velocity difference/ported Shield vs non ported

[stonebuster]

Anyone seen actual velocity numbers on the standard model Shield 9 vs the ported version? I'm not interested in getting into the old ported vs non ported which has been done to death but looking for how much velocity is lost. I'm surprised I've not found the numbers in my search since it always comes up in discussions about ported barrels.

 

[ScaryWoody]

 

[hardluk1]

If your buying this pistol for use4 in a BUG match then buy the ported BUT If your buying for a carry pistol something to think about that should be part of your training - Watch out for exhaust from the ports getting to your eyes . When a bad guy is close you that your would handgun would be held close to the body blast from the ports can be directed at your face . Theres enough videos on you tube to help your with your choice . I have shot both types in a glock 19 and did not feel much difference or see it on my shot timer , perhaps an extended barrel with a screw on compensator would be better but that defeats the purpose of a short carry handgun .

 

[Zebra War Wagon]

I would like to know actual chronographed velocities as well. Over the years I have read that the "loss" from a ported barrel in very little 20-25 fps. However, I believe there are so many factors that go into the "velocity loss" it may not be a linear comparison. EG: low pressure rounds like a 45 ACP, 38 Spl, vs a high pressure round, 357 mag, 9mm, 40 S&w and the barrel length will also determine overall loss as well. So, in closing, it would be great to see an actual test.

 

[V0OBWxZS16]

Where did you get that graph?

I've tried looking on the internet for such a comparison, but found basically nothing.

 

[stonebuster]

I would like to know actual chronographed velocities as well. Over the years I have read that the "loss" from a ported barrel in very little 20-25 fps. However, I believe there are so many factors that go into the "velocity loss" it may not be a linear comparison. EG: low pressure rounds like a 45 ACP, 38 Spl, vs a high pressure round, 357 mag, 9mm, 40 S&w and the barrel length will also determine overall loss as well. So, in closing, it would be great to see an actual test.

Thank you for addressing the question. I was trying to determine whether to use hotter defensive ammo to compensate for any velocity loss or if it's not significant enough to worry about. I'm not interested in discussing muzzle flip(although the chart is interesting, thanks), flash from ports at night, dangerous debris flying up in my face or starting my clothes on fire. I already own a ported Shield and have read all the pros and cons about ported barrels. Even a comparison of a 4" barrel velocity test with ported vs non ported models of the same gun/ammo would be helpful. If I'm not finding it in my searches, I'm beginning to think it's not enough difference to worry about.

 

[Zebra War Wagon]

Stonebuster; personally I would just get whatever tickles your fancy and not go by solicited opinions unless there is quantifiable research that is presented to backup it up. Otherwise, all you will receive is "opinions" and we all know what they say about opinions!

 

[s&wm&p4me]

My experience with short barreled ported pistolas is the **** goes everywhere!
Run 100 rds thru it, every thing is fouling, my glasses and face are covered, no thanks!
The guy who bought it was thrilled!

 

[pushpullpete]

My experience with short barreled ported pistolas is the **** goes everywhere!
Run 100 rds thru it, every thing is fouling, my glasses and face are covered, no thanks!
The guy who bought it was thrilled!

Maybe it's your ammo. I've not had to use my Ported 45 PC Shield up close & personal (hopefully I never will)
but in putting shots downrange of various brands, including my own loads, I've not had the same experience
that you have. I have about 725 rds through it & I'm happy w my 'short barreled ported pistola'.

 

[cmj8591]

Don't over think it. If you like the ports and you want to pay the difference, get it. If you don't like them, don't. Personally, I think the ports look cool and that is enough for me. The performance difference is insignificant for what you will be doing with this gun.

 

[DonD]

Another large factor would be that to be statistically relevant, you'd have to test a large number of ported and unported to get an honest number.

You might get a fast non ported gun vs a slow ported gun due to manufacturing tolerances and vice versa.

I think other factors discussed above are more important. Don

 

[Mike SC Hunter]

Personally I don't like guns with woodpecker holes in them.

 

[CB3]

The 9mm Double Tap derringer used in this video has 3” barrels. A Shield has 3.1”. Not enough rounds were fired for a good comparison. The DT porting is extremely aggressive. There was an average loss of 45 FPS from 975 FPS to 930 FPS with 115 grn ammo.

YouTube

First, shorter barrels reduce velocity. When you reduce velocity further, you may reach the lower velocity limit for hollow point expansion. This is an area where different/ammo and bullets may make a real difference for self defense.

Lucky Gunner probably has the best testing for relatively short barrel 9mm defensive loads in an M&P Compact. Worth looking at.

https://www.luckygunner.com/labs/self-defense-ammo-ballistic-tests/#9mm

So there are things you asked for in your first post.

Now the opinion. Sorry.

I want every advantage I can get, and velocity is one of them. I can control recoil through proper grip, training and experience. I cannot overcome the negatives associated with porting. Porting offers nothing for me.

 

[stonebuster]

CB3, thanks for the link, it's what I was looking for. If I choose a proper defensive load I can get the penetration and expansion I need. It's certainly better than a 380 ported or not. I've already got a ported barrel so I'll have to adjust for it. Blinding flash at night, shrapnel flying out the ports, permanent hearing loss and lack of adequate defensive velocity are a small price to pay for having the "cool" looking barrel.

 

[Groo01]

Groo here
Much depends on the barrel length and port size.
I have an SP101 with a 4 port Magnaport system...
With 125 gr 357 Remington express SJHP [flame thrower] loads
It still gets 1200fps. Without ??? But who cares????
Schuemann barrels states that an auto will get 90%
of its speed in the first 3in of barrel..
So, the remainder of the speed is the last bit of barrel and that is not much.
If the porting is after the 3in point, the effect will be little..

 

[CB3]

Groo here
Much depends on the barrel length and port size.
I have an SP101 with a 4 port Magnaport system...
With 125 gr 357 Remington express SJHP [flame thrower] loads
It still gets 1200fps. Without ??? But who cares????
Schuemann barrels states that an auto will get 90%
of its speed in the first 3in of barrel..
So, the remainder of the speed is the last bit of barrel and that is not much.
If the porting is after the 3in point, the effect will be little..

The porting on a 3.1” Shield barrel starts at about 2”, thus its effect on the semi-auto Shield barrel can be significant. Most modern hollow points have a low threshold for expansion of around 950 FPS. Losing 25-35 FPS will affect one’s choice of bullet and ammo manufacturers for self defense purposes.

 

[gunny4053]

The porting on a 3.1” Shield barrel starts at about 2”, thus its effect on the semi-auto Shield barrel can be significant. Most modern hollow points have a low threshold for expansion of around 950 FPS. Losing 25-35 FPS will affect one’s choice of bullet and ammo manufacturers for self defense purposes.

This is why ammunition like the ARX and the offering from Black Hills was developed, IMO. These rely on fluid dynamics to create a large wound channel rather than relying on bullet expansion. Imagine being hit with a Cuisinart at close range, the bullets rotation throws flesh and muscle out and away from the bullet. With lowered velocity and shorter barrels, whether ported or not, the difference should be minimal.

 

[CB3]

This is why ammunition like the ARX and the offering from Black Hills was developed, IMO. These rely on fluid dynamics to create a large wound channel rather than relying on bullet expansion. Imagine being hit with a Cuisinart at close range, the bullets rotation throws flesh and muscle out and away from the bullet. With lowered velocity and shorter barrels, whether ported or not, the difference should be minimal.

These lightweight polymer bullets are relatively fragile. To perform as designed the nose needs to be indamaged. Unfortunately, they deform fairly easily when they encounter barriers, including bone and worn objects. As soon as they deform, they lose their “fluid dynamics” properties and perform like deformed lightweight fmj and deflect off course. Even in gel their performance is erratic.

Not everything in the human body is equivalent to the consistent dynamics at work in a gel block. Such testing media is more for comparisons and less for actual predictions of bullet performance going through clothing, bone, muscle, lungs or organs.

ARX temporary wound channels look good for about 8” in perfect gel, but permanent wound channels and straight and deep penetration of expanded bullets are superior. Fifty to 70 caliber holes are better than 35 caliber holes. Bullets that lose mass uncontrollably are not predictably reliable.

FWIW, YouTube test videos do not show any conclusive advantage to these bullets.

 

[DonD]

Personally I don't like guns with woodpecker holes in them.

That's funny but competition shooters (meaning pros) frequently have ported guns.

More necessary for the pros where fractions of seconds really matter than for CCW. For CCW, night vision effects are worth considering in my opinion but I don't claim to be an expert on that. Don

 

[uncleted327]

I have owned more than a few ported guns, most of the myths about them are just that. I have noticed no difference in night vision disruption between ported and non-ported guns. I have also never had a front sight melt or my shirt or eyebrows catch fire because of the ports. They are louder than a standard barreled gun, however. As far as velocity differences, I would wager you will find more variance from round to round than what you will lose from the porting...