The final word on barrel length and muzzle velocity

[galahad]

This is truly an outstanding page.  I'm about halfway through.

http://www.ballisticsbytheinch.com/index.html

[Danjal]

Good page, but sadly they dont list multiple loads and powders. Specially in rifle calibers. I could see several hardcore reloaders wanting that information. Me included for .308 168 and 175gr rounds.

[docbuckhead]

Already been posted, Dude !      (in honor of sksmadman !)

http://www.sksboards.com/smf/index.php?topic=58655.0

[galahad]

Oops!  Way to go Doc.  That was before I had any pistols that cared what kind of ammo they ate and before I had even an inkling about muzzle velocity and barrel length.  

Now if we can just find an identical study on how barrel length affects accuracy at some given twist we'd just about have it all!

Well, except for loads and that's really a different issue altogether.

[docbuckhead]

Oops!  Way to go Doc.  That was before I had any pistols that cared what kind of ammo they ate and before I had even an inkling about muzzle velocity and barrel length.  

Now if we can just find an identical study on how barrel length affects accuracy at some given twist we'd just about have it all!

Well, except for loads and that's really a different issue altogether.

At least this gives a starting point for some serious ballistic inquiry.

As to accuracy, most "informed" thought is that maximum velocity for any round degrades accuracy  ....best range of velocity for accuracy in handguns and rifles seems to be about 80-85% of safe maximums.

And even then, different guns of the same make and model, firing identically loaded ammo give varying velocities, and accuracy.

I don't think barrel length affects intrinsic accuracy much, per se, unless maximum velocity for that load is not reached due to too short of a barrel for that loading, or barrel length is so long as to diminish velocity, where friction starts to beat out thrust from the powder burn.

I've seen some VERY remarkable shots made with snub nosed revolvers in a K frame smith, and poor marksmanhip/accuracy with 8 3/8 barrels on the same type frame.

[galahad]

Two things on accuracy with a, say, 2" barrel.  First is that the distance between the front and rear sights is too durn short.  And second is that the bullet just doesn't get a chance to really get spinning.  I have VERY little experience but last week at the range I did decent with the .44 at 45', not too bad with the 10mm, and a lot of trouble with the LCR.  You'd think that with the flinch factor taken into account (yea, I'm not used to the .44 yet) that the difference between the three wouldn't have been that great but it was.

Hopefully I'll get back to the range in a week or two and try the 21' distance to get a better handle on the .38.

[docbuckhead]

Two things on accuracy with a, say, 2" barrel.  First is that the distance between the front and rear sights is too durn short.  And second is that the bullet just doesn't get a chance to really get spinning.  I have VERY little experience but last week at the range I did decent with the .44 at 45', not too bad with the 10mm, and a lot of trouble with the LCR.  You'd think that with the flinch factor taken into account (yea, I'm not used to the .44 yet) that the difference between the three wouldn't have been that great but it was.

Hopefully I'll get back to the range in a week or two and try the 21' distance to get a better handle on the .38.

Take the platform into cosideration  ...the torque required to rotate the cylinder on a revolver gives many new shooters fits, and if the revolver has the smaller frame/grip, that can be exacerbated.

I've been shooting handguns for 30 plus years, and I find the far shorter barrel/sight plane of a Kahr P9 easier to make accurate shots with than I do a 5 inch Model 10 S&W.

The Kahr has a lighter, smoother trigger than the Smith, and I am not mechanically moving the mass of the cylinder and remaining rounds, while trying to maintain a sight picture.

You basically have to take the whole package into consideration   ....action type, platform, caliber, loading, bullet weight, ergonomics of the grip, sighting plane, fixed or adjustable sights, quality/visibility of the sights, etc.

I truth, it is far harder to become a really good shot with a handgun than it is with a rifle, IMO.

[Frisco Pete]

The LCR and the other short barrel .38s are really intended for close-range encounters.  As a novice, I would confine yourself to no more than 7 yds/21 ft like you mentioned trying.

I am not mechanically moving the mass of the cylinder and remaining rounds, while trying to maintain a sight picture.

That is true for defensive shooting using the DA pull of the Model 10, but if you cock the Model 10 hammer with your thumb and shoot it SA, then accurate shots are very easy to come by.  Of course this is talking about target practice as opposed to defensive shooting practice.
DA revolver shooting is tough to master.

[Danjal]

I truth, it is far harder to become a really good shot with a handgun than it is with a rifle, IMO.

I'll second that. I prefer rifles over handguns. And Im a pretty good shot with rifles, but handguns require a lot more practice then Ive given them, much less have time for on a range day with rifles.

[nhblaze]

Good stuff !


Note that sometimes the longest barrel does NOT produce the highest velocities

[bulldog136]

Two things on accuracy with a, say, 2" barrel.  First is that the distance between the front and rear sights is too durn short.  And second is that the bullet just doesn't get a chance to really get spinning.  I have VERY little experience but last week at the range I did decent with the .44 at 45', not too bad with the 10mm, and a lot of trouble with the LCR.  You'd think that with the flinch factor taken into account (yea, I'm not used to the .44 yet) that the difference between the three wouldn't have been that great but it was.

Hopefully I'll get back to the range in a week or two and try the 21' distance to get a better handle on the .38.

Chunk that 10mm, worst pistol Kimber ever made. Plus you really need a 10 in barrel for it to be worthwhile in 10mm. Mags are way too expensive as well. (Midway did have some Chip McCormicks on sale Friday)  

I know a guy that gives a good trade on them.....................

Thanks for the link, always good to have this kind of info.

[richtherake]

good data. I'm particularly impressed by the .40 S&W results.

[docbuckhead]

Two things on accuracy with a, say, 2" barrel.  First is that the distance between the front and rear sights is too durn short.  And second is that the bullet just doesn't get a chance to really get spinning.  I have VERY little experience but last week at the range I did decent with the .44 at 45', not too bad with the 10mm, and a lot of trouble with the LCR.  You'd think that with the flinch factor taken into account (yea, I'm not used to the .44 yet) that the difference between the three wouldn't have been that great but it was.

Hopefully I'll get back to the range in a week or two and try the 21' distance to get a better handle on the .38.

Just as an update.

http://www.youtube.com/user/hickok45#p/search/1/UERZBUqi7T0

Barrel length (effective, past nose of bullet) is 1.66 inches.

Sighting radius is just under 4.7 inches.

Pretty close to a J (small) frame revolver.

On the video, at around 7:30 in, he does something a bit interesting, with this diminutive firearm.   

[ranger1968]

 No doubt, Hickock45 is a good shot...

[docbuckhead]

I like his 230 yard video, with a Glock 27......

and there is the 352 yard shot(s), by another poster on YouTube, with a 10mm Glock.