Loading for silhouette matches

[DizzyJ]

used to shoot silhouette matches all the time before moving on to 3-gun and USPSA.

What wound up causing me to move on was the lack of knock down power from my pistol on the Rams at 200 meters.

Even a solid hit at the top of the back has failed to topple the Rams on more than one occasion.

This was with a 41 magnum loaded on the warm side. I've used 200gr jhps, and 210 plated lead bullets.

Not too long ago, the silhouette director pulled me aside and told me about a guy with a .357 having no issues knocking them down. Said he was using some "harder" bullets made for silhouette.

Anybody heard of such a thing? I can't imagine why the 41 mag wouldn't knock over the Rams with a good hit every single time? Bullet too soft? Too much velocity?

Read More

 

[techiej]

Any idea what your FPS is out of your pistol? I've shot 357's - full power - with 158gr SJHP and knocked over silhouettes at that range before but that was out of a 24" lever gun with an FPS of 1,466. Same load in a 6" revolver only reached 1,108.

 

[41mag]

Velocity + mass + accuracy is king

 

[DizzyJ]

Any idea what your FPS is out of your pistol? I've shot 357's - full power - with 158gr SJHP and knocked over silhouettes at that range before but that was out of a 24" lever gun with an FPS of 1,466. Same load in a 6" revolver only reached 1,108.

My guess is around 1300+ out of a 7 1/2" barrel. Loaded hot per the book.

 

[DizzyJ]

Velocity + mass + accuracy is king

Except the guy with the 357 had way less mass.

 

[Certaindeaf]

They've been making heavy and heavily constructed silhouette bullets for decades now. The classic .357/180gr has quite a bit of sectional density.
Product - Sierra Bullets - The Bulletsmiths
If I were to get into it I'd cast pretty hard (but not brittle) bullets of that weight or heavier, as long as they were accurate and not be stingy with the powder.

 

[techiej]

My guess is around 1300+ out of a 7 1/2" barrel. Loaded hot per the book.

If you can, I would try to get your load chron'd as book numbers are based upon the firearm/barrel that they used, primer, crimp, bullet, and coal. As a result, I have rarely seen book #'s line up exactly with any of my handloads and in fact have seen major differences. This is especially true if the powder that you use (even a different lot) has a significantly different burn rate.

If you are reaching 1,300 fps with let's say the 200gr then your "power factor" (mass x velocity) is 260. This is only slightly higher than what I get in my lever 357 which has a PF of 232. To put it in perspective the PF our of my revolver is only 175.

Keep in mind that the velocity is also usually measured at 10-20' from the muzzle and your velocity may be dropping off faster than expected (how's your POI vs POA @ 200m) than others. If you have access to something like a Labradar chrono (wish I did) you would know for certain.

Bullet profile will also matter as a flat bullet (mine are SWC) will more likely deliver more of its energy to the steel than a round bullet which may experience some deflection...although that factor is usually pretty nominal.

 

[KKG]

I shot NRA Hunter Pistol Silhouette using a Smith and Wesson Model 16-4, 8-3/8" tube, in .32 H&R Magnum. I used .32 S&W Long Wadcutters for the Chickens and Pigs but went to the Magnums for the rest. And almost everything I hit went down. I did have a few that just rotated but then so did the guys Shooting the Canons. I shot nothing but Factory loads and did come home with a trophy or two for my trouble.

 

[DizzyJ]

If you can, I would try to get your load chron'd as book numbers are based upon the firearm/barrel that they used, primer, crimp, bullet, and coal. As a result, I have rarely seen book #'s line up exactly with any of my handloads and in fact have seen major differences. This is especially true if the powder that you use (even a different lot) has a significantly different burn rate.

If you are reaching 1,300 fps with let's say the 200gr then your "power factor" (mass x velocity) is 260. This is only slightly higher than what I get in my lever 357 which has a PF of 232. To put it in perspective the PF our of my revolver is only 175.

Keep in mind that the velocity is also usually measured at 10-20' from the muzzle and your velocity may be dropping off faster than expected (how's your POI vs POA @ 200m) than others. If you have access to something like a Labradar chrono (wish I did) you would know for certain.

Bullet profile will also matter as a flat bullet (mine are SWC) will more likely deliver more of its energy to the steel than a round bullet which may experience some deflection...although that factor is usually pretty nominal.

Don't have access to one of those. Just figured maybe they were going too fast and splattering more instead of thumping.

 

[DizzyJ]

They've been making heavy and heavily constructed silhouette bullets for decades now. The classic .357/180gr has quite a bit of sectional density.
Product - Sierra Bullets - The Bulletsmiths
If I were to get into it I'd cast pretty hard (but not brittle) bullets of that weight or heavier, as long as they were accurate and not be stingy with the powder.

I think one of the main problems is lack of variety for the .41 cal.

 

[KKG]

I think one of the main problems is lack of variety for the .41 cal.

That's always been the major Problem with the .41. I doubt that will ever change. The Smith and Wesson Model 58 was an amazing Firearm it was just in the wrong caliber and almost couldn't be given away. Now if it had been a .44 Magnum it would have been harder to keep in stock than a Dirty Harry Model 29. Lots of 58s were bored out with 29 cylinders added but the Factory simply wouldn't touch that Conversion.

 

[DizzyJ]

That's always been the major Problem with the .41. I doubt that will ever change. The Smith and Wesson Model 58 was an amazing Firearm it was just in the wrong caliber and almost couldn't be given away. Now if it had been a .44 Magnum it would have been harder to keep in stock than a Dirty Harry Model 29. Lots of 58s were bored out with 29 cylinders added but the Factory simply wouldn't touch that Conversion.

This one is the Ruger RedHawk. I went with Ruger so I could load a little hotter and get away with it.

 

[KKG]

This one is the Ruger RedHawk. I went with Ruger so I could load a little hotter and get away with it.

You can Load hotter for the Model 57 and probably as Hot as you'd want to. So, with the Real difference between the two is in price. Apples and Oranges.

 

[41mag]

the real problem I had with hot loading 44 mags for IHMSA so long ago, was the delicate balance between high velocity but short of barrel leading. It took a while to learn how to hone down the obvious V component to preserve accuracy thru a match.

I still have an old specialized IHMSA reloading book laying about the mansion here somewhere.
A buddy was hard core 357 maximum but oddly he kept having barrel strap erosion, never solved for long strings.

Just a few seasons ago I ran into someone I used to know from so long ago, who had me fire some of his magnificent 41 mag loads at the 200 yard target. He really had the right combination. Sorry to even forget his name now.

 

[DizzyJ]

You can Load hotter for the Model 57 and probably as Hot as you'd want to. So, with the Real difference between the two is in price. Apples and Oranges.

Odd. I've always found the Rugers to be more stout. Is there something different about the Model 57?

 

[KKG]

Odd. I've always found the Rugers to be more stout. Is there something different about the Model 57?

As I said it's something of Apples and Oranges. The Ruger Redhawk isn't any heavier in the Cylinder than a Model 57 but the Internals are more Robust. They're both fine Revolvers but I personally feel the Smith and Wesson has a smoother Double Action and the Single Action is normally a bit lighter. So, it boils down to which You prefer.

 

[41mag]

haven't had a Redhawk since about 1984 or so, if my memory isn't off line here, someone can take a look....the Ruger had index notches in the thick part of the cylinder and was some .000ths thicker (?)....plus I thought I recalled the top strap was thicker...plus the 'super RH' had big heavy extra metal sleeve from the frame a few inches toward muzzle *?*

Another thing I discovered but never found discussed anywhere, was the barrel rifling was opposite between the RH & the S&W. I could hold the pair of 44s, one in each hand at the same time, fire & have them both twist to the outside away from the middle. Change hands/guns to the opposite and they would twist toward the middle. From that observation I found I was unable to easily stay accurate at 100-200 yards switching from one to the other, as my grip/set up worked well with one but not the other.

Unless it was all a bad dream.....someone else might try this out & see what they find....

 

[DizzyJ]

As I said it's something of Apples and Oranges. The Ruger Redhawk isn't any heavier in the Cylinder than a Model 57 but the Internals are more Robust. They're both fine Revolvers but I personally feel the Smith and Wesson has a smoother Double Action and the Single Action is normally a bit lighter. So, it boils down to which You prefer.

Gotcha. Thanks for clarifying.

 

[DizzyJ]

haven't had a Redhawk since about 1984 or so, if my memory isn't off line here, someone can take a look....the Ruger had index notches in the thick part of the cylinder and was some .000ths thicker (?)....plus I thought I recalled the top strap was thicker...plus the 'super RH' had big heavy extra metal sleeve from the frame a few inches toward muzzle *?*

Another thing I discovered but never found discussed anywhere, was the barrel rifling was opposite between the RH & the S&W. I could hold the pair of 44s, one in each hand at the same time, fire & have them both twist to the outside away from the middle. Change hands/guns to the opposite and they would twist toward the middle. From that observation I found I was unable to easily stay accurate at 100-200 yards switching from one to the other, as my grip/set up worked well with one but not the other.

Unless it was all a bad dream.....someone else might try this out & see what they find....

I'd take that bad dream over most others!

 

[KKG]

Many years ago I saw what a .44 Magnum(240gr. Half Jacketed SWC) from a 6-1/2" Model 29 could do. It was impressive. I've never seen a good reason to go away from that Load because hotter would simply be more difficult to control and really would NOT make any difference in the end. I carried a similar Gun during my time as a LEO and felt I was Very Properly armed. I was Comfortable and that's what counts.