Re: .44magnum Buffalo Bore 340gr +P+ and more!

28
I doubt I will shoot 100s out of this snubbie, but I know what you're saying.

22lr bricks are like a bag of potato chips...you don't realize how many you've burned through until your touches the bottom of the bag/box.

I can see how 9mm would be similar.

I bought 4 different types of ammo. WWB FMJ and three kinds of JHPs.

Wish I had some ballistic gel I could shoot!
Image


"Person, woman, man, camera, TV."

Re: .44magnum Buffalo Bore 340gr +P+ and more!

29
Buck13 wrote: For the photo of the revolver vs. rifle on the steel cans, were the cans shot while full of water, or is that just with air inside?
Just air. I figure I get an additional use out of 'em before finally recycling. :)

Latest iteration of developments in this little experiment here: http://ballisticsbytheinch.wordpress.co ... top-alone/


Jim
James Downey

http://www.ballisticsbytheinch.com/ - handgun cartridge research
http://www.stcybiswell.com/ - my latest novel
http://www.legacybookbindery.com/ - my professional site

Re: .44magnum Buffalo Bore 340gr +P+ and more!

30
senorgrand wrote:I doubt I will shoot 100s out of this snubbie, but I know what you're saying.
Good point. They're not going to come popping out nearly as frequently as from a full-sized bottom-feeder with twice the weight and three times the magazine capacity, unless you are really a whiz with speed-loaders.
IMR4227: Zero to 900 in 0.001 seconds

I'm only killing paper and my self-esteem.

Image
Image

Re: .44magnum Buffalo Bore 340gr +P+ and more!

32
Jim, I finally noticed that BBs "heavy" .357 LFN is NOT a +P+ load. Based on the load books I have, it's way ahead of the 180 grain lead data, but not much ahead of the 180 gr jacketed.

Any idea why they don't make a +P+ .357? Not enough case capacity, or not enough over-built revolvers? Is there reason to think that a Redhawk is more overbuilt for .44 than a GP100 is for .357?

Just asking. No reason. :whistle:
IMR4227: Zero to 900 in 0.001 seconds

I'm only killing paper and my self-esteem.

Image
Image

Re: .44magnum Buffalo Bore 340gr +P+ and more!

34
Buck13 wrote:Jim, I finally noticed that BBs "heavy" .357 LFN is NOT a +P+ load. Based on the load books I have, it's way ahead of the 180 grain lead data, but not much ahead of the 180 gr jacketed.

Any idea why they don't make a +P+ .357? Not enough case capacity, or not enough over-built revolvers? Is there reason to think that a Redhawk is more overbuilt for .44 than a GP100 is for .357?

Just asking. No reason. :whistle:
Heh.

I'd bet that it's because they think there are more .357 guns out there which couldn't handle such a load, and if they went the route with that ammo that they did with the .44 stuff the list of 'approved' guns would be too short. The Redhawk certainly is robust, but so is the GP100.

Just sayin'. :mrgreen:

Jim
James Downey

http://www.ballisticsbytheinch.com/ - handgun cartridge research
http://www.stcybiswell.com/ - my latest novel
http://www.legacybookbindery.com/ - my professional site

Re: .44magnum Buffalo Bore 340gr +P+ and more!

35
To drift the topic a bit, I'm tempted to get a .357 or .44 lever gun (very probably .357). Looking at the BBTI test data, it looks like both of these start to top out their velocity around the 15 inch barrel length, but none of those rounds in the inch-by-inch tables are heavy-for-caliber. Other than magazine capacity and sight radius, do you think there is any advantage to a barrel over 18"?
IMR4227: Zero to 900 in 0.001 seconds

I'm only killing paper and my self-esteem.

Image
Image

Re: .44magnum Buffalo Bore 340gr +P+ and more!

36
I see no ballistic advantage in such longer barrels. Comparing the .44 Magnum T/C data with a 14" barrel vs. the .44 Magnum Ruger Carbine with an 18" barrel, they're nearly the same. Remember, powders like 2400 and H110/W296, the ones most used for .357M and .44M, are not anywhere nearly as slow-burning as even H322. H322, a relatively fast(er) rifle powder, is terrific for barrels of 16". Actually, it ain't bad for the Thompson/Center handguns in .223 Rem with 14" barrels.

If you choose a .357M levergun, experience has shown me that the Rossi 92 is a fine choice. It's remarkably faithful to the original Winchester design. The safety that is on these rifles is not obtrusive. If you can get the stainless steel one, so much the better. I like the 16" bbl version. Takes 8 rounds of .357M, or 9 rounds of .38 Spl. That's good enough for me.

If you choose a .44M levergun, the Ruger 96/44, if you can find one, is a mighty fine choice. So is (again) the Rossi. The Ruger's got to have the slickest lever-action I've ever felt. Even my buddy who has an old and well-broken-in Winchester 94 says, "wow, that's a slick action!"
"SF Liberal With A Gun + Free Software Advocate"
http://www.sanfranciscoliberalwithagun.com/
http://www.liberalsguncorner.com/
Image

Re: .44magnum Buffalo Bore 340gr +P+ and more!

37
(This should really go in the reloading section, but...) Except Lil'gun, there doesn't seem to be any data for rifle loads in the .357 using the very fast rifle powders like AA1680, IMR4198 or Reloader 7. Is the case just too small to take advantage of these, or does it not work for some other reason I don't understand?
IMR4227: Zero to 900 in 0.001 seconds

I'm only killing paper and my self-esteem.

Image
Image

Re: .44magnum Buffalo Bore 340gr +P+ and more!

38
The rifle powders you mentioned are very slow burning and need a larger case to be efficient. Before you invest in Lil gun do some research on it I tried some about 5 years ago for hot loads in my 45colt and found it heated the gun up in as little as five fast shots so I stopped using it and fertilized my garden with it. I believe I read something about Hogden cutting back a bit on the nitro glycerin sot its not causing premature barrel and forcing cone wear.
"Hillary Clinton is the finest, bravest, kindest, the most wonderful person I've ever known in my whole life" Raymond Shaw

Re: .44magnum Buffalo Bore 340gr +P+ and more!

39
Buck13 wrote:(This should really go in the reloading section, but...) Except Lil'gun, there doesn't seem to be any data for rifle loads in the .357 using the very fast rifle powders like AA1680, IMR4198 or Reloader 7. Is the case just too small to take advantage of these, or does it not work for some other reason I don't understand?

Don't know about the rifle, but for handgun use SLOW powders are the ticket; WW296 for example. I would expect that they would work even better with more barrel length. :think:
Merle from PA


Image
Image

Re: .44magnum Buffalo Bore 340gr +P+ and more!

40
Merle wrote:
Buck13 wrote:(This should really go in the reloading section, but...) Except Lil'gun, there doesn't seem to be any data for rifle loads in the .357 using the very fast rifle powders like AA1680, IMR4198 or Reloader 7. Is the case just too small to take advantage of these, or does it not work for some other reason I don't understand?

Don't know about the rifle, but for handgun use SLOW powders are the ticket; WW296 for example. I would expect that they would work even better with more barrel length. :think:
The "fast" powders he is referring to are only "fast" among rifle powders. The "slow" pistol powders like 4227 are also the very fastest rifle powders for very small cartridges. So, yes, you are correct. The OP is talking about going one step slower than the standard magnum pistol powders to take advantage of longer barrels. It's just that "fast" and "slow" are used relative to "normal" ranges of burn rates for two different ranges, which is obviously a little confusing in this circumstance.

Re: .44magnum Buffalo Bore 340gr +P+ and more!

41
Buck13 wrote:To drift the topic a bit, I'm tempted to get a .357 or .44 lever gun (very probably .357). Looking at the BBTI test data, it looks like both of these start to top out their velocity around the 15 inch barrel length, but none of those rounds in the inch-by-inch tables are heavy-for-caliber. Other than magazine capacity and sight radius, do you think there is any advantage to a barrel over 18"?
My Winchester 94AE has a 24" barrel. After having conducted our tests, and my subsequent experiments, I'd say that you should decide on what barrel length you want based on factors other than how it increases performance. I'm not going to cut my 94 down, but were I shopping again, I'd probably look at a shorter barrel.

Jim
James Downey

http://www.ballisticsbytheinch.com/ - handgun cartridge research
http://www.stcybiswell.com/ - my latest novel
http://www.legacybookbindery.com/ - my professional site

Re: .44magnum Buffalo Bore 340gr +P+ and more!

42
eelj wrote:The rifle powders you mentioned are very slow burning and need a larger case to be efficient. Before you invest in Lil gun do some research on it I tried some about 5 years ago for hot loads in my 45colt and found it heated the gun up in as little as five fast shots so I stopped using it and fertilized my garden with it. I believe I read something about Hogden cutting back a bit on the nitro glycerin sot its not causing premature barrel and forcing cone wear.
I know about the problems with Lil'gun in revolvers. From what I've read, there are not reports of corresponding risks in a carbine, but maybe I need to dig deeper. I hope they didn't take the magic out of the formulation, although I could see trying to make it more revolver-friendly. Might be a good marketing idea (except that the brand is already sullied by past problems, so they'd really need to give it a new name.) Do more people shoot big revolvers or .410 shotguns?

For me shooting a lever gun over iron sights, 4 to 5 rounds per minute would be fast. Maybe I'd pick up a couple per minute with a low power scope that would cut down on the blinking, squinting, bobbing and weaving to try to get the sights in focus and lined up, but trying to shoot fast is not usually my style. I have enough problems shooting slowly. :laugh: I would not think I'd melt the barrel. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong!
IMR4227: Zero to 900 in 0.001 seconds

I'm only killing paper and my self-esteem.

Image
Image

Re: .44magnum Buffalo Bore 340gr +P+ and more!

43
Fukshot wrote:
Merle wrote:
Buck13 wrote:(This should really go in the reloading section, but...) Except Lil'gun, there doesn't seem to be any data for rifle loads in the .357 using the very fast rifle powders like AA1680, IMR4198 or Reloader 7. Is the case just too small to take advantage of these, or does it not work for some other reason I don't understand?

Don't know about the rifle, but for handgun use SLOW powders are the ticket; WW296 for example. I would expect that they would work even better with more barrel length. :think:
The "fast" powders he is referring to are only "fast" among rifle powders. The "slow" pistol powders like 4227 are also the very fastest rifle powders for very small cartridges. So, yes, you are correct. The OP is talking about going one step slower than the standard magnum pistol powders to take advantage of longer barrels. It's just that "fast" and "slow" are used relative to "normal" ranges of burn rates for two different ranges, which is obviously a little confusing in this circumstance.
What she said. All those powders I listed are a bit slower on the burn rate table than H110/W296. I haven't seen them in data for big pistol cartridges that I can remember, even for rifle data. But in Lyman 49, they have pistol and rifle data pages for .32-20 in which pistol uses all the usual suspects (Unique, 231, #5), and the rifle data uses mostly the rifle powders I've listed. Pressure is still the 16,000 limit in both cases, so the difference is not that the rifle loads are higher pressure for sturdier guns. The .32-20 case has a very slight bottleneck. It's so minimal, you might not even notice it in a glance at a dirty case. I know squat about internal ballistics, so I don't know if this tips the case volume to bore volume ratio just enough to make the rifle powders work in a way that they wouldn't in the straight-walled cartridges, or what.
IMR4227: Zero to 900 in 0.001 seconds

I'm only killing paper and my self-esteem.

Image
Image

Re: .44magnum Buffalo Bore 340gr +P+ and more!

44
Buck13 wrote:
Fukshot wrote:
Merle wrote:
Buck13 wrote:(This should really go in the reloading section, but...) Except Lil'gun, there doesn't seem to be any data for rifle loads in the .357 using the very fast rifle powders like AA1680, IMR4198 or Reloader 7. Is the case just too small to take advantage of these, or does it not work for some other reason I don't understand?

Don't know about the rifle, but for handgun use SLOW powders are the ticket; WW296 for example. I would expect that they would work even better with more barrel length. :think:
The "fast" powders he is referring to are only "fast" among rifle powders. The "slow" pistol powders like 4227 are also the very fastest rifle powders for very small cartridges. So, yes, you are correct. The OP is talking about going one step slower than the standard magnum pistol powders to take advantage of longer barrels. It's just that "fast" and "slow" are used relative to "normal" ranges of burn rates for two different ranges, which is obviously a little confusing in this circumstance.
What she said. All those powders I listed are a bit slower on the burn rate table than H110/W296. I haven't seen them in data for big pistol cartridges that I can remember, even for rifle data. But in Lyman 49, they have pistol and rifle data pages for .32-20 in which pistol uses all the usual suspects (Unique, 231, #5), and the rifle data uses mostly the rifle powders I've listed. Pressure is still the 16,000 limit in both cases, so the difference is not that the rifle loads are higher pressure for sturdier guns. The .32-20 case has a very slight bottleneck. It's so minimal, you might not even notice it in a glance at a dirty case. I know squat about internal ballistics, so I don't know if this tips the case volume to bore volume ratio just enough to make the rifle powders work in a way that they wouldn't in the straight-walled cartridges, or what.

Somewhat off topic, but who is the "she" you are referring to? :hmmm:
Merle from PA


Image
Image

Re: .44magnum Buffalo Bore 340gr +P+ and more!

47
JimDowney wrote: My Winchester 94AE has a 24" barrel. After having conducted our tests, and my subsequent experiments, I'd say that you should decide on what barrel length you want based on factors other than how it increases performance. I'm not going to cut my 94 down, but were I shopping again, I'd probably look at a shorter barrel.

Jim
I like the proportions of the 18 and 20" barrels best, so that's good to know.
IMR4227: Zero to 900 in 0.001 seconds

I'm only killing paper and my self-esteem.

Image
Image

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests