[DOK]

Southpaw,

You're correct, I'm may have confused the issue.   Since Taurus uses a  muzzle brake and not muzzle porting, I've never considered the brake as part of the barrel length. Similiar to the putting a muzzle brake on my 9.5" SRH, I would not count my new barrel length as 10.5".

But I agree with your point and should stick to "standard" nomenclature descriptions.  I originally purchased the 8.375", but found a shorter revolver easier to carry in the field, so also purchased the 6.5" -- obviously shortening the RB barrel is rather difficult .
I'll use the 6.5" (Taurus definition) for the remaining Lil'gun tests I hope to finish tomorrow.

Appreciate the comment and will certainly take your advice. It might be helpful for those not familiar with the Taurus, for me to add a loadswap note about the 1" brake being integral to the Taurus barrel.

 

[jim lambert]

TAURUS RBs BARRELS HAVE A  BRAKE IN WHICH ACCOUNTS FOR 1 3/8" OF TOTAL BARREL LENGHT, SO THE 6 1/2" VERSION ACTUALLY HAS 5 1/8" OF ACTUAL RIFLED BORE. DEFINITION OF THE BRAKE, I DONT KNOW THE LAST PERSON WHO SAID IT I COULD NOT HEAR THEM.     JIM.

 

[Southpaw]

DOK,
Sorry, but I'm still confused.  Were your tests done on the 6 1/2" RB or the 8 /38" RB?  Thanks!

God bless,

 

[Southpaw]

DOK,
I forgot to mention that on your test results I noticed that the ES started to drop again, significantly too.  If you weren't near max load, I wonder if it would have dropped into single digits again along with improved accuracy.
  GRs   ES
  22.5  20
  23.0  22
  23.5  8
  24.0  45
  24.5  21
  25.0  13
What do you think?

God bless,

 

[DOK]

Southpaw,

Test done with 8.375", again, sorry for the confusion. I should have accurately measured the muzzle break as Mr. Lambert has and I would have more accurately identified the barrel as 7".  Future tests will be done with the 6.5" (including break) Taurus.  I realize the results will vary, but I want to see what the 8 3/8" versus 6.5" variation will be.  

I did notice the ES dropping back down from the 24.0 to 25.0 loads.  I will rerun the exact W296 test to verify the initial results. Two results will be of particular interest to me when I retest W296 -- the ES for 24.0 and 25.0, and the 4fps increase from 24.5 to 25.0. Additionally,  with the scope reinstalled, I can do a better job of judging the accuracy.

Today's test will be with the Lil'gun powder and the repeat test for W296 will be later in the week.

Thanks for the questions and I'll make a distinct effort to be more precise on the equipment used in the future.

 

[DOK]

In today's test with Lil'gun (covered in separate post), I rediscovered another reason I took the scope off the RB.  Even with the scope set as far back as the mount allows, the front of the scope is over the muzzle break.  The glass isn't directly exposed, but the front end of the scope sure is dirty, and I can't think the muzzle blast does it any good. For the retest of W296 (tomorrow if weather permits), I'll use a Bushnell red dot and hope it holds up.

Respectfully,

 

[DOK]

This message is a follow-up to the previous note about removing the scope because of it's overlap with the muzzle break:

I add this message with a large amount of humility and embarrassment.  

After the 5/22/01 test, I noticed the front end of the Burris scoped appeared dirty. No big surprise because the front end of the scope overlapped the muzzle brake, so I thought it best to take the scope off and use a shorter red dot scope.  The scope glass was not directly exposed, but the scope appeared very dirty – well, it wasn’t dirty, it was bare metal. Obviously, the escaping gas removed the bluing.  Fortunately, while the glass was very, very dirty, it did clean up unscratched.    O.K, so I should have thought about the overlap beforehand, but the damage was done and it did offer a conversation item about my lack of smarts.  While taking the scope off, I observed the mount metal immediately in front of the groves (that the Weaver type rings fit in) was sheared forward approximately ½”.  This happened to me the first time I mounted the scope on a Taurus mount, but I assumed I had been negligent in monitoring the screw tightness.  This time, I closely monitored the various screws, both on the rings and mount so didn’t suspect the problem has reoccurred.  The screws (installed with blue grade locktite) were tight, but apparently either the male ring portion doesn’t fit sufficiently far down in the female mount grove or there is sufficient flux/movement in the arrangement (or both) allowing the scope to move forward.  In any case, the end result is I’m shooting iron sights until I get a chance to have SSK install one of their T’*** mounts.  And I have two scope mounts to demonstrate my lack of smarts and/or ability to catch on very quick. Fortunately, I do know enough to keep the gun pointed down range.