Joined
·
5,696 Posts
I can’t believe I’ve never looked this up before. I was nosing around in the shooter’s bible tonight and got to looking at pistol calibers in the "rifle ballistics" section, and was surprised at the numbers when I started making comparisons.
In the past, I’ve mentioned the velocity/power difference between my .357 handgun and carbine, regarding velocity and energy; based on my handloads, measured with a chronograph. The difference was pronounced (even though it’s a short 16” carbine), but I always wondered if it was a biased test, since the loads were specifically loaded for the rifle, using a slower rifle powder (AA#7, iirc). Basically, I wondered if the use of “rifle” powder was unfair to the handgun in the comparison.
Looking at the published numbers for factory ammo, turns out the difference is even more pronounced than I had thought. These numbers are out of the 2004 shooter’s bible. While it’s admittedly just “manufacturers’ claims”, there’s enough consistency from brand to brand to give them some credibility. While a mfr may distort numbers in their published claims, I can’t see what incentive they'd have to distort the numbers for a given load in favor of one particular type of weapon. Also, not only would all the mfr’s have to be lying, the numbers are so consistent across the board, that all the mfr’s would have to be lying by the same amount. Not terribly likely.
Anyway, here are energy numbers for .357, .41, and .44 magnum factory loads in revolvers and rifles, followed by the percent increase gained when fired in a rifle. I was very surprised when I first looked at them side-by-side like this.
Muzzle Energy (ft/lbs)
Load Revolver Rifle % increase
357 mag Fed 180 jhp 475 960 102%
357 mag Win 158 jsp 535 1175 119%
.41 mag Win 240 Plat. 833 1784 114%
.44 mag Fed 240 jhp 740 1650 123%
.44 mag Rem 240 sjhp 721 1650 129%
Average gain of 117%
_______________________
Energy @ 100 yards (ft/lbs)
Load Revolver Rifle % increase
357 mag Fed 180 jhp 320 535 67%
357 mag Win 158 jsp 361 715 98%
.41 mag Win 240 Plat. 616 1180 92%
.44 mag Fed 240 jhp 550 1015 85%
.44 mag Rem 240 sjhp 543 1015 87%
Average gain of 86%
_______________________
Assuming this ratio of difference holds true for other calibers (relatively safe assumption as long as we stick to revolver/rifle comparisons with “high-intensity” pistol calibers as all the above are), that would mean that a .454 load that generates 1850ft/lbs from a revolver (which is not top-end for the .454), would get 4,014 ft/lbs from a rifle barrel. That’s not only more than the .444 and 45-70 (which is no real surprise), it’s more than the 7mm Magnum, the .300 Win Mag, the .300 H&H Magnum, and more even than a lot of .300 Weatherby Magnum loads.
And at 100 yards, that same lever-action load would still have 2,139 ft/lbs left; roughly what a .308 has at the same distance, and more than a .30-30 has at the muzzle. That’s impressive energy for a lever-action rifle.
Granted, it's not a "combat arm" per se, but for a purely hunting gun, it would be unsurpassed for the range of game it could be used for. Anything from 500-4,000 ft/lbs of energy, depending on how you load it, with no adaptors, conversion kits, etc. Heck of an idea for a "Dan'l Boone" type.
In the past, I’ve mentioned the velocity/power difference between my .357 handgun and carbine, regarding velocity and energy; based on my handloads, measured with a chronograph. The difference was pronounced (even though it’s a short 16” carbine), but I always wondered if it was a biased test, since the loads were specifically loaded for the rifle, using a slower rifle powder (AA#7, iirc). Basically, I wondered if the use of “rifle” powder was unfair to the handgun in the comparison.
Looking at the published numbers for factory ammo, turns out the difference is even more pronounced than I had thought. These numbers are out of the 2004 shooter’s bible. While it’s admittedly just “manufacturers’ claims”, there’s enough consistency from brand to brand to give them some credibility. While a mfr may distort numbers in their published claims, I can’t see what incentive they'd have to distort the numbers for a given load in favor of one particular type of weapon. Also, not only would all the mfr’s have to be lying, the numbers are so consistent across the board, that all the mfr’s would have to be lying by the same amount. Not terribly likely.
Anyway, here are energy numbers for .357, .41, and .44 magnum factory loads in revolvers and rifles, followed by the percent increase gained when fired in a rifle. I was very surprised when I first looked at them side-by-side like this.
Muzzle Energy (ft/lbs)
Load Revolver Rifle % increase
357 mag Fed 180 jhp 475 960 102%
357 mag Win 158 jsp 535 1175 119%
.41 mag Win 240 Plat. 833 1784 114%
.44 mag Fed 240 jhp 740 1650 123%
.44 mag Rem 240 sjhp 721 1650 129%
Average gain of 117%
_______________________
Energy @ 100 yards (ft/lbs)
Load Revolver Rifle % increase
357 mag Fed 180 jhp 320 535 67%
357 mag Win 158 jsp 361 715 98%
.41 mag Win 240 Plat. 616 1180 92%
.44 mag Fed 240 jhp 550 1015 85%
.44 mag Rem 240 sjhp 543 1015 87%
Average gain of 86%
_______________________
Assuming this ratio of difference holds true for other calibers (relatively safe assumption as long as we stick to revolver/rifle comparisons with “high-intensity” pistol calibers as all the above are), that would mean that a .454 load that generates 1850ft/lbs from a revolver (which is not top-end for the .454), would get 4,014 ft/lbs from a rifle barrel. That’s not only more than the .444 and 45-70 (which is no real surprise), it’s more than the 7mm Magnum, the .300 Win Mag, the .300 H&H Magnum, and more even than a lot of .300 Weatherby Magnum loads.
And at 100 yards, that same lever-action load would still have 2,139 ft/lbs left; roughly what a .308 has at the same distance, and more than a .30-30 has at the muzzle. That’s impressive energy for a lever-action rifle.
Granted, it's not a "combat arm" per se, but for a purely hunting gun, it would be unsurpassed for the range of game it could be used for. Anything from 500-4,000 ft/lbs of energy, depending on how you load it, with no adaptors, conversion kits, etc. Heck of an idea for a "Dan'l Boone" type.