Taurus Firearm Forum banner
1 - 6 of 6 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
50 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
I'm interested to see how many FPS the porting sacrifices? This can be in .38/.357 or 9mm because I can compare it (if I can find a test on the same round) to a gun with a NON-ported 3" barrel. I am interested in the gun (mainly for 9mm) but if, let's say, the porting drops the 3" barrel velocity down to the general velocity of most 2" barrels then that would be deal breaking for me.

Honestly, I don't see why they ported this barrel since even with full load .357's it still weighs 35 ounces so recoil should be manageable, and with the .38/9mm's the issue of too much recoil would not even arise? Or they could have offered a non-ported version of the same model?

Thanks ;)
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
38,253 Posts
Welcome to the forum from Northern Illinois! I got curious also and did a quick search. In this test with a Glock it looks like a 30 FPS difference, which to my mind is not enough to worry about. That round will still do the job that you need it to.

https://gundigest.com/article/ported-barrel-reduce-recoil
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
50 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 · (Edited)
Welcome to the forum from Northern Illinois! I got curious also and did a quick search. In this test with a Glock it looks like a 30 FPS difference, which to my mind is not enough to worry about. That round will still do the job that you need it to.

https://gundigest.com/article/ported-barrel-reduce-recoil

Thanks for the welcome! Yes, that's one of the few websites that I found on it also, but you'll notice when they actually chrono'd the 115 grain round, it was 78 fps slower!

"The ported barrel produced less velocity than the non-ported barrel. The 115-grain load was 78 fps slower, the 124- and 147-grain loads were 55 fps and 53 fps slower, respectively."


That 78 fps loss was with a bullet up around 1200fps, the 147 grain difference of 53 fps would be more along the velocity of what I would use in it (HST 147 grain) and so would probably lose around that much? Again though, that much would negate about HALF the velocity increase between a 2" and a 3" barrel, so I don't see the point?


I have a ported 608 that has a 4" barrel. That's not bad because it's 4" to begin with. I can't see porting a 3" barrel, and losing fps, if one of the reasons the buyer wants a 3" barrel is because it's faster than a 2" and the HP's are more likely to expand because of it?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,856 Posts
For me it has more to do with sight radius and alignment to the target. When mine comes back, I'll compare it to two SP101's I have. One is 9mm and the other .357. both have a 2.25" barrel.

Maloy
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
20 Posts
Not really a good measure. The Ruger barrels could be individually or both inherently faster or slower.

You see this *generally* in the GP100 vs 686 of the same barrel lengths. The 686 *typically* is slower than the GP100.

So you need chrono numbers from the 692 to know your answer.

Yes. The porting on the 3" is a waist in my mind as well.
 
1 - 6 of 6 Posts
Top