Revolver Velocity versus Barrel Length

How much does barrel length impact bullet velocity in .38 Spl and .357 Mag revolvers? We tested 8 different loads in 11 different guns to find out.
The full results of our velocity testing are available on our blog: www.luckygunner...
Check out www.ballisticsb... for more lots more velocity testing (that we didn't do).
Support our channel, buy ammo from Lucky Gunner!

[@docjohnson3980]

Couldn't decide either to get the 2inch or the 4inch barrel so I just ended up smoking crack.

[@sullivan5639]

Same. Except I rubbed one out

[@onlyonecannoli3952]

@@sullivan5639 Same. Except I rubbed two out and did a speedball as well.

[@chickenray182]

And now you want a Hi-Point?

[@danielaramburo7648]

I prefer meth. Joke

[@filadogs52]

4 inch Barrel is required to get Magnum Power out of the .357 round

[@peterrobins3708]

6 years old & still a great & informative, entertaining video. And 6 years later you're still keeping the great high standard up. Sadly can only like it once 🙂

[@saygoodnight2010]

So glad I bought my SP101 with a 3 inch barrel. Perfect size for carry without a large loss in power. The 2 inch was a sexy one tho.

[@LA_Commander]

Hickock45 has said that 3" is his favorite length. Like you said it's small enough to conceal yet long enough to get some decent velocity.

[@Ok-551]

Great review. Could you graph when my gun buying addiction will taper off?

[@jeremys8360]

O K as guns go up, money goes down, therefore it is an inversely proportionate function. When money hits 0, guns are infinity

[@sw640]

shoot a home invader in the chest. Home invader: Phew, thank God that was only a 2.5 inch barrel

[@johnnypalmer8497]

🤣

[@blakedavis2447]

The home invaders a bear what’re ya gonna do with your snubby now !

[@sw640]

Blake Davis my bedside defense is a keltec ksg with 15 one ounce 12 gauge slugs

[@blakedavis2447]

@@sw640 aww it appears I’ve been foiled but oh no we were talking about ze pistols hahaha looks like I win this round *twirls mustache and runs into the night*

[@hardball107]

Got nothing to do with home invaders, if your home you want to bring something more substantial to the dance.

[@TheRantinghick]

Liking my choice of a 4in barrel in .357.

[@Rob_Nasty]

The Ranting Hick SW 627 is my boo

[@teddylowe5118]

4 Inch SP101 reporting in!

[@baker90338]

4 inch .327 revolver for me. Relatively compact, and I can use all revolver .32 cartridges made

[@likeclockwork6473]

Those 357 mag gains going from the 4in barrels to the lever action are unbelievable.

[@davidgiles9751]

Happy to see the results for the GP100 4.2" were pretty good.

[@tekevolution9440]

David Giles Good choice! I think my 4.2" SP101 should have the same result

[@jaycamacho8179]

TekEvolution yeah... lol

[@brandanb9735]

I schlep around a 3 inch 686 as a EDC (and home defense gun) and as such I found the results between the 3 inch 66 and the 4 inch 686/GP100 quite interesting. On average, and as a whole the gains in velocity look to be marginal at best (particularly with the .357 loads). These results seem to mirror BBTI's in this respect. If anything yalls work further validates my decision to go with the 3 inch rather than the standard 4. Keep up the good work! I look forward to the completed product.

[@captainsaveahoe5730]

couldn't decide on a 2 inch or a 4 inch ruger sp101 so I bought the 3 inch for ccw

[@hardball107]

Good choice, I also own the SP101 3" and have found in 357 a huge jump in velocity between the 2" and 3" barrels. I also have one in 9mm with the 2" barrel, I tested against a friends 2" 357 and the 9 beat the 357 out of the 2" barrel by at least 50-60 fps and sometimes more depending on ammo but it was no contest against that 3" 357 with it picking up over 200 fps or sometimes more with most ammo and you'll never notice that extra inch of barrel for EDC unless you pocket carry.

[@Gieszkanne]

@@hardball107 Yes the .357 for 2 inch is totally inefficient. There should be much more snubbys in 9x19. They could be reloaded faster with moon clips. Also they could be build shorter. Korth build a snubby frame/clinder just for 9mm "sky marshal" But its ugly and expansive.

[@jpb1231000]

I went with the 3in GP100!!!

[@hvrtguys]

I don't mean to be preachy but you have overlooked the most important concept which is energy delivered: E= M Vsgrd If you compare a 2 inch barrel against a 6 inch barrel and you find that the velocity has gone from 1000 ft per second to 1288 ft per second then the velocity squared goes from 1,000,000 to 1,658,944 This means that the projectile energy from the 6 inch barrel is over 60% greater than the 2 inch barrel.

[@borkwoof696]

...nobody ever denied that.

[@mkshffr4936]

Energy is essentially meaningless in handguns.

[@TheVideoMaker15]

Thank you Chris and Lucky Gunner for proving good information to the consumer. We appreciate these videos!

[@egziabherfreeman1374]

2" vs 4" penetration test. Your suspicions are now confirmed, size does matter.

[@ManBearPig617x]

Damn it, my ex was right :(

[@jimmyj5035]

Luckily for Me I inherited my father's 8 and 3/8ths inch Magnum LOL

[@jaywarrenclark6263]

Jimmy J: But he doesn’t mention these guns or that the original magnums were designed with long barrels to exploit slow burning powders! This is I think a weakness in their tutorial. JWC

[@jimmyj5035]

@@jaywarrenclark6263 No my friend... My comment was just a brilliant "Dick Joke" because the the old school 44 magnums were available with 8 and 3 eighth inch long barrels... LOL I should do Stand Up Comedy!

[@jaywarrenclark6263]

Jimmy J: Well, things being what they are in today’s comedy you’ll have a lot of competition up on that stage.

[@Predalien195]

I often reference ballisticsbytheinch when having these topics of discussion with people. While yes, "conventional wisdom" tells us that a longer barrel does equal higher velocity, some people just arent aware at how little it is sometimes or they dont consider that certain rounds were or are optimized for certain barrel lengths and they just cap out at a certain point. BBTI shows this quite well when you look at .32 ACP, .380 ACP, .45 ACP, and .38 Special. Those are 4 rounds(there's others) that are optimized around a certain barrel length as a whole and see very marginal gains at best for going longer. .38 Special was originally designed around use of a 3 to 4 inch barrel. And in those barrel lengths, you tend to see peak performance. I've seen some older .38 Special revolvers meant for target work with 6 inch barrels, and in terms of terminal effect on target, those extra 2 inches typically dont equate to much. Most of your modern .38 Special loads are watered down a tad and optimized for snub nose revolvers as that's what's common in .38 revolvers today. Porting definitely hurts performance in terms of velocity and energy, but it's meant to keep the shooting surface flat so if you have to shoot again the gun(in theory) doesnt rise up as bad allowing for a more accurate follow up. But yes, cylinder gap, rifling twist, all that too can effect these things. However, a vast majority of it comes down to choice of ammo and caliber. Take .45 ACP for example.. it was designed around a 5 inch barrel. It doesnt really get much better going up in length. Caps out around a 10-12 inch mark. It also doesnt get much worse going down in barrel length. Even a 3.2 inch barrel is still fairly adequate in terms of performance if not felt recoil. This is why it's important to look at the box for advertised velocity and energy. Some(not all) manufacturers put the test barrel length on the box for the numbers they put down. Buffalo Bore is good about not only telling you test guns they fired it in, but telling you the energy chart and bullet drop off charts on their site for their ammo. Underwood Ammo typically posts the test guns or test barrel length as well, but not for every caliber as some calibers are built around certain platforms that have pretty specific barrel lengths. I've done quite a bit of my own testing, and I have revolvers that there's a noticeable enough difference in a 3 1/6 inch barrel to a 4.2 or 6 inch barrel especially. I'm a big 10mm guy, and just like 10mm ammo, there's lots of watered down .357 Magnum stuff out there. Take PMC for instance... that stuff is damn near .38 Special level of potency and it's a joke. I'd recommend that if you want to see what various loads do in gel watch TheChoppingBlock. Andrew does great work over there, rarely does he deviate his "test gun" so a fair bit of the gel tests are all done with the same gun/barrel length consistently. Now, this may not yield the same results for you as your barrel could be longer, short, or suffer the issues of porting and other things. But again, it does give a good indication of what to anticipate or expect. In most modern revolvers I find choice of ammo is what effects the variation in performance the most. Then I start to factor in other sources, starting with the obvious "Is it ported or have a muzzle break", then start to look at rifling twist followed by cylinder gap. In a revolver especially going down that list is a pretty surefire way determine where the lack of performance is being generated from once you've found ammo that consistently across the board is a proven performer. Granted, that's just my opinion on the matter based of research, testing, and observation.

[@douglasmcneil8413]

I did a similar test of my own, using Federal 158 gr jsp .357's. Getting 1221fps from my Rossi 4", 1326fps from my Taurus 6" , and 1712fps from my Marlin Carbine. About a 100fps increase from the 4" to the 6" revolvers. And, an increase of nearly 400fps from the 6" to the carbine. As you say, each gun is going to be a little bit different. I just wanted to get some baseline data for my own load development for my own firearms. Thanks for the video. And, yes I am a nerd.

[@Vladpryde]

I'm willing to bet that the 125gr. Underwood .357 Magnum loads I shot out of my 4.2" GP100 were pushing close to 1,500 FPS, or thereabouts. That's a damned hot load. Wouldn't mind seeing a wider variety of hot 125gr. Magnum loads here. Just my opinion, mind you.

[@ErasmusVoid]

Thanks for your tests! I switched to a 9mm shield from a 357 lcr several years ago after my own testing. I found that the recoil was not worth the little increase in velocity. I appreciate the testing because I found shooting hot loads out of a light revolver over a chronograph to be very nerve wracking. Those new Dopplers look pretty appealing!

[@edermitt]

You forgot to mention that the Shield is also much thinner, has a higher capacity, a longer barrel, is much easier to reload and costs a couple hundred less than the LCR.

[@fortnite.burger]

It's a lot more than a little increase in velocity. 9 mm 240-320 ft pounds. 357 magnum 560-645 foot pounds.

[@bloopy6166]

Shooting hot loads Hehe

[@stevenpuckett5990]

That why I switched to the 10mm.

[@arapahoetactical7749]

When testing across different makes and models of revolvers you also have to take differences in cylinder gap into account. The larger the gap between the front of the cylinder and the back of the forcing cone, the more gas pressure will bleed off and the lower your velocity. About a year ago I ran similar tests across my revolvers and found greater velocities from my Ruger Security Six than with my S&W 686 even though the S&W had a slightly longer barrel. I found that the cylinder gap on the 686 was nearly doubled that of the gap on the Ruger. Carbines and semi-autos like the Coonan .357 will have much greater velocities because there is no cylinder gap at all, plus what you get from the longer barrel.

[@Rocketsong]

Should have used a Dan Wesson pistol pack. That way you could change the barrel length, and control the cylinder gap, and eliminate any variation other than the barrel length.

[@apolloaero]

I wonder how the ruger security-six would do

[@Girder3]

It's nice to see this database expand even more. When you guys first came out with it, I found it really helpful in picking my carry loads. That said, one thing that's always bugged me about ballistic gel test comparisons is that there's never one for standard ball ammo to compare with. I always felt that it would be good to know as a sort of baseline to compare with considering how common FMJ ammo is in actual use.

[@michaelprosser3466]

Standard ball ammo in gelatin is non productive due to no transmitting of energy to the gelatin. Always over penetration and the projectile goes clean through

[@dukebeach1]

Another good video Chris. So many variables make up an effective self-defensive round/gun combo, but it is nice to have the information you need to make the decision for oneself.

[@captainobvious1721]

Excellent video. Can't wait for the revolver cartridge results to be posted!

[@ithedon911]

It would be a much more useful test if you tested one weapon in various barrel lengths. The fact that you have different manufacturers, along with various barrel lengths, rifling and crowning, will add to different readings, thus skewing the results. This test should be called, 357 magnum velocities out of various revolvers.

[@LawlessNate]

When using full power, real-deal .357 magnum loads (now only available either by manufacturing them yourself or buying them from boutique ammo companies like Underwood and Buffalo Bore), barrel length absolutely matters.

[@kevinbietry7527]

I’d say 4” barrels are the most flexible can be a great gun for the woods or as a pdw in your carry rotation.

[@zedirich7]

thank you, thank you so much for this. it can be very difficult to find good information on revolvers. much seems​ to be grounded in myth.

[@97doggie]

yes, s&w this and s&w that then how about a s&w well I guess we could put in a ruger but do not forget the s&w when do you talk about the dozens of other guns

[@hkadera]

Why would anyone shoot a caliber that relies heavily on velocity out of a short barrel? Short barrel, go wide and heavy like a .45 ACP or .44 Spcl.over 200gr

[@eltigre8978]

Nice test! I love this kind of thing. Makes we want a longer barrel. Man a 3" barrel is perfect.

[@justinv3080]

For some reason I am very interested in the ballistics tests even though I don't own any revolvers

[@philp411]

That's easy to fix 👍

[@Roboticdoughbull3k]

@@philp411 lol damn right

[@biffdinkley3870]

Thanks for this great series, Chris. I'll be looking forward to the final results. In my own limited testing, well in the past, 125g .38 +P loads from a snub barrel seemed to sit right on the edge of the velocity needed for expansion, and they tend to be inconsistent. I never found a 158 that expanded reliably.

[@biffdinkley3870]

I expect the BB would have enough velocity to expand from a snub barrel, but I have just never fired it at gel. I do carry this ammunition in my snubs now. Thanks for sharing your thoughts.

[@frankgonzalez3822]

A lot of this has to do with barrel construction and if you are using the watered down 357 magnum or using .357 magnum that is truly powered as meant to be. I would like to have seen what you would have gotten from the Ruger 4.2 versus the Ruger 6 inch. That would have told me a lot more than the data displayed.

[@fjdubya5726]

Indeed, I was thinking about rifling too. Some guns turn the energy into bullet-spin instead of forward velocity. This improves accuracy and even penetration at times, depending somewhat on the projectile used. Still, it's fun to watch nerds try to work stuff out on paper wile combing their millennial beards and not doing any work. Admittedly they do come close at times using lines-of-best-fit and statistical regressions. But they somehow lack some cementing dimension of explanationwhich can only be introduced by real world experimentation, and rationalize their way through the inconsistencies with clever rhetoric fueled by liberal arts degrees.

[@mikecampbell5856]

I went to BBTI and compared my Henry lever action to my S&W 637 velocities using .38 special and the differences were huge. Not as much of a drop with my Vaquero with the 5.5 inch barrel surprisingly enough. Great info.

[@claiborneeastjr4129]

Interesting data. Barrel length is a big factor in determining MV, but there are other factors at play. BC gap, if excessive, can bleed off a lot of pressure and MV will drop. Also groove and bore dimensions play a role. Besides the advantage of a much longer barrel, the Marlin also lacks a BC gap, so firing from a closed breech is a big advantage.

[@kingduckford]

Keep in mind barrel wear is a major issue, as well as how well tuned the gun is. Keep in mind, that old S&W M28 of yours is not only older, most of the old M27's and M28's were bought by either police or civilians for pure 357 Magnum use, unlike some magnums like the K frame S&W. Those old Highway Patrolmans like yours have probably tends of thousands of jacketed magnum loads through it, which might not only change the gap by a thousandths or two of an inch, but more importantly, cause just enough barrel wear to decrease velocities for jacketed bullets especially. I've seen a long trend on other tests from other people on the internet, and it seems like a lot of classic 27's and 28's all had lower velocities than slightly shorter barrel 38 Special's, in part you could guess 38's will shoot better out of a 38 chamber, but also the fact that old magnum revolvers have old magnum jacket bullet wear. I think Speer did a study on the issue, something to the effect that it will become noticable after 6,000 rounds, and many an N frame 357 Magnum has had 10 times or more put through them. Theoretically certain soft bullet loads could restore pressure and velocity by obturation, but the wear is wear.

[@Gieszkanne]

Maybe its also better to not clean the barrel from debris because it may protect it from wear?

[@kingduckford]

@@Gieszkanne NO. The main effect of wear is from heat/pressure in the first place, and a dirty gun will not protect against that. Even a dirty gun has thin enough deposits that the carbon will not protect the barrel from any wear. In fact, a dirty gun can have worse wear, especially when you use the word "debris", because dirt is nothing more than microscopic rocks, most often harder than bullet metals like copper and lead alloys! Dirt induces wear on metal parts for a reason. Clean is always better in that aspect. Where cleaning the barrel CAN induce wear is by poor or very aggressive cleaning methods. Jamming rods against barrel crowns isn't doing it any favors, so you should use a muzzle guide when possible if you have to clean muzzle to chamber. Hard scrubbing with stainless steel bristles isn't a purely benign process, especially when you clean a gun hundreds of times. Worst of all, sometimes it is appropriate to use things like bore pastes that have abrasives in them, and bench shooters will use these to get rid of hard deposits, as well as some lead bullet shooters with extreme leading issues. However, these pastes are abrasive enough to wear the steel of the barrel, and use of such products can highly accelerate barrel wear to a high degree if not used properly or sparingly. Keep in mind fouling from shooting can attract moisture, so even if many of us forget to scrub every barrel of every gun every time we shoot, there is merit in keeping your barrel clean and lightly oiled to prevent even minor rust in the bore. Too much aggressive cleaning may not be the best, but leaving barrels dirty is a bad idea. When it comes to rifles and magnum pistols, there isn't much you can do to reduce wear. High pressure and slow burning powders means throat and barrel erosion are part of the game. High velocity has its own effects. The only way to get a barrel to keep velocity constant for 100,000 rounds is to shoot ultra light handloads.... and why did you buy that rifle or magnum in the first place?

[@Gieszkanne]

@@kingduckford Heat and pressure allone dont take material out of the barrel. Its the friction of the bullet. So you can whipe out the barrel to clean it from burned powder but its maybe better to not take a brush and leave the tombac debris in it because it prohibit direct friction.

[@kingduckford]

@@Gieszkanne You are wrong. Look up "throat erosion". High pressure and heat cause fire cracking of the steel at a microscopic level, and this is where most barrel wear occurs. This is why most wear in rifle barrels is in the throat and early part of the bore. In magnum revolvers that lose velocity, this occurs in the throats and forcing cone primarily, which tends to lead to the greatest loss of velocity. Also research top strap cutting, which occurs in some magnum revolvers. The high pressure, high heat gasses will actually "cut" part of the top strap to a certain extent, and eventually becomes self limiting as the gasses eventually cut to their limit. Bullet friction in the barrel is far less important to wear than the effects of fire cracking and erosion of the throats and forcing cone. 357 Maximum is a great example. It failed as a cartridge, in some part because it caused excessive top strap cutting in revolvers, even if the damage was superficial and didn't make the gun unsafe, it was unsightly and hurt the cartridge's public perception. Lead alloy bullets DO cut down on barrel erosion because they are much softer than copper, so after many thousands of rounds this plays a roll. However, the other advantages of lead bullets in barrel wear is that lead loads get the same performance as jacketed with lighter powder charges and slightly lower pressures, which also reduce throat erosion. Also, lead alloy bullets can be oversized when swaged or cast, and so one can attempt to restore some lost velocity by trying to restore obturation.

[@Gieszkanne]

@@kingduckford Pressure and friction are totally conditional here. More friction more pressure more pressure more friction. So I dont understand how you think you are able to distinguish from pressure damage to friction damage. I think its impossible and goes hand in hand. For me its logical then, if you have a copper layer in your barrel that its more protected against friction than a total clean barrel.

[@dylanstraub9612]

Very geeky. I'm impressed.

[@rickoshea8138]

They don't call it a "flash gap" for nothing. You should have used feeler gauges to measure the flash gap on each revolver. The velocity "jump" seen with the rifle is mainly due to the lack of a flash gap. The only valid way to measure the effect of barrel length on velocity is to start long, and cut the barrel down, along with incremental testing. That way the other variables are eliminated; as was done here: www.ballisticsbytheinch.com/38special.html www.ballisticsbytheinch.com/357mag.html Effect of larger or smaller revolver cylinder to barrel flash gap: www.ballisticsbytheinch.com/gaptests.html

[@charlesphillips5906]

Check "Why Ballisticians Get Grey" in Speer Reloading Manual #9 for an interesting article on this subject.

[@LuckyGunner]

+Charles Phillips I just found the article. Looks like they demonstrated more or less the same phenomenon in 1974. There is nothing new under the sun.

[@charlesphillips5906]

Lucky Gunner Ammo , Exactly, they showed the same results, they also explained some of the variables you can find in Guns that are "just alike".

[@Fede1939]

Most important result: .357 is always faster than 38 special. This means that even in a snubby you can have better ballistic performances with .357; that's all. Probably .38 is just a quicker shooter due to its mild recoil and a better options for indoor self protection.

[@edi9892]

I got interested in that topic, when I took a closer look at tanks. Especially the 75mm had all sorts of barrel lengths, ranging from 75L25 to 75L100 (L55 would be 55x75mm). The thing is: it's unpredictable as long as you don't know the projectile and propellant loading. I guess that transfers quite well to handguns. Having a cartridge that was originally for a carbine or revolver, will be very different from a semi-auto cartridge.

[@brentpurser1621]

I would like to see this done with Smith&Wesson versus Ruger with the same barrel lengths.

[@50043211]

Due to my profession my first thought was "Why are there fps (frames per second) in a velocity test for guns and why are they so high?" :)

[@erebys21]

The guns have good graphics and video cards

[@garyK.45ACP]

Measure the Barrel/Cylinder gap on the Model 28.

[@jalan8171]

After so many rounds of full power ammo, there's more issues to overall wear than the cylinder/barrel gap. There's loosening of lockup, erosion to the forcing cone, to the rifling and eventually to the muzzle that can decrease efficiency plus accuracy. For the integrity of your old Model 28, examine it in detail. The Highway Patrolman is a classic gun. Treat it well and it'll do its part for many years to come.

[@thatcrazywolf]

Powder burn rate has a lot more to do with the barrel length as well. If you have a six inch 686 in .357 magnum you want to use a magnum primer with a slow burning powder whereas short barreled handguns will do better with faster burning powders.

[@tom_olofsson]

Terrific intel. This is really helpful. Ballistics by the Inch is a great resource too, thanks.

[@Prepare2Survive]

I wish you would also list noise dB levels for all ammo tests because most people wont be wearing ear plugs during a self defense situation and noise levels can be an important factor. Especially if a gun is used indoors.

[@nymeriagloves3957]

adrenaline pretty much does the same thing as earplugs. anyone who deer hunts when they were young knows this.

[@ksztyrix]

Jake A But it still hurt your ears

[@nymeriagloves3957]

ya but if everyone willingly hunts with high power rifles with no hearing protection, i dont know why someone would worry about +/- a few db when their life is in danger. thats kinda like worrying if your milk is expired while your house is on fire.

[@Prepare2Survive]

Not everyone hunts without hearing protection. That's something people used to do, but not anymore especially with electronic hearing protection that amplifies your hearing while still protecting it. We aren't worrying about hearing damage in the exact moment when our lives are in danger. We worry about it before and make choices ahead of time.

[@cielopachirisu929]

A .357 Magnum without hearing protection, indoors? I hope you didn't need those ears for anything.

[@krashdude1]

Well thank you for all of the work. But after watching literally hundreds of 357 magnum velocity tests, by just plain gun enthusiasts, your data is very different than anyone else. Especially the 6 inch.barrel length. Off by about 150 fps on average.

[@davidchen5061]

Great video! I'm excited to see how your upcoming results compare to the paradigm of .38+p matching the performance of .357 magnum when fired from a 2" barrel.

[@876mpr]

This is really hard to quantify since every revolver is a thing unto itself. Different barrel/cylinder gaps, chamber and throat dimensions, freebore, forcing cone, barrel smoothness, rifling, etc.

[@shanerproductions]

3" barrel seems to be the way to go for .357 mag looking at this data.

[@Gieszkanne]

Not realy it has almost the same fps like 9mm. If you want the 357 advantage you need at least 4 inch.

[@linokleinmeuleman3348]

Test a 9mm 3 inch revolver vs 357 3 inch barrel you be supprised .

[@Bigboss-tf6fr]

@@linokleinmeuleman3348 can you please elaborate

[@1789000]

@@Bigboss-tf6fr go watch paul harrell's video on 9mm vs. .357 magnum

[@kyronkooken9597]

lino klein meuleman i

[@GElvis001]

If the results should be taken with a grain of salt then there is no point in doing the tests in the first place.

[@fjdubya5726]

I didn't see him do any tests.

[@davidsandford7793]

Why didn't you just use the same model weapon with both a 2" and a 4" barrel? That would have eliminated many of the variables and made the test more scientifically accurate. side note: The Ruger GP100 comes in both barrel lengths and also has a steel frame to make the .357 test more comfortable. So it would have met all your criteria.

[@LuckyGunner]

+David Sandford There is no 2-inch GP100.

[@davidsandford7793]

Sorry, my mistake. What I was thinking was 2" was in fact 3". Plus the 4" is actually 4.2". I should look things up before commenting, so I don't show myself to be a complete idiot (instead of just partially being one). However the first part of my comment stands. I think you would get better and more scientifically accurate results if you could use the same weapon with different barrel lengths. (It would also give you a good excuse to get more handguns - though maybe that's just me).

[@jmichaelcarbonniere9549]

Not to mention that even 2 different revolvers of the same make with different barrels might still have differences caused by other things. The depth of rifling, interior diameter of the barrel, cylinder gap, chamber tightness... there are a lot of things that effect velocity.

[@VailJohnson]

@@exothermal.sprocket this is FAR more accurate for comparison sake, allowing for the lack of a cylinder gap, cheers.

[@drebendy]

@@LuckyGunner there is now

[@TheGunrunn3r]

The most important factor governing velocity is reading the brand on the box.. Especially in 357 Mag, your velocities will vary roughly between 1200fps and 1700fps depending on who made the ammo. That's a great variance if you consider for example the difference in energy between a 110gr Remington SJHP @ 1295fps (410 ft-lbf), Underwood 125gr Golden Saber HP @ 1600fps (711 ft-lbf) and HPR 158gr XTP @ 1560fps (865 ft-lbf). It could be argued that the Remington round is a paper-shooting round, but why then a HP? It's barely over the upper range in pressure for .38 Special, if at all. My opinion is that the ammo you use will be the biggest factor, and while most folks know their guns, not as many know their ammo. Fortunately, most producers keep their loads at civilized ranges, but there are the ones that gyp you on the low end, and then there are the ones that I would not advise folks to shoot in their over-chambered mouse-guns. If you have one of the light-frame .357's steer clear of the hot loads and go see a shrink for purchasing the damned thing in the first place. You should have just bought one chambered in .38 Special.

[@jamescalhoun4588]

Sp101 3 and 4 inch just enter the chat !

[@DennyAJD]

It caused by the gap between cylinder and the barrel. the longer the barrel, the more leak of the gas happens while the projectile itself still in the barrel moving forward but friction happens. Just like running a water via a flutted pipe, when you plug the pipe with something, the water finds another way out. Still have some pressure though, but very minimal. it it's a different situation on Nagant revolver i guess. it (could be) do better with longer barrel since it uses gas sealed chamber and ammo.

[@jasonvoorhees2701]

I have a 3 inch 686 plus .. it has no problem chunking .357 mags

[@Yoko.Kurama]

Do you remember any noticeable difference in your accuracy when going through them? Like how much more accurate were you when going up in barrel length?

[@mozzberg590]

I geeked out over this video

[@jamesbyers7169]

Enjoyed the data and the blog too!

[@ravissary79]

I don't use BBTI anymore. I've seen too many cases online where people do their own testing and the BBTI numbers are just plain lower for the magnums. Maybe their sample guns were shot out, maybe there's something wrong with their methodology. I have no idea, but there's just too much data pit there that contradicts their findings. This is, of course, a shame because they clearly put a lot of work into it. I'm not resistant to the idea of what they're doing at all, maybe they just need more data points or different guns.

[@The_Warrior526]

Longer barrels at least help with potential accuracy with the longer sight radii. My only two revolvers have 6" barrels. lol.

[@publicdefender77]

Great video! So many variables.

[@greggwonder2199]

Great video, at least for me as i have revolvers in 2,4,6" barrels, all 357 mags. Love the 4" the most. BBI great source of info. Thks again

[@Gieszkanne]

Did you ever chrongraphed with them?

[@axlsane427]

You should have used different barrel length but of the same make and model of revolver (otherwise other factors can influence the results, think about the cylinder gap or exact bore diameter).

[@Gieszkanne]

Yes and new ones. A test between unshot revolver. For example 686 has 2,5; 3; 4; 5; 6 inch versions. Of course this would be very expensive.

[@davidsomerset8411]

At first this seemed fascinating but then I realized you didnt shoot anything good. Let's see the results with Underwood and Buffalo Bore and Cor Bon then we'll have a better picture of the real difference in barrel length velocities. Pressures developed by weak anemic ammo wont change velocities much but high end ammo will be quite different I believe.

[@dawg141]

Excellent video!

[@Demonskunk]

What you should have done is found one revolver that comes in a variety of lengths, ported and unported, and tested that single model out, so that you don't get any variance due to gun design, just barrel length and porting. I'm honestly kind of disappointed that you decided not to do this.

[@fjdubya5726]

His "education" has him convinced that he has to fight his battles on paper.

[@chgofirefighter]

I'm starting to admire these guys for doing so much a good work for the public and public safety personnel. Very impressive, love my revolvers... #kimberk6s #rugersp101#rugerlcr

[@Quantum_Superposition.]

This is nice video with a lot of information. Thank you very much.

[@marksmanshipmatters3482]

Suggest that you check the cylinder gap on those 3 revolvers I suspect you will find a measurably wider gap on the Longer barreled gun accounting for the minimal velocity increase You can expect to loose about 15 FPS for each 1 thousands gap. A 9 vs 1 thousandth would be a 120 FPS difference with typical magnum loads.

[@jamesritch5245]

What a great video! Very easy to understand and very interesting to see the different velocities in the barrel sizes

[@troy9477]

I was a little surprised at almost 1200 fps for the 158 gr +p LHP from the carbine. Most 38 ammo uses fairly fast powders, so i was expecting less gain. Handloaders can optimize their powder selection for the long barrel. I plan to experiment with .38-44 level handloads when i start loading (i have one, plus they are obviously safe in magnum guns). I expect they will do quite well in a carbine. Gas checks or jacketed bullets will be indicated

[@doug595959]

with revolvers you need to look at cylinder gap it can have an effect on velocity also powder burn rate slow br in a snubby no good you need a fast br if reloading your 38 or 357 for a snub nose use powder with fast burn rate and a lswc or lswc hp with velocity at 850 to 1000 fps for 38 (if your gun will handle it) and 900 to 1100 fps for 357. make good ccw loads. also the 148 gn hollow base wad cutters are an option and can be loaded backwards to make a hollow point.

[@Wilberbeest]

Cool! I carry an LCRx 1.875" with the Speer Gold Dot SB, which looks like the right ammo for it velocity wise.

[@steveanbozek3589]

I love my GP100 match champion great revolver. excited to see the results

[@karmakshantivyapini4734]

I'm looking forward to the new tests, but I find something in your spreadsheet that is of tremendous interest. NONE of the .38 loads reached 1000 fps in any length of barrel, and ALL of the .357 rounds reached velocities greater than 1000 fps in all lengths of barrel. This should immediately put to rest the foolish assertion that .38 +P rounds are "more effective" in snub nose revolvers than .357's. In ALL the snubbies, the average velocity of a .38 load is somewhere around 175-250 fps slower than the average .357. This is a velocity difference of fully 15-25% ! Like everybody else, I have only the results of the backyard ballistic gel warriors to go by, but your results here are perfectly consistent with them. And I strongly suspect that your penetration/expansion results will echo their's, too. Overall, from their data I have concluded that to get hollow point bullets in these revolver rounds to both reliably expand and reliably penetrate more than 12" in gel with denim you MUST have at least 1000+ fps of velocity and you are far more likely to do it if you have 1100+ fps of velocity. As an aside, a heavy for caliber 9mm load (148 grain) can usually do this if the velocity is over 950 fps. What I would deduce from such a result is that velocity effects are strictly additive: there is a certain minimum velocity needed to expand the bullet and further velocity must be added to this to push the expanded bullet past denim and 12" of gel. Even with .357, the ballistics warriors seldom get penetration as deep as 16 inches with hollow point loads. More generally, their results suggest that the effectiveness of .38 special in general (even +P loads) is far closer to .380 auto than it is to 9mm Luger. The .38 special is "more effective" than .357 in ANY barrel in only one sense: .38 has milder recoil than .357. That's all. I hope your gel tests find at least one or two loads that that disprove this conclusion. If you do, it will be a real service to revolver toters, who always give up a round or two of capacity even to pocket automatics. Otherwise, the real choice for well trained defensive shooters will be between 9mm auto and .357 revolver, not between .357 and .38 +P.

[@rayd.5929]

tl:dr

[@LuckyGunner]

Without spoiling too much before we release the results, a few of our .38 loads were hovering right around 1000 fps and a few of the .38s performed quite admirably... but most of the good performers were actually around 850 fps. A magnum with respectable expansion will get you 3-4 more inches of penetration over one of the good .38s with recoil ranging from "stiff" to "abusive" depending on the particular load and what gun you're firing it from. It's not hard to find a .357 that performs well, but there are only two or three .38s that rival the ballistics of a "pretty good" 9mm. On average, *far* better than .380, though.

[@fjdubya5726]

38+P is more effective when every round hits a vital area instead of wildly under- and over- shooting during a situation you have never been in before. In many defense shooting you will have to shoot one-handed or not at all. THINK about that.

[@daric_]

Great data presentation, but I'm wishing we had some error bars and many tests to better account for multiple factors that could be affecting the measured value(s). Thanks a lot for your content.

[@CuntyMcShitterman]

should do this with all Ruger revolvers. or at least the same make whatever you choose.

[@ryanmaycroft7596]

great info as always.

[@mojoman2001]

I'm no mathematician, but you might find the average slope of each point (two inch barrel length) apart on your graphs. That would result in a rough approximation of speed change per 2" unit length overall. Which we might be able to remember, as opposed to your great results -- where there are not even hash marks bt 800 and 1300 fps.

[@1diggers1]

It's interesting to see most of the velocity comes from the first 3 inches of barrel and then it kinda creeps up from there. (or not, in some guns)

[@theprfesssor]

Revolver cylinder gap does effect round performance more then it looks that same website BBI looked into this as well and there test quite a bit of performance never reached the barrel to bad the Nagant revolver system hasn't been adopted/adapted

[@MPGunther1]

Thank you, always a BIG thumbs-up

[@lvgeorge]

Does anyone like Dan Wesson Revolvers, compared to S&W, Ruger, Taurus, Why or Why Not?

[@zoranzuvela9856]

Very good test. Thanks!

[@timhallas4275]

You have to match the powder load to the barrel length. Not enough powder in a long barrel will actually reduce muzzle velocity compared to a shorter barrel with the same load.

[@Gieszkanne]

Yes but not with these short barrels. What you are talking about may start with 16 inches up.

[@timhallas4275]

@@Gieszkanne I have tested 40 grain low velocity .22lr in a 1.5 inch barrel and a 6.5 inch barrel. The 6.5 inch barrel produced a lower muzzle velocity than the 1.5 inch. The opposite was true with 40 grain .22LR high velocity rounds... same two guns.

[@Gieszkanne]

@@timhallas4275 I cant believe this. There must be something wrong. Low velocity has a slower powder and is mainly for rifles, so the 6.5 have to have more!

[@timhallas4275]

@@Gieszkanne The low velocity round was faster out of the 1.5 inch barrel than it was out of the 6.5 inch barrel. That means that the barrel slowed the bullet after the powder was used up.. Get it?

[@Gieszkanne]

@@timhallas4275 If you would have understood what I was telling you, you would understand that its unpossible.

[@Smith686plus]

Great video! More revolver videos, please!

[@obbionekanovi]

Thank you very interesting, again. Stay safe.

[@lorenzoguice2738]

I got a four inch 38 I'm running Hornady critical defense 110gr

[@davecooper9733]

I don't understand why revolver is measured by the barrel minus the chamber but semi Auto are measured from the back of the chamber

[@Bradington]

It's to do with the cylinder gap between the barrel on revolvers. Semi-auto's don't have this gap as the chamber is integral to the barrel.

[@graeme3023]

^^^ *THIS*

[@stoneblue1795]

Well stated data, I enjoyed it.

[@johangrosskatze1433]

Such Science! So much ballistic! By the way, how many cartridges of each type was shot from each gun? Hundred? Two hundred? Or just one?

[@agator2660]

My guess is the cylinder gap bleeds off the gas pressure to be less effective beyond 2 to 3" of barrel.

[@AnonymouslyAwsome]

Any updates on the 10mm and .357Sig tests?

[@2009statechamps1]

Good stuff!

[@Felenari]

I saw you mentioned that it's hard to measure recoil on firearms. Have you guys ever thought about using tiny g-force stickers? Like the ones on mythbusters. You could also use accelerometers in conjunction with skin patches to see how hard your hand accelerates. You could attach then to your thumb joint to see how fast your bones move and any meaty part of the hand to see how soft tissues follow the hard motion of the skeleton. It could give you an approximation of weather or not tendons might get damaged from shooting a full magazine at high speed with stress strained muscles in a high risk situation. I'd hate to be freaking out in a high stress shooting scenario and find out I tore a tendon after my first shot because of the adrenaline tightening muscles and increasing felt recoil. I'm by no means a physician or a physicist but it would be a neat test to see.

[@user-wo2iw3kt8o]

My hunting revolvers are ruger blackhawk and super Blackhawk. With 7 1/2 barrels. My carry is a ruger single 6 4". Wouldn't trade for anything. Been faithful for years. And I shoot hard cast through the blackhawk, s and 158 hollow point through the single 6.😊 in the woods or in the shitty city no worries. 😊

[@Vsvld_Kstkn]

So the best length of barrel is 3 inch. All over that is more for longer aiming , but not for an increase in power.

[@DanUtley]

I would love to see someone chrono a 2.25” SP101 and a 3” SP101. The difficulty is changing gun models between barrel lengths. Somebody I saw Chronoed their 3” Smith and 2.25” SP101, and the SP101 got better velocities, which tells you there’s way more at play than pure barrel length. And unfortunately, I can’t buy several models of one revolver and chrono them all to determine which one I want.

[@LuckyGunner]

You could buy three samples of the same model revolver with the same barrel length made at different times and they would all chrono differently. You just have to roll the dice.

[@DanUtley]

Lucky Gunner Ammo Thanks for replying! Maybe I should just stick with my G26/G19 lol.

[@jellybryce7742]

Dammit i just heard theres going to be a 38 spl hst released too.

[@RTP008]

Great video, very informative!