Short barrel velocity loss

[Matt304]

Is there anything around that will help calculate velocity loss on a very short barrel?

I'm interested in the actual produced energy/velocity from .454 Casull in a 2.5" barrel, as well as the 460 and 500SW in a 2.75" barrel.

Thanks.

 

[MachIVshooter]

The big rounds like those you've mentioned suffer quite a bit. Rounds like 9mm and .45 ACP can lose 3" of barrel and only drop 50 or 80 FPS. But rounds like the Casull when taken from 7.5" to 2.5" will lose upwards of 300 FPS. The Ballistics of the .454 Casull when fired from the Ruger Alaskan are equal to a .44 mag from a 6" gun; around 1,100 ft/lbs. That's down from 1,600+ in a 7.5" gun. I have never been able to test the .460 or .500 in this manner, but I imagine the results would be even more dramatic, as both use considerably more powder than the Casull.

 

[Matt304]

That's actually the gun I have been looking at, the Alaskan. I want a big snub nose just as a fun gun, and I am comparing the Alaskan to the SW 460/500's in the snubnose. I am more or less tossing up the 500 vs the 454 right now. I still think the 500 in that size would be a neat little toy. Although, "little" isn't the right word. You would think that the 500 would get to utilize more powder, as the barrel volume would be largest of the three in this length. But I am still curious just what kind of energy the 500 would make at only 2-3/4 inches.

 

[paul105]

Matt

Read this article on gunblast.com

http://gunblast.com/Ruger-SRHAlaskan454.htm

Paul

 

[Matt304]

Thanks, that was an interesting read. It persuaded me to stay with my original choice, the Alaskan.

I have a Blackhawk in 45 Colt, and that gun is mean with the Buffalo Bore loads he mentions. Luckily I have the Hogue on it. I can't even imagine shorter and with the 454 Casull. It will be fun.