Magnum revolver optimum velocity

[IlikeSA]

I've been doing some research on optimum velocities for magnum revolvers, and came across this article:

https://beartoothbullets.com/tech_notes/archive_tech_notes.htm/61

To summarize, 1100 FPS is an optimal velocity for a large meplat, heavy for caliber nonexpanding bullet, in calibers of .357 magnum to 45 Colt, because of the damage it causes to the object it hits: in this case gel or flesh (approx. 3/4 of an inch of a wound channel, with deep penetration). The article states that at most handgun hunting ranges, 100 yards or less, you are only losing about 100-200 fps and experiencing a drop between 4 and 7 inches, which is fine for deer-black bear sized game. With that said, there is no need to beat the gun and your hand up with a faster moving bullet.

What do you think of the article? Is a heavy bullet moving at 1300+ fps really needed, along with the additional recoil? I hand load because I try to save powder, and if I don't need to use 14-16+ grains of powder, depending on the load, I'd rather not.

 

[Catpop]

I'm watching this with great interest

 

[buck460XVR]

With a heavy for caliber bullet at 1100FPS you are beating up your revolver and your hand as much(if not more) as standard for caliber bullets running faster, while significantly shortening your hunting range. (.357 to .45 colt) For deer size game, there is no reason whatsoever to go with heavy for caliber bullets.

 

[MaxP]

You're not really beating anything up running heavy bullets, and also, 1,100 fps is a mild level that it will be pleasant to shoot. Pressure does more damage than any else. In fact, a 240 (in .44 Mag) at 1,400 fps should kick considerably harder than an 300 at 1,100. When you start running the heavies fast, then your recoil goes up accordingly. Cast bullets are limited by their material. What I mean by this is that if you push them too fast, you will exceed the material's ability to maintain its shape when it comes in contact with bone, etc. This is the real reason to keep speeds moderate when using cast bullets. When you wipe the nose off of a flat-point hardcast bullet, your ability to penetrate deep and straight is diminished significantly. That said, you can run them faster and they will produce better results (on game), again as long as you don't exceed the material's limitations. I like running heavy hardcast bullets up around 1,350 or thereabouts (at the muzzle). It all depends also on what you intend to hunt. If deer is on the menu, a standard weight jacketed expanding bullet will serve you well. I like something heavier for black bear, but that's just me.

But all hardcast bullets are not created equally from nose profile to material to hardness. The toughest hardcast bullets I have seen (and used) in action are those produced by Garrett Cartridge. They don't sell them commercially for the handloader, only as loaded ammo, but they are tougher than any else I have used. I will no longer use hardcast bullets on large bovines, but one of the biggest water buffalo I have ever shot fell to Garrett's 405 grain .45 Colt loads and they performed admirably.

 

[Varminterror]

The article states that at most handgun hunting ranges, 100 yards or less

For the restraints of the article, being the commonly accepted 100yrds or less, I tend to live in a world where I really don't EVER need more than 1300fps. As game weight goes up, bullet weight does in kind. Which is why I often land on the 44mag, 480R, or 475L instead of the 454C for this type of hunting. I can get the 300grn XTP up to 1300fps when seated long in a 44mag SBH, or can casually push a 400grn XTP in the 475L to 1300... The extreme speed of the 460, 500, or 454C just doesn't gain me much...

But I'll share an exception where I have found value in "super magnum" velocities from revolvers - and I'll point out here - without sacrificing sectional density and bullet weight...

I'm a fan of @MaxP's work and an admirer of his opportunities and accomplishments as a handgun hunter and I generally consider myself a kindred spirit of @CraigC's (who I expect will be along shortly). But as a primarily handgun hunter myself, especially the magnums and super magnums, even though I nod along and whole heartedly agree with their statements about 1100-1300fps revolver cartridges and heavy, HEAVY bullets for 100yrd and less hunting, I know velocity and range are one point where I often differ in opinion from the conventional crowd. I ABSOLUTELY believe in bullet weight and sectional density at ANY range, but where most of these guys will scold me is the range I ask my revolvers to play, so I also consider my muzzle velocity differently than many of these other guys. The trajectories for most common revolver cartridges aren't so different - all of them making life pretty dang difficult past 100yrds, and VERY difficult past 150... But since not many of us actually shoot revolvers past 100yrds (or even 50, for that matter), not many folks really ever worry about a bullet going any faster than 1100-1300fps.

Going up in diameter really doesn't buy any more range, it only buys game weight. But what if I want more range? It's just not easy to connect when a slug is dropping 1" or more per yard and when you get outside of 5mils... That's where the super magnums come in, for me. A 454C at 1650 picks up another 50yrds on top of the 44mag at 1300fps before the wheels really come off for trajectory management (subsonic and dropping ~1" per yard, or more). The 44mag at 1300 already has a leg up by about 50yrds on a standard pressure 45colt. Comparatively, my 357/44 B&D runs over 1900 with a 180grn Speer HotCor with a good sectional density (not nearly the impact momentum of the others, naturally), and the 460 S&W runs over 1800 without pushing pressure with the 300grn XTP, so I gain over 100yrds on the 44mag before the trajectory hits the same "unmanageable" mark. I don't need the extreme power of my 460 to kill deer at 200yrds, I just need a flat enough trajectory to reliably get the bullet where it needs to go, and upon delivery, I need about the same power - at range - as a 357mag at the muzzle. So I can carry a much handier Redhawk instead of an X-frame, and get 200-250yrd deer killing capacity in a VERY affordable and available 44mag case with cheaper 38cal bullets, running far less recoil and powder. It does require specialized gear - a guy needs a field rest and either a milling reticle or a dial-able turret, neither of which are common on handgun scopes. The 460S&W works just fine for this, and it certainly hits a hell of a lot harder than my 357/44, but dead is dead, and I'll carry my Redhawk, whereas I hate carrying my X-frames.

I know "long range" revolver hunting is hot button topic for a lot of folks, chastised as unethical and pushed aside as parlor tricks and grandstanding - or nothing more than an arms race of portable shooting benches and rifle scopes (and for some folks, it really is nothing more than any of that), just the same criticisms as any extreme range hunting with a rifle might receive, but it's a realistic pursuit for some of us who invest the time, effort, and capital to make it real.

So pick out what you want to do with the revolver, then let that dictate what you need the revolver to do for you. If it's 100yrds or less on whitetails, a 44mag is already more than a guy needs. If you're expecting greater game weight, more bullet weight might be warranted, if you're expecting greater ranges, greater velocity might be...

 

[LAH]

I'm not the big game hunter a lot of these guys are so classify me as a rock shooter mostly. For me 1200 FPS from a sixgun is magnum speed. I've shot more 44-250 Keith bullets at that speed than anything else. Those bullets have a meplat of .250" & will do mostly what they will do at 1200. I've killed a little game with this load & sighted for 50 yards a 100 yard shot presents no problem.

Wild boar are suppose to be tough animals. I took one which field dressed nearly 200 pounds with the above bullet. The shot was 'bout a 110 yards. The little Keith struck the right hip & exited the left chest of the boar. That's not bad for a standard weight bullet. So 1100 FPS for the heavier bullet should do just fine.

 

[IlikeSA]

Thanks everyone for sharing their experiences and thoughts. The back story to my OP revolves around my eternal search for cartridge efficiency: what is the most efficient speed with the most efficient bullet: barring overkill (and money considered). I began exploring hand loading just the .357, examining what I need a bullet to do at range and what speed I really need it to be at: after all, one can take a squirrel at 100 yards with a 30-06, but a 30-06 isn't needed. My Redhawk is a .357, and while the gun is quite capable and I have shot heavy weight bullets in it at faster than normal velocities, I began to question why. It uses more powder, as I mentioned in my first post, and quite frankly it hurts my hand, meaning I have to change my preferred grips or wear a glove.

A few comments to various posters:

Buck460XVR: I was considering heavy for caliber bullets for the momentum needed at range. I have shot 158 SWC's at 1555 from my Redhawk, but their were accuracy issues. One other theory I am considering is full meplat double ended wadcutters, in my case from a .357, at 1100 fps, since it is the meplat that causes the damage. Any thoughts?

MaxP: I have enjoyed both of your revolver books, particularly the revolver hunting one. The thought you posit regarding overly fast hard cast and bullet toughness is definitely something to consider. In addition, having read both of the chapters regarding bullet selection, I understood you to be a hard cast man. Why the different selection for bovines?

Varmitterror: Thanks for your commentary on the 357-44 B&D. That is a conversion I have considered (along with the .356 GNR) but cannot bring myself to do that to such a rare gun. I have never thought about the longer range effects but more about the speed within 100 yards: something I need to think on more, and maybe mod with a Blackhawk instead.

LAH: Thanks for your experiential commentary on the article. Dead is dead, right?

 

[tech45K]

This is some cool stuff! I want it so bad.

 

[MaxP]

MaxP: I have enjoyed both of your revolver books, particularly the revolver hunting one. The thought you posit regarding overly fast hard cast and bullet toughness is definitely something to consider. In addition, having read both of the chapters regarding bullet selection, I understood you to be a hard cast man. Why the different selection for bovines?

The short answer to your question is that I've evolved, and this is why:



I have been relatively consistent over the years, but have written about their limitations and when I think a better (and consequently more expensive tool is necessary) bullet is necessary. To quote myself from my third book (the Hunting Revolvers book), I said the following:

"There are limitations to hardcast bullets like all bullets. The hardcast bullet will not withstand very high velocities. High velocity and contact with a hard object (like bone) can degrade the nose of the bullet, hindering its ability to penetrate deeply."


While I have used cast bullets extensively and successfully, there are times that they work spectacularly, and times that they fail, and that's not good enough for me when an animal outweighs me ten fold. Nothing bothers me more than inconsistency (which is what has kept me away from jacketed expanding bullets for so long).

Every year a group of us gather in Hondo, Texas at Action Outdoor Adventures to test calibers/loads/bullets on bovines. It's an intense few days where we put bullet to flesh and perform detailed necropsies to document exactly how a variety of bullets perform on the one medium that counts - animal flesh and bone.

 

[ATLDave]

Max, are the non-lead solids shown in that picture recovered from use on an animal?

 

[MaxP]

Max, are the non-lead solids shown in that picture recovered from use on an animal?

No, but these were (see the contrast between the ones that were shot and the loaded rounds).

 

[ATLDave]

Wow. The steel of the barrel engraved the rifling... other than that, nothing appears to have moved! I'm guessing those perform like the proverbial drill-press.

 

[MaxP]

Wow. The steel of the barrel engraved the rifling... other than that, nothing appears to have moved! I'm guessing those perform like the proverbial drill-press.

Dave, the last animal I used them (Punch bullets - left) on I didn't recover a single bullet, and it was the largest animal I have taken to date. I also used the other bullet in the picture (the CEB handgun solid) in .480 on a water buffalo in Argentina and never recovered a bullet.

 

[CDR_Glock]

You're not really beating anything up running heavy bullets, and also, 1,100 fps is a mild level that it will be pleasant to shoot. Pressure does more damage than any else. In fact, a 240 (in .44 Mag) at 1,400 fps should kick considerably harder than an 300 at 1,100. When you start running the heavies fast, then your recoil goes up accordingly. Cast bullets are limited by their material. What I mean by this is that if you push them too fast, you will exceed the material's ability to maintain its shape when it comes in contact with bone, etc. This is the real reason to keep speeds moderate when using cast bullets. When you wipe the nose off of a flat-point hardcast bullet, your ability to penetrate deep and straight is diminished significantly. That said, you can run them faster and they will produce better results (on game), again as long as you don't exceed the material's limitations. I like running heavy hardcast bullets up around 1,350 or thereabouts (at the muzzle). It all depends also on what you intend to hunt. If deer is on the menu, a standard weight jacketed expanding bullet will serve you well. I like something heavier for black bear, but that's just me.

But all hardcast bullets are not created equally from nose profile to material to hardness. The toughest hardcast bullets I have seen (and used) in action are those produced by Garrett Cartridge. They don't sell them commercially for the handloader, only as loaded ammo, but they are tougher than any else I have used. I will no longer use hardcast bullets on large bovines, but one of the biggest water buffalo I have ever shot fell to Garrett's 405 grain .45 Colt loads and they performed admirably.

What loads do you prefer for bear in your various calibers?

 

[Varminterror]

Varmitterror: Thanks for your commentary on the 357-44 B&D. That is a conversion I have considered (along with the .356 GNR) but cannot bring myself to do that to such a rare gun.

If that's how you sit on the topic, then my Redhawks are probably like a horror movie for you. The ONLY reason I bought m 357mag Redhawks was the intention to convert them. I have 3 of the 357mag Redhawks, two 7.5's and a 5.5". They're not common, but they're not really collectible either. One of my 7.5" has been converted to 357/44 B&D. The 5.5" will get converted - but I'm leaning towards transplanting its cylinder into a Super Redhawk with a nose job, then having Chris Roads of Bayside Customs do a Franken Ruger job on it and put a 12" barrel onto it, so I might not finish that conversion to end up with a 5.5" .357/44 Redhawk. The 3rd, the other 7.5", is a donor - its cylinder will go to the other 7.5" so I'll have a "Convertible" Redhawk, and then the frame is going to become a 454C Redhawk with a Super Redhawk transplant cylinder and a take off 45 Colt barrel, then I'll use THAT Super Redhawk either as the basis for the 357/44 Franken Ruger, OR as a platform for a Bowen 475Linebaugh "SP101 style".

If I want a standard 357mag Redhawk, I have the option of picking up an 8shot new production and getting more out of the platform, or buying another of the old ones - they're not prohibitively expensive or difficult to find for sale. They're old, and not common, but their "rarity" doesn't really count for much. I paid less for two of my 3 than I would have paid for new 44mag or 45colt Redhawks, and one I paid the same price as a new model.

 

[buck460XVR]

You're not really beating anything up running heavy bullets, and also, 1,100 fps is a mild level that it will be pleasant to shoot. Pressure does more damage than any else. In fact, a 240 (in .44 Mag) at 1,400 fps should kick considerably harder than an 300 at 1,100.

Max, I never said one was beating up anything running heavy bullets, just that running heavy for caliber bullets @1100fps will beat things up just as much if not more, than standard for caliber bullets running faster. Which in a modern magnum hunting revolver is really a moot point.

Lets use your examples of .44 mag running 240s and 300s. According to Lyman, running a 240 gr Keith style hardcast with a max load of H110 gives you 1266 fps and a C.U.P of 35,700. Run a similar Kieth Style 300 gr hardcast with a max charge of H110 only gives you 1036 fps and a cup of 38,300. My recoil calculator shows a wash between the two....and you are still not up to 1100 fps with the 300 grainers. While 1100 fps may be the "optimal" velocity for a heavy for caliber bullet, I still see no need for them for deer and black bear. They are not thick skinned, heavily boned or armor plated. Standard for caliber bullets will give one better range and flatter trajectory while still giving excellent terminal performance.

Buck460XVR: I was considering heavy for caliber bullets for the momentum needed at range. I have shot 158 SWC's at 1555 from my Redhawk, but their were accuracy issues. One other theory I am considering is full meplat double ended wadcutters, in my case from a .357, at 1100 fps, since it is the meplat that causes the damage. Any thoughts?

Momentum at what range? IMHO, Realistic range of a .357 for deer and bear is 40 yards or less. Difference in meplat damage is really a moot point since what one really needs when hunting deer with a .357 is good penetration. From my experience, you must avoid the shoulders and hope for a exit wound. Anything heavier than a 170 gr hardcast is unnecessary in my opinion. A 158 gr SWC@ 1350, if accurate would be enough. Meplat size with similar style hardcast bullets of various weights is going to be very similar. While they make for a great target and SD bullet, I've never known full wadcutters to be a favored hunting bullet.

Again, this is my opinion on hunting bullets for deer. Monolithics for Dangerous game are another thing and another topic for another thread. In my state we must use a expanding bullet for hunting deer. This makes the point the linked article is trying to make worthless to me. Make no doubt about it, the linked article is trying to sell hardcast bullets.......specifically Beartooth bullets. I doubt if anything on their website is going to tell us anything but praise and glory for those products. If they shoot well, are accurate and they work for you, great. But believe me, ain't no bullet the holy grail. You still have to do your part.

 

[JeffG]

I've been doing some research on optimum velocities for magnum revolvers, and came across this article:
What do you think of the article? Is a heavy bullet moving at 1300+ fps really needed, along with the additional recoil? I hand load because I try to save powder, and if I don't need to use 14-16+ grains of powder, depending on the load, I'd rather not.

For the most part, my loading of magnum handguns is closely aligned with this material. A lot of my opinion is based on personal experience. Good read.

 

[MaxP]

Hodgdon's starting load for a 240 grain JHP at 25,000 CUP runs over 1,400 fps (according to the load data. I really wish they wouldn't use CUP..... that 1,266 max load seems off particularly at that pressure point. Anyhow, if your 240 is only running 1,266 it really won't kick more than a 300 at 1,100. Your trajectory between these two hypothetical loads won't be so different and if you are keeping your shots in the 100 yards or less realm, I just don't see a problem. If "long" (relatively speaking) shots are planned for, I would seek more than 1,266 fps at the muzzle. But that's just me.

As I said before, for whitetail you really don't need anything heavier than a 240 in .44 Magnum. Black bear, well all black bear aren't created equally. There's a big difference between a 180 pound Maine black bear and a 500 pound plus black bear from North Carolina. I've hunter them both and some of the big ones we kill in NC deserve and justify a heavier bullet. JMHO.

Not trying to be argumentative, but that load data doesn't seem right.

 

[JeffG]

The only thing I might add, if you place the scenario of revolver hunting into the box of bow hunting... Shorter ranges, for the most part non dangerous game, shot discipline to assure a good, lethal hit, you tend to shed the need for the ultimate blaster load. The trajectory of the hottest 44 mag compared to the Keith at 100 yards, is only a matter of 1.6 inches. If you are getting a complete pass-through on deer and black bear, what it the point of a hotter load? Let the bullet design do the work. Just my two cents.

 

[CraigC]

My 310's are nearly 1400fps.

 

[Japle]

Many years ago, when I was living out west, I used my .44 AutoMag on two deer.
The first was a whitetail at about 60 yds and the load was the 180 gr Sierra JHC over 31.0 gr of WW296 for 1990 fps from the 8 ½” barrel. My hit behind the right shoulder pulped the lungs and pretty much destroyed the left shoulder before exiting. Lots of wasted meat there and a lesson learned.
The second one was a mule deer at about 40 yds and the load was the 265 gr Hornady FP over 22.5 gr of WW296 for 1510 fps. The entrance was just to the left of the breastbone and the bullet exited through the right ham. Big difference! There was no blood-shot, wasted meat. The meat around the exit point was virtually undamaged. That bullet at that velocity wouldn’t have expanded on the sidewalk, but it didn’t need to. The deer fell on his face and hardly kicked.

My points:
First, relatively high velocity was necessary because the AutoMag wouldn’t function with lighter loads.
Second, even though the 265 gr bullet was going much faster than 1100 fps, the bullet’s construction ensured that it would go straight through and that’s all that was required. I’m sure the same bullet at 1100 fps would have been entirely satisfactory.

Strongly constructed, non-expanding bullets in .44 and .45 caliber handguns at 1100 fps sounds like a perfectly good formula for big game to me.

 

[buck460XVR]

Hodgdon's starting load for a 240 grain JHP at 25,000 CUP runs over 1,400 fps (according to the load data. I really wish they wouldn't use CUP..... that 1,266 max load seems off particularly at that pressure point. Anyhow, if your 240 is only running 1,266 it really won't kick more than a 300 at 1,100. Your trajectory between these two hypothetical loads won't be so different and if you are keeping your shots in the 100 yards or less realm, I just don't see a problem. If "long" (relatively speaking) shots are planned for, I would seek more than 1,266 fps at the muzzle. But that's just me.


Not trying to be argumentative, but that load data doesn't seem right.

For some reason, Hodgdon's load data always gives very high listed velocities for many of their handgun recipes. Never have gotten what they list. In that load recipe, they use a Nosler bullet. If you look in Nosler's book, they only get that velocity with their max load.

I'm not trying to be argumentative either, just relating my experiences and preferences. In my opinion, the biggest hindrance when it comes to hunting deer with a revolver is limited range due to rainbow trajectories. I hunt with irons on my revolvers and like to keep the same aiming point. Having a bullet that runs POI to POA over a longer distance gives me more accuracy. I know when I reach that distance where POI and POA don't match, and thus won't take the shot. Having a flatter running bullet also means that small misjudgements in range aren't as critical. Around here range at bears is always about the same, whether it is over bait or treed by dogs....relatively short. Folks tend to use what works best for them and this is something mostly discovered by experience.

Many years ago, when I was living out west, I used my .44 AutoMag on two deer.
The first was a whitetail at about 60 yds and the load was the 180 gr Sierra JHC over 31.0 gr of WW296 for 1990 fps from the 8 ½” barrel. My hit behind the right shoulder pulped the lungs and pretty much destroyed the left shoulder before exiting. Lots of wasted meat there and a lesson learned.
The second one was a mule deer at about 40 yds and the load was the 265 gr Hornady FP over 22.5 gr of WW296 for 1510 fps. The entrance was just to the left of the breastbone and the bullet exited through the right ham. Big difference! There was no blood-shot, wasted meat. The meat around the exit point was virtually undamaged. That bullet at that velocity wouldn’t have expanded on the sidewalk, but it didn’t need to. The deer fell on his face and hardly kicked.

My points:
First, relatively high velocity was necessary because the AutoMag wouldn’t function with lighter loads.
Second, even though the 265 gr bullet was going much faster than 1100 fps, the bullet’s construction ensured that it would go straight through and that’s all that was required. I’m sure the same bullet at 1100 fps would have been entirely satisfactory.

Strongly constructed, non-expanding bullets in .44 and .45 caliber handguns at 1100 fps sounds like a perfectly good formula for big game to me.

Good points. Altho the topic here is hardcast bullets, folks have seem to have drifted to monos and jacketed bullets in the discussion, and it does make a point. Jacketed bullets behave much differently than hardcast and monos by design. As stated, the drastic difference in wound channel damage was not velocity, but because of bullet construction. Most JHPs, even in .44 mag have too thin of jackets for velocities of 1990 fps. Hornady's JFPs, are well suited for 1500. This is a issue many folks find when using .44 carbines. Those same JHPs that worked well in their revolvers on deer, tend to "blow up" when used in a rifle/carbine with thier big increase in velocities. I prefer the JFPs, and JSPs in my .44 carbines over any JHP and find they also work well in my .44 revolvers on deer.

Again, in my state, the use of non-expanding bullets is illegal for deer and bear. Folks should consult their laws and check to see if they are legal in their state. Ain't many states they are, even if they are effective.

 

[CraigC]

Cast bullets and even Punch bullets are not considered "non-expanding". Those regs are aimed at rifle FMJ's.

 

[buck460XVR]

Cast bullets and even Punch bullets are not considered "non-expanding". Those regs are aimed at rifle FMJ's.

Maybe in your state. This from my state's DNR's website......

The prohibition against using non-expanding type bullets only applies if hunting deer, bear, elk and wolf. There is no longer a restriction on full metal jacket ammunition for deer, bear, elk or wolf to allow solid copper or other non-toxic bullets to be used. They just need to be designed to expand upon impact with the game they are used for. Non-expanding bullets can be used for coyote.

The bullets in the linked article specifically targeted bullets designed not to expand and the argument behind their use was that they do not expand.

...as per the linked article,

Please keep in mind that the preceding paragraph relates primarily to the permanent wound channels created by non-expanding bullets.

I'm not saying anything negative about hard cast, only that their legality in my state, is questionable at best. This according to the Warden that comes and talks to the students in the Hunter Safety class I help teach. The key words in the regs are designed to expand upon impact. Of course these regs do not pertain to animals shot on game farms, behind high fences, imported exotics, and any other animals besides deer, bear, elk and wolf..

 

[CraigC]

Sorry but it simply does not apply to cast bullets and was never intended to. If cast bullets did not expand, we would not need Punch bullets.

Who said anything about high fence exotics?