I'd 'rather' ... big and slow is the way to go.... That's just me. Nothing fancy either... Just a .451 (or little brother .429) solid normal SWC (255 or 240) for me at~900fps to 1100fps. Easier on the ears too when you have to actually use it without ear protection. We are not talking 'long range here'..... Under 75 yards. CC is .44Spec.
would you rather 240gr at 700fps or 120gr at 1400fps?
- Thread starter maxpress
- Start date
Help Support Ruger Forum:
onehandgunner
Single-Sixer
There is a gentleman on this forum, I think, that has used the phrase, "a quiet hit is better than a loud miss followed by 5 more over the shoulder while running". I like big and slow, maybe that is why I have a 45-70.
charlesappel said:
Please provide a link for a scientific source (controlled measured data, not someones's opinion) for this statement. I find this very hard to believe, but am open minded to sound experimental data.
It would seem to suggest that the very light bullets typically used in 223 rifles would not be capable of causing significant injury...
RE: "would you rather 240gr at 700fps or 120gr at 1400fps?".
You can equate the "240gr at 700fps" to a SAAMI-spec .44 SPL, which despite it's somewhat large bore, is a fairly enemic cartridge.....about like the old .38 Spl 158RNL "service load" in performance.
On the other end of the mule, your "120gr at 1400fps" perty-much equates to the 125/.357 Mag.
Considerable difference, eh?
DGW
You can equate the "240gr at 700fps" to a SAAMI-spec .44 SPL, which despite it's somewhat large bore, is a fairly enemic cartridge.....about like the old .38 Spl 158RNL "service load" in performance.
On the other end of the mule, your "120gr at 1400fps" perty-much equates to the 125/.357 Mag.
Considerable difference, eh?
DGW
maxpress
Buckeye
Roy and Elmer discussed this a bunch. Thought it was settled.
Well they settled on big and fast
Well they settled on big and fast
charlesappel
Single-Sixer
foytfoyt said:
Searching for "sound experimental data" on the internet is quite an assignment professor. :wink:
But I'll give it a shot. Since the information on the web is often nonsense, it may take a few days to complete.
In the mean time, you might want to examine some of the following - or perhaps not.
Quantum Ammunition Selection by Charles Schwartz.
Of particular interest is the discussion of thermodynamics on pages 10 through 13. The energy transfer from a .50 Browning Machine Gun projectile is used as an example.
Bullet Penetration by Duncan Macpherson would be an excellent source of information on the subject.
A few tidbits from the internet.
http://rkba.org/research/fackler/wrong.html
http://www.firearmstactical.com/tactical.htm - There are several interesting articles on handgun wounds.
http://www.thegunzone.com/quantico-wounding.html
charlesappel said:
Thanks. I will review the info you link to see if it changes my opinion that 240 gr at 700 fps is not even in the ballpark of 120 gr at 1400 fps.
Had the post said 240gr at 900 fps, then I'd be on board (432 ft-lbf vs 522 ft-lbf instead of the comparison in question at 261 ft-lbf vs 522 ft-lbf). If the energies are within say 25% or even 50%, I'd give the many other factors much credit. At a two to one, there is NO comparison. (But I will read the info, some of which I have seen.)
Update: BTW, I primarily shoot 44 Specials at speeds not much above what is being discussed, because it is such a nice shooting powder puff load for range work, and the hits are easy to see. I'm not biased against heavy and slow. I sometimes shoot 400 Specials in a session, and it's fun. One of my 44's is a N frame. I have a very similar 357 N frame, with the same grips. I have never shot 400 357's out if it in a day, because I doubt my wrist could take it. They are NOT similar.
mikewriter
Blackhawk
I sometimes load 240gr. .44's at 700 or so using a soft lead target SWC ahead of Trail Boss. Mainly shoot these in my suppressed Contender, intended as a quiet pest control round. Suppressed, sounds like a pellet gun - and not a real loud pellet gun that shoots over 1100 fps. Have fired a few into a hog that needed "finishing", and was a bit surprised at the penetration I got - didn't think those soft bullets were capable of punching through a hog's hide. Since this is basically a .44 Special load, I suspect the Special's choice as a defense gun for so many for so long has justification.
charlesappel
Single-Sixer
foytfoyt said:
I'm afraid we have a miscommunication - my fault I'm sure. While the original post talked of 700 fps loads I was advocating a somewhat more powerful choice. I stated in my post:
charlesappel said:
I would not consider carrying a 700 fps .44 load for protection in the woodlands. But neither would I carry the 1400 fps 120 grain .357 load. My first choice would be the .44 special 250 grains at 950 fps. In the .357 I would carry 158 grain bullets or heavier. The low velocity .44 special loads are great for target.
BTW: I envy you the ability to fire 400 .44 special loads in a session. About 50 to 100 rounds is my limit. My wrists will no longer allow me to shoot large quantities of heavy loads. I do most of my shooting with .22 and .38 these days.
mikewriter
Blackhawk
OK, how about this angle? I sometimes load 375gr hard cast .480 Ruger rounds over Trail Boss for a velocity of 700 fps or a bit more. Makes a pussycat load for light target practice in my Super Redhawk. Haven't tried it for penetration on live game, but my feeling is a bullet of that size and weight going even 700 fps should be "harder to stop" than a lighter bullet - although I would not try to explain the physics behind it. An extension of the bug on the windshield experiment, I think.
maxpress
Buckeye
My woods carry is 240gr @ 1000fps as stated earlier.
My point was that twice the weight at half the speed has the same momentum and shooting them into paper and plank they have roughly the same penetraion. Even with the underloaded special load. My standard carry load mentioned above out penetrates the hottest 158's coming out of my 4"speed six. Others may have different results. back in the day shooting pigs on the ranch they dropped just as fast with either round but I preffer the special.
My point was that twice the weight at half the speed has the same momentum and shooting them into paper and plank they have roughly the same penetraion. Even with the underloaded special load. My standard carry load mentioned above out penetrates the hottest 158's coming out of my 4"speed six. Others may have different results. back in the day shooting pigs on the ranch they dropped just as fast with either round but I preffer the special.
grumpy7159
Bearcat
- Joined
- Nov 22, 2014
- Messages
- 30
If this was an archery forum the answer would be light and fast hands down. However heavier arrows seem to carry more energy to the target. So the question is at 50 yards which load carries the most energy. It's a physics question from high school.
Revolver-Time
Single-Sixer
I only KNOW this: When I shoot a deer with my Super Blackhawk and use 240gr factory loads the bullet goes through the deer and sometimes it might run a little before it drops. When I shoot one with a very reduced handload 255gr lead swc, 7 grs. of Unique out of my 45 Blackhawk the deer never goes another foot. Big and very slow works better for me.
onehandgunner
Single-Sixer
Revolver-Time, I hope you realize that you threw water on this fire and added fuel to the 44 Mag vs 45 Colt debate. I like 44, 240 at 850 myself. If I need BIGGER and FASTER I have 45-70, 405 at 1500.
led
Single-Sixer
If you really want to up the debate look into the sectional density of the bullets in question. Then learn how a bullets sectional density affects penetration. The short version, it's not all about energy.
Later,
Stephen
Later,
Stephen
Similar threads
