Velocity of .357 in snubnosed?

NOTPARS

December 12, 2002 10:32

I was arguing with my older brother about guns (yeah, what's new?). Anyway, he was telling me that the great velocity and energy which made the .357 magnum round legendary, is all but negated by 2 and a quarter inch barrel on my Ruger SP-101. He said that for the .357 round to achieve the energy and velocity listed in the charts, it must have at least a 4 inch barrel. Does anyone know if this is true? If so, what category of round would this place the .357 in as fired from a snub nosed revolver (besides being a very loud flame thrower)?

0

• 

  rugrguy

  December 12, 2002 14:49

  Notpars, Yes that is true but what length I don't really remember. Way back when I thought a report from White laboratories said 8 to 10 inches and I think that was in a ' closed breech 'action, such as a T/C, so no gas escaped. Also back then the original .357 mag was much hotter and faster. They developed problems like Ruger did with the .357 Maximum and also reduced it( ruger dropped their model Blackhawk!) As you said you would have a ball of fire in front of the barrel from the still burning gases!! You know ,there are college classes for just these type of technical questions, so lets hear from some of you ballistic engineers!!
  
  dan

  0
• 

  rameleni1

  December 12, 2002 15:27

  I am also interested in this subject. How much velocity is lost, per inch of barrel. I'm sure someone here knows the answer.
  
  Rameleni1

  0
• 

  v35

  December 12, 2002 18:10

  I have some data on this. Fast powder will show less velocity loss with shorter barrels than slower powder like 2400.
  Using 16 gr 2400 and a 146gr bullet, velocity from a 3 1/2" bbl is 1231fps while from an 8 3/8 bbl it is 1478fps.
  Using 8 gr Unique and 146 gr bullet, velocity from 3 1/2" bbl is 1170
  fps while from an 8 3/8" bbl it is 1327fps.
  These data were from revolvers and are from 1962. Later powders like H110 may give better results.
  I've done some experimenting with barrels between 2 1/2" & 6" in 22 and 22Mag.
  Velocity falls off but velocity variation between shots significantly increases with very short barrels. This is especially true with the 22mag where velocity varied between 1071 & 1580 fps with a 2" barrel. I would not be surprised to find large velocity variations in a 2" 357Mag.

  0
• 

  NOTPARS

  December 13, 2002 08:55

  For Rugrguy:
  
  Not what I wanted to hear but I do appreciate it anyway. My Ruger SP 101 does pitch a bit of flame, but, so does my Ruger GP-100 with a 4 inch barrel as a matter of fact. Anyway, is there any value then in a .357 snubbie or would we be just as well off with a snub-nosed .38+p?
  
  
  
  P.S. I haven't been on this forum for a while, several months, but it always seems as if my posts are a very low number instead of how many I really have made. Not that I'm trying to win a medal for being a big time poster, just wondered what was up.

  0
• 

  NOTPARS

  December 13, 2002 08:57

  For v35:
  
  Thanks for the information. From what you posted, there sure is a big difference between the longer and shorter barrels. It has me wondering, then, if there is any value in a snub-nosed .357?

  0
• 

  Nighthawk

  December 13, 2002 10:19

  Actually their is not as much difference as once thought.Also some of todays rounds Corbon]or Triton]use powders that burn faster and make up for velocity loss.Or so its printed on the box,Ive not chrony'd my Sp101 which also has a 2 1/4 barrel.I also have a GP100 .357 Mag with a 6 in barrel and I still have a great deal of flash from it.There is a chart that has velocity loss and gains per barel in,but I cant find it.I remember its not as much as you would thank with handguns.Seems like it was more with Rifle barrel length.I would think most gas loss on a revolver is from the cylinder.
  
  Rugster
  
  
  Toujours Pret

  0

Please sign in to leave a comment.