# 44 mag fps and energy difference 4" 5" 6"



## nuc

Looking for solo hiking revolver (protection against animals, bears, cougar etc.)
What is real energy diff. between the 4", 5" and 6" in the model 629?
The 4" would be more convenient with the 4"-but not if the power, shooting accuracy and controlability is diminished vs the 5" or 6".
Another interesting question-thoughts on the light weight 329 scandium in the 44mag?

thanks


----------



## DanP_from_AZ

nuc said:


> . . . What is real energy diff. between the 4", 5" and 6" in the model 629?


Here you go, all you need to know about "inch difference" for .44 Mag or any other handgun caliber from the "Ballistics by the Inch" website.
BBTI - 44 Mag

Their nitty-gritty results for S&W 629 barrel length, velocity in feet/sec. for Federal 240 grain Hydra-Shok.
1296 fps for 6.5" barrel 629.
1227 fps for 4.875" 629.
1094 fps for 4" 629 Mountain Packer.
1120 fps for 3". 629 Mountain Packer with ported barrel.

You asked about energy. Kinetic Energy = Mass x Velocity Squared (must use a conversion factor). "The result is left to the student".
So, energy percentage differences will be greater due to the "squared" factor.

A VERY good energy difference approximation can be done just by looking at the percentage difference in velocity squared if the bullet mass (weight) stays the same, like in this case.
For the four cases shown above, I will call the 1296 fps for the 6.5" barrel "the baseline".

0 % difference for the 6.5" baseline.
-10 % diff. for 4.875".
-29 % diff. for 4" 629 Mountain Packer.
-25 % diff. for 3". 629 Mountain Packer ported. 
The result for the 3" ported seems "counter-intuitative" to physics. I have no idea why. But, actual tests.

And, my opinion. 
Unless you are in Grizzly, Kodiak, or Polar country, I wouldn't worry about carrying a 3 or 4" barrel gun using a "premium" .44 Mag hunting load. YMMV.
Also, other threads here discuss using a semi-auto 10mm hunting load (Glock 20) for extra rounds. Also a good choice IMHO.



nuc said:


> Another interesting question-thoughts on the light weight 329 scandium in the 44mag?


OK, just my thoughts about 44 oz. for 629 5" barrel versus 25 oz. for 329PD 4" barrel scandium and titanium in .44 Mag.

No problem with the lighter gun. But, at purchase you must present a notarized letter from your mental health professional.
"xxxxx is certified by me to be suffering from a severe case of a masochistic personality disorder". :mrgreen:


----------



## DanP_from_AZ

DanP_from_AZ said:


> . . . OK, just my thoughts about 44 oz. for 629 5" barrel versus 25 oz. for 329PD 4" barrel scandium and titanium in .44 Mag.
> 
> No problem with the lighter gun. But, at purchase you must present a notarized letter from your mental health professional.
> "xxxxx is certified by me to be suffering from a severe case of a masochistic personality disorder". :mrgreen:


I posted this response, and "when I come back", here is Billy's take on the 329 Bodyguard. This pretty much says it all for a 25 oz. .44 Mag, with real results.
http://www.handgunforum.net/smith-w...-guard-44-magnum-muzzle-flash-pics-video.html

The recoil doesn't seem any more than my 44 oz. Ruger Alaskan 2.5" super-snubby in .454 Casull full-loads (260 grain, 1800 fps, 1871 ft-lb).
But the muzzle flash is a LOT more, I think. I've only shot mine in broad daylight. I'll have to try my Alaskan in low light conditions sometime.


----------



## Steve M1911A1

Hey, *nuc*, have you ever actually fired a .44 Magnum (in any barrel length)?

It's not a beginner's gun, no matter where you're going to hike and what critters you'll face.


----------



## nuc

yes, and the 357 and 10mm semi. Some difference but with practice and training-all will be manageable.


----------



## Steve M1911A1

Just checking.
I'm glad that you know what you're getting into.


----------



## DanP_from_AZ

Steve M1911A1 said:


> Just checking.
> I'm glad that you know what you're getting into.


Thanks Steve, a big "PLUS ONE" for covering my "you know what". :smt1099
After all my long verbose replies, I forgot to ask *Nuc *the most obvious question.

Not the first time, and won't be the last time I forget to see the forest while slogging through the trees.


----------

