Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Handguns .357 load for bowling pins

At last you are right about something relating to this topic <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/shocked.gif" alt="" />

That is the point that I'm trying to make.

Yes

Well, since you obviously know all that God would know if He were interested in this topic, please explain to this befuddled old phardt where the following is wrong or incomplete �



With (a) two bullets of the same shape and (b) the same impact on a bowling pin ...



... the load with the greater momentum is more likely to knock the pin off the table.



Inquiring minds want to know � not to be dismissed with arrogance or condescension. I trust that you can handle this simple request with clarity and specificity. Will you? Please?

Norm,

I might get flamed for calling a spade a spade, but if it comes down to which meplat design is best on a bowlin' pin we are, as Mother says, trying to make chicken salad out of chicken sh$t.

Hitting the pin center with SPEED is what the game is all about - a pin that spins on the table was missed.

As such and just like everything else, pick a load that you can shoot accurately and with speed. Leisurely knocking one pin off the table is usually easy. The game gets tougher on the subsequent pins not becuase the load became wimpy, but because the shooter lost accuracy.

The .357 Mag is a high-pressure round with lots of recoil and muzzle blast. I would worry more about the shootability of the platform than the load. A 6-in. N-frame would get the nod from me, loaded up with "standard" velocity 158-grainers.

A thought or two here on energy and momentum - someone can correct me if I get the formulas or the logic wrong.



The formula for energy is Mass * Velocity^^2, or Mass times (Velocity squared), right? As such it heavily favors increases in velocity over increases in mass.



But since the formula for momentum is simply mass times velocity, you can increase either and obtain an equal increase in momentum.



Increasing speed in a .357 involves more muzzle blast, and -now here is where my physics knowledge gets a bit fuzzy - you will be increasing energy out the muzzle at a "squared" rate. Said "out the muzzle energy" will have a corresponding equal and opposite effect backwards and thus will get transferred back as recoil at that "squared" rate. Poorly worded perhaps but hope that makes sense?



However, by increasing mass you will still increase energy out the muzzle and equally back to the shooter as recoil but the increase will be in a straight linear manner. (I know linear implies straight but it sounds better to use both terms. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" /> )



Since momentum or the transference of same is what will knock the pin off the table, seems to me that your best return for the least recol "cost" is to keep the speed reasonable - 900-1000 fps, and simply shoot a heavier bullet. If anybody makes one an LBT Wide Flat Nose of around 200 grains seems about right here.



Switching conversational gears, back in the early eighties a friend was into bowling pin shooting and showed me a cast bullet another competitor had given him. It was of truncated cone shape but the nose was an open, serrated hollowpoint. Looked for all the world like one of those circular saw bits for cutting doorknob holes, only smaller of course. The guy claimed that the serrated edges would grab the pin even on a glancing hit and transfer momentum instead of the bullet just glancing off. Obviously not an earthshakingly successful design as I've never seen or heard of that design since, but an interesting stab at a solution for achieving the squarest possible strike on a rounded object.



Finally, to back up what JOG said about speed or rapidity of accurate fire - apparently the winners in my friend's contests gravitated toward hi-cap 9mm's. While the revolver shooters were carefully aiming at each pin, these guys would let fly with 2, 3 or even 4 rounds apiece as fast as they could fire at each pin to send them reeling, rocking and eventually rolling off the table.

1st) Don't you speak to me about arrogance or condescension- review your ealier posts and see where that started <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />
2) Just as a wild example, Lets pretend that we are shooting a pin match with a rifle side match. We will use an AR-15 w/ 55gr bullet. Would you think that the 55gr FMJ will move the pins as well as the 55 SP? They have the same momentum don't they? Yes they do, and in this example either bullet probably has more then enough momentum to do the job. You keep implying that I don't believe momentum has any value, that's not true. Momentum is just not the only thing that matters.

Jim,

Some of the "spray and pray" method of pin shooting comes from the rules, which can vary considerably (especially in the past). Major caliber shooters start with the pins 3' from the rear edge of the table, minor shooters at 1-1/2', and rimfire shooters at the rear edge.

Nowadays, pin guns are often limited to 8-rounds at the start with unlimited reloads.

I'd still like to know the explanation � where I've "missed it" with the above.



If I have.



Should "shape" be more specific in my question, to include design and construction? (As a cast-bullet-shooter, I tend to think first of cast wadcutters and semiwadcutters as "givens" in a discussion such as this.) If so, then so be it.



Until someone can explain why I'm wrong, I continue to feel that the relative efficacies of, say, a .357 Magnum Keith bullet and a .44 Magnum Keith bullet must be determined by a comparison of their respective momenta (at impact, of course) rather than by a comparison of their diameters, weights, velocities, or kinetic energies.



Also, I assume that discussions of the relative efficacies of such things as bullet shapes, designs, and construction are separate discussions in which, for example, such things as caliber and momentum are "givens." And I assume that everyone else who dives into these discussions to contribute useful input, from whatever direction, assumes likewise.



And friend, you've misjudged me completely if you think that I was condescending or arrogant in my earlier posts. I certainly intended neither, since neither was in my heart. But the answers "yes" and "At last you've got something right," aimed at me rather than at the logic and topic of my posts, still strike me as intentionally snotty.

Right.
Right.

By definition in a recognized standard reference, "The momentum of a moving body is equivalent to that constant force which would bring the body to rest in one second by resisting its movement. Momentum = mass � velocity in feet per second" (m � v).

Momentum is clearly distinct from (and more pertinent to knocking pins over than) the kinetic energy of that moving body, which is its mass � its velocity squared (m � v�). Which is why I began my first post in this thread with "Since 'killing power' is not a factor in knocking bowling pins off a table � momentum is � ...."

If this explanation sounds arrogant or condescending, �'est la vie.

What I continue to wonder about is whether (and how, if so) (a) a glancing impact on a pin (ricochet), (b) a complete penetration of a pin (failure to stop the bullet), or (c) an impact too high on a pin (a blow that merely knocks it over, not three feet backward and over the edge of the table), in some manner that's still a mystery to me, somehow throws all consideration of relative momentum into some discard bin of physics or logic. It seems to me that even with an imperfect impact, 50% (or any given percentage) of the bullet's momentum is more efficacious than the same percentage from a bullet with less momentum.

No wonder I can't bowl worth a darn.

It hurts to think of all this time I've been wasting with practice, trying to throw that heavy ball over and over to achieve greater accuracy.

I'll never get that -big-heavy-slow- bowling ball to go more than a few feet per second...

Maybe I'll switch to a sling shot and marbles.

Seriously, don't we all know by now that a smaller, lighter (less dense) object has to travel faster than a larger, heavier (more dense) object to deliver the same amount of energy. Any energy left over when an object passes through (or is deflected off of) another is lost. In order for one object to pass all of it's energy to another, they cannot separate after impact or the total energy expended will have to be divided among the separate pieces.

That's the same old argument as big soft lead projectiles vs. small fast jacketed projectiles. (.45/70 vs 7mag) Hollow points were developed to help that small fast object to deliver all (or most) of it's energy without (or just barely) passing through the target. A meplat - the greater surface area helps to slow the projectile when it hits the target, delivering more of the energy before or if it penetrates through.

Personally I find bigger slower handguns easier to control than faster lighter (magnum) loadings.

Mr. Howell: From what I can gather by reading the posts above, I don't think anyone disputes

"It seems to me that even with an imperfect impact, 50% (or any given percentage) of the bullet's momentum is more efficacious than the same percentage from a bullet with less momentum."

I believe the point being (or trying to be) made is that given equal momentum there are other factors which affect the percentage of momentum transferred to the pin. dvnv

Guy, did you know that Dr. Ken Howell is set to release a work on Internal Ballistics this May or June? This will be one in a string of comprehensive in depth perusals of the workings of firearms and ammunition from a master of the subject. I suggest you start brain before opening mouth (keyboard) around here Sir.

If you do a little research you will find he is a very well respected EXPERT in the field of firearms and ammunition. Not to mention that he has been doing so for MANY MOONS.

BTW, ever hear of any Howell wildcat cartriges? Yep, of the same genere.

Ken - Thanks for you input. This coming Saturday I'll shoot bowling pins with the .357 for the first time. The ammo I have is 158 grain Keith loaded to 1100 fps.

The revolver is my old GP100 - my last duty gun before I became an ex-deputy. We always qualified possibles (the GP and me.) Hopefully I'll be able to do the marksmanship part and we'll see how the 158 grainers do on the pins.

Thanks,

Good luck Norm, that load has killed many a wild bowling pin for me out of a 66.

TLEE



Thanks, I'll do my best to uphold the lawmen (and ex-lawmen) in these here parts.



But those danged kids with their fancy irons do make it difficult to make the cut. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

Age and trechery will overcome youth and high-tech every time Sir! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

Ken, I don't know how to read. I just come to these forums to look at the pretty pictures <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" /> Flinch