Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
BCM
Durkin Tactical Franklin Armory
User Panel

Posted: 2/21/2009 7:17:23 PM EDT
I read somewhere that 230 grain rounds don't develop enough velocity from short barrels (like a Glock 30) to perform well.  Are there any tests confirming this?  If it's true, what's the best solution?  Higher velocity loads?  Gold Dot Short Barrel?  200 or 185 grain loads?
Link Posted: 2/21/2009 3:52:00 PM EDT
[#1]
Read what from where, one miscellaneous source?  I would stick with the millions of other sources and not worry about it.
Link Posted: 2/21/2009 6:37:10 PM EDT
[#2]
Under Handguns they have an ammunition forum.  You might get quicker responses there.

Sorry I don't have an answer, I'm a noob.
Link Posted: 2/21/2009 7:23:32 PM EDT
[#3]
Link Posted: 2/21/2009 8:20:12 PM EDT
[#4]
In a short barreled handgun you're always going to get the most energy from the heaviest bullet you can load. Just study a few loading manuals such as Lyman to start with. I also know this because I've chronographed thousands of loads from many different guns and one thing I learned well about snub nosed revolvers in particular is it didn't matter what type or weight of bullet I was using "say in a 38 spl" there was no safe way I was going to get more than 850 fps. So if I'm limited in velocity I might as well throw the heaviest bullet I can at 850 fps. I'm sure you'll see similar results from a auto as you would a revolver. As far as factory ammo that is another story, and the only way you can be sure is to obtain a chronograph of your own and run some tests. Let us know what kind of results you get.
Link Posted: 2/21/2009 9:25:13 PM EDT
[#5]
There are hotter .45 loads available, to make up for the difference in barrel length. I don't think they are necessarily +P loads but they are recommended only for short barrels. Google 'em and find 'em.
Link Posted: 2/22/2009 7:09:35 AM EDT
[#6]
Quoted:
Under Handguns they have an ammunition forum.  You might get quicker responses there.

Sorry I don't have an answer, I'm a noob.


This noob really needs to stop drinking so much while posting.  You guys are nice for not calling me on it....
Link Posted: 2/22/2009 8:50:11 AM EDT
[#7]



Quoted:


In a short barreled handgun you're always going to get the most energy from the heaviest bullet you can load. Just study a few loading manuals such as Lyman to start with. I also know this because I've chronographed thousands of loads from many different guns and one thing I learned well about snub nosed revolvers in particular is it didn't matter what type or weight of bullet I was using "say in a 38 spl" there was no safe way I was going to get more than 850 fps. So if I'm limited in velocity I might as well throw the heaviest bullet I can at 850 fps. I'm sure you'll see similar results from a auto as you would a revolver. As far as factory ammo that is another story, and the only way you can be sure is to obtain a chronograph of your own and run some tests.



The upper limit on what a gun is can handle is pressure, not bullet weight.  As bullet weight goes up, so does pressure when all other things are equal.  So to load a heavier bullet and keep pressure under max, the powder charge is dropped and fps goes down.



If the max pressure for a 110 grain bullet is 850, pushing a 158 grain bullet at 850 will be well beyond safe.  And this is true for any barrel length.



Let's take your own example, the .38 Special in a short barrel revolver.  If you drop down to a 90 or 95 grain bullet you can easily push the bullet past 1000fps and even higher if the gun can handle +P loads, even out of a 2 or 2.5 inch barrel.



Plus you'll usually find that when you decrease velocity with heavier bullets, your muzzle energy will be less than a lightweight bullet, loaded to the same pressure.  Of course, no one has yet found a direct correlation between muzzle energy and stopping power, so trying for the highest energy will often not produce the best self defense load.



 
Link Posted: 2/22/2009 6:24:10 PM EDT
[#8]
Quoted:

Quoted:
In a short barreled handgun you're always going to get the most energy from the heaviest bullet you can load. Just study a few loading manuals such as Lyman to start with. I also know this because I've chronographed thousands of loads from many different guns and one thing I learned well about snub nosed revolvers in particular is it didn't matter what type or weight of bullet I was using "say in a 38 spl" there was no safe way I was going to get more than 850 fps. So if I'm limited in velocity I might as well throw the heaviest bullet I can at 850 fps. I'm sure you'll see similar results from a auto as you would a revolver. As far as factory ammo that is another story, and the only way you can be sure is to obtain a chronograph of your own and run some tests.

The upper limit on what a gun is can handle is pressure, not bullet weight.  As bullet weight goes up, so does pressure when all other things are equal.  So to load a heavier bullet and keep pressure under max, the powder charge is dropped and fps goes down.

If the max pressure for a 110 grain bullet is 850, pushing a 158 grain bullet at 850 will be well beyond safe.  And this is true for any barrel length.

Let's take your own example, the .38 Special in a short barrel revolver.  If you drop down to a 90 or 95 grain bullet you can easily push the bullet past 1000fps and even higher if the gun can handle +P loads, even out of a 2 or 2.5 inch barrel.

Plus you'll usually find that when you decrease velocity with heavier bullets, your muzzle energy will be less than a lightweight bullet, loaded to the same pressure.  Of course, no one has yet found a direct correlation between muzzle energy and stopping power, so trying for the highest energy will often not produce the best self defense load.
 


Maybe you should reread what I said. I said that in a short barrelled handgun there is a limit to how much velocity you can obtain. This is not controlled by chamber preasue but by the lack of the ability to burn powder in a short barrel. READ a few loading manuals, you will see that even in a 6" barrel the 38 spl with a 110 gr. bullet is limited to about 1100fps. In a 2" barrel you will be lucky to get 900 fps, I know this because I've tested on a chronograph many similar loads. Also my loads for the 38 spl's that I've tested DO NOT EXCEED any loading standards which I have studied, and I have studied everything there is to study about loading small arms ammo. .
Link Posted: 2/24/2009 6:59:59 PM EDT
[#9]







Quoted:
Maybe you should reread what I said. I said that in a short barrelled handgun there is a limit to how much velocity you can obtain. This is not controlled by chamber preasue but by the lack of the ability to burn powder in a short barrel. READ a few loading manuals, you will see that even in a 6" barrel the 38 spl with a 110 gr. bullet is limited to about 1100fps. In a 2" barrel you will be lucky to get 900 fps, I know this because I've tested on a chronograph many similar loads. Also my loads for the 38 spl's that I've tested DO NOT EXCEED any loading standards which I have studied, and I have studied everything there is to study about loading small arms ammo. .




Ok, I reread it and your original assumption is still incorrect.  Your assumption in the above post is even more incorrect.  
And I've been reloading for close to 40 years, I've read more reloading manuals than you've got digits.  
The limit is chamber pressure, not powder capacity or barrel length.  Yes, barrel length and powder capacity may play a factor in limiting velocity, but only because we can't use faster powders to give a complete burn in a shorter barrel, the pressure spikes too high.  Why do you think powders come in vastly different burn rates?  
I can drive a 230 grain bullet out of a 45 ACP at 2000 fps with a super fast burning powder and it will completly burn....as long as I'm willing to blow the gun up.  Again, pressure is the limiting factor here, not barrel length.
And your info for 38 Special doesn't cover +P loads. I can safely surpass 1200 fps with +P loads and a 110 grain bullet in a 6" barreled revolver.  Assuming of course that it's safe to fire +P loads in it.  Again, chamber pressure, not barrel length is the main factor here.  With a nearly identical revolver chambered in .357 Magnum, instead of 38 Special, I can push that velocity to 1500 fps.  Same barrel length, same bullet.  Explain how this fits in with your barrel length being the limiting factor theory?  
Yes, shorter barrels will cost anywhere from 50-75 fps for each inch shorter (of course there's a point where a longer barrel will also slow the bullet down, but that's a topic for another time).  But if pressure was no factor, we could simply keep using a faster and faster burning powder to make up for the shorter barrel length. But when we do that guess what happens?  Pressure spikes beyond what the gun can handle.  Why do you think we can load a 45 LC in a Ruger revolver to so much a higher FPS than for an original Colt SAA with identical length barrels?  Because the Ruger can handle more pressure.  Once again, pressure is the main limiting factor.
Your premise is incorrect, and dangerously so.  Take your own advice, read a few loading manuals.  Specially the part with the words PRESSURE and DANGER in red letters.





Edited for spelling.
 
Link Posted: 2/25/2009 6:52:09 AM EDT
[#10]
3rdpig it was you and not anyone else who expanded the discussion to +P loads. It was you who suggested that 850 fps is +P. All I did was state that in a snub nosed revolver with standard loads I can drive a 158gr bullet as fast as a 110gr bullet which I've proven by testing on a chronograph and I suggested that similar results would likely be obtained in a auto loader which we all know it is sensible to stay within standard loading presures with, so I don't know what your being disagreeable for.
Link Posted: 2/25/2009 7:16:27 AM EDT
[#11]
Link Posted: 2/25/2009 1:52:26 PM EDT
[#12]
the ammo FAQ actually has some test data on the Corbon DPX load in 185gr and 160.  i found another test that shoots the 160gr dpx load through a full size, commander and officer/defender/new agent sized 1911.  Very interesting stuff.  The average velocity out of the 3in barrel was above the stated 1050, and expansiona and penetration were good.  Check it out
Link Posted: 2/25/2009 3:08:43 PM EDT
[#13]
Link Posted: 2/25/2009 7:14:15 PM EDT
[#14]
Quoted:
I'll reserve judgment on the 160gr load until I see some ballistic gelatin tests that prove adequate expansion. Since the 185gr load works, I don't see why anyone would use an unproven 160gr load in the meantime.


http://ammo.ar15.com/project/Self_Defense_Ammo_FAQ/DocGKRData/45_CorbonDPX.htm
and the advertised 1050 fps from the 160gr dpx is done with a 3in barrel which i can back up from the corbon website: http://www.dakotaammo.net/products/corbon/dpx.htm
Link Posted: 2/25/2009 7:40:16 PM EDT
[#15]
Link Posted: 2/25/2009 7:47:35 PM EDT
[#16]
Quoted:

Quoted:
Quoted:
I'll reserve judgment on the 160gr load until I see some ballistic gelatin tests that prove adequate expansion. Since the 185gr load works, I don't see why anyone would use an unproven 160gr load in the meantime.

http://ammo.ar15.com/project/Self_Defense_Ammo_FAQ/DocGKRData/45_CorbonDPX.htm

Oh yeah. That's my own FAQ, and I just uploaded that data last week.

I'm a genius.
 


lol yea.  i guess thats why you had the 160 grain corbon load listed when i IMed you to ask you which one it was.  that why i thought you said either would be fine bc you listed it and tested it too.  so do you think you can try it out again, as it seems more than adequte enough from you data and the other reviews.  possibly maybe in a 3in barrel?
Link Posted: 2/25/2009 8:07:37 PM EDT
[#17]
Link Posted: 2/25/2009 8:14:30 PM EDT
[#18]
Quoted:
I'm kinda shocked about how far the petals on the 185gr +P in the picture are folded back. I wonder if that is due to the velocity being pushed too high and the expanded diameter subsequently shrinking and degrading performance. I would not hesitate to use the 185gr in a 3" barrel - heck, the velocity loss might just mean better terminal performance if the petals don't fold back as far.

I'm ambivalent about the 160gr load.; it appears to work though.


thats all the recommendation i need to start using the 185+p load in my new agent.  thanks!
Close Join Our Mail List to Stay Up To Date! Win a FREE Membership!

Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!

You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.


By signing up you agree to our User Agreement. *Must have a registered ARFCOM account to win.
Top Top