short trunked elephant in the room

[surferdaddy]

I have noticed something that may or may not be a legitimate observation. It seems that ballistic data suggests that barrel length has one Heck of an affect in terminal performance of handgun bullets. Am I missing something, or is this the most overlooked aspect of handgun effectiveness, aside from shot placement of course. I have a good friend who thinks that his 3" 1911 and 2" 357 will kill brontosauruses but someone wielding a lowly 9mm had better be prepared to bring a lunch. I carry a S&W M&P 40c, and I am aware that the .40 s&w is less effective from my short barrel but in my reading, it seems as though the higher pressure rounds fare a bit better from less run way. So what gives? A 9mm glock 19 seems to throw about the same size bullet about the same speed as a 357 snubby, right? Perhaps I am really missing a vital piece of the puzzle, and I'm not speaking rhetorically.

 

[surferdaddy]

Btw, I hate auto correct on my darn phone.

 

[KeithG]

What data/source/URL are you looking to?

Sent from my SGH-T989 using Tapatalk

 

[surferdaddy]

A few in various gospel like internet sources, its my understanding that virtually all internet information is completely accurate. Part of the reason for my asking this question, is there really a bunch of ballistic baloney out there?

 

[surferdaddy]

I am not sure how good this data really is?
http://www.ballisticsbytheinch.com/

 

[bigfatdave]

ballisticsbytheinch.com and brassfetcher make a powerful resource.

next you'll realize that that .357 is losing gas pressure through the cylinder gap

 

[surferdaddy]

Is there a significant amount of pressure lost through that little gap?

 

[Coyote3855]

How many angels can dance on the head of a pin? I carry a Kahr P9 for dress up and a Speed Six 2 3/4" in the woods and on the prairie. I'm not worried about barrel length or cylinder gap. I can hit where I look with either gun at reasonable range.

 

[surferdaddy]

I don't feel that any caliber 22 lr and up is ineffective, but I can't deny that there are significant variations in power as calibers vary. I simply find it odd that so many are so adamant about caliber effectiveness when so many other factors seem to me to be more relevant, like placement. I have noted that from my reading that there seems to be a lot of ballistic deviation as the barrel length goes shorter. I think it is interesting how this aspect gets somewhat swept under the rug when debating handgun effectiveness. I was wondering if it really didn't make that much of a difference after all.

 

[K1500]

Yes, when you run the actual loads over a chrono you realize the .357 isn't always what it cracked up to be. Several years back, I ran some factory +p 124gr JHP's out of a Glock 17 that were moving at 1,270. It is hard to find a .357 mag that can do that out of a 2-3 inch barrel. On the other hand, out of a longer barrel, it can really move.

 

[Manco]

I have noticed something that may or may not be a legitimate observation. It seems that ballistic data suggests that barrel length has one Heck of an affect in terminal performance of handgun bullets.

Barrel length usually has a significant effect on velocity, but actual terminal performance is a far more complex subject. I think that your observations are legitimate, though.

Am I missing something, or is this the most overlooked aspect of handgun effectiveness, aside from shot placement of course.

I don't think that shot placement is overlooked at all, especially here on this forum. I also think that most people here are well aware that shorter barrels can make a difference, and take this into account whenever necessary for a particular topic, although it does seem that the extent of certain cases, such as the ones you've brought up, is frequently overlooked when comparing calibers.

I have a good friend who thinks that his 3" 1911 and 2" 357 will kill brontosauruses but someone wielding a lowly 9mm had better be prepared to bring a lunch.

Based on this, he does seem overly focused on cartridge type rather than actual ballistic and terminal performance.

I carry a S&W M&P 40c, and I am aware that the .40 s&w is less effective from my short barrel but in my reading, it seems as though the higher pressure rounds fare a bit better from less run way.

Generating gas more quickly does provide a performance advantage at shorter barrel lengths, for what should be obvious, intuitive reasons.

So what gives? A 9mm glock 19 seems to throw about the same size bullet about the same speed as a 357 snubby, right? Perhaps I am really missing a vital piece of the puzzle, and I'm not speaking rhetorically.

If you're missing something, then I don't see it, either. People often make assumptions without looking at the actual numbers (not that *I've* ever done that ), especially when they're biased toward certain calibers for whatever reasons. In terms of external ballistics, you have a point.

As for terminal effectiveness, however, additional factors must be taken into account, such as bullet construction. It is possible that a bullet that is designed for use in a 4" .357 Magnum revolver will behave differently from a bullet that is designed for use in a 9mm semiauto, even when both have the same mass and velocity due to the specific handguns selected (and one may be more effective on some targets, while the other is more effective on other targets). Details like this are sometimes discussed in handgun/ammo recommendation threads.

 

[surferdaddy]

Manco, I couldn't agree with you more about the opinions and observations of members on THIS forum, the main reason in which I chose this audience to bounce my question off of. Though I'm a bit new to posting here, I often browse the halls here for information and have found the advise and observations of members here to be of the utmost quality and usefulness. I suspect I will get some very insightful comments on this topic. I was not aware, for instance, there was much difference in pistol and revolver bullet design, with the exception of wadcutters, perhaps.

 

[surferdaddy]

Just for the record, I often drool over my buddies 3" 1911. Its very tasty.

 

[crazyjennyblack]

Generally speaking, a longer barrel .357 will allow bullets to travel at a higher velocity. However, there are so many other variables (bullet weight, type of bullet, type of powder, range to target, primer type, etc...) that a longer barrel on its own might or might not be the right thing for your situation. Also, and extremely long barrel could perhaps slow a bullet down. You reach a point where extra length no longer benefits you in terms of velocity.

 

[Manco]

I am not sure how good this data really is?
http://www.ballisticsbytheinch.com/

I think the data itself are good, but you have to keep in mind that there can be significant differences between various gun models and even individual guns. To give you some idea of how significant this can be, look at the following table:

http://www.ballisticsbytheinch.com/357mag.html#RW

In terms of external ballistics, this particular 4" S&W 686 outperforms this particular 6" Colt Python!

In addition, the Thompson Contender used by the BBTI team (I believe that's what they use) is a different type of gun altogether. Unlike a revolver (but like a semiauto), the barrel length includes the length of the cartridge, and there is no cylinder gap, so you have to add about an inch (roughly) when referencing the data tables, and then subtract 50-100 fps or so for the cylinder gap (in most cases--VERY broadly speaking) to get what you could reasonably expect from a revolver like the 686 in the link above. Even then, however, there can still be significant variation, as the link also shows.

Is there a significant amount of pressure lost through that little gap?

How significant is 50-100 fps? Refer to the following:

http://www.ballisticsbytheinch.com/gaptests.html

Click on the various loads for comparative graphs.

I don't feel that any caliber 22 lr and up is ineffective, but I can't deny that there are significant variations in power as calibers vary.

It seems to me that the variations in actual effectiveness in real shooting incidents are not nearly as significant, however.

I simply find it odd that so many are so adamant about caliber effectiveness when so many other factors seem to me to be more relevant, like placement.

BINGO! In my opinion, of course.

I have noted that from my reading that there seems to be a lot of ballistic deviation as the barrel length goes shorter. I think it is interesting how this aspect gets somewhat swept under the rug when debating handgun effectiveness. I was wondering if it really didn't make that much of a difference after all.

In things we can measure and observe in tests, it does make a significant difference, but in real-world defensive handgun use, taking all possible factors into account by looking at actual incidents, not so much, it seems. Unfortunately, not enough of the very specific data we'd need to draw any meaningful generalizations and conclusions regarding the value of external ballistics is collected from such incidents and published. Caliber and barrel length just aren't enough, as I hope I've shown using data from BBTI--there is just too much variance involved.

 

[Loosedhorse]

barrel length has one Heck of an affect in terminal performance of handgun bullets.

I'm not sure what you mean.

Obviously, ammo shot out of shorter barrels will have less velocity. It may also have more blast and flash, unless it was manufactured with short barrels in mind.

As to "terminal performance": many of the newer-design HPs have a great operating window, expanding at velocities as low as 800 fps in some cases. Speed them up and you will get more expansion, and maybe fragmentation.

The relationship between velocity and penetration is not as straightforward. In some cases a bullet traveling more slowly will expand less (or not fragment), and subsequently penetrate more.

Finally, the exact relationship between exapnsion, penetration and "performance" is often disputed.

 

[surferdaddy]

So I should just nod and tell my friend that I like my brontosaurus burger medium rare.

 

[Loosedhorse]

medium rare.

Heck, with the "right" ammo he's already cookin' it for you with the muzzle flash! So, sure.

 

[Manco]

I was not aware, for instance, there was much difference in pistol and revolver bullet design,

Each bullet of each individual load is potentially of a different design and construction, even within the same product line. Sometimes the same bullets work well enough for use in various loads, so a manufacturer may choose to do just that, but there is no guarantee. I don't think it has anything to do with semiautos versus revolvers, per se, just the expected velocities involved and the fact that the two types of pistols generally use different calibers.

with the exception of wadcutters, perhaps.

Even the type of design is not specific enough because different materials may be used according to caliber or the particular manufacturer. For example, even with such a basic design like LSWCHP (lead semi-wadcutter hollow-point) bullets, Remington uses a much softer lead alloy than Winchester does, which results in different terminal effects even if their external ballistics are roughly equivalent.

Similarly, harder materials or thicker features may be used in JHP bullets designed for calibers that are normally of a higher velocity (e.g. .357 Magnum), so they won't necessarily behave the same as bullets designed for other calibers when brought down to the same velocity, even if their weights are similar. One possible common exception is that some manufacturers may have found that the same bullet works for both 9mm and .357 SIG, but then again maybe not (if the weights are slightly different, like 124 versus 125 grains, then probably not).

Just for the record, I often drool over my buddies 3" 1911. Its very tasty.

It's cool to have such a compact pistol shoot such big bullets , although it does give up 2" of barrel length according to how .45 ACP is normally measured (in the US it's 5" for .45 ACP, and 4" for both 9mm and .40 S&W, I believe).

 

[jmr40]

Yes, when you run the actual loads over a chrono you realize the .357 isn't always what it cracked up to be. Several years back, I ran some factory +p 124gr JHP's out of a Glock 17 that were moving at 1,270. It is hard to find a .357 mag that can do that out of a 2-3 inch barrel. On the other hand, out of a longer barrel, it can really move.

My observations as well. Most revolver ballistics you see in print are from 8" test barrels with no cylinder gap. When shot from 4" or shorter barrels with a gap the actual velocity is a LOT less. Semi-auto ballistics you see in print are much closer to what you will actually get.

There are a lot of guys who swear their 2-3" 357 revolvers are the best manstopper on the planet and a 9mm is completely inadequate without realizing a 125/124 gr bullet fired from the 9mm is actually moving faster than the same bullet weight in the revolver.

 

[grendelbane]

There are a lot of guys who swear their 2-3" 357 revolvers are the best manstopper on the planet and a 9mm is completely inadequate without realizing a 125/124 gr bullet fired from the 9mm is actually moving faster than the same bullet weight in the revolver.

While I never thought of it as the best manstopper on the planet, my old departed SP101 would launch a Remington 125 JHP a bit faster than any 9mm I have ever tested.

Velocity is not everything, of course. Perhaps my SP101 was an exceptional example. It certainly was a handful!

 

[WardenWolf]

What happened to your SP101, grendelbane? By the way, I've found that putting a Hogue boot grip on it does a lot to tame its recoil.

As for barrel length, I saw a video the other day that showed what a dramatic effect it can have. A short-barreled Krinkov AK-74 rifle versus a full-length AK-74. The 5.45x39 round out of the short barrel went through one side of a cinder block and broke it off. The opposite side was untouched. The same round out of the full-length AK-74 shattered both sides of the block. It was still effectively stopped, but it was the difference between one layer stopping it and two.

When talking pistols, which have much faster-burning powders and higher acceleration, even a small difference in barrel length is magnified when compared to rifles. You can lose a substantial portion of your stopping power with too short a barrel.

 

[evan price]

So longer barrels impart more velocity and better control to the bullet.
Hunh, I never made the connection.




*Sent from my laptop using stolen bandwidth*

 

[Shadan7]

Manco is correct - we use a modified Thompson/Center Encore as our test platform. We chose this in order to directly compare performance of both rimmed and non-rimmed ammunition. And yes, you do have to take into consideration both the difference between how semi-autos and revolvers are measured for barrel length, as well as the cylinder gap effect. As we note on the site:

One note: in every case with the T/C Encore the length of the barrel was measured from the end of the barrel back to the breech face. This is how semi-auto pistols are measured, but revolvers are measured as the length of the barrel in front of the cylinder gap. Take this into consideration when comparing calibers using our numbers.

Personally, as I have noted here and elsewhere, I'm of the "location is king, penetration is queen" school - you gotta be able to make your shots hit where they count, and use something which will penetrate deeply enough to do the necessary job.

 

[Standing Wolf]

Just for the record, I often drool over my buddies 3" 1911.

You could cause rust doing that, surferdaddy.

Seriously: the shorter the barrel, in general, the more velocity is lost; conversely, the smaller the gun, in general, the more likely actually to be carried.