Over weight for caliber

[fiver]

Does barrel twist have any bearing on this conversation ?

it does in some circumstances.
marlin put a 44-40 twist in their 44 mag rifles,,, siiigh you get real fast 200 gr loads and that's about it.
rossi went and done the same thing when taurus took them over and 125's were bout all you could get to stabilize in their 357's.
then there's times where you can easily go stupid heavy and slow and the gun don't care.
[i shoot 250gr. bullets in my 357 max,, and even sillier is the use of AA-2230 to do it]

 

[Winelover]

No arguments from me, I tend to stick to the nominal bullet weights. Some applications, just a little heavier. Biggest issue with heavy for caliber bullets is the add unnecessary recoil and shoot to a higher POI, with a sacrifice in velocity.

 

[CZ93X62]

It is hard to fault Beagle's premise, especially in the light of all the money these gunmakers and ammomakers plow into R&D.

A few of the offerings leave me scratching my head--Fiver's mention of the 44/40 twist in Marlin' 44 Mag leverguns is one such faux pas. 357 and 44 Mag calibers in Win 1873 repros and 357 Magnum in a J-frame S&W are heresies--and I am a HUGE fan of heresy, I'll cop to that before retaining counsel. Yeah, yeah--metallurgy has advanced over the last 150 years.

As long as we consider the boiler room supporting the caliber as well as the caliber diameter Beagle's handgun premise holds water. E.g., 32s--for the 32 S&W Long, 7.62 x 38R, and 32 H&R Mag, 100 grains is a DEFINITE sweet spot. Start playing with the 30 Carbine Blackhawk--32/20 WCF--and 327 Federal, 115-120 grains shoots just a click better, though the 100 grain class still does a fine job.

Moving in other directions--shorter cases and self-loading--the 32 ACP and 7.65 MAS both do their best work with bullets in the 70-85 grain weight range. Bottom line--boiler rooms matter, too.

The 38s--S&W, Special, and 357 Magnum--in all of these, the factories and home loaders have been from pillar to post as far as bullet weights go. That continues to this day. The 'Standard' has been 140-160 grains in weight, and there is nothing wrong with that rubric--especially for the 357, because there are no 'Bad' bullet weights for the 357 Mag if ballistic social engineering is the venue--and dissatisfaction with the 38 Special in that role has prompted a whole lot of this bullet weight experimentation. Most of this monkey-wrenching ignored with enthusiasm that Elephant In The Room that started at the same time this bullet weight hocus-pocus got traction--that cops and citizens were no longer engaging bad guys in flight--with the laws in flux about firing upon fleeing suspected felons the self-defender was now only firing upon goblins up-close & personal coming at you & exchanging finality. Those classic 38 Special 158 grain LRN loads kinda showed their a-- in such circumstances.

FBI always gets a vote, and after 40+ years of Super-Vel light-bullet/enhanced velocity consciousness-raising the Lab Coat Cadre In Propeller Hats arrive at......the lead 158 grain SWC/HP in +P flavor as Coin Of The Realm. FBI's succinct grasp of the patently obvious can be breath-taking at times.

The 40/41/44/45 calibers excel at fight-stopping. The End.

Speaking of 'Patently obvious', my biases are in full flower today--handguns in my world are largely for repelling boarders, but find their way into hunting roles from time to time. Long guns are the primary hunting tools, but my Mini-14 caused a potential carjacker (my guess) to re-weigh his options about my brand-new Dodge 1500 4X4 in March 2007. Funny how that works.

 

[Petrol & Powder]

I think the term "heavy for caliber" is better expressed as "heavy for cartridge". The 32's being a prime example. The 32 ACP and the 327 Federal use roughly the same diameter bullet but there's a world of differnce between those cartridges. Same holds true for 32 S&W Long verses say a 30 Carbine.

Rifle cartridges share this as well. A 7.62 x 39 is not in the same club as a 300 Winchester Magnum.

So I must concur with Al's statement, "Bottom line--boiler rooms matter, too.".

Some cartridges just do not do a good job when asked to support heavier than normal projectiles. The 9mm Luger comes to mind.

Now some cartridges are more forgiving. For example the 357 magnum has a pretty high ceiling in terms of pressure. This gives you a little more flexibility in bullet weight. The force that can be safely applied behind a 170 grain bullet in a 357 Mag with a 4" barrel is considerably greater than what can be safely applied to a 170 grain bullet in a 4" 38 Special +P. You have the same 4" of barrel to accelerate the bullet in both examples but you have another 15K psi at your disposal in the 357 Mag.
Even with that greater flexibility, there's still a limit to what can be achived.

In the end, physics matter. You can trade mass for velocity or velocity for mass but there's no free lunch. You're going to pay somewhere.

 

[Jeff H]

..........handguns in my world are largely for repelling boarders, but find their way into hunting roles from time to time....

Pretty much were I am on this these days too.

 

[CZ93X62]

I'm a great fan of St. Elmer and Gen. Hatcher--esp. the General's employment of mass (instead of static weight) and his squaring of bullet diameters (the element that empirically squares itself in the real world) to arrive at his Index of Relative Stopping Power. This is no leap of faith--even unlettered mountain men of the early 19th Century knew that 54 caliber roundballs were better on large toothy adversaries than were 30-36 caliber RBs. Res ipsa loquitor, gents.

 

[Jeff H]

I think the term "heavy for caliber" is better expressed as "heavy for cartridge"....

...In the end, physics matter. You can trade mass for velocity or velocity for mass but there's no free lunch. You're going to pay somewhere.

And then there are the handgun rounds in carbines, where you gain so much extra velocity by virtue of more barrel length that "heavy for cartridge" does not present such a significant trade-off as from a handgun.

Not in contrast or contradiction to your point, but additionally, an asterisk, so to speak.

This thought occurred to me while I was quoting Al. My rifles are rifles and my handguns are handguns, so I use somewhat "normal" weights for the most part. The exception is with carbines/rifles chambered in handgun rounds. In some instances, the handgun round almost becomes something else entirely and "heavy" might be more optimal.

 

[Jeff H]

I'm a great fan of St. Elmer and Gen. Hatcher--esp. the General's employment of mass (instead of static weight) and his squaring of bullet diameters (the element that empirically squares itself in the real world) to arrive at his Index of Relative Stopping Power. This is no leap of faith--even unlettered mountain men of the early 19th Century knew that 54 caliber roundballs were better on large toothy adversaries than were 30-36 caliber RBs. Res ipsa loquitor, gents.

I tend to lean toward mass as opposed to velocity and consider velocity more in terms of trajectory. Since I don't shoot too far when I shoot, extra velocity usually doesn't shine all that much for me.

Me like mass, but it can be overdone. I know a guy looking at a 700 grain bullet for a 458 Lott HANDGUN. I get his point of deferring to mass over velocity for the sake of not ripping one's arm off, but that mass has INERTIA. It's still gonna hurt hen you pull that trigger.

Makes me wonder if 180 or 190 is really all THAT "heavy" for the 357 after all.

 

[CZ93X62]

The 180 grain FNGC in the 357 Mag carbine and the 265 grain FNGC in its 44 Mag big brother are definite upgrades in performance.

Mass and velocity in a delicate balance within a system is what we are discussing here, boiled down. You pays yer money and takes yer chances.

 

[Rick]

Hhmmm . . . Mass? More accurate to use momentum. Momentum on target Is what takes down heavy steel targets at long range or penetrates dangerous game. Yep, it can be done with velocity however, momentum is worth velocity squared. Increasing bullet weight 25% would require an increase in velocity of 100% to equal the same momentum on target. Not practical in almost all cases.

 

[beagle]

Notice, I said there is rationale for some applications. I tried the 200 grain RN in the .357 for a purpose. I also tried 150 grainners in the.30 Carbine Ruger per Paco Kelly and figured that out. Most of my .45 ACP shooting is done from a Ruger convertible with ACP cases. I use the 454190HP. On the other hand, I'll dip to a 115 grain HP in the .357 Mag as it shoots good for 100 yard pinking at high velocities.
There is room for deviation both ways and I do.
But, what I'm saying if you're just a reloader that's loading for target or plinking and occasional hunting, you'll probably do better all around to stick with weights around the factory standard and avoid a bunch of hassles.
Naturally, if grizzlies come to KY, I'll load the 320 grain .44 Mags, put it by the door where I'll grab it when the 870 is empty of slugs.
But, this is, again, a special application./beagle

 

[Petrol & Powder]

Hhmmm . . . Mass? More accurate to use momentum. Momentum on target Is what takes down heavy steel targets at long range or penetrates dangerous game. Yep, it can be done with velocity however, momentum is worth velocity squared. Increasing bullet weight 25% would require an increase in velocity of 100% to equal the same momentum on target. Not practical in almost all cases.

And how does one make "momentum"?

The two variables we can control are mass and velocity.
Momentum is the product of those two factors - SO.........we're back to talking about mass.

 

[Rick]

And how does one make "momentum"?

The two variables we can control are mass and velocity.
Momentum is the product of those two factors - SO.........we're back to talking about mass.

Not so. Momentum is a factor of bullet weight and velocity at the target and is easily figured out.

Momentum In Pound Seconds:
Multiply the bullet weight in grains by the velocity at impact. Divide the product by 226,000 ( a gravimetric Constant).
Example:
45 caliber 240 grain bullet 200 yard velocity of 985 fps. 240 x 985 = 236400 divided by 226,000 = 1.046 pound-seconds momentum.

 

[Petrol & Powder]

Not so. Momentum is a factor of bullet weight and velocity at the target and is easily figured out.

Momentum In Pound Seconds:
Multiply the bullet weight in grains by the velocity at impact. Divide the product by 226,000 ( a gravimetric Constant).
Example:
45 caliber 240 grain bullet 200 yard velocity of 985 fps. 240 x 985 = 236400 divided by 226,000 = 1.046 pound-seconds momentum.

You wrote (correctly) " ...Multiply the bullet weight in grains by the velocity at impact...."
And what factors do we have that give us control over that?..........
Oh that's right, the mass of the projectile and the velocity of the projectile.

 

[Rick]

Have it your way if that make you feel warm & fuzzy.

 

[beagle]

Think you guys are talking the same thing in different words. It comes down to the old Armor addage: put metal on metal.
My point was not to use more than you need of either. There's a third point of the triangle that we're forgetting that comes into play with handguns and that's pressure. Pressure is affected by both the mass/weight of the projectile and a useable velocity for our application. When one of the three change, the others must also. There has to be a reasonable quantity of both to have an allowable pressure for the weapon that's launching the projectile. If we could attain a velocity as high as we wanted with a pressure as high as we wanted, we'd have ideal terminal energy for any application. Unfortunately shooting a 750 grain projectile down range at 2,000 FPS is not doable with a handgun to my knowledge and definitely wouldn't be desirable on the launching end.
My idea of holding projectile weights down to factory specs make safe, comfortable and accurate loads easier to achieve. Also save lead if we don't need the power. If we do, so be it. If not it saves a lot of wear and tear on our handguns. I have seen a .41 Mag Ruger and a M29 Smith practically ruined by the loosening affect of heavy bullets pushed at max velocities and nary a dangerous critter put down more dangerous than a Bud can.
Just ain't necessary normally./beagle

 

[Brad]

Exactly and the reverse is also true. 158 gr bullet in the 357 is also not the answer for all situations.

100% true. The application determines the ”right” projectile.

 

[Bret4207]

I'm a great fan of St. Elmer and Gen. Hatcher--esp. the General's employment of mass (instead of static weight) and his squaring of bullet diameters (the element that empirically squares itself in the real world) to arrive at his Index of Relative Stopping Power. This is no leap of faith--even unlettered mountain men of the early 19th Century knew that 54 caliber roundballs were better on large toothy adversaries than were 30-36 caliber RBs. Res ipsa loquitor, gents.

Yeah, but it was also Gen Hatcher who recommended the Colt Bankers Special in 22LR Hi Speed HP as a very legitimate defense gun based on the blocks of soap he shot. Yes, this was prior to WW2 and his more scholarly endeavors, but still- a 22LR HP as a premier SD gun???

 

[Bret4207]

I tend to lean toward mass as opposed to velocity and consider velocity more in terms of trajectory. Since I don't shoot too far when I shoot, extra velocity usually doesn't shine all that much for me.

Me like mass, but it can be overdone. I know a guy looking at a 700 grain bullet for a 458 Lott HANDGUN. I get his point of deferring to mass over velocity for the sake of not ripping one's arm off, but that mass has INERTIA. It's still gonna hurt hen you pull that trigger.

Makes me wonder if 180 or 190 is really all THAT "heavy" for the 357 after all.

I have a Lyman 215 gr SWC that I think was designed for the 357Max, 358627 IIRC. It shoots just dandy from a plain old 357 too, just a bit slower than a max. Sinks deep into the backstop though!

 

[Bret4207]

100% true. The application determines the ”right” projectile.

Agree, and the right velocity. No sense terrifying a new shooter with full house 357 loads when you can load a nice 130-145 bullet at 650-700 fps and let them get the feel of the gun and still his the target. And sometimes, specially with fixed sighted guns, you're pretty limited in both weight and velocity if you want to use the factory sights.

I'll stick with my earlier idea that for the run of the mill reloader the standard norms are probably good enough.