Federal .327 Magnum ??? - Page 2

TXplt · 05-08-2008, 05:11 PM

Not insulted by that one, but I do doubt the 25 fps/1" of bbl length in this case with the short barrel and slow burning powder (especially in a barrel length of less than 6"). My 2" 340 PD loses over 330 FPS over a 4" .357 with the exact same 125 Gr. Buffalo Bore tactical short barrel load -- a round that's specifically tailored to short barrel handguns (the .30 carbine would be worse). That's 168 feet per second per 1" bbl change. Using an even more favorable (for the .30 carbine--also assuming the fast powder in the buffalo bore load) 150'/sec per 1" bbl change that gives the 30 carbine 1085 FPS from a 3" barrel. This sounds more like it.

Maybe someone knows for sure ?

samuel · 05-08-2008, 07:07 PM

We used 15gr,s of H110 behind a 110gr bullet which according to Hodgdon produces 2064fps from a 20" rifle barrel and 1685fps with a 7" barrel. 325 from 2064=1759.Pretty close to the 25ft per 1".Guess we could chalk the difference between 1685fps and 1759fps up to gas loss.We did not chrono the 7 1/2" barrel but other load books dont show as high of readings.More in the 1400+ range.We did check the T/C 12"bbl and topped 1700fps.The T/C is okay but the Ruger is a real fun handgun for varmint/target. sam.

sell33 · 05-08-2008, 07:16 PM

Hmm....i read about this cartridge a couple months ago and thought it sounded quite interesting. One thing i am wondering, as to recoil, Lighter bullet weight means less recoil right?? so i would assume a 32 cal bullet probably weighs less than a 35 cal so it shouldn't have as bad of recoil I am guessing, correct me if I am wrong....

samuel · 05-08-2008, 08:41 PM

In the article I have it states the 85gr low recoil load has 3.08lbs recoil,the same as a .38spl+P.The 85gr load has 334ft lbs energy.The 115gr load has 5.82lbs recoil and 431ft lbs energy.A 125gr load in a .357mag has 7.22lbs recoil and 470ft lbs energy. sam.

sell33 · 05-08-2008, 08:45 PM

Sounds like the 327 is the winner in the recoil category!

TXplt · 05-08-2008, 08:52 PM

Seen similar....they claim less recoil, but I'm thinking felt recoil would be about the same as 110 JHP .357--you have similar ballistics (and probably not a great deal different than 125 JHP from the gun). Laws of physics would be the same--lighter bullet going faster will have the same momentum as heavier bullet going proportionally slower but would "feel" a little different due to way the momentum is delivered over time. Maybe less muzzle blast due to cartridge designed for snubby than .357, so, psychologically less blast and noise could make round more pleasant to shoot.

Paper · 05-08-2008, 09:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nathangdad

The history of firearms is paved with good cartridge ideas that just did nto make it in the marketplace. Personally, I don't see any point to the .327

I agree, but I'm currently in the opposite situation.. I have 500 rounds of 5mm magnum rimfire ammo, and my rifle's broken..

alaskamonte · 05-09-2008, 02:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by samuel

We used 15gr,s of H110 behind a 110gr bullet which according to Hodgdon produces 2064fps from a 20" rifle barrel and 1685fps with a 7" barrel. 325 from 2064=1759.Pretty close to the 25ft per 1".Guess we could chalk the difference between 1685fps and 1759fps up to gas loss.We did not chrono the 7 1/2" barrel but other load books dont show as high of readings.More in the 1400+ range.We did check the T/C 12"bbl and topped 1700fps.The T/C is okay but the Ruger is a real fun handgun for varmint/target. sam.

You only actually chronographed the TC? BTW Sam, NOBODY expects the reloading data to be the actual velocity from their firearms.

PS, wanna do a real evaluation of the .30 Carbine? A separate thread wouldn't bend this one which was about pocket guns like the SP-101 and J Frame smiths (unless YOU have a J frame or SP-101 chambered in .30 Carbine?).

PSS, the Ruger Single Six chambered in .32 H&R (a bit closer to the topic than .30 carbine) can exceed 1800fps from a 4 5/8 barrel.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TXplt

Not insulted by that one, but I do doubt the 25 fps/1" of bbl length in this case with the short barrel and slow burning powder (especially in a barrel length of less than 6"). My 2" 340 PD loses over 330 FPS over a 4" .357 with the exact same 125 Gr. Buffalo Bore tactical short barrel load -- a round that's specifically tailored to short barrel handguns (the .30 carbine would be worse). That's 168 feet per second per 1" bbl change. Using an even more favorable (for the .30 carbine--also assuming the fast powder in the buffalo bore load) 150'/sec per 1" bbl change that gives the 30 carbine 1085 FPS from a 3" barrel. This sounds more like it.

Maybe someone knows for sure ?

Here in Alaska there in no ammo yet for the 327 so I can't chrono it! I've done quite a bit with .32 H&R but that ain't what the subject is eh?

samuel · 05-09-2008, 05:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by alaskamonte

You only actually chronographed the TC? BTW Sam, NOBODY expects the reloading data to be the actual velocity from their firearms.

PS, wanna do a real evaluation of the .30 Carbine? A separate thread wouldn't bend this one which was about pocket guns like the SP-101 and J Frame smiths (unless YOU have a J frame or SP-101 chambered in .30 Carbine?).

PSS, the Ruger Single Six chambered in .32 H&R (a bit closer to the topic than .30 carbine) can exceed 1800fps from a 4 5/8 barrel.

Here in Alaska there in no ammo yet for the 327 so I can't chrono it! I've done quite a bit with .32 H&R but that ain't what the subject is eh?

Glad you informed me not to expect loads to be the same as data.I really already figured that out when I read it in a load book about 50,60yrs ago.But usually I get close to what is listed. The top loads I see for the .32 H&R are between 1000and 1200fps with a 5"bbl.Maybe you could verify your 1800fps with .32H&R and 4 5/8"bbl. I never intended or attempted to evaluate the .30car.I was only giving my personal experience and what I read in load books because someone brought it up and I had personal experience and books available.If you wish to evaluate the .30car.I am sure I will enjoy it as will others. sam.

Taurus Fan · 05-09-2008, 07:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by alaskamonte

PSS, the Ruger Single Six chambered in .32 H&R (a bit closer to the topic than .30 carbine) can exceed 1800fps from a 4 5/8 barrel.

Is that a typo? 32 H&R Mag isn't going to get anything like that, unless I'm confusing it with a different cartridge. I have to agree with Sam on this one, I can't find references to anything remotely close to that from the 32 H&R Magnum. Were they loading 5 grain aspirin tablets?

Quote:

Originally Posted by TXplt

Not insulted by that one, but I do doubt the 25 fps/1" of bbl length in this case with the short barrel and slow burning powder (especially in a barrel length of less than 6"). My 2" 340 PD loses over 330 FPS over a 4" .357 with the exact same 125 Gr. Buffalo Bore tactical short barrel load -- a round that's specifically tailored to short barrel handguns (the .30 carbine would be worse). That's 168 feet per second per 1" bbl change. Using an even more favorable (for the .30 carbine--also assuming the fast powder in the buffalo bore load) 150'/sec per 1" bbl change that gives the 30 carbine 1085 FPS from a 3" barrel. This sounds more like it.

Maybe someone knows for sure ?

That's pretty close to my guess, I was thinking out of a 3" barrel the .30 might hit 1000-1100 fps range. We'll never know because no one's ever made a barrel that short for a .30 carbine. I have a hunch the gun manufacturers know what a waste it would be. Glad to see someone else picked up on that absurd 25 fps per inch of barrel claim.

Once again, for those that missed it: Out of a 7 1/2" barrel REVOLVER, the 30 carbine gets a factory 110 grain bullet out at 1400 FPS or a bit more with luck. Lop almost 5" off that and what would you have?

Ruger’s .30 Carbine Blackhawk Revolver Is a Winning Tool

DWFan · 05-09-2008, 08:22 AM

I didn't meant to start a ruckus.
The .30 Carbine from the Automag III pistol with a 6.5" barrel develops 1580-1600 fps. with mil surplus 110gr ammo. Subtract the cartridge length and you get an actual barrel length under 5". Yes, the Automag is a closed breech semi-auto pistol and not a revolver.
Factory loaded the .32-20 is a very mild cartridge, but at one time Winchester had a "rifle only" loading that developed ballistics in excess of the .30 Carbine in the same length barrel.
I wasn't trying to start a conflict. My point was that maybe Federal was trying to reinvent the wheel. Muzzle flash? Most definitely; but isn't that true for any cartridge of sufficient caliber that's loaded strong enough to be a defensive weapon and fired in a short-barrelled revolver?
My opinion, and I've been called crazy before, is to build a revolver with no barrel and an extra-long cylinder; like the old pepperboxes. That way you get the advantages of a closed breech weapon and maximize cartridge power. Think of a Taurus Judge chambered in 5-shot .357 Magnum (or 6-shot .327 Mag/.30 Carbine, if you will) with rifled throats and no barrel and you get the idea.

TXplt · 05-09-2008, 09:00 AM

DWFan--for me it's been more of an interesting discussion about a new cartridge than anything else

. I like my snubbies, but they do shoot alot of powder and blast out of the front. I had read an article about chopping pistol bbls a few yrs ago, and, although you could get decent velocity out of a relatively short barrel, as you got below 6 and then 4" the velocity dropped off fairly significantly. On the 340PD, in fact, the extra blast from the 357 Magnum rounds doesn't get you alot of extra velocity over 38+P and you get alot more pain, noise, and blast--for me using most types of ammo it isn't worth it. I've found the BB ammo for the short barrel .357 GD/.38+P LSCHP, although smoky (maybe due to the flash suppressant ?) to be some of the best out of the short bbl guns.

I do think Federal's cartridge is a bit unique, in that it operates at magnum pressures, delivers the stated velocity + (from everything I've seen in tests), and has an extra shot in the snubby (which to me is the strongest point, but I guess you could just not miss with the 5). It's also a pistol cartridge designed, as a system if you will, for a small short barrel pistol (not a rifle cartridge being shot in a pistol). But maybe it's a solution for a problem that doesn't exist (folks said that about the .40, the DA auto, and the Taurus Judge as well--I really like my judges). Guess, like the .45 GAP, the market will decide for sure. I have an SP-101 and really like it, but it is a bit heavy compared to the airweight snubbies. This is a plus for shooting, but a minus for carrying. This could be a problem with the concept, and a potentially fatal (from a marketing perspective) design flaw unless someone makes a titanium 6-shot cylinder at some point. There are alot of people who like the light snubbies for carrying.

I don't think it's "crazy" at all to design a pepperbox type of revolver, but do think that the velocity loss across the flash gap for me wouldn't be enough to justify the extra weight and size in my particular case. I'm carrying a snubby/shorter barrel guns because they're easier to tote, especially when it finally gets hot here !

Anyway, good luck !

samuel · 05-09-2008, 09:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Taurus Fan

Is that a typo? 32 H&R Mag isn't going to get anything like that, unless I'm confusing it with a different cartridge. I have to agree with Sam on this one, I can't find references to anything remotely close to that from the 32 H&R Magnum. Were they loading 5 grain aspirin tablets?

That's pretty close to my guess, I was thinking out of a 3" barrel the .30 might hit 1000-1100 fps range. We'll never know because no one's ever made a barrel that short for a .30 carbine. I have a hunch the gun manufacturers know what a waste it would be. Glad to see someone else picked up on that absurd 25 fps per inch of barrel claim.

If you go back to post#22 you will see that using the readings on a 20" bbl compared to a 7"bbl the fps was almost exactly 25fps per 1" difference.This lends to the fact that all gun guru,s use the 25fps per 1" theory.Maybe they are all bogus too.Until you came along,I had nothing else to go on but the experts who are mostly degreed graduate engineers.But now you are here so we can call the experts bogus even tho their figures come out right.Will you please post your formula so we can use it and not be "bogus"by using the expert/engineers finding.As to the very large difference stated using a 2"bbl compared to a 4"bbl,I always believed when using revolvers and getting radical differences in readings as was stated the problem might be the difference in the gap between cylinders,possibly a tight tollerence on the 4" rev. and a sloppy tolerence on the 2"rev..I would believe that a person would need to check this and also get readings on multiple revolvers to make an average.But now we have you to make gospel statements to prove bogosity about the engineers writings hence my bogus statements because I printed their findings which load references back up.So please post your formula so I can straighten up and not follow a "bogus"writing by expert/engineers.I thank you for your time and indulgence.Please post how using only two used(we don't know how used)revolvers can lead to a factual reading of difference in fps vs barrel length.I have seen almost as big of a difference between barrels of the same length in two different revolvers.But I am confident you can explain this. Thanks ahead of time. sam.

TXplt · 05-09-2008, 09:32 AM

Sam--

Here's straight from the ammo company -- please note that the velocity drop isn't linear vs. bbl length between very long barrels and shorter ones.

Product Line Listing

You're welcome to look at what they get and crunch the numbers. Even for the lower pressure and/or heavier bullet weights the velocity drop numbers are well above the numbers you get--I think your error might be making a linear extrapolation between longer and very short barrels which is not correct (and I'm by no means throwing spears). Like I said, these loads are optimized for short barrels; I doubt any factory ammo for the 30 carbine is optimized for a 3" bbl sp-101. But maybe someone ambitious with a chrony can experiment.

samuel · 05-09-2008, 01:38 PM

Thanks for the data.It does advertise his product.It does give prices on his product.It does not prove one thing about whether going to a really short bbl will make fps reduction any greater than it is going from 20" to 7".Maybe it does with his product but it may not with other propelants/guns/bullets.I appreciate the effort tho. sam.

alaskamonte · 05-09-2008, 01:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by samuel

Glad you informed me not to expect loads to be the same as data.I really already figured that out when I read it in a load book about 50,60yrs ago.But usually I get close to what is listed. The top loads I see for the .32 H&R are between 1000and 1200fps with a 5"bbl.Maybe you could verify your 1800fps with .32H&R and 4 5/8"bbl. I never intended or attempted to evaluate the .30car.I was only giving my personal experience and what I read in load books because someone brought it up and I had personal experience and books available.If you wish to evaluate the .30car.I am sure I will enjoy it as will others. sam.

Entertaining, hmm, I might be able to round up an old Ruger?

My recollection Sam is that the .30 Carbine brass had to be trimmed to far tighter tolerance than for say the actual GI carbine.

Using loads from some ragwriter I soon discovered that the Ruger loads would disassemble the Carbines bolt (yep, hand and knees searching for the extractor/pin/etc), the ragwriter also claimed the Carbine round in the Ruger would shoot flatter that a warm .357 load and it did!

In those days it was H110/296 compressed with the Speer or Hornady 100gn short jackets. Could be that AA-9 will out perform.

For all those that question the 1800fps clock readings from a short Ruger Single Six, these were dangerous overloads with AA-9 and some 71gn autoloader bullets, four out of six generally spit out the primers. The point was simply to see what would be with AA-9 overloads in a freebee lunch box Ruger. The gun was used to experiment with throat sizes/forcing cone configuration and many reload combinations. It was later reborn as a 9mm

TXplt · 05-09-2008, 01:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by samuel

Thanks for the data.It does advertise his product.It does give prices on his product.It does not prove one thing about whether going to a really short bbl will make fps reduction any greater than it is going from 20" to 7".Maybe it does with his product but it may not with other propelants/guns/bullets.I appreciate the effort tho. sam.

Actually, I would say it does. If you look at the vel change from 4" to 2" you will come up with the numbers cited previously. If you extrapolate these numbers (even being conservative and favoring better performance from the 30 carbine) you'll get the numbers I crunched earlier. These are with loads built for a snubby. Factory loads built for a .30 carbine would only be worse in this respect.

But the only way to prove this will be for someone to put a 30 carbine from a 3" bbl revolver with typical factory loads (and maybe even some handloads built for a snubby ?) across a chrony.

Cheers.

samuel · 05-09-2008, 07:31 PM

I fail to find anything but the same standard for fps variation that everyone has used for years.I asked Ron to help out but he hasn't posted anything yet.I hope someone can post something on stubbys but for now all I have to go by is the standard 25fps per 1".I know that someone has what we want on this. sam.

Taurus Fan · 05-09-2008, 08:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TXplt

Actually, I would say it does. If you look at the vel change from 4" to 2" you will come up with the numbers cited previously. If you extrapolate these numbers (even being conservative and favoring better performance from the 30 carbine) you'll get the numbers I crunched earlier. These are with loads built for a snubby. Factory loads built for a .30 carbine would only be worse in this respect.

It looks like it proved your point exactly to me too. Numbers from the article were almost precisely what you predicted they'd be.

samuel · 05-10-2008, 10:59 AM

This is all RON AKA,s research and effort:He states,'I set up a spreadsheet for a .357 with an 8",6",and 4"barrel.Assuming a muzzle velocity of 1290 in the 8",it was reduced to 1230 in the 6",and 1140 in the 4".Going 8"to4" I come up with 150fps difference.This comes out to 37.5fps per 1".A little more than I stated but still not bad.As I recall,most bunbooks do state between 25 and 50fps per 1". Ron got his info from http.//www.loadammo.com/topics/october05.htm . sam.

05-08-2008, 05:11 PM	#21
TXplt Lost in the Ozone Again Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Fort Worth, TX Posts: 2,832 Images: 4 Blog Entries: 2	Not insulted by that one, but I do doubt the 25 fps/1" of bbl length in this case with the short barrel and slow burning powder (especially in a barrel length of less than 6"). My 2" 340 PD loses over 330 FPS over a 4" .357 with the exact same 125 Gr. Buffalo Bore tactical short barrel load -- a round that's specifically tailored to short barrel handguns (the .30 carbine would be worse). That's 168 feet per second per 1" bbl change. Using an even more favorable (for the .30 carbine--also assuming the fast powder in the buffalo bore load) 150'/sec per 1" bbl change that gives the 30 carbine 1085 FPS from a 3" barrel. This sounds more like it. Maybe someone knows for sure ? __________________ Old fighter pilots never die.....They just wind up in Texas

05-08-2008, 08:52 PM	#26
TXplt Lost in the Ozone Again Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Fort Worth, TX Posts: 2,832 Images: 4 Blog Entries: 2	Seen similar....they claim less recoil, but I'm thinking felt recoil would be about the same as 110 JHP .357--you have similar ballistics (and probably not a great deal different than 125 JHP from the gun). Laws of physics would be the same--lighter bullet going faster will have the same momentum as heavier bullet going proportionally slower but would "feel" a little different due to way the momentum is delivered over time. Maybe less muzzle blast due to cartridge designed for snubby than .357, so, psychologically less blast and noise could make round more pleasant to shoot. __________________ Old fighter pilots never die.....They just wind up in Texas

05-09-2008, 09:00 AM	#32
TXplt Lost in the Ozone Again Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Fort Worth, TX Posts: 2,832 Images: 4 Blog Entries: 2	DWFan--for me it's been more of an interesting discussion about a new cartridge than anything else . I like my snubbies, but they do shoot alot of powder and blast out of the front. I had read an article about chopping pistol bbls a few yrs ago, and, although you could get decent velocity out of a relatively short barrel, as you got below 6 and then 4" the velocity dropped off fairly significantly. On the 340PD, in fact, the extra blast from the 357 Magnum rounds doesn't get you alot of extra velocity over 38+P and you get alot more pain, noise, and blast--for me using most types of ammo it isn't worth it. I've found the BB ammo for the short barrel .357 GD/.38+P LSCHP, although smoky (maybe due to the flash suppressant ?) to be some of the best out of the short bbl guns. I do think Federal's cartridge is a bit unique, in that it operates at magnum pressures, delivers the stated velocity + (from everything I've seen in tests), and has an extra shot in the snubby (which to me is the strongest point, but I guess you could just not miss with the 5). It's also a pistol cartridge designed, as a system if you will, for a small short barrel pistol (not a rifle cartridge being shot in a pistol). But maybe it's a solution for a problem that doesn't exist (folks said that about the .40, the DA auto, and the Taurus Judge as well--I really like my judges). Guess, like the .45 GAP, the market will decide for sure. I have an SP-101 and really like it, but it is a bit heavy compared to the airweight snubbies. This is a plus for shooting, but a minus for carrying. This could be a problem with the concept, and a potentially fatal (from a marketing perspective) design flaw unless someone makes a titanium 6-shot cylinder at some point. There are alot of people who like the light snubbies for carrying. I don't think it's "crazy" at all to design a pepperbox type of revolver, but do think that the velocity loss across the flash gap for me wouldn't be enough to justify the extra weight and size in my particular case. I'm carrying a snubby/shorter barrel guns because they're easier to tote, especially when it finally gets hot here ! Anyway, good luck ! __________________ Old fighter pilots never die.....They just wind up in Texas Last edited by TXplt; 05-09-2008 at 09:07 AM.

05-09-2008, 09:32 AM	#34
TXplt Lost in the Ozone Again Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Fort Worth, TX Posts: 2,832 Images: 4 Blog Entries: 2	Sam-- Here's straight from the ammo company -- please note that the velocity drop isn't linear vs. bbl length between very long barrels and shorter ones. Product Line Listing You're welcome to look at what they get and crunch the numbers. Even for the lower pressure and/or heavier bullet weights the velocity drop numbers are well above the numbers you get--I think your error might be making a linear extrapolation between longer and very short barrels which is not correct (and I'm by no means throwing spears). Like I said, these loads are optimized for short barrels; I doubt any factory ammo for the 30 carbine is optimized for a 3" bbl sp-101. But maybe someone ambitious with a chrony can experiment. __________________ Old fighter pilots never die.....They just wind up in Texas Last edited by TXplt; 05-09-2008 at 09:51 AM.

05-09-2008, 01:38 PM	#35
samuel Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 5,087	Thanks for the data.It does advertise his product.It does give prices on his product.It does not prove one thing about whether going to a really short bbl will make fps reduction any greater than it is going from 20" to 7".Maybe it does with his product but it may not with other propelants/guns/bullets.I appreciate the effort tho. sam. Last edited by samuel; 05-09-2008 at 01:49 PM.

05-08-2008, 07:07 PM	#22
samuel Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 5,087	We used 15gr,s of H110 behind a 110gr bullet which according to Hodgdon produces 2064fps from a 20" rifle barrel and 1685fps with a 7" barrel. 325 from 2064=1759.Pretty close to the 25ft per 1".Guess we could chalk the difference between 1685fps and 1759fps up to gas loss.We did not chrono the 7 1/2" barrel but other load books dont show as high of readings.More in the 1400+ range.We did check the T/C 12"bbl and topped 1700fps.The T/C is okay but the Ruger is a real fun handgun for varmint/target. sam.

05-08-2008, 07:16 PM	#23
sell33 Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Ohio Posts: 1,194	Hmm....i read about this cartridge a couple months ago and thought it sounded quite interesting. One thing i am wondering, as to recoil, Lighter bullet weight means less recoil right?? so i would assume a 32 cal bullet probably weighs less than a 35 cal so it shouldn't have as bad of recoil I am guessing, correct me if I am wrong....

05-08-2008, 08:41 PM	#24
samuel Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 5,087	In the article I have it states the 85gr low recoil load has 3.08lbs recoil,the same as a .38spl+P.The 85gr load has 334ft lbs energy.The 115gr load has 5.82lbs recoil and 431ft lbs energy.A 125gr load in a .357mag has 7.22lbs recoil and 470ft lbs energy. sam.

05-08-2008, 08:45 PM	#25
sell33 Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Ohio Posts: 1,194	Sounds like the 327 is the winner in the recoil category!

05-09-2008, 08:22 AM	#31
DWFan Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: N. Texas Posts: 696 Blog Entries: 2	I didn't meant to start a ruckus. The .30 Carbine from the Automag III pistol with a 6.5" barrel develops 1580-1600 fps. with mil surplus 110gr ammo. Subtract the cartridge length and you get an actual barrel length under 5". Yes, the Automag is a closed breech semi-auto pistol and not a revolver. Factory loaded the .32-20 is a very mild cartridge, but at one time Winchester had a "rifle only" loading that developed ballistics in excess of the .30 Carbine in the same length barrel. I wasn't trying to start a conflict. My point was that maybe Federal was trying to reinvent the wheel. Muzzle flash? Most definitely; but isn't that true for any cartridge of sufficient caliber that's loaded strong enough to be a defensive weapon and fired in a short-barrelled revolver? My opinion, and I've been called crazy before, is to build a revolver with no barrel and an extra-long cylinder; like the old pepperboxes. That way you get the advantages of a closed breech weapon and maximize cartridge power. Think of a Taurus Judge chambered in 5-shot .357 Magnum (or 6-shot .327 Mag/.30 Carbine, if you will) with rifled throats and no barrel and you get the idea.

05-09-2008, 07:31 PM	#38
samuel Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 5,087	I fail to find anything but the same standard for fps variation that everyone has used for years.I asked Ron to help out but he hasn't posted anything yet.I hope someone can post something on stubbys but for now all I have to go by is the standard 25fps per 1".I know that someone has what we want on this. sam.

05-10-2008, 10:59 AM	#40
samuel Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 5,087	This is all RON AKA,s research and effort:He states,'I set up a spreadsheet for a .357 with an 8",6",and 4"barrel.Assuming a muzzle velocity of 1290 in the 8",it was reduced to 1230 in the 6",and 1140 in the 4".Going 8"to4" I come up with 150fps difference.This comes out to 37.5fps per 1".A little more than I stated but still not bad.As I recall,most bunbooks do state between 25 and 50fps per 1". Ron got his info from http.//www.loadammo.com/topics/october05.htm . sam.