On 7/14/14, 8:19 AM, Tim wrote:
Harry, I'm not speculating. The guy is using hand loaded led bullets. The gun doesn't have the crack of a jacketed round and you can see the lead residue spraying out the barrel. I've shot .357 for years with lots of different loads and bullets so...


I wasn't commenting about the bullet, per se. I was commenting about the
powder charge.

Here's a question for you...

Of what components is a "true" .357 MAG round composed, and in what amounts?



--
Republicans . . . the anti-immigrant, anti-contraception, anti-student,
anti-middle class, pro-impeachment party that shut down the government
last year for no reason.

On 7/14/2014 5:19 AM, Tim wrote:
On Monday, July 14, 2014 3:09:58 AM UTC-7, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 7/14/14, 1:09 AM, wrote:

On Sun, 13 Jul 2014 22:02:07 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iq3UdULuqt8



Notice how well the muzzle flip is controlled in a properly designed and

handled revolver. Mine has even less muzzle flip, it's heavier with a 6"

barrel.





He is shooting cast bullets which pretty much limits him to .38

velocities and he calls them "very modest loads, nothing hot at all".

It looks like the kind of loading I did with wad cutters, except he

has a round nose bullet. (the good old 158gr?)





Except, of course, you don't have the specifications of what he is

shooting. My guess is that he is a far more highly skilled shooter than

you are, and knows how to handle .357 MAGS in a short barrel revolver,

and you, well, there it is...you don't. Looks to me as if he is shooting

what is considered the standard weight .357 MAG bullet in a standard

.357 MAG casing with a standard .357 MAG powder charge, the kind you can

buy off the shelf from dozens of vendors.



The stuff I shoot has the bullet weight and velocity of Buffalo Bore,

except I shoot FMJ's. Gosh, I wonder if I am actually shooting .357

MAGs. snerk



--

Republicans . . . the anti-immigrant, anti-contraception, anti-student,

anti-middle class, pro-impeachment party that shut down the government

last year for no reason.

I'n not getting into it with exception of I don't think that the shooters 'skill' has much to do with a hand guns kickback properties.

But if you look at this demo of the comparable Colt Diamond Back, which is chambered in .38 you see about the same kick back and sound characteristics. IMO the guy with the .357 is shooting lighter loads than factory, causing less kick.

You're not the first shooter here to say that. Could the great Harry
Krause be hypothesizing and blowing smoke up our arses,,,,,,,,,,,,again?

--
"I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the
government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of
taking care of them".
Thomas Jefferson

On 7/14/2014 6:00 AM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 7/14/14, 6:48 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 7/13/2014 10:02 PM, F*O*A*D wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iq3UdULuqt8

Notice how well the muzzle flip is controlled in a properly designed and
handled revolver. Mine has even less muzzle flip, it's heavier with a 6"
barrel.



First, a disclaimer. I don't know what I am talking about. I am not
an expert in shooting or handguns and don't shoot that often.

That said, I could make an argument that "muzzle flip" is naturally
greater with a six inch barrel than a 3 inch barrel, purely from a
mechanical advantage point of view. This assumes the rounds are of the
same caliber and load, of course.

Picture the handgun as a lever with your hand or wrist as the fulcrum.
The force of the bullet exiting the end of a longer barrel is going to
impart more off center force on your wrist than from a shorter barrel.

I am sure the weight of the handgun plays a role but I suspect the
difference of 2 or 3 inches on the barrel length is minor. Energy (or
in this case force) is mass times velocity squared.




Oooh…is this at least partially a discussion about elements to plug into
the equation for Conservation of Motion! Wow…in rec. boats, of all
places.

Barrel weight is what sells bull barrels, tungsten guide rods, and
revolvers with full underlugs, because the weight “out there” tends to
reduce muzzle flip, but the best way to control it is with a strong grip
and proper stance and recoil control. A longer barrel has more mass, and
should be more resistant to the leverage involved in muzzle flip. An
expansion chamber compensator will also make a difference.

If you want to experience the differences barrel length and weight makes
on muzzle flip, try a Ruger LCR in .357 MAG and then shoot the same
rounds out of a 6” barrel Ruger GP 100.



So which is it, genius, which is the predominant factor in muzzle flip,
weight or barrel length?

--
"I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the
government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of
taking care of them".
Thomas Jefferson

On 7/14/14, 10:48 AM, wrote:
On Mon, 14 Jul 2014 08:40:09 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

On 7/14/14, 8:19 AM, Tim wrote:
Harry, I'm not speculating. The guy is using hand loaded led bullets. The gun doesn't have the crack of a jacketed round and you can see the lead residue spraying out the barrel. I've shot .357 for years with lots of different loads and bullets so...


I wasn't commenting about the bullet, per se. I was commenting about the
powder charge.

Here's a question for you...

Of what components is a "true" .357 MAG round composed, and in what amounts?

A"true" .357 round is supersonic with chamber pressures well over
20,000 PSI
It will be a jacketed bullet.
You can get SS velocities out of a small cast bullet like a 40gr.22
but when they start getting heavier, they will strip right through the
rifling if you try to push them too hard. They still copper plate
better brands of .22rf to keep the bore cleaner.
Perhaps if you had done some reloading you would have a better idea of
the effect of powders and bullets. Your knowledge seems to be what you
google up at the moment and not much actual experience.
I had a ****load of cast .357 (dia) bullets, that I was getting pretty
cheap and I tried them with all sorts of different combinations of
powders and primers. Even at typical .38 +p velocities, accuracy
starts falling off pretty fast and lead fouling becomes a big problem.

They are perfect for what this guy was doing tho, shooting targets at
fairly short ranges and using "modest loads", how he describes them
himself.



I'll be glad to take you more seriously when you post the actual
specifications of what he was shooting. Absent that, you're just guessing.

For the 20th time, I am not interested in reloading. I shoot jacketed
ammo only.



--
Republicans . . . the anti-immigrant, anti-contraception, anti-student,
anti-middle class, pro-impeachment party that shut down the government
last year for no reason.

On Mon, 14 Jul 2014 08:23:50 -0600, H*a*r*r*o*l*d
wrote:

So which is it, genius, which is the predominant factor in muzzle flip,
weight or barrel length?

===

Actually the predominant factor is muzzle velocity assuming bullets of
equal weight. Energy increases as the square of velocity so an
increase from 900 fps (typical light target load) to 1600 fps would
result in an energy increase of 3.16 .

Greg, I totally agree with you, when I was loading .44 mag wad cutters (block type), I'd back the powder off a bit to make them a little bit hotter than a standard .44 Smith. Close accuracy was much better and less leas fouling. Not counting less 'flip'. Knock down power was improved as well.

Greg, I totally agree with you, when I was loading .44 mag wad cutters (block type), I'd back the powder off a bit to make them a little bit hotter than a standard .44 Smith. Close accuracy was much better and less leas fouling. Not counting less 'flip'. Knock down power was improved as well.

On 7/14/2014 11:05 AM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Mon, 14 Jul 2014 08:23:50 -0600, H*a*r*r*o*l*d
wrote:

So which is it, genius, which is the predominant factor in muzzle flip,
weight or barrel length?

===

Actually the predominant factor is muzzle velocity assuming bullets of
equal weight. Energy increases as the square of velocity so an
increase from 900 fps (typical light target load) to 1600 fps would
result in an energy increase of 3.16 .


I agree with that.

On 7/14/2014 9:02 AM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 7/14/14, 10:48 AM, wrote:
On Mon, 14 Jul 2014 08:40:09 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

On 7/14/14, 8:19 AM, Tim wrote:
Harry, I'm not speculating. The guy is using hand loaded led
bullets. The gun doesn't have the crack of a jacketed round and you
can see the lead residue spraying out the barrel. I've shot .357
for years with lots of different loads and bullets so...


I wasn't commenting about the bullet, per se. I was commenting about the
powder charge.

Here's a question for you...

Of what components is a "true" .357 MAG round composed, and in what
amounts?

A"true" .357 round is supersonic with chamber pressures well over
20,000 PSI
It will be a jacketed bullet.
You can get SS velocities out of a small cast bullet like a 40gr.22
but when they start getting heavier, they will strip right through the
rifling if you try to push them too hard. They still copper plate
better brands of .22rf to keep the bore cleaner.
Perhaps if you had done some reloading you would have a better idea of
the effect of powders and bullets. Your knowledge seems to be what you
google up at the moment and not much actual experience.
I had a ****load of cast .357 (dia) bullets, that I was getting pretty
cheap and I tried them with all sorts of different combinations of
powders and primers. Even at typical .38 +p velocities, accuracy
starts falling off pretty fast and lead fouling becomes a big problem.

They are perfect for what this guy was doing tho, shooting targets at
fairly short ranges and using "modest loads", how he describes them
himself.



I'll be glad to take you more seriously when you post the actual
specifications of what he was shooting. Absent that, you're just guessing.

For the 20th time, I am not interested in reloading. I shoot jacketed
ammo only.



Modest my man, modest. Look it up in the dictionary. My guess is that
good, professional, competitive shooters are interested in reloading.
Maybe that's why you are, at best, a mediocre shooter.

--
"I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the
government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of
taking care of them".
Thomas Jefferson

On 7/14/2014 9:05 AM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Mon, 14 Jul 2014 08:23:50 -0600, H*a*r*r*o*l*d
wrote:

So which is it, genius, which is the predominant factor in muzzle flip,
weight or barrel length?

===

Actually the predominant factor is muzzle velocity assuming bullets of
equal weight. Energy increases as the square of velocity so an
increase from 900 fps (typical light target load) to 1600 fps would
result in an energy increase of 3.16 .


Actually, in the scenario Harry painted, the comparison was made with
similar loads. The snub nose vs the 6 in barrel was the comparison he
wanted to make. I don't think he knows why the snubby is less
controllable. Hence my question.

--
"I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the
government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of
taking care of them".
Thomas Jefferson