People here requested a ballistics gel test of the BB FBI load with barrels other than snub nose, to see if there was any difference. Tonight, I did tests using my four inch barrel Model 10 and my 6 1/2 inch barrel Model 27. Camera work and some audio not the best, sorry for that.

Thank you for the information!

Many thanks! Of greatest interest to me was the FPS avg from the 4" bbl: 1104fps. The original W-W LHP from the 1970s ran just over 1000fps from 4", a substantial increase for the BB loading. Expansion in gelatin from all rounds seemed consistent.

And there are those who maintain this loading represents obsolete technology... Please.

Kaaskop49
Shield #5103

I'm wondering how much advantage my 3" m60 has over the 1 7/8 j frames with this load.

It also demonstrates that .38sp can match or exceed 9mmP in their respective pressures. The std pressure version does very well also in the 4,5 and 6" bbl hovering just at or over 1000fps.

Thanks for doing the work, Duckford, it verifies the BB .38sp as one of, if not THE very best .38sp on the market.

Was the video taken down?

How does it perform in snubbies?

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk

I've chronod the +p 158gr BB from my 1&7/8" 442-2 at 950fps avg, it averaged 1016fps in a 2.5" model 242 (.38sp l frame centennial) and 1103fps from the 4" mod 64 NY1.
A safe bet would be about 75fps increase over the 1&7/8" when going to your 3" mod 60.

Thanks for the awesome tests & post! One question- were these the standard pressure loads?

Very interesting - thank you!

No, these were the big bad +p loads. Being that even though I recommend snub noses to others for carry, my smallest .38 Special are my Model 10 4 inch standards, which I consider my pocket pistols. Because of this, I never bought any non +p defense loads because I can handle the power of maximum, so long story short I can't test for any shorter barrel myself without doing some borrowing, and also don't have any regular pressure ammo at this time to test.

There are, however, many good videos others have made using this same load with shorter barrels, so I encourage everyone to watch them for comparison, and then draw inferences to your own chrono numbers or factory numbers for your barrel.


Keep in mind that gel condition and temperature will affect performance as well.

And as for the 1000 fps of most factory loads of yesteryear, I still use an old NRA Handloading book from the late 1970's of my father's for reference, and it has the big factory loads in the back provided by the manufacturers. Even by 1979, all of them listed 930 fps for their own FBI loads standard, and have read all of the good members here lamenting the ever weakening "=P" FBI loads the big companies throw out today. Seems like the process has been a long descent.

If anyone has any other suggestions for what they want to see that nobody else has filmed for tests, please suggest away, and I'll see if I can fit it in at some point, considering time, my arsenal, and budget.

^^^^What he said. And thank you for your calcs, Otreb!

Kaaskop49
Shield #5103

That's some good stuff.

While the technology continues to improve, it's surprising how little has really changed. All the fancy bullets in the world can't overcome simple physics

This illustrates the very reasons I carry the BB FBI +P load in my 340 M&P and 640. We don't need no stinking magnums, LOL.

__________________
Dave Frost

How much time and what's your arsenal?

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk

There are lots of loads that I'd be interested in, but another one to consider would be the Buffalo Bore 125 gr 38 special+P JHP.

That load looks like it's up there with the low end 125 gr 357 magnums, but can work in 38 special+P J frames.

Thanks! Did the BB Plus P load exhibit any barrel leading?

I think they advertise that the bullet has a metal gas check?

What is a M-27-9? Is that one of the new sort of repro revolvers? I think S&W may call them Classics?

I'm busy with work most weeks, and blocks take about 5 hours to melt correctly without problems. More effort than I thought before I started, so enough free time must be found to get a test ready.

As for handgun cartridges, I've got full sized handguns/revolvers in 9mm Luger, 357 Magnum obviously, 44 Magnum, and 45 ACP, with carbines in each caliber as well.

Yes, I saw a few larger lead deposits, as far as lead fouling goes, within the first inch and half of barrel, but for the most part actually quite clean, and the barrel was still fit to fire. The bullets indeed have a big copper gas check. Up close to the block, you could see the little remnants of red lubricant as well as they bright shiny gaschecks.

Yes, it is a modern built revolver and what is dubbed as "Classic", along with my 22-4 1917. Its funny to think about it, because my 27 isn't really considered a reproduction, because some classic blued iron revolvers never actually went away, i.e. M10, M27, M29, ect. Since there has never been a stop in production, so there technically can't be a reproduction for something that never ceased in the first place. A bit of semantics, I suppose. But technically, S&W's Classics are just models that haven't been discontinued in many cases, making my 27-9 just as "original" as a 27-2. Splitting hairs, I suppose.

My 1017, built in 2009, can be called a reproduction, because it is built to recreate a discontinued historic pistol, or a discontinued version of the Model 22 for historic or novelty sake.

But I digress. Both Classic N frames are very nice revolvers, all blue steel, very nice. As far as relevant to the thread, I can confirm what others in this forum have speculated, that the newer barrels are indeed "faster" as some would put it. Comparing my chrono results with others like in this forum and elsewhere on the internet, my modern 27 and 1917 definitely do have superior velocities than older revolvers. Others in this forum have posted chrono tests showing longer barreled 27's losing out to shorter barrel K frame's, while my N frame doing much better in every test compared to both my Model 10's. My 1917 has velocities very close to my 1911, with my reloads performing better than what some other reloaders would expect from it.

I love my old S&W's, but I opted for a brand new gun, with the most modern steel, tightest tolerances, and I have been quite pleased.

Somewhere on the Buffalo Bore site I read something just like what you said.

The ballistics tester said he got consistently higher velocities out of current production guns as compared to his older revolvers.

He also attributed it to more precise dimensions and tighter tolerances in the new production guns.

I could do without the internal lock on my two year old M60-15, but I like everything else about that gun.

Great post and information!