>missing the OAL point this hard
I'm just saying don't compare 4" autopistols with 4" revolvers just because they have the same number for barrel length. I don't give a fuck whether you compare 2" revolvers to 4" autopistols (both readily concealable) or if you compare 6" revolvers to 8" autopistols as the other guy did.
If you'd accept a 2" longer gun to get the benefit of a 4" revolver over a snubby, wouldn't you also be willing to consider a 2" longer pistol for the same benefits? So it's only fair to compare that 4" revolver to a 6" pistol.
>155 grain
Less SD than 125gr 0.355; fine for soft tissue, where total energy matters more than SD, but a dubious choice against barriers or at long range.
>180-220 grains
220gr is practically the same SD -- only 2% less.
180gr is 20% lower SD, does that not seem a little light to you?
>1500-1400 fps from an 8 inch barrel
I understand the 1500fps figure, since that's what your 180gr Magnum does from a 6" revolver. But since you're already comparing bullets with lower SD, if anything it should be faster to compensate, not up to 100fps slower.
>180 at 1400+1"
If 180gr is "close enough", then so is 147gr .357sig; I already showed you it has more SD than 180gr .400 bullets; DoubleTap lists it as 1250 fps from a 4" barrel, essentially matching that .357 Magnum load from a 2.5" barrel.
And, again, that's not enough. 20% lighter SD, same velocity -- not even close, really.
>Swampfox 200gr
>1325 from a stock 4.5 inch glock 20
vs 1351 from a 3" revolver.
A little closer, but still 10% short on SD, and essentially the same velocity.
Turns out small, high-pressure cartridges do poorly when you try to cram heavy bullets in them. Who knew.
>It's an expanding load.
If your expanding load expands when it touches a barrier, or while passing through 100 yards of air, you have a problem.
>I'm not really seeing what SD has to do with anything.
Exactly. Come back when you lrn2physics.