barrel length

There are 2 sets of data for the 357 magnum on BBTI.
The first set is from a T/C Encore barrel, cut in 1" decrements. The second set is from a couple of rifles, a few revolvers, and a derringer. The shortest revolver has a 4" barrel.

From the BBTI site:
in every case with the T/C Encore the length of the barrel was measured from the end of the barrel back to the breech face
Click to expand...

The 2" barrel used for the Encore 357 magnum testing would have had, at the most, about 0.71" of rifled barrel.
 
James K,

Fully aware of what a revolver is, my point was the test used the chamber of the barrel in place of the cylinder and totally over looks the revolver's mechanical configuration.
What 357 Terms said made pretty good sense to me.
According to Lyman:
38spl 1.550 O.A.L. would give you .45" to the end of the 2" barrel
357 mag. 1.590 = .41" to the end
And the Max, mentioned just to give perspective is 1.990".
If this were a test of anything but standard revolver calibers then it would be okay.
 
Last edited:
I have run thousands of rounds running a 125gr bullet just a hair under 1300fps from a 2" barrel in 3 different snubbies. And they just happen to be those Taurus snubbies that explode and fall apart all the time. And I have yet to tear one up. You can use all of the cute reloading programs you want, the 357 out of a 2" barrel is miles beyond the 38sp.
 
A couple of responses have me head scratching. It sounds like neither of the posters has ever seen a revolver. A round goes into the cylinder, not into the end of the barre
Click to expand...

OK, now I'm scratching my head?

Go through this thread and click on the links to Ballistics by the Inch, read it carefully, it should explain what we are talking about better than I can. (or at least better than I have already tried)


As the Moderator posted above, you can't seat a longer one in the next smaller chamber without it sticking out a ways. You can seat a mag in a Max chamber though, but it is not recommended.
__________________
Click to expand...


OK, now I'm totally lost, was this posted in the right thread?
 
Last edited:
The standard convention for measuring barrel length is:

For a revolver:
The actual length of the barrel itself, from the muzzle to the end where it sticks through the frame. Nothing else.

For everything else:
From the muzzle to the breechface, with the action closed. This includes the chamber.

It does make a difference.
 
short-barrel .357 velocity

Quoting Kraigwy:
"I'm not buying some of the velocities I'm seeing out of short barreled revolvers.

To get, lets say 1250 out of a 2.5 inch barrel, using 125 gr bullets you'd be pushing the pressure limits to a dangerous level.

A reasonable, or realistic velocity for a hot 125 gr 357 load would be about 925fps."

Not to argue, but this is not consistent with the results I've gotten with my 2.75" Ruger Security Six, although I've only used 158gr bullets.

Federal factory JSP averaged 1195 fps; Hornady XTP averaged 1130.
With handloads (again,158gr), not max loads:
JSP with 2400: 1204 fps.
XTP with Blue Dot: 1130 fps

-Mark
 
As other posters have said, a 357 mag cartridge will always give higher velocity than a 38 spcl cartridge in the same revolver, regardless of barrel length. The advantage is greater in longer barrels. The question for the individual shooter is whether the increase in velocity is worthwhile for the concomitant increase in noise, flash, and recoil.
 
All barrel lengths....it's just a much more powerful cartridge, operating at nearly twice the .38 Special's SAAMI working pressure...that equates to velocity and striking power...Rod
 
BBTI explains what they did quite clearly:

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

One note: in every case with the T/C Encore the length of the barrel was measured from the end of the barrel back to the breech face. This is how semi-auto pistols are measured, but revolvers are measured as the length of the barrel in front of the cylinder gap. Take this into consideration when comparing calibers using our numbers.

We have also tested a number of personal firearms (both handguns and carbines) using the same ammunition as used with the T/C Encore, in order to give some benchmark comparisons between the 'ideal' and the 'real world' performance of a given ammo at a given barrel length. The same protocols were followed, and we used the same ammo.
Click to expand...

They have a seperate group of tests for revolvers:

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

Below you will find a list of the 13 data sets for the different ammunition brands/loadings tested. Each one links to a page showing its performance with the three different cylinder gaps and over barrel lengths from 18" down to 2".

Each ammunition brand/loading tested is listed across the top, with barrel lengths down the side. You will also find a graph to show the trend for each cylinder gap over the different barrel lengths.
Click to expand...

http://www.ballisticsbytheinch.com/realgap.html
 
None of those " real " tests include hot 357 mag ammo( the DPX? Maybe)
Show me some known "hot" loads from a common well known snubby, otherwise...
Sorry, but BBI is just not a good or valued reference for short barreled (magnum)revolver data, it really is downright misleading, and does a disservice to those that reference it.
 
Last edited:
The 125 357 (Cor Bon) is slower than the 158 357 (Fed) they tested? Something is either wrong or hand picked to make a false point.
 
357 vs 38 by barrel length

This is right off the Ballistics by the Inch (BBTI) website. It tells me that for service length (4") revolvers and above, the 357 is getting its full power advantage vs the 38 spec. Below 4" revolver barrel length, the gain (in power) may be less than the pain (recoil, blast --> less control/accuracy).

average average
BBTI less 1.5" 38 spec 357 mag 357 gain
length rev cyldr - 5 tested - - 8 tested - vs 38 spec

16" 14.5 1303 1929 48%
15" 13.5 1243 1891 52%
14" 12.5 1224 1879 54%
13" 11.5 1218 1854 52%
12" 10.5 1214 1830 51%
11" 9.5 1199 1812 51%
10" 8.5 1186 1788 51%
9" 7.5 1175 1735 48%
8" 6.5 1144 1711 50%
7" 5.5 1115 1665 49%
6" 4.5 1062 1590 50%
5" 3.5 1063 1496 41%
4" 2.5 1015 1405 38%
3" 1.5 878 1185 35%
2" 0.5 734 929 27%
 
Sorry, but BBI is just not a good or valued reference for short barreled (magnum)revolver data, it really is downright misleading, and does a disservice to those that reference it.
Click to expand...
How is it "misleading" when they tell you all the details?
 
^^
I suppose you could re-read this thread, you would notice the confusion it has caused just I this ONE thread!!

BBI posts velocities with the OAL OF A REVOLVER CARTRIDGE INTO THE OVERALL BARREL LENGHTH!!

THAT!, is misleading, no doubt about it.

Obviously, not everyone notices the "details", and why would they?
Why would they incorporate the OAL like that?
People would just assume they got this data by shooting it out of a revolver.
 
Last edited:
BBI posts velocities with the OAL OF A REVOLVER CARTRIDGE INTO THE OVERALL BARREL LENGHTH!!

THAT!, is misleading, no doubt about it.
Click to expand...
It's still not "misleading" when they tell you how they did it, and also give data from different factory model revolvers

The Encore barrel data might be "pointless" if you want data specifically for a revolver, but its hardly "misleading" since that's how barrels are measured in semi's, single shots, and deringers

I suppose you could re-read this thread, you would notice the confusion it has caused just I this ONE thread!!
Click to expand...
It's only confusing if you don't read it all
 
The problem is when people start comparing revolver ballistics of the 38spl to 357mag, BBI findings often get brought in to the argument. By the way, the CorBon 125 DXP in their revolver test is a reduced velocity 357 load, they were very sparse in their 357 revolver ammo choices.
 
It's only confusing if you don't read it all
Click to expand...

The problem is that people post the page all the time, like it is competent data.
People see it and believe it, even though its bogus.
 
Last edited:
The standard convention for measuring barrel length is:

For a revolver:
The actual length of the barrel itself, from the muzzle to the end where it sticks through the frame. Nothing else.

For everything else:
From the muzzle to the breechface, with the action closed. This includes the chamber.

It does make a difference.
Click to expand...

To me, this is really the issue. Why we don't universally measure barrel length from the FRONT end of the chamber makes no sense to me! BBTI's data would suddenly get a lot more relevant if they just switched from measuring from the back of the chamber to the front.

As it is, you have to look at their numbers and make your own adjustments for "real" length, then subtract a little for the cylinder gap.
 
The problem is that people post the page all the time, like it is competent data.
People see it and believe it, even though its bogus.
Click to expand...
I keep hearing that repeated, but no one can explain WHY

The only issue I see is some keep calling certain rounds "revolver cartridges"
when reality is they can be fired in different types of firearms

There is nothing "bogus" about the data they gave as long as they tell you exactly how it was obtained

Please explain why it's "incompetent" and "bogus"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top