Another Barrel-length vs. velocity article

Welcome to the Leverguns.Com Forum. This is a high-class place so act respectable. We discuss most anything here ... politely.

Moderators: Hobie, AmBraCol

Forum rules
Welcome to the Leverguns.Com General Discussions Forum. This is a high-class place so act respectable. We discuss most anything here other than politics... politely.

Please post political post in the new Politics forum.
Post Reply
Message
Author
User avatar
AJMD429
Posting leader...
Posts: 22345
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2007 10:03 am
Location: Hoosierland
Contact:

Another Barrel-length vs. velocity article

#1 Post by AJMD429 » Tue Sep 12, 2017 5:41 pm

Encore Barrel Velocity Testing

Kind of interesting.
Image Doctors for Sensible Gun Laws
"first do no harm" - gun control LAWS lead to far more deaths than 'easy access' ever could.


Want REAL change? . . . . . "Boortz/Nugent in 2012 . . . ! "

Pisgah
Senior Levergunner
Posts: 1278
Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2007 9:01 pm
Location: SC

Re: Another Barrel-length vs. velocity article

#2 Post by Pisgah » Wed Sep 13, 2017 1:24 pm

Very interesting, and further confirmation of my long-held conviction that the price of a short, handy barrel may not always be as high as many folks believe.

User avatar
Grizz
Advanced Levergunner
Posts: 6395
Joined: Fri Aug 31, 2007 7:15 pm

Re: Another Barrel-length vs. velocity article

#3 Post by Grizz » Wed Sep 13, 2017 2:07 pm

thanks for posting this.

for 45/70 I give up 100 fps in my guide gun for a 405gr load. I'll take that. Their shortest barrel is still way faster than the 405 44s out of my redhawk.

those loads are a interesting. I have a 425 gr load going faster than their 405, and the 325 load seems slow to me.

piller
Advanced Levergunner
Posts: 6169
Joined: Sat Sep 29, 2007 9:49 pm
Location: South of Dallas

Re: Another Barrel-length vs. velocity article

#4 Post by piller » Wed Sep 13, 2017 2:18 pm

Proof that some of the strongly held opinions which I have read are not always backed up when science is used to check it out. I have seen in many articles that there is a loss of velocity of 100 fps per inch of barrel loss. Seems as if a good chronograph says that velocity loss is caliber as well as barrel length dependent. There must be more involved than just barrel length and caliber.
D. Brian Casady
Quid Llatine Dictum Sit, Altum Viditur.
Advanced is being able to do the basics while your leg is on fire---Bill Jeans
Don't ever take a fence down until you know why it was put up---Robert Frost

User avatar
AJMD429
Posting leader...
Posts: 22345
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2007 10:03 am
Location: Hoosierland
Contact:

Re: Another Barrel-length vs. velocity article

#5 Post by AJMD429 » Wed Sep 13, 2017 3:30 pm

piller wrote:
Wed Sep 13, 2017 2:18 pm
Seems as if a good chronograph says that velocity loss is caliber as well as barrel length dependent. There must be more involved than just barrel length and caliber.
Yep. I think it depends essentially on the volume of the combustion space just prior to bullet leaving barrel versus the volume of the cartridge, plus on top of that the burn-rate of the powder. Certainly incremental the velocity gain per inch of added barrel drops off once you get much past a foot for the common cartridges and loads we use.

Stubby, minimally vibrating barrels, and long, sight-radius-enhancing barrels both increase chances of a hit though, muddying the waters further, then on top of that, shorter barrels fatigue the arms less for a steady hold, yet longer ones have more inertia, and contribute what some folks refer to as 'hanging on target better'.

No one answer best for everyone, but it helps us make decisions to have the data.

Glad they did one for 444 Marlin; an under-appreciated caliber in my opinion. :wink:
Image Doctors for Sensible Gun Laws
"first do no harm" - gun control LAWS lead to far more deaths than 'easy access' ever could.


Want REAL change? . . . . . "Boortz/Nugent in 2012 . . . ! "

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Yahoo [Bot] and 3 guests