I recently aquired 2 S&W M-29-2 revolvers both have pinned barrels and recessed cylinder chambers. Today I chronographed them along with a Ruger Redhawk

Both of the S&W revolver have 6 1/2" barrels and the Redhawk has a 5 1/2" barrel. The ammo used fro testing was the Winchester 240 grain Jackted Soft Point


The S&W with the wood grips Chrono'ed 1323 FPS
The S&W with the Hogue grips Chrono'ed 1460 FPS
The Redhawk chrono'ed ---------------- 1380 FPS

The S&W Revolvers



My curiosity got the beter of me and I began to search for the reason why one of the S&W revolvers was 137 FPS faster than the other one. First I opend the cylinders and looked at the forcing cone in each revolver and VIOLA there it was plan as day the forcing cone in the S&W with the wood grips was approximately 2 1/2 times deeper than the one with the Hogue grips.

The large forcing cone (the wood gripped one) the slower one



The smaller forcing cone ( with the Hogue grips) the faster one




The only way to know the velocity of ANY firearm is to chronograph it. There is no other way.

That's a pretty big difference in velocity between the two guns. Very interesting. You can clearly see in the photos that the one 29 has a forcing cone roughly twice as wide (the distance before the rifling). Interesting. Nice Smiths! Look like my nickel 29 (a -3 actually). You should post a picture of MY Redhawk!!

Ok you shot 3 different guns and came up with different velocities with the exact same load. That is normal. How many shots did you take with each gun and what is the average velocity of each gun and the standard deviation of each gun? Were these numbers you posted just one shot and that is it?

I have used a chronograph and made 10 shots with the same gun and load and had 10 totally different velocities. Those are the number you have to use to find the average velocity and the standard deviation.

And tell me if you shot 3 different animals with each gun, which one would not kill an animal? Which gun is going to perform better then the other with the exact load?

Sure if you want to be real anal, you can chronograph each gun you have and know the exact speed of a bullet, but what have you actually accomplished?
Will a gun that shoots a bullet at 1350 fps kill any different or better than a gun shooting a bullet going 1450 fps?

The actual standard deviation for the 3 guns is 56.192130726247235. That is using the 3 numbers you posted.

Then we need to know if one gun has a tighter bore? Tighter chambers? Tighter throats? Larger cylinder gap?
Too many other factors enter into velocity differences.
JWP, do some critical measuring for us. You have the perfect opportunity with two guns the same.

I just kew this would be the beginning of another argument.
Wonder how I knew that.

quote:

Originally posted by Me_Plat:
I just kew this would be the beginning of another argument.
Wonder how I knew that.

No argument, there are so many different variables one cannot just go by one thing.

I have spent my time playing with a choreograph, and I feel I spent a lot of time writing down numbers and looking at standard deviation tell I was blue in the face, but all I did was add one more piece of equipment to drag to the range.

All the information is useless if your load is not accurate. So what did I accomplish when I changed my load to find the most accurate for my particular gun. So now all I have done is change the velocity maybe 100 fps or 50 fps, but accuracy is after all what I was after. Is that much difference in velocity going to make the difference in weather a bullet is going to work on game? NO

People think if someone does not chronograph every load they don't know exactly what velocity there bullets are going, although it my be true that I don't know the exact velocity, I will still be in the ball park and know I am some where close. Is that going to change weather my bullets work? I don't think so.

If I shoot a 2 hogs with a 44 Mag, and I am using a 300 gr. bullets. One going 1300 fps and one going 1450 fps. What do you think the out come will be. I think 2 dead hogs and neither one would be able to tell the difference.

So what do I gain knowing the "EXACT" velocity?

I think (not that anyone cares what I think)that it is all a part of this wonderful game called gun ownership and shooting.
Chronoing ones loads is just part of the fun people have in shooting. It is no different than one buying handguns capable of killing Cape Buffalo, Elephant etc. when they know that unless a small miracle happens most won't even see one unless they visit a zoo somewhere.
Who cares if a load gives 1300 fps or 1400 fps.
Most know that it really doesn't matter one whit.
What about the guys that shoots hundreds or even thousands off the bench looking for the magic load that will turn them from a mediocre shot to and excellent shot when 90 percent of them couldn't tell a 1.5 inch load at 50 yards froma 3 inch load in field shooting situations.
It is part of the fun.
I ocassionally chrono loads myself just more or less for the devilment of it and to "just find out". I have fun doing it although I know that that aveage will change with the next lot of powder. primers, temperature and the the way I hold my mouth and how hard I squeeze the grip.

Why don't you guys lighten up and just look at the fun of doing something in this day of dreary times and high prices and just have fun and let others have their fun too.

quote:

Originally posted by bfrshooter:
Then we need to know if one gun has a tighter bore? Tighter chambers? Tighter throats? Larger cylinder gap?
Too many other factors enter into velocity differences.
JWP, do some critical measuring for us. You have the perfect opportunity with two guns the same.

Jim, you are correct in the fact that there are several factors that can affect velocity. The cylinder leads as measured were the same. I did not have a set of feeler guages, but the barrel cylinder gap is tight on both revolvers. The longer forcing cone is the culprit IMHO, although I do plan to aquire a set of feeler guages.

The point of the post is that there is always a difference that accounts for that velocity differenc and many times on internet boards some one asks about velocity in their guns with "X" barrel lenght and the fact is that one can not know with out a chronograph. This thread has nothing to do with revolver effectiveness.

I figure if someone wants to know the velocity of a round, they should chronograph that load themselves.

If it does not matter to me, why would I have to know?

Me_Plat, hay it is no skin of my nose if someone wants to chronograph all there loads, but JWP made a reference in another post about how I did not know the velocity difference on my 700 gr. load in my 500 Mag from a 4 inch to a 8 3/8 in barrel. As if that made me a bad reloader and shooter.

Like I said, I play with a chronograph for many years, after I found out it really did nothing for my accuracy or what loads I was using for hunting, I figured it was just a waste of "my" time.


The only time I find a chronograph useful, is when someone does actual load development. I am not talking about using printed data, and finding a load for accuracy. I am talking about developing a load with a bullet with no printed data, like my 535 gr. bullets for my S&W 460 Mag. There is no data anywhere for the bullet for my 460 Mag. That is when I will use a chronograph. But there is a lot more elements other then just a chronograph needed when doing actual load development.

But I am not one to stop people from having fun, but others don't see a real need to know the exact velocity of a bullet to be happy with there load.

I for one find this interesting. He has two nearly identical 29s -- both are -2s, and there is a huge varience in the velocity they attain with identical factory loads. You can clearly see the difference in the forcing cone, and of course there are other factors involved in determining a "fast" gun from a slower model.

quote:

Originally posted by Whitworth:
I for one find this interesting. He has two nearly identical 29s -- both are -2s, and there is a huge varience in the velocity they attain with identical factory loads. You can clearly see the difference in the forcing cone, and of course there are other factors involved in determining a "fast" gun from a slower model.

You are on spot on. The one revolver takes full ballistic advantage of the 6 1/2" barrel, while the velocity of the slower revolver is more intune to a 4"ers velocity. Meaningless in-reguards to performance on game to be sure, but interesting none the less IMHO.

quote:

Originally posted by Whitworth:
I for one find this interesting. He has two nearly identical 29s -- both are -2s, and there is a huge varience in the velocity they attain with identical factory loads. You can clearly see the difference in the forcing cone, and of course there are other factors involved in determining a "fast" gun from a slower model.

You can get variance in the velocity in the same gun, cylinder to cylinder. I am more than sure you have heard, no two guns shoot alike.

Every gun has a standard deviation, no two guns will shoot alike. BFRshooter gave a bunch of reasons why this happens. I saw the same thing many years ago when I was playing with a chronograph. No two guns shoot alike, even the exact same models.
I have 2 sequentially numbered S&W 460 Mags, and they shoot the same bullets that were loaded the same, at different velocities. That just shows the variance between guns that were made side by side.

quote:

Originally posted by Redhawk1:

Me_Plat, hay it is no skin of my nose if someone wants to chronograph all there loads, but JWP made a reference in another post about how I did not know the velocity difference on my 700 gr. load in my 500 Mag from a 4 inch to a 8 3/8 in barrel. As if that made me a bad reloader and shooter.

You had posted before that you liked the 460 & 500 S&W because of there supperior speed over conventional sized revolver cartridges and I found it interesting that you had not checked the velocity difference. Don't read more into it than that.

quote:

Originally posted by Redhawk1:

quote:

Originally posted by Whitworth:
I for one find this interesting. He has two nearly identical 29s -- both are -2s, and there is a huge varience in the velocity they attain with identical factory loads. You can clearly see the difference in the forcing cone, and of course there are other factors involved in determining a "fast" gun from a slower model.

You can get variance in the velocity in the same gun, cylinder to cylinder. I am more than sure you have heard, no two guns shoot alike.

True and there is always a reason why.

quote:

Originally posted by jwp475:

quote:

Originally posted by Redhawk1:

Me_Plat, hay it is no skin of my nose if someone wants to chronograph all there loads, but JWP made a reference in another post about how I did not know the velocity difference on my 700 gr. load in my 500 Mag from a 4 inch to a 8 3/8 in barrel. As if that made me a bad reloader and shooter.

You had posted before that you liked the 460 & 500 S&W because of there supperior speed over conventional sized revolver cartridges and I found it interesting that you had not checked the velocity difference. Don't read more into it than that.

No you assumed I did not, like I posted, I have access to a chronograph and I have check the velocities in most of my handguns. But I don't make it a quest to find the actual velocities for all my different guns and bullets. I shoot for accuracy. True I like faster bullets, but I don't need a chronograph to know if I load a 454 Casull with 25 gr. of H 110 and then load a S&W 460 Mag with 35 gr. of H 110, using the same bullet in each gun, that the 460 mag will shoot the bullet faster. Do I have to know the velocity to make an accurate load? No I don't think so.

jwp

Does it look like the M 29 with the larger forcing cone is factory original?

The reason I ask as it was fairly common to open up the forcing cone on any refolver that had a habbit of spitting lead or jacket material.

Some people did this to any revolver that they were going to shoot a lot of lead bullets in.

quote:

Originally posted by jwp475:

quote:

Originally posted by Redhawk1:

quote:

Originally posted by Whitworth:
I for one find this interesting. He has two nearly identical 29s -- both are -2s, and there is a huge varience in the velocity they attain with identical factory loads. You can clearly see the difference in the forcing cone, and of course there are other factors involved in determining a "fast" gun from a slower model.

You can get variance in the velocity in the same gun, cylinder to cylinder. I am more than sure you have heard, no two guns shoot alike.

True and there is always a reason why.

I am glad to see we can agree on that. I am not knocking you for using your chronograph, but not everyone uses them or actually needs to be successful in finding a great round for hunting and shooting.

quote:

Originally posted by Redhawk1:

quote:

Originally posted by Whitworth:
I for one find this interesting. He has two nearly identical 29s -- both are -2s, and there is a huge varience in the velocity they attain with identical factory loads. You can clearly see the difference in the forcing cone, and of course there are other factors involved in determining a "fast" gun from a slower model.

You can get variance in the velocity in the same gun, cylinder to cylinder. I am more than sure you have heard, no two guns shoot alike.

Every gun has a standard deviation, no two guns will shoot alike. BFRshooter gave a bunch of reasons why this happens. I saw the same thing many years ago when I was playing with a chronograph. No two guns shoot alike, even the exact same models.
I have 2 sequentially numbered S&W 460 Mags, and they shoot the same bullets that were loaded the same, at different velocities. That just shows the variance between guns that were made side by side.

Of course this is true, but I still find it interesting in two nearly identical handguns that there is such a difference with the same loads -- interesting -- nothing more, nothing less.

quote:

Originally posted by N E 450 No2:
jwp

Does it look like the M 29 with the larger forcing cone is factory original?

The reason I ask as it was fairly common to open up the forcing cone on any refolver that had a habbit of spitting lead or jacket material.

Some people did this to any revolver that they were going to shoot a lot of lead bullets in.

I have seen the same thing. The wooden griped gun could of had this done. It could also been a different machine in the factory.

quote:

Originally posted by N E 450 No2:
jwp

Does it look like the M 29 with the larger forcing cone is factory original?

The reason I ask as it was fairly common to open up the forcing cone on any refolver that had a habbit of spitting lead or jacket material.

Some people did this to any revolver that they were going to shoot a lot of lead bullets in.

I thought of this and have no way to know 100% either way...

quote:

Originally posted by Redhawk1:
I have seen the same thing. The wooden griped gun could of had this done. It could also been a different machine in the factory.

That is true also IMHO

There is nothing scientific or accurate about my comparison, but I just compared my two M29s to jwp's (his pictures are large enough to get a good idea), and my forcing cones are "big" as well, and as far as I can tell the 6.5-inch 29 has never been modified, and my Lew Horton I bought new, so I know it is in original condition. There just seems to be big variance in factory specs and tollerances......

I had a 8 3/8 inch 500 mag that splattered lead in my face, I got lead fragment in my left cheek. I had the forcing cone worked and it was like the wooden griped S&W you have with the deeper forcing cone, it did to job on doing away with the lead splatter in my face.

There is always the possibility that "Emma" or whomever cut the forcing cone a bit deeper on one revolver than the one prior or after it in line.

I'm like Whitworth, in the fact that this is interesting information. I personally like to know what my loads are doing velocity wise and how consistent the velocities are running.

Comparing burning rates on canister or surplus powders to commercial powders is another; regardless of what guidance or data is given by the entity selling the powder.

My quest would be to really pin it down to the forcing cone. It could very well be the reason and I don't question that. To find out for sure would add to the knowledge of all of us.
The reason I ask is that just a .0005" difference in barrel dimensions can cause a change too.
Let's not bring effectiveness into the picture. Let's just discover if any thing else is adding to the velocity difference.
Yes, there is a difference between chambers too but if enough shots are fired we still have the average to work from.
The SRH I had was a lot faster then my SBH. Both had the same size bores, barrel length, gap, etc but the cases from my SBH would not go into the SRH until full length sized.
If a forcing cone alone can also cause it, it would be very interesting.

jwp
I would also be curious as to the velocity difference between the 2 revolvers with lighter loads with 240gr bullets, in the 900 to 1000 fps range.

I find the information interisting.

Not that at pistol distances the vel is going to make much of a diffrerants.

But when rifle shooting a 100 fps diffearnts does matter when one is shooting way out there it is good to know what speed you are starting with.

quote:

Originally posted by p dog shooter:
I find the information interisting.

Not that at pistol distances the vel is going to make much of a diffrerants.

But when rifle shooting a 100 fps diffearnts does matter when one is shooting way out there it is good to know what speed you are starting with.

100 fps in a rifle is not much either.
The way I know how my guns shoot out at different distances is, I shot them at different distances.

I did not say the information was not interesting, but I did almost the identical test a few years back with my 2 S&W 460 Mags. So I was not surprised at his results here.

The old Speer book had a fascinating chapter on revolver velocities ! They took a group of 357 revolvers ,all the same barrel length and fired the same lot of factory ammo from each. The velocities ranged from 1200 to 1600 fps !! Many variables make for many different velocities !
Redhawk 1, About 1980 S&W changed the forcing cone for the 44 mag. I had mine changed and that ended the practice of picking copper splinters out of my left elbow .

I think witchcraft may be involved........

I bought a set of feelr guages today and measured the barrel cylinder gap on the 3 revolvers.

The slower S&W M-29 measured .008 thousandths
The faster S&W N-29 measured .007 thousandths
The Ruger Redhawk Measured .006 thousandths

IMHO .001 thousandths difference in barrel cylinder gap is not going to cause a difference in velocity of 137 FPS. I definately believe the wider deeper forcing cone is the major contributor. The Ruger has the tighest barrel cylinder gap of the 3 and is 80 FPS slower than the faster S&W with only a 1" difference in barrel length. 40 FPS per inch is alot of velocity per inch.

Somewhere many many years ago I seem to remember a magazine article where a fella took a Dan Wesson revolver and shot it with different barrel/cylinder gaps.

Myabe some one has it in their magazine library??

quote:

Originally posted by N E 450 No2:
Somewhere many many years ago I seem to remember a magazine article where a fella took a Dan Wesson revolver and shot it with different barrel/cylinder gaps.

Myabe some one has it in their magazine library??

That would be an interesting read. I would love to see that article.