.500 S&W COL to cylinder length ratio.

richbuff · Jul 29, 2017

.500 S&W COL to cylinder length ratio: A quick glance shows that the COL could be longer, and/or the cylinder (and the frame) length could be shorter, maybe?
If the cartridge was designed first, and the gun was then designed around the cartridge, why is the cylinder significantly longer than the COL?
The empty space between the tip of the bullet and the end of the cylinder appears to be begging be put to good use by seating bullets out longer.
The significantly longer than COL cylinder is/was designed to:
1. Look better than a shorter, stubbier cylinder?
2. Add weight that helps dampen recoil?
3. Add safety by lengthening the free travel of the bullet, before it engages the rifling?
4. Provide for plenty of slack space if the bullets pull in the cylinder due to recoil force?
5.Or?

I searched google and I searched this forum, but no results.

DonD · Jul 30, 2017

The cylinder was designed, I believe to allow future calibers such as the .460 Mag.

There are people who do use the entire cylinder length to seat 500 Mag slugs out and maximize powder capacity. To the best of my knowledge, only John Ross is known for doing this and he has loads that run upwards of 3300ft lbs of energy.

Most reloading data never goes beyond a COAL shown by the factory 440gr slugs. I asked one of Hodgdon's reloading gurus why not develop loads that used the entire cylinder length. Answer was why? It can take down anything which walks with ease a bit more velocity wouldn't matter.

I personally am interested in recognized load data that seats the slugs out, just for the heck of it. There's plenty of recoil at the max I've used which is just below Hodgdon's max and runs around 2800 ft lbs. Don

richbuff · Jul 30, 2017

Thank you, Don, for your insight.

Yes, the .460 has lighter bullets, less recoil, and less case capacity per unit case length than the .500, so a longer cylinder to allow for a longer COAL makes sense for the .460.

Why maximize powder capacity in the .500, when plenty of take-down power is already there, and when plenty of recoil is already there, in the non-maximum powder capacity loads? Because significant unused cylinder length is there, which can provide for more velocity to provide for flatter trajectory. Because loads that use the entire cylinder length do not visually appear to be skimpy. Because not doing so appears to be an unnecessary waste of precious powder capacity.

BLUEDOT37 · Jul 30, 2017

The SAAMI max COAL" for the 500 Mag is 2.250" (the 460 Mag is 2.275"). My 500's cylinder is 2.300" long. The 500 has some very heavy bullets available for it, over 500grs, & that weight translates into a long bullet nose that utilizes that empty chamber space.

.

DonD · Jul 30, 2017

richbuff said:
Why maximize powder capacity in the .500, when plenty of take-down power is already there, and when plenty of recoil is already there, in the non-maximum powder capacity loads? Because significant unused cylinder length is there, which can provide for more velocity to provide for flatter trajectory. Because loads that use the entire cylinder length do not visually appear to be skimpy. Because not doing so appears to be an unnecessary waste of precious powder capacity.

I hear you and understand, that's why I contacted Hodgdon. Full loads with 400gr+ loads are brisk but just for grins, I'd like to try a few with more poke.

I suspect that when I posted the following sometime back that you were not using this forum. I lined up 6 one gallon milk jugs filled with water and shot them with a 385gr hard cast at about 1800fps.

The jugs simply detonated. I got soaked, I estimate the resulting geyser was about 20-25' high and I stepped off the soaked sand either side of the jugs and it was close to 30' either side of the row of jugs. Was fun. Don

S.B. · Jul 30, 2017

DonD said:
The cylinder was designed, I believe to allow future calibers such as the .460 Mag.

There are people who do use the entire cylinder length to seat 500 Mag slugs out and maximize powder capacity. To the best of my knowledge, only John Ross is known for doing this and he has loads that run upwards of 3300ft lbs of energy.

Most reloading data never goes beyond a COAL shown by the factory 440gr slugs. I asked one of Hodgdon's reloading gurus why not develop loads that used the entire cylinder length. Answer was why? It can take down anything which walks with ease a bit more velocity wouldn't matter.

I personally am interested in recognized load data that seats the slugs out, just for the heck of it. There's plenty of recoil at the max I've used which is just below Hodgdon's max and runs around 2800 ft lbs. Don

Correction, the cylinder was designed to accommodate the .223. Read John Ross's works.
Steve

DonD · Jul 30, 2017

S.B. said:
Correction, the cylinder was designed to accommodate the .223. Read John Ross's works.
Steve

I said future calibers and that includes .223, right? I was aware of that. Mentioning the .460 doesn't exclude the .223. Don

richbuff · Jul 31, 2017

Thank you, everyone, for your replies.

Almost half an inch of wasted frame length is too much for me to go unanswered.

Boring out the teeny-weensy .223 holes in this awesome, massive cylinder was a very very nice first step.
Very long jacketed bullets and a cannelure tool will be what, for me, completes the process of converting what was going to be a .233 cylinder into a .500 cylinder.

.500 S&W COL to cylinder length ratio.

richbuff

Member

DonD

Member

richbuff

Member

BLUEDOT37

Member

DonD

Member

S.B.

Member

DonD

Member

richbuff

Member

Similar threads

Latest posts