Short barrel revisit.

[subsonic]

Another interesting anecdote.

A few years ago I was working on a reduced recoil load for my (then) 11yr old. We were planning for him to use my Winchester 94 .30-30 for deer season. I tried several loads that were going about 1800-1900fps with a 125gr Sierra HP with different powders.

Two that contrasted dramatically were loads using 2400 and H4895. One had a very sharp recoil and was very loud pronounced crack. The other was VERY soft shooting and was almost tollerable without hearing protection.

Which powder do you think was the loud, sharp one?

[375RUGER]

Doesn't the quickload or some other program make a fairly close educated guess? I think someone has mentioned this before. A close guess maybe all we get but it is better than nothing.


Has the below been defined yet? Or has there existed only speculation?

Does the peak of the pressure happen when all the powder is burned? Meaning that gas volume is just trying to find a way out somewhere and no more gas is being created. Some are believing this.

Is the combustion area increasing exponentially faster than the combustion gasses are filling the increasing combustion area? Meaning the powder is still burning beyond the pressure peak but it is not generating enough gas to maintain the peak pressure because of the increasing volume of the combustion area. I lean towards this second scenario, but I don't think that burn is taking place all the way till the bullet exits the muzzle. except in the case of short barrels. This is also a function of the powder chemistry.

This is where we need to see graphs. On the first page it was mentioned that all the power was completely burned before the bullet even moves and it was mentioned in the post there were black and white graphs to support this. I don't buy this for 1 second. We need to see those and we need to see the ones that tell the truth about what is really going on.
And no I am not calling anyone here a liar.
We're just having some beers and a nice civil discussion.

[TCTex]

I have not heard anyone mention accuracy really...

LOL I am glade you brought that up!

Sorry, my rabble got into the way...

It is just like the short barrel topic here. I wouldn’t care what powder I used, I want to know what my group looks like on paper at 25 yards. And I will use whatever primer and powder combination the gun says it likes… JMHO

Duane

[subsonic]

Well, accuracy was mentioned..... It seemed like this thread was so focussed on whether the powder burned or not and when, it seemed to loose sight of a useful conclusion. I could care less if it burns or doesn't. I want velocity and accuracy, and maybe a gun that is realatively clean when I'm done shooting. If I am chucking 10gr of unburned powder out the muzzle, I don't really care if the other goals are met.

[TCTex]

SubSonic, as long winded as my posts were and the bla, bla, bal, bal they contained, I would be surprised if many people caught that comment at all… LOL

Were good my friend!!!

Duane

[jwp475]

Another interesting anecdote.

A few years ago I was working on a reduced recoil load for my (then) 11yr old. We were planning for him to use my Winchester 94 .30-30 for deer season. I tried several loads that were going about 1800-1900fps with a 125gr Sierra HP with different powders.

Two that contrasted dramatically were loads using 2400 and H4895. One had a very sharp recoil and was very loud pronounced crack. The other was VERY soft shooting and was almost tollerable without hearing protection.

Which powder do you think was the loud, sharp one?

I would suspect that the 2400 load was the one with the loud with sharp recoil. I find that 2400 has a sharper recoil and is louder than H-110/2400 in my 41 mag

[white eagle]

Well, accuracy was mentioned..... It seemed like this thread was so focussed on whether the powder burned or not and when, it seemed to loose sight of a useful conclusion. I could care less if it burns or doesn't. I want velocity and accuracy, and maybe a gun that is realatively clean when I'm done shooting. If I am chucking 10gr of unburned powder out the muzzle, I don't really care if the other goals are met.

[44man]

You are both right. I found very good accuracy but very low velocity with some powders that chucked powder out and left some in the brass too.

[Lloyd Smale]

my thoughts almost exactly. Only thing we differ in is that i really dont care if a load is a bit dirty either as long as it shoots. I know how to clean a gun. Added to that ive never been one of those anal types that has to have a sparkling clean gun every time he puts it away. Ive yet to shoot so many rounds on any hunt that a gun tied up. Ive shot 1911s till there so dirty they were greasy in the hand and black. Hosed them off with break cleaner and put them away for the next time. I could care less about peak pressure, whether every grain of powder is burned or if my 2 inch barrel isnt quite as effecient as a 10 inch barrel. Everything is a compromise. Id much rather carry a 4 inch n frame in the hunting woods and give up a 200 fps over a awkward 10 inch gun. No matter what all the theroretical scientists say here slow burning powders will still outpace faster powders in most short barreled guns. Sure they wont run with a barrel 6 inches longer and give the same high end velocitys but then either does a 10 inch pistol run with a 24 inch rifle. No matter what the level of effiecientcy is im not going to handgun hunt with a wheelbarrow gun!! If it needs a sling its going to have a but stock. One thing i can say with all certianty. Ive killed deer pigs and bear with 3 inch 44 mags and they died just as dead and tasted just as good.

Well, accuracy was mentioned..... It seemed like this thread was so focussed on whether the powder burned or not and when, it seemed to loose sight of a useful conclusion. I could care less if it burns or doesn't. I want velocity and accuracy, and maybe a gun that is realatively clean when I'm done shooting. If I am chucking 10gr of unburned powder out the muzzle, I don't really care if the other goals are met.

[44man]

my thoughts almost exactly. Only thing we differ in is that i really dont care if a load is a bit dirty either as long as it shoots. I know how to clean a gun. Added to that ive never been one of those anal types that has to have a sparkling clean gun every time he puts it away. Ive yet to shoot so many rounds on any hunt that a gun tied up. Ive shot 1911s till there so dirty they were greasy in the hand and black. Hosed them off with break cleaner and put them away for the next time. I could care less about peak pressure, whether every grain of powder is burned or if my 2 inch barrel isnt quite as effecient as a 10 inch barrel. Everything is a compromise. Id much rather carry a 4 inch n frame in the hunting woods and give up a 200 fps over a awkward 10 inch gun. No matter what all the theroretical scientists say here slow burning powders will still outpace faster powders in most short barreled guns. Sure they wont run with a barrel 6 inches longer and give the same high end velocitys but then either does a 10 inch pistol run with a 24 inch rifle. No matter what the level of effiecientcy is im not going to handgun hunt with a wheelbarrow gun!! If it needs a sling its going to have a but stock. One thing i can say with all certianty. Ive killed deer pigs and bear with 3 inch 44 mags and they died just as dead and tasted just as good.

Yes, I can't argue!
The question and answer was that all of any powder is fully burned in 2". The answer was wrong.
Sad I had to go to powder companies to prove that fallacy is wrong. Some were diplomatic and some got downright upset over crazy ideas.
Nothing about the barrel length that you like but it is about what caliber you choose for a 3" or 4" barrel.

[Lloyd Smale]

dont know about caliber either. My two 4 inch 500 linebaughs with the exact same loads are within 75 fps of the 5.5 inch gun i used to own. I dont feel i gave up anything by prefering 4 inch barrels. If anything in the big guns it matters less. Sure you burn more powder but you have a bigger bore to burn it in and theres not many game animals IN THE WORLD that are going to know the differnce between being hit by a 450 grain bullet at 1200 compared to 1300fps. Another big advantage ive seen with short barreled big bores is the point of aim seems to change alot less varying bullet weights and load levels. My 4 inch guns will put about any load withing 2 inch of any other load at 25 yard no matter the velocity or bullet weight. That aint happening in a 7 inch gun. Ive allways tought it was due to the fact the bullet was in the barrel less time while the gun is recoiling. By the way contrary to what some will tell you. I find the recoil of my 4 inch 500 to be milder then my 5.5 inch gun was and substaintialy less then my buddys 7.5 inch gun. that one will come up and bop you in the head if your not careful. Sorry but i cant quote any geometry equations to back that up and i have no SO CALLED experts to quote to back it up. It comes from 10s of thousands of rounds of big bore revolver shooting MYSELF . To be honest i dont put much store in what is probably some college kid put behind a desk at hodgdon with a list of answers given to him to most questions asked. Like i said too, I dont put much store in a bunch of theroys posted by internet experts either. My opinions come from my own shooting of big bore guns. For about any opinion you can get on the internet about bullet casting, shooting guns and ballistics you can dig a bit deaper and get the total opposite opinion somewhere else. Means nothing to me. Dead animals do and ive yet to see one that math killed!!!! does all the powder burn in a 2 inch barrel. I should probably bow out of this now because i could give a rats @@@!!!!

[44man]

dont know about caliber either. My two 4 inch 500 linebaughs with the exact same loads are within 75 fps of the 5.5 inch gun i used to own. I dont feel i gave up anything by prefering 4 inch barrels. If anything in the big guns it matters less. Sure you burn more powder but you have a bigger bore to burn it in and theres not many game animals IN THE WORLD that are going to know the differnce between being hit by a 450 grain bullet at 1200 compared to 1300fps. Another big advantage ive seen with short barreled big bores is the point of aim seems to change alot less varying bullet weights and load levels. My 4 inch guns will put about any load withing 2 inch of any other load at 25 yard no matter the velocity or bullet weight. That aint happening in a 7 inch gun. Ive allways tought it was due to the fact the bullet was in the barrel less time while the gun is recoiling. By the way contrary to what some will tell you. I find the recoil of my 4 inch 500 to be milder then my 5.5 inch gun was and substaintialy less then my buddys 7.5 inch gun. that one will come up and bop you in the head if your not careful. Sorry but i cant quote any geometry equations to back that up and i have no SO CALLED experts to quote to back it up. It comes from 10s of thousands of rounds of big bore revolver shooting MYSELF . To be honest i dont put much store in what is probably some college kid put behind a desk at hodgdon with a list of answers given to him to most questions asked. Like i said too, I dont put much store in a bunch of theroys posted by internet experts either. My opinions come from my own shooting of big bore guns. For about any opinion you can get on the internet about bullet casting, shooting guns and ballistics you can dig a bit deaper and get the total opposite opinion somewhere else. Means nothing to me. Dead animals do and ive yet to see one that math killed!!!! does all the powder burn in a 2 inch barrel. I should probably bow out of this now because i could give a rats @@@!!!!

Still, it is powder burned over distance.
Yes you see less recoil with shorter barrels. Boolits leave fast along with powder weight. Powder weight DOES add to recoil.
Big calibers are better.
But is a .500 S&W better then a JRH or Linebaugh in a short barrel?
Why not a shorter case for the same velocity. Would a .500 special do the same as a S&W in a smaller gun and shorter barrel?
The question is still powder burn.
The .500 S&W in a 4" barrel, then the JRH or Linebaugh, Which is better? NOT THE S&W! The best for the S&W might be 10", 12" 14" or 26", I don't know.
So why would you want a huge 4" gun in S&W at 1200 fps when you can have a JRH at 1300 fps in a smaller 4" gun with less recoil? Shorten the brass, use less powder for less recoil and still get 1200 fps.
The difference is the waste of powder that does not burn, adds to boolit weight for more recoil and a heavier gun to carry. You can not make a SW better then the JRH when you shorten the barrel too much. A huge case only makes your eyes bigger when you look at it.
Of the .500's I consider the JRH best but I will not go below a 6" barrel. The Linebaugh uses more powder but should have a 7-1/2" barrel. The added recoil in a shorter barrel only makes you think it has more power. Splitting your head or ruining your hands is no indication of hunting results. Is a Blackhawk 4" more powerful then a SBH at 7-1/2". Not by a long shot but both will kill. The BH will hurt you but it is not as powerful.
Take a 6# .458 and a 10# with the same barrel length. You will say the 6# is super powerful but are you right?
Why is a primary hunting revolver short? Was it a carry gun? I tried that but when a deer popped up guess what gun was in my hands? The rifle and I shot the deer with it. Why did I carry a revolver? Wait a second Mr. deer while I put the rifle down and take out my revolver---- yeah, sure.

[subsonic]

Jim, with all due respect, the .500 S&W will be faster than the JRH in a 4" barrel. Just like a .357 is faster than a .38 in a snubby. It won't be effcient, will have plenty of blast, and will kick harder, but it will be faster.

As P.O. Ackley has been quoted "Efficiency be damned, it's results we're after!"

[Lloyd Smale]

Personaly Jim i have to use for the 500 smith or even the 460. Not for the reasons you state though. Personaly i think there way to big and clunky. You know my thoughts on long barreled guns for hunting. Same goes for guns that are to heavy. I like to carry my hunting gun in a hip holster and a guy would need suspenders to keep his drawers off the ground carrying one of those cannons. that and im a bit sensible when it comes to recoil and power. the standard 500 and 475 linebaughs will kill anything. they do it in a light compact package and without so much recoil and muzzle blast. Its why even me being a big fan of the linebaughs never had much use for a linebaugh max. I still go back to the fact that if you push a bullet of a given weight to much more then 1300 fps your going to actually decrease penetration. So rounds like the linebaugh maxes, the smiths and even the 454 never did a thing for me. About there only use is pushing bullets faster then what they can hold together at. there impressive on the range if impressing people is what your into but they do NOTHING in the game field that the 45colt 475 and 500 linebaogh wont do with alot less fuss and muss. Bottom line though is a 2 inch 500 smith will walk all over a 7 inch 500 linebaugh though if both are loaded up to the top of there pressure envelope. It may take twice the powder to do it and the army might come knocking to see if youll lend it to them for a flame thrower but it will be faster. Me i will continue to take care of bussiness with my linebaughs loaded with medium heavy bullets at about 1100 fps. Ive yet to have any animal laugh at me after being shot by a load like that and even an old guy like this can shoot them and actually call it fun.

[jwp475]

Jim, with all due respect, the .500 S&W will be faster than the JRH in a 4" barrel. Just like a .357 is faster than a .38 in a snubby. It won't be effcient, will have plenty of blast, and will kick harder, but it will be faster.

As P.O. Ackley has been quoted "Efficiency be damned, it's results we're after!"

+1, exactly!

[44man]

Personaly Jim i have to use for the 500 smith or even the 460. Not for the reasons you state though. Personaly i think there way to big and clunky. You know my thoughts on long barreled guns for hunting. Same goes for guns that are to heavy. I like to carry my hunting gun in a hip holster and a guy would need suspenders to keep his drawers off the ground carrying one of those cannons. that and im a bit sensible when it comes to recoil and power. the standard 500 and 475 linebaughs will kill anything. they do it in a light compact package and without so much recoil and muzzle blast. Its why even me being a big fan of the linebaughs never had much use for a linebaugh max. I still go back to the fact that if you push a bullet of a given weight to much more then 1300 fps your going to actually decrease penetration. So rounds like the linebaugh maxes, the smiths and even the 454 never did a thing for me. About there only use is pushing bullets faster then what they can hold together at. there impressive on the range if impressing people is what your into but they do NOTHING in the game field that the 45colt 475 and 500 linebaogh wont do with alot less fuss and muss. Bottom line though is a 2 inch 500 smith will walk all over a 7 inch 500 linebaugh though if both are loaded up to the top of there pressure envelope. It may take twice the powder to do it and the army might come knocking to see if youll lend it to them for a flame thrower but it will be faster. Me i will continue to take care of bussiness with my linebaughs loaded with medium heavy bullets at about 1100 fps. Ive yet to have any animal laugh at me after being shot by a load like that and even an old guy like this can shoot them and actually call it fun.

Maybe you are right about velocity differences but I do not have a single short barreled revolver and have no use for the .454, or big S&W so I can't compare them. I would say your reasoning is because of the extreme high chamber pressure, like the .454 at 55,000 or better.
I feel like you do, there is no need for the high velocities.
For a walk around gun I take my Vaquero or one of my single shots. From a stand I can shoot much farther so I take a gun with the Ultra Dot and need a shoulder holster.
Work for years with brass much too large for barrel lengths always was a problem, rifle or hand gun.
Any way, a .500 S&W in a 4" barrel! What good is it? You need to hunt with plugs and muffs both.

[Lloyd Smale]

I thought you had a 4570 bfr? If ever there was a gun with to much case for the caliber thats the one unless you consider the crazys who have them chambered in 50 alaskan. .

[Whitworth]

I thought you had a 4570 bfr? If ever there was a gun with to much case for the caliber thats the one unless you consider the crazys who have them chambered in 50 alaskan. .

I would be one of those crazies -- except mine is a DMax and not a BFR.

[44man]

I thought you had a 4570 bfr? If ever there was a gun with to much case for the caliber thats the one unless you consider the crazys who have them chambered in 50 alaskan. .

That is true and it drove me up a wall. It is 10" but the saving grace is the accuracy built into the gun. I tried every powder I could come up with until 4759 made it shoot. That powder still does not utilize the large case. It is a fast powder but is bulky, designed for reduced loads in larger brass.
Of course anything made it go "BANG"! Some powders were all over the bench in front of the gun.
Even the 30-30 in a Tender shot best with 4759. Slow powders just sucked.
I am guilty of large case use, I will not deny it but I use a barrel, not a stub!

[Lloyd Smale]

we all know your one of those recoil junkys

I would be one of those crazies -- except mine is a DMax and not a BFR.