44Magnum/A2400 Let Me Try Again

[44MAG#1]

Ok, I am going to try this again concerning my chronographing of the A2400 I have along with Federal 150 primers and Starline cases from the same LOT.

First let me say this about my test.

1. I am not a ballistic lab.
2. I am not a ballistician.
3. I try to be consistant in what I do concerning chronographing.
4. I do not pretend to be anything Im not.
5. These results are ONLY what I found on Sept, 18, 2018 with a temperature of 75 degrees which climbed slightly while chrongraphing.
6. I did not check the position of the throttle valve lever or the dark of the moon switch.
7. The ammo was loaded with the normal care I give all my ammo.

Here are the results.

Smith and Wesson M629 MG with a 4 Inch barrel.

Hensley and Gibbs 503 "Keith", all from the same alloy and sized the same with the same lube, with the narrow front drive band width at an OAL of 1.685 and crimped with a Lee FC die crimped stiff.
Load was 19.5 grains of A2400 Lot # 782-Z020416, Federal 150 primers, Starline cases.

Average velocity was 1247 FPS at 10 feet.

Same load in a Ruger SBH with a 3.75 inch barrel was 1272 FPS

Same load in a M69 with a 2.75 inch barrel was 1112 FPS.

Now this is just what I found out and each one can take it for what it is worth to them. Not asking whether higher charges are safe, unsafe etc.. Each will have to follow who and what they want to follow.

Again I am not trolling, baiting or calling out anyone by my post. I mean no harm, hurt or anguish to anyone on here. This post is made based on my knowledge, experience and/or beliefs. Nothing more. Please take it that way. Thank you.

[Grmps]

The $1,000 question ---- how accurate were they

[44MAG#1]

The $1,000 question ---- how accurate were they

No that is not the question. The post is about what I have found about the 44 Magnum along with the A2400 powder I have. I shot them offhand. One would have to tweak the load and besides an accurate load in one mans gun may not be an accurate in another.
But I will say this I have done some good offhand work with a load in that velocity range at 100 yards.

Again I am not trolling, baiting or calling out anyone by my post. I mean no harm, hurt or anguish to anyone on here. This post is made based on my knowledge, experience and/or beliefs. Nothing more. Please take it that way. Thank you

[Grmps]

That was my question. I understand that knowing the pressure and velocity are important for safety and terminal impact and it's always nice to have a chronograph to test velocity.

[Larry Gibson]

What was the alloy?

Weight of the bullet?

What was the length of the barrels from the breach face to the muzzle (the actual "effective barrel length)?

What was the cylinder/barrel gap of each revolver?

You merely post results (which is fine and appreciated), state no conclusion nor ask a question testing a single load in 3 different guns with 3 different barrel lengths and get 3 different results........So what do it mean?

[44MAG#1]

I will get that info.

Again I am not trolling, baiting or calling out anyone by my post. I mean no harm, hurt or anguish to anyone on here. This post is made based on my knowledge, experience and/or beliefs. Nothing more. Please take it that way. Thank you

Again I am not trolling, baiting or calling out anyone by my post. I mean no harm, hurt or anguish to anyone on here. This post is made based on my knowledge, experience and/or beliefs. Nothing more. Please take it that way. Thank you

[44MAG#1]

As I said I am not a ballistician. Please do not expect a ballisticians expertise. If everyone needed to be a ballistician to own a chronograph most of us wasted our money

But the lengths you asked about is. SBH 5.5"
M629 5.875"
M69 4.5"
Cylinder gap I never measured and don't care as it will vary from gun to gun.
Alloy #2

Please don't ask baiting questions. I am not going to expose my ignorance more than I already have posting my findings on here for someone to pick apart just to have fun putting me in my place as a non ballistician. Thank you.



Again I am not trolling, baiting or calling out anyone by my post. I mean no harm, hurt or anguish to anyone on here. This post is made based on my knowledge, experience and/or beliefs. Nothing more. Please take it that way. Thank you

[44MAG#1]

Before I get called down and chastised by my aforementioned post let me add before another onslaught of questions arise.
Yes I know another lot of primers can affect my results, another lot of powder, another brand of cases, another alloy, another sizing diameter, another brand of primers, another gun with the same length of barrel, the same gun after thousands of rounds fired through it, the ambient temperature, whether the ammo has gotten hot by laying in the sun, another crimp style, plus many more things I could name. That is the reason ballistics isn't an EXACT SCIENCE. By the ballistic labs, or anyone else, because it is an ever changing thing.
Never let ANYONE give the impression the are the last word in anything concerning ballistics no matter how convincing they sound. I have an attorney friend that can sling bull so convincingly he can trap anyone. Some are gifted in that. Please don't accept ANYONE as a true expert..

Again I am not trolling, baiting or calling out anyone by my post. I mean no harm, hurt or anguish to anyone on here. This post is made based on my knowledge, experience and/or beliefs. Nothing more. Please take it that way. Thank you.

[44MAG#1]

NO baiting or "judgement" from "me".

I am just going to comment.

I see ( per underlined above) that you say you "don't care" about cylinder gap, but, even though I am no expert, it should be pretty apparent that "cylinder gap" can have an effect on velocity. Any spot in the system that allows pressure to escape will reduce the velocity of a projectile when pressure is the "drive" to make the projectile move.

The wider the cylinder gap, even in the thousandths as is usual, will decrease the pressure that helps create the velocity, by its being removed when the projectile leaves the cylinder & enter the cone & then the barrel.

It "is" a factor, even if it seems you dismiss it...

You are completely correct but, it is just one of many things that affect ballistics. I didn't list it because it will vary from guns to guns in the same manufacture and model, It is an ever changing thing. How do we correct it. send every gun we own to a custom gunsmith and have every revolver we own set at a given gap? Im not going to. One has to be reaslistic whether we want to or not.
Then what do we do about lot numbers, alloys, sizing diameters. Gap is just ONE of the many things that affect ballistics.

Again I am not trolling, baiting or calling out anyone by my post. I mean no harm, hurt or anguish to anyone on here. This post is made based on my knowledge, experience and/or beliefs. Nothing more. Please take it that way. Thank you

[44MAG#1]

I am not trying to find out anything that is the point. I didn't ask a question at all. I made a statement as to what my guns with a particular set and lot of components obtained on 9-18-2018. That is all I or anyone else can do. It is an ever changing thing. Now someone else will come up with something different sooner or later. Still no EXACT SCIENCE. Regardless who does it.

Again I am not trolling, baiting or calling out anyone by my post. I mean no harm, hurt or anguish to anyone on here. This post is made based on my knowledge, experience and/or beliefs. Nothing more. Please take it that way. Thank you

[TCLouis]

Thank you 44MAG#!for posting your findings.

I would think more people would post what they find if so many folks did not start arguing with pure information that you collected as you stated.
I can very well use that information as it was posted for some of my own purposes.

[JBinMN]

Thanks for sharing your data.

Thanks for explaining why you posted them.

G'Luck! with future tests.

{I did not understand your purpose of this topic before. If I had, I would not have commented. I removed the earlier posts since they were unnecessary. All that remains is your responses to them. If you delete your responses to my posts, I will edit this post to remove this part. I did not argue anything, I was trying to help. I learned my lesson there.... }

[44MAG#1]

At this time I am not answering any leading, baiting questions by anyone that is just trying to tear down or question what I have posted. My posting is flawed because of many variables in the world of ballistic data.
I know this and accept it. Everyone else's is too.

Again I am not trolling, baiting or calling out anyone by my post. I mean no harm, hurt or anguish to anyone on here. This post is made based on my knowledge, experience and/or beliefs. Nothing more. Please take it that way. Thank you

[Larry Gibson]

I, for one, was certainly not arguing with 44MAG#1 about anything he posted. Since he asked no question nor made a statement I just asked for a little more information to fully understand the information/data he posted. I do disagree with him about ballistics not being an "exact science". I believe it is an exact science. Data produced may vary or differ but there are reasons, scientific reasons, that the data varies. We just need to have enough information about the tests to understand why the data varies. There are scientific reasons a "fast" gun will give higher velocities, we just have to find those reasons. There is no magic, art and myth about it. That's what I believe and I've no argument what so ever with the data 44MAG#1 has posted as it makes perfect ballistic sense now that we have sufficient information.

In this case of 44MAG#1s posted data the data varied because the 3 guns were different with 3 probable different barrel/cylinder gaps and 3 different effective barrel lengths. Knowing the bullet weight and the number of shots in each test "string" would have been helpful but are non-essential. What we see is 25 fps variation between the 2 longest barreled guns. Given a .375 difference in effective barrel length, a probable difference in cylinder gap and the normal expected variance in average test string velocity those 2 are essentially equal in performance. The M69 with its 1 - 1.375" shorter effective barrel gave a less velocity which was also within expected variation.

I appreciate 44MAG#1 taking the time to post the results of his test. I found the information informative and it is always good to see the data actually posted others get from testing. Many do not post actual data from actual testing which is many times misleading, especially to the newer cast bullet shooters. I find no surprises in the data his test results produced and, again, found it interesting.