Bought a 9mm snubbie. Better ballistics than 38spc and ammo is cheap and plentiful again (I got 450 rounds over 7 days), so need to jump into reloading yet.
It's been sitting at the FFL for three weeks. If all goes according to plan, I pick it up tomorrow.
Re: .44magnum Buffalo Bore 340gr +P+ and more!
27 No .44?!?
9 mms are too expensive to shoot: Hundreds of rounds per day, vs. dozens for the .44 Mag.
9 mms are too expensive to shoot: Hundreds of rounds per day, vs. dozens for the .44 Mag.
IMR4227: Zero to 900 in 0.001 seconds
I'm only killing paper and my self-esteem.
I'm only killing paper and my self-esteem.
Re: .44magnum Buffalo Bore 340gr +P+ and more!
28I 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!
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!
Re: .44magnum Buffalo Bore 340gr +P+ and more!
29Just air. I figure I get an additional use out of 'em before finally recycling.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?
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
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!
30Good 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.senorgrand wrote:I doubt I will shoot 100s out of this snubbie, but I know what you're saying.
IMR4227: Zero to 900 in 0.001 seconds
I'm only killing paper and my self-esteem.
I'm only killing paper and my self-esteem.
Re: .44magnum Buffalo Bore 340gr +P+ and more!
31Found 250rnd of umc at wallyworld for 26cents a round. Three hours after opening, there is still about 1000 rounds left.
I can actually stop buying centerfire for awhile!
I can actually stop buying centerfire for awhile!
Re: .44magnum Buffalo Bore 340gr +P+ and more!
32Jim, 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.
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.
IMR4227: Zero to 900 in 0.001 seconds
I'm only killing paper and my self-esteem.
I'm only killing paper and my self-esteem.
Re: .44magnum Buffalo Bore 340gr +P+ and more!
33senorgrand wrote:Bought a 9mm snubbie. Better ballistics than 38spc and ammo is cheap and plentiful again (I got 450 rounds over 7 days), so need to jump into reloading yet.
It's been sitting at the FFL for three weeks. If all goes according to plan, I pick it up tomorrow.
Which model? I have a Ruger Speed Six with a 2-3/4" barrel.
Re: .44magnum Buffalo Bore 340gr +P+ and more!
34Heh.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.
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'.
Jim
James Downey
http://www.ballisticsbytheinch.com/ - handgun cartridge research
http://www.stcybiswell.com/ - my latest novel
http://www.legacybookbindery.com/ - my professional site
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!
35To 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.
I'm only killing paper and my self-esteem.
Re: .44magnum Buffalo Bore 340gr +P+ and more!
36I 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!"
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/
http://www.sanfranciscoliberalwithagun.com/
http://www.liberalsguncorner.com/
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.
I'm only killing paper and my self-esteem.
Re: .44magnum Buffalo Bore 340gr +P+ and more!
38The 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!
39Buck13 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.
Re: .44magnum Buffalo Bore 340gr +P+ and more!
40The "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.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.
Re: .44magnum Buffalo Bore 340gr +P+ and more!
41My 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.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"?
Jim
James Downey
http://www.ballisticsbytheinch.com/ - handgun cartridge research
http://www.stcybiswell.com/ - my latest novel
http://www.legacybookbindery.com/ - my professional site
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!
42I 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?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.
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. 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.
I'm only killing paper and my self-esteem.
Re: .44magnum Buffalo Bore 340gr +P+ and more!
43What 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.Fukshot wrote: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.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.
IMR4227: Zero to 900 in 0.001 seconds
I'm only killing paper and my self-esteem.
I'm only killing paper and my self-esteem.
Re: .44magnum Buffalo Bore 340gr +P+ and more!
44Buck13 wrote: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.Fukshot wrote: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.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.
Somewhat off topic, but who is the "she" you are referring to?
Re: .44magnum Buffalo Bore 340gr +P+ and more!
45Fukshot.Merle wrote:
Somewhat off topic, but who is the "she" you are referring to?
IMR4227: Zero to 900 in 0.001 seconds
I'm only killing paper and my self-esteem.
I'm only killing paper and my self-esteem.
Re: .44magnum Buffalo Bore 340gr +P+ and more!
46Buck13 wrote:Fukshot.Merle wrote:
Somewhat off topic, but who is the "she" you are referring to?
OK, thanks. I was not aware of that & thought perhaps you were referring to me - I'm not female but some Merles are.
Re: .44magnum Buffalo Bore 340gr +P+ and more!
47I like the proportions of the 18 and 20" barrels best, so that's good to know.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
IMR4227: Zero to 900 in 0.001 seconds
I'm only killing paper and my self-esteem.
I'm only killing paper and my self-esteem.