357 Magnum is generally a little (albeit, very little) hotter than the hottest 10mm in common 10mm barrel lengths (and the .41 Magnum represents a significant increase in performance over even the hottest 10mm).

Kind of hard to see how your data supports that conclusion, unless you consider "cheating" by giving your favored cartridge an extra ~1.4" of barrel valid.

[agtman]

"... just a little selective in your data..."


Not at all, Jimco. Unlike you, I included the barrel-length factor in the comparative comments. I also cited to the page links of each ammo-maker so that interested readers could check for themselves.

The purpose of comparing BB's 125gn "heavy .357" load to DT's 135gn 10mm Nosler HP load was because those bullet-weights are pretty close. If you want to reference other bullet-weights, that's fine too - just be sure it's a valid contextual comparison by including the revolver's barrel length from which the fps/fpe stats were developed.

"In common .357 Magnum barrel lengths (four to six inches)..."

Quite understandably you don't define "common .357 Magnum barrel lengths." At least in the real world of concealable .357 revolvers, the "common" barrel length is going to be closer to 2", 2.5" or 3", with a very few barrels at 4" - in other words, for CCW it's most likely a .357 snubby of some type, which cuts against your argument. Where you're talking about "common" .357 target or hunting revolvers, such barrel lengths are most "commonly" 6-8".

"... did you see the .41 Magnum at ..."

:rolleyes: Re-read my post, again, Jimco. I wasn't arguing about the .41 Magnum and didn't bring it up.

[Missouri Mule]

bigger than 0.355" ......
Hmmmm! That would make my Makarov a "BIG Bore"! :neener:

Seriously though I have always heard pretty much any "magnum" caliber refered to as "BIG BORE".

[caz223]

How can anyone think that .357 magnum beats 10mm, apples vs. apples?
I just don't get it.
The only way you can get .357 to beat 10mm in guns of the same barrel length is to shoot the .357 out of a blackhawk, and load it way hotter than you can buy it.
You can buy a vaquero in 10mm and load it hot too, what does that prove?
The original norma 10mm loadings were HOT.
As of late the poor 10 has been castrated, but it still beats factory .357 magnum.
Apples to apples.

[jc2]

caz223 -

Check the links agtman posted. The figures I posted for the .357 Magnum are factory loads (Buffalo Bore) from standard length S&W (686) and Ruger (GP100) .357 Magnum revolvers--no super-long Blackhawks or hot reloads. Plain factory double action revolvers and factory ammunition. (That it may not "make sense" to you is understandable considering the extent the 10mm is usually overrated by its "true-believers" and that the .357 Magnum is both underrated and underloaded.)

Sean & agtman -

Stop whining. The G20 is a full-size 10mm and roughly the autoloader equivalent to the full-size S&W L-frame or Ruger GP100. It sure isn't a J-frame or even a K-frame equivalent (though the G29 is close to a K-frame equivalent). The 686 and GP100 are probably the most common .357 Magnums in general use. The G20 is probably the most common 10mm in general use. The .357 Magnum out of a 686 or GP100 is slightly hotter than the 10mm out of a G20. No big deal!!

I was comparing a revolver round in a standard full-size revolver (the four and six inch barrels are the most common barrel lengths for the 686 and GP100) to an autoloader round in a standard full-size autoloader (the G20 is by far the most common full-size 10mm). It is an apples to apples comparison of the rounds in their respective platforms, and the revolver (and revolver round) comes out on top by a slight margin. FWIW, you are probably not going to get a "fair" (at least what you would consider "fair") comparison because of differences between revolvers and autoloaders--not because the deck is stacked in favour of the .357 Magnum (but, then again, no where is it written life is fair).

The figures are not lying--if you shoot the hottest loaded factory .357 Magnum in a full-size revolver it is slightly hotter than the hottest 10mm in full-size autoloader, period.

FWIW, the 10mm would probably "beat" the .357 Magnum out of a S&W 610, but definitely not out of a G20. (It should be pointed out the 610 is a N-frame, and if you want to go that big, you might as well move on up to the .41 Magnum and some real power--no need to fool around with just a 10mm in a handgun that size!) In similar size "packages" (and accepting the differences between revolver and autoloaders), the hot-loaded factory .357 Magnum is slightly hotter than the hottest factory 10mm. What's your problem with that?

[jc2]

Just for grins (and in the interest of "fair play"), I computed the energy for the Buffalo Bore .357 Magnum out of the 4" S&W Model 686 Mountain Gun to compare with the Double Tap 10mm out of the 4.6 inch G20. At this point (and in the interest of "fair play"), we should note the the 4" S&W 686 is the rough equivalent of the G20 in size and purpose (designed for open LE carry).

BB* FPE DT* FPE DIFF

125 713 135 767 -54
158 774 165 718 56
170 751 180 675 76
180 756 200 694 62

*Weight

You will see in an "fair" (or as near "fair" as it can be) comparison, the .357 Magnum and 10mm are roughly equivalent. The 10mm has a very slight advantage (54 fpe) with the light-weight bullet while the .357 Magnum has a slight advantage when comparing the medium and heavy-weight bullet. Hopefully, this will put to rest the misconception (misrepresentation?) that the 10mm is more powerful than the .357 Magnum.

FTR, these are all factory over-the-counter (or at least internet) loads and in roughly equivalent (and readily available) factory standard handguns.

[Majic]

To be totaly fair to the cartridges, without any interpetation of platform differences, load the hottest factory spec .357mag in a S&W M627 and the hottest factory spec 10mm in a S&W M610 of equal barrel lengths. Shoot these 2 revolvers and compare the results. There can be no skewing results in favor of one or the other when shot in the same platform. The argument of using different platforms has no real merit in comparing the capabilities of the 2 cartridges.
Idealy pressure barrels would be used, but most people don't have access to equipment such as that, so the N-frame Smiths would make a good substitute for the average shooter to do the experriment. There will be some variances due to the differences of tolerances in the 2 revolvers, but that could be accepted as it should be very minor.

[Sean Smith]

BB* FPE DT* FPE DIFF

125 713 135 767 -54
158 774 165 718 56
170 751 180 675 76
180 756 200 694 62

Do you really have to resort to fudging your figures just to try to make your point? Because it seems you have conveniently used the weakest loads listed on the DT web site in every case, while omitting these:

155gr Gold Dot @ 1,475 ft/sec, 750 ft-lbs
165gr Golden Saber @ 1,425 ft/sec, 744 ft-lbs
180gr Golden Saber @ 1,330 ft/sec, 707 ft-lbs
200gr FMJ/FP @ 1,270 ft/sec, 715 ft-lbs

... to exaggerate a supposed .357 Magnum advantage.

:rolleyes:

[jc2]

I don't know, Majic. Your proposal would certainly give a good "laboratory" comparison.

I think a fairer (and better) "real-world" comparison would be compare cartridges using platforms that are really used by shooters. The 4" (or even 6") revolver is the probably most commonly used .357 Magnum (certainly for loads like Buffalo Bore's). The 4.6" G20 is probably the most the most commonly used 10mm. They are certainly representative platforms in which the cartridges are actually being used. Why not compare the cartridges using the handguns that people use everyday? It would surely be more meaningful.

Of course, the bottom line really should be why it so important to some people that the 10mm be "better"? Makes you wonder what they are trying to compensate for, doesn't it? ;)

[jc2]

C'mon Sean. Get over it. I tried to compared bullets with similar SD. There was no BB equivalent for the DT 155-grain so I didn't include it. I didn't go through and pick the "weakest" loads--I just picked the firsts one I found. Are you "fudging" the figures by going through and selecting the "strongest" loads? Or does that only work one way? :scrutiny:

An interesting point that you failed to make, of course, is that even using the strongest loads (the ones YOU selected) when you compare them the .357 Magnum still comes out on top.

Your 165-grain load - 744 fpe vs 774 fpe for the BB 158-grain--ADVANTAGE .357

Your 180-grain load - 707 fpe vs 751 fpe for the BB 170-grain--ADVANTAGE .357

Your 200-grain load - 715 vs 756 fpe for the BB 180-grain--ADVANTAGE .357

Even if you forget about trying compare bullets with similar SD:

Your 155-grain load - 750 fpe vs 774 fpe for the BB 158-grain--ADVANTAGE .357

Your 180-grain load - 707 fpe vs 756 fpe for the BB 180-grain--ADVANTAGE .357

And YOUR point was???

That the hottest factory 10mm loads are roughly equivalent to the hottest .357 Magnum loads out of similar sized handguns? Congratulations, we agree!

Go to sleep! Get over it! Go out and buy yourself a .357 Magnum tomorrow and lose that sissy bottom-feeder! ;)

[BluesBear]

So is it safe to say that this thread which was originally asking for opinions of what defines a big bore in a handgun has turned into yet another pissing match between 10mm and .357 magnum?

[Vern Humphrey]

If it don't throw a half-ounce of lead, it ain't a big bore.:neener:

[BluesBear]

:D ½ ounce = 218¾ grains :D

[steelhead]

This is big bore...

http://www.hunt101.com/img/100714.JPG

This is big bore lite with a little help from photoshop...

http://www.hunt101.com/img/100706.JPG


Life begins at .475. All others need not apply.;)

[jc2]

Vern has it right!!!

[caz223]

Vern Humphrey, you're a genius!

[30Cal]

Big Bore = N-Frame

[jc2]

Big Bore = N-Frame
It doesn't work that way 30cal!

Unless, of course, my .357 Magnum Model 27 (N-frame) is a big bore . . .

and

My .357 Model 65 (K-frame) is not a big bore.

Try again! ;)

[Zach S]

Laying ballistics aside, I consider .400 and up big bores. Anything smaller, is a smallbore.

[BigG]

How many angels can dance on the head of a pin? Da da dada da do doo dum. :scrutiny: