Supposedly a Revolver Looses alot of energy from the chamber barrel gap according to

Discussion in 'General Handgun Discussion' started by CAMCHAMPION1988, Nov 27, 2011.

  1. CAMCHAMPION1988

    CAMCHAMPION1988 New Member

    61
    0
    0
    I read a Forum Post on a Google Result page a couple of weeks ago about a guy claiming you loose a lot propellant gases/energy. On a Revolver through the gap between the Chamber and the Barrel. He claims that therefore a Bullet fired from any revolver would be a really week round fired. WHAT HOW STUPID IS THIS GUY TO EVEN MAKE SUCH A OUTRAGEOUS CLAIM.

    I just wanted to get your take on this?????

    I mean the amount of escaping propellant gasses/energy from the gap between the chamber and barrel is so microscopic. That it is not gonna make a difference in the power behind the bullet.

    Then again you have people who don't believe that the trip to the moon really happened.
     
  2. Chainfire

    Chainfire Well-Known Member Supporter

    5,235
    280
    83
    The fact is, it is correct. You lose pressure through the gap. Just not enough to matter a hell of a lot.

    The Nagant pistol addressed just that issue. The cylinder moved forward and the brass projected into the forcing cone to make a "gas seal" revolver. The pistol was not copied because it was a non-issue.
     

  3. c3shooter

    c3shooter Administrator Staff Member

    21,341
    210
    63
    Yes, there is a loss of gas at the cylinder gap.
    See the flash?

    revolver.jpg

    That's why you don't want your hand THERE. But as said, the revolver was designed around that. Two identical .38 Specials- one fired in a revolver, one fired in single shot pistol, such as a Contender, the single WILL get more energy.

    The comment is rather boneheaded, since I fail to see .460s, 500 S&Ws as a "weak" cartridge.

    BTW, I notice there is a measurable space between the cylinder rings and cylinder walls in the engine of my truck. Using his logic, that will run only poorly and weakly.
     
  4. jyo

    jyo New Member

    233
    0
    0
    Yeah, you lose a little because of the gap---but not much---I wouldn't worry about it---revolvers have been laying people and animals low since about 1873---it's not perfect, but it works!
     
  5. c3shooter

    c3shooter Administrator Staff Member

    21,341
    210
    63
    JYO, actally, Sam Colt got his first patent in 1832.
     
  6. trip286

    trip286 New Member

    18,658
    1
    0
    Yeah the energy loss is minuscule. I think something like 10 or 15 fps of MV, if it's even that much. Run towards the target while firing to make up for that.
     
  7. freefall

    freefall New Member

    2,325
    3
    0
    And C3 knows about Sam Colt's patent because he was in the reviewing office at the time.:eek:
     
  8. hiwall

    hiwall Well-Known Member

    4,269
    22
    48
    Thats why when you see some velocities listed "from a vented barrel" it is supposed to mimic a revolver velocity.
     
  9. trip286

    trip286 New Member

    18,658
    1
    0
    And inventing the internet with thomas jefferson.
     
  10. BlueTurf

    BlueTurf New Member

    1,038
    0
    0
    I have a load for my .44 mag that is 265 grains coming out at about 1400 fps. I know this because I used my chronograph to test it. That is enough velocity for me. There has to be some pressure loss between the cylinder and barrel but as said above, not enough to be overly concerned about.