Buying new pistol, need advice

[Big Z]

Big Z: Ok, now I get it. The magnums are the tall thin ones. Now are you going to make me go back and read the ballistic treatise or can you tell me again why the magnums are more powerful? Is it because they have more grains? Or is it the cap that is special?

This is the Simple Answer!--This pic!----And In the following pic, Just think what the MAGNUM LOAD Would do to you Vs. The Regular LOAD!

[Big Z]

The Difference!----BIG!......And MAGNUM!

[PARAGON]

While magnum is not always universal, it generally is used to signify that it's a certain caliber ammo, but with a "magnum charge" or more grains of powder. So, it's faster and has more energy.

.22 vs. .22MAG

.357 vs. .357Mag

.44 vs. .44Mag

.45 vs. 45 Win Mag

.300 Savage vs. .300 Win Mag vs. .300 Wby Mag

[ETD]

Sorry, to be a wee bit slow, but...
Big Z, in your photo's, the magnums were NOT "bigger" but longer and all but the .22 had the metallic cap so that to a novice, those were the differences NOT the overwhelming size difference as in your photo's of the drinking containers. Or was that because of the loss of perspective in the photo's of the bullets and there IS really that much difference in size.
Paragon, that's what I was wondering. That is, the difference in projectile effectiveness has to do with the fact that there is that much more explosive material in the magnum bullets and not that they are longer and capped with some other metal (i.e. they needed to be longer to be able to hold more explosive force).
BTW, I figured that if shape was of primary importance, wouldn't bullets still be spherical? Doesn't a sphere going forward in air have the least drag coefficient or is my physics too rusty?

[PARAGON]

Originally Posted by ETD

Sorry, to be a wee bit slow, but...
Big Z, in your photo's, the magnums were NOT "bigger" but longer and all but the .22 had the metallic cap so that to a novice, those were the differences NOT the overwhelming size difference as in your photo's of the drinking containers. Or was that because of the loss of perspective in the photo's of the bullets and there IS really that much difference in size.
Paragon, that's what I was wondering. That is, the difference in projectile effectiveness has to do with the fact that there is that much more explosive material in the magnum bullets and not that they are longer and capped with some other metal (i.e. they needed to be longer to be able to hold more explosive force).
BTW, I figured that if shape was of primary importance, wouldn't bullets still be spherical? Doesn't a sphere going forward in air have the least drag coefficient or is my physics too rusty?

The "bullet" itself really has nothing to do with it being a magnum or not. Magnum labeling comes from the powder charge, generally.

The shape, design, make-up, etc. of the bullet is something completely different and refers to it's caliber size (.22 or .38 for instance) and then the various ways the bullet itself is designed. Soft Point, Full Metal Jacket, Hollow Point, Wadcutter, etc. Then you get into more intricacies such as ballistic tip sierra boattail, etc etc. All of that refers just to the bullet.

Cartridges are labeled various things by the manufacturers and magnum was just something they came up with for a specific caliber "bullet" that has a higher powder charge (requires more space behind the bullet, hence the longer casing) to be more powerful.

So, Big Z's point was that there's more punch in a magnum due to the gunpowder load.

[PARAGON]

In magnum centerfire rifles, the casing is generally longer AND "fatter" than their non-magnum counterparts.

It's a design element. In theory, one could design a "magnum" cartridge that was the same height as it's standard counterpart, but with a fatter casing and then neck down the top to fit the caliber. That's just not done in handgun applications.

I think that was what you were refering to.

[MarineHawk]

Originally Posted by ETD

Sorry, to be a wee bit slow, but...
Big Z, in your photo's, the magnums were NOT "bigger" but longer and all but the .22 had the metallic cap so that to a novice, those were the differences NOT the overwhelming size difference as in your photo's of the drinking containers. Or was that because of the loss of perspective in the photo's of the bullets and there IS really that much difference in size.
Paragon, that's what I was wondering. That is, the difference in projectile effectiveness has to do with the fact that there is that much more explosive material in the magnum bullets and not that they are longer and capped with some other metal (i.e. they needed to be longer to be able to hold more explosive force).
BTW, I figured that if shape was of primary importance, wouldn't bullets still be spherical? Doesn't a sphere going forward in air have the least drag coefficient or is my physics too rusty?

Your physics is a bit rusty. A long pointy projectile with a tapered base tends to have the lowest drag (balistic coefficient). Otherwise, spherical airplanes would be a lot more common. Higher density also yields a higher ballistic coeficient. Strictly speaking, the bullet has no explosive material. The cartridge does. The cartrige essentially consists of the casing, the bullet, the primer, and the gunpowder inside the casing. The bullet is the (generally lead covered by a thin copper jacket) metal thingy that goes flying through and out of the barrel at a fairly high velocity. The term "Magnum" is just a name given to some fairly hot cartridges. For example, a .44 Magnum cartridge holds a lot more charge than a .44 S&W Special. A typical 180 grain .44 Special flies out of the muzzle at about 1,000 fps; a 180 grain .44 Magnum comes out at 1,610 fps. And remember, it's the energy, which is proportional to the square of the velocity, that hurts, stops, and kills something. Thus, the 180 gr .44 Magnum delivers 1,036 ft-lbs of energy, while the 180 gr .44 Special delivers only 400 fpe. Similarly, a 125 gr .38 special puts out about 250 fpe, while the .357 Mag. (same caliber) puts out 583 fpe.
That being said, a "non-magnum" Cor-Bon 135 gr .40 S&W semi-auto round puts out 526 fpe and you can stuff anywhere from 11 to 18 of them in various semi-auto pistols as opposed to the six .357 "Magnums" you can load in a revolver.
IMHO, if I was going to encounter anything that weighed more than 400 lbs, I would want a revolver loaded with at least a .44 Mag. If I was going to encounter any carnivorous mammal wieghing more than 1,000 lbs (and I couldn't/didn't want to bring a rifle), I'd probably want to move up to something more powerfull, like a .454 Casull, a .480 Ruger, one of the .50 cal magnums, etc... And, on the smaller side, I'd like to have my .44 Ruger Redhawk when facing a Black Bear, but when backpacking in the Colorado Wilderness Areas I feel perfectly prepared carrying one of my much lighter .40 S&W handguns as a Black Bear repellant.

[DennisAJC]

All this talk about shooting bears.

Has anyone considered that maybe the bear just wants a hug and a little understanding?

[PARAGON]

Originally Posted by DennisAJC

All this talk about shooting bears.

Has anyone considered that maybe the bear just wants a hug and a little understanding?

Is that where bear hug came from?