{"id":864,"date":"2023-03-07T18:45:26","date_gmt":"2023-03-07T18:45:26","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/gunowner-news.com\/?p=864"},"modified":"2023-03-07T18:45:26","modified_gmt":"2023-03-07T18:45:26","slug":"ported-barrels-are-they-worth-the-effort","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/gunowner-news.com\/?p=864","title":{"rendered":"Ported Barrels: Are They Worth the Effort?"},"content":{"rendered":"


\n<\/p>\n

\n

By Roy Huntington<\/a><\/p>\n

A<\/span>sk just about any shooter with any experience how they like ported barrels on guns and you\u2019ll get some strongly worded answers. Some are raucously opposed to \u201cPutting holes in the barrel!\u201d, while others think a proper handgun can\u2019t be shot well without ports or a comp of some sort. The issue I have with both the nay-sayers and the activist supporters is most have very little actual experience shooting them side-by-side.<\/p>\n

\n<\/picture>
Is porting worth the effort or just a bunch of noise? Check out this comparison of a ported and un-ported 1911 Garrison to find\u00a0out.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

One may be a long-time \u201cnon-comp\u201d shooter put off by a perceived higher muzzle blast and increased noise, so they shut that option out. Others might have learned to shoot or have a good deal of experience with a compensated gun of some sort. They may look with disdain upon anyone foolish enough to shoot a gun without a compensator or ports.<\/p>\n

\u201cOh, the humanity!\u201d It\u2019s like endorsing one political candidate \u2014 in spite of another also having some positive traits \u2014 and keeping your ears plugged to any positive arguments except the ones about\u00a0your<\/em>\u00a0candidate.\u00a0<\/p>\n

That\u2019s called confirmation bias. It\u2019s when you\u2019ve made a decision about something \u2014 cars, knives, ammo, comp guns or non-comp guns, etc. \u2014 then only consider information supporting your opinions. Often, in spite of nearly overwhelming evidence showing those opinions might be incorrect, those same people continue to shut out any new information.<\/p>\n

I began to wonder if I might have applied this to the question of porting on guns, which led me to this test.<\/p>\n

Ports and Comps<\/h2>\n

First, let\u2019s consider the terminology we will use when discussing this topic. Comps can be elaborate contraptions going onto the muzzle end of a handgun, or just simply ports cut into the top near the muzzle. \u00a0<\/p>\n

\"ken\n<\/picture>
Ken Kelly, guru of Mag-Na-Port, is hands-on in the shop daily. His company revolutionized the concept of ported guns. Image: Mag-Na-Port<\/span><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

In the 1980\u2019s, the age of the compensated gun in competition exploded onto the scene, and rightfully so. A comp allowed shooters to shoot faster, more accurately and more smoothly, so they dominated the circuits. That spilled into the standard marketplace, and soon it seemed as though comps of one sort or another were available to everyone.<\/p>\n

Some of those elaborate comps vented loads of pressurized gases and were, indeed, quite loud. I think, more than anything, that\u2019s what prompted many non-competitors to wonder what the big deal was. If you\u2019re shooting a weekend match, or just plinking or even handgun hunting, why put up with the Sturm und Drang and general fuss a compensator generates for just a few shots? I\u2019d tend to agree.<\/p>\n

Most also think having those ports or a comp \u201cout there\u201d greatly reduces the gases pushing the bullet out of the bore, tending to negatively affect velocity. This perceived hacking away at potential velocity has turned many shooters off to the idea of comps or ports. \u201cI want every bit of velocity I can get!\u201d they cry out. \u201cAnd I\u2019ll be damned if I\u2019ll use \u2019em,\u201d they add, \u201ceven if they might help me shoot faster and more accurately!\u201d So there.<\/p>\n

Can Less Be More?<\/h2>\n

In 1972, Mag-Na-Port burst onto the shooting scene on the cover of an issue of\u00a0Guns and Ammo<\/em>\u00a0magazine. These elegantly shaped, small rectangular ports on a gun\u2019s upper muzzle area were almost unnoticeable. Developed by Larry Kelly, the process employed Electrical Discharge Machining (EDM) \u2014 which doesn\u2019t use mechanical cutters \u2014 to make those precise, definitively shaped ports. EDM uses an electrode and an anode to allow current to flow, \u201ceating away\u201d metal, but never touching it. Complicated shapes can be produced, and Larry realized he was onto something.<\/p>\n

\"what\n<\/picture>
The Mag-Na-Port process puts cuts not only in the barrel, but also matching ones in the slide. Image:\u00a0Michael\u00a0Anschuetz<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

Mag-Na-Port technology was introduced to the shooting public and soon gained its approval. The general ambient fuss normally generated by a competition-type comp was replaced by small, precisely aimed jets pointed \u201cjust so\u201d to keep muzzle flip down. Many called the technology a game-changer.<\/p>\n

Today, Mag-Na-Port is run by Larry\u2019s son, Ken Kelly, and is more popular than ever. The process can also be used on rifles and shotguns, as well as handguns of all kinds. An autopistol has ports cut through the barrel as well as the slide, allowing the escaping gas to help force the muzzle down as the bullets leave the bore. A revolver just has ports through the top of the barrel near the muzzle. Mag-Na-Port has been doing their magic on factory guns of all sorts for decades. It\u2019s well proven \u2014 and got me thinking.<\/p>\n

Ported Guns<\/h2>\n

In chatting with editor-in-chief of\u00a0The Armory Life<\/em>, Mike Humphries, I told him I thought it\u2019d be an interesting test to compare identical 1911s, one ported and one un-ported. \u201cLet\u2019s see what really happens in the real world,\u201d I suggested. I wanted to determine how much velocity something like Mag-Na-Porting\u00a0really<\/em>\u00a0cuts. And, if it does lower the velocity, to what degree \u2014 and does that percentage really matter? Is the reduced muzzle flip worth a bit of velocity loss?<\/p>\n

\"comparing\n<\/picture>
The author had an un-ported blued Garrison 9mm for the test (right) and a stainless model he had ported\u00a0(left).<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

I figured using a relatively straightforward, but high-quality 1911 as the base for the test made sense. So, I requested two stock 5\u2033 Springfield Armory Garrison 9mm pistols<\/a>. One of them went to Mag-Na-Port so they could do their magic with two ports. Soon we got a \u201cYour gun\u2019s done,\u201d call from Ken Kelly and it landed at my FFL.<\/p>\n

My idea was simple, but time-consuming. I was going to assemble as many different 9mm loads I could find in my stash and shoot them over a chronograph. Each load would have five rounds fired from each gun and I\u2019d collect the data. I also wanted to pay close attention to how different each load felt regarding perceived recoil, muzzle flip and anything else popping up.<\/p>\n

In the interest of full disclosure here, I started this fairly firmly in the \u201cI don\u2019t need a comp to shoot well\u201d crowd. I\u2019ve also always assumed (dangerous, right?) a comp or port-style modification would negatively affect velocity a good deal. So, here we find ourselves on new ground, and with the ability soon to point our fingers and say, \u201cSee, I told you so.\u201d<\/p>\n

I just wasn\u2019t sure who would get the finger pointed at them.<\/p>\n

Testing Ported Barrels<\/h2>\n

I ended up with more than 25 loads from my stash of 9mm ammo. Over the years as editor of\u00a0American Handgunner,<\/em>\u00a0I had accumulated a good cross-section of loads from different makers I used during gun tests. I have countless boxes missing \u201ca few rounds\u201d for chronographing or accuracy testing, so this was a good time to use up some of that ammo.<\/p>\n

\"ported\n<\/picture>
The Mag-Na-Port porting cuts are extremely subtle and do not change the profile or handling characteristics of the pistol. Image:\u00a0Michael\u00a0Anschuetz<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

Kindly see the chart for specifics. The drill was to load five in a magazine, shoot five over the chrono documenting each shot\u2019s velocity, then load five more of the same and repeat things for the other gun. I shot the un-ported stock Garrison first, followed by the Mag-Na-Ported version. About 300-odd rounds later I was done with the shooting portion. I had to re-shoot a few loads due to \u201cfault\u201d readings on the chrono, which is common with the electronic beasts.<\/p>\n

This also allowed me to get a feel of the stock gun and the pistol with the ported barrel and slide, one right after the other. I was able to compare the differences in perceived recoil and muzzle blast and will admit my comparison is subjective. But I\u2019ve been shooting handguns for nearly six decades, so I\u2019m attuned to some of the more subtle nuances of what\u2019s going on regarding recoil and muzzle blast.<\/p>\n

\n
\n\t\t\t\t\"\"\/<\/p>\n

Live The Armory Life.<\/strong> The latest content straight to your inbox plus an automatic entry to each of our monthly gun\u00a0giveaways!<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n<\/p><\/div>\n<\/p><\/div>\n

Refer to the chart for details and numbers. The velocities listed are an average of five rounds for each load.<\/p>\n

I also downloaded a decibel meter app for my iPhone. Doing some experimenting, I found it seemed to be reliable. My chainsaw showed it was as loud as a chainsaw, according to their chart. My tractor met the specs for tractor noises and my barking Aussie Shepherds pegged the \u201cbarking\u201d limit of the app.<\/p>\n

Data Points<\/h2>\n

Since I was doing the work, I included a Springfield 911 (3\u2033 barrel) I own in the mix to see how these loads are affected by a shorter barrel with no ports. It\u2019s just FYI info for you to compare against the \u201cfull-sized\u201d 9mm autos. Call it a bonus.<\/p>\n

\"ammo\n<\/picture>
Most of the loads used in the test. Roy dug deep into his stash to find a good cross-section of velocity, bullet weight and other features. Image:\u00a0Author<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

First, let\u2019s get the noise question out of the way. I started the test firmly convinced the Mag-Na-Ported gun would be \u201ca lot\u201d louder than the stock gun. After shooting, I seemed to feel a bit more muzzle blast on my arm and face, but it was hard to tell if it was louder. Some of the higher velocity loads might have barked a tad more in the ported gun, but it was hard to tell for sure.<\/p>\n

The DB meter told me the un-ported gun averaged about three to five points lower noise than the ported gun, depending upon the load. The light\/high-velocity loads were the most obnoxious in either gun. The stock gun ran in the 105 DB range (differing load to load) while the ported gun averaged 108 to 110 or so. According to my research, that\u2019s not significant, although it is louder. But both are above the 100 DB limit of \u201cpermanent damage\u201d if you\u2019re exposed to it, so wear your ears.<\/p>\n

As a test, I also fired a .44 Magnum, promptly pegging the meter at 120. I suppose it was actually louder, since the meter couldn\u2019t read higher. I read online some gun reports can approach 140.<\/p>\n

I want to stress this was an informal test, but I confess I was surprised the ported gun didn\u2019t show as being\u00a0considerably<\/em>\u00a0louder. I\u2019m assuming the \u201cnoise\u201d is the same (same powder, same load, same \u201cexplosion\u201d), but the porting allows \u201csome\u201d of that sound to be closer to your ear. Hence, they might seem louder.<\/p>\n

\"range\n<\/picture>
The author is shown here with his two Garrisons as well as the detailed notes from the testing. Image:\u00a0Author<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

The real surprise for me came as I assembled the velocity data. I had expected the ported Garrison to show significantly lower velocities, at least with some loads. But nope, and as a matter of fact with some loads it was just a tad higher. Overall, there were five loads showing\u00a0higher<\/em>\u00a0velocities in the ported gun than the stock gun. I profess I don\u2019t know why or how that is.<\/p>\n

The biggest velocity difference I could find was only 5.6 percent lower in the ported gun, say, around 50 feet per second (fps) or so. The chart shows the loads compared so you can see for yourself. As near as I could manage with my high school math is the ported gun averaged about one percent less velocity than the stock Garrison (give or take just a smidgen).<\/p>\n

To me, a load generating, say, 1,187 fps in the un-ported gun and 1,151 in the ported gun \u2014 Black Hills 115-gr. FMJ for instance \u2014 is fine in either gun. The Speer Lawman 147-gr. TMJ showed 981 in the stock gun and 970 in the ported gun, a difference of only 11 fps. You can have much more variance than that just in round-to-round differences.<\/p>\n

An interesting point is the fact virtually all of the loads having velocities listed on the boxes showed higher fps figures over the chronograph. A few, like the Buffalo Bore loads, were almost spot-on with the velocities listed on the boxes. They were also very consistent between the two guns, with just ten fps or less between the ported vs. un-ported models. But they test with real guns, not pressure barrels.<\/p>\n

Ported vs. Non-Ported Barrel Data<\/h2>\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
Load<\/th>\nUn-Ported Pistol<\/th>\nPorted Pistol<\/th>\nSpringfield 911<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n
Aguila 124-gr. FMJ<\/td>\n1,061 fps<\/td>\n1,037 fps<\/td>\n931 fps<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
American Eagle 124-gr. FMJ<\/td>\n1,088 fps<\/td>\n1,070 fps<\/td>\n947 fps<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Barnaul 115-gr. TMC<\/td>\n1,148 fps<\/td>\n1,130 fps<\/td>\n1,005 fps<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Black Hills 115-gr. FMJ<\/td>\n1,187 fps<\/td>\n1,151 fps<\/td>\n1,029 fps<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Black Hills 125-gr. Honey Badger<\/td>\n1,028 fps<\/td>\n1,003 fps<\/td>\n927 fps<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Brown 147-gr. BXP-X-Point<\/td>\n1,041 fps<\/td>\n1,012 fps<\/td>\n929 fps<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Buffalo Bore 95-gr. Barnes TAC-XP<\/td>\n1,556 fps<\/td>\n1,548 fps<\/td>\n1,397 fps<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Buffalo Bore 124-gr. +P+ JHP<\/td>\n1,351 fps<\/td>\n1,357 fps<\/td>\n1,123 fps<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Buffalo Bore 147-gr. +P HC Lead<\/td>\n1,123 fps<\/td>\n1,114 fps<\/td>\n1,005 fps<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Corbon 115-gr. +P DPX<\/td>\n1,293 fps<\/td>\n1,281 fps<\/td>\n1,187 fps<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Double Tap 77-gr. DT Copper HP<\/td>\n1,557 fps<\/td>\n1,582 fps<\/td>\n1,365 fps<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Double Tap 80-gr. Barnes TAC-XP<\/td>\n1,509 fps<\/td>\n1,477 fps<\/td>\n1,285 fps<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Federal 147-gr. Hydra-Shok JHP<\/td>\n980 fps<\/td>\n963 fps<\/td>\n873 fps<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Hornady 135-gr. Flexlock<\/td>\n1,075 fps<\/td>\n1,026 fps<\/td>\n955 fps<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Hornady 147-gr. TAPCQ<\/td>\n1,017 fps<\/td>\n999 fps<\/td>\n923 fps<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Inceptor 65-gr. Copper Poly Fluted<\/td>\n1,548 fps<\/td>\n1,532 fps<\/td>\n1,316 fps<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Liberty Civil Defense 50-gr. JHP<\/td>\n2,252 fps<\/td>\n2,195 fps<\/td>\n1,903 fps<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Nosler 124-gr. JHP<\/td>\n1,169 fps<\/td>\n1,112 fps<\/td>\n1,051 fps<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Speer Lawman 147-gr. TMJ<\/td>\n981 fps<\/td>\n970 fps<\/td>\n880 fps<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Speer LE 147-gr. Gold Dot HP<\/td>\n1,028 fps<\/td>\n980 fps<\/td>\n855 fps<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Streak (Tracer) 147-gr. TMC<\/td>\n982 fps<\/td>\n966 fps<\/td>\n965 fps<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Winchester Controlled Expansion 147-gr. JHP<\/td>\n1,053 fps<\/td>\n1,041 fps<\/td>\n955 fps<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Winchester Defender 147-gr. JHP<\/td>\n1,069 fps<\/td>\n1,022 fps<\/td>\n951 fps<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Winchester Train & Defend 147-gr. Train FMJ<\/td>\n999 fps<\/td>\n1,003 fps<\/td>\n908 fps<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Wolf 115-gr. FMJ Steel Case<\/td>\n1,189 fps<\/td>\n1,181 fps<\/td>\n1,121 fps<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Z-Clean Lead-Free 100-gr. Zinc FP<\/td>\n1,278 fps<\/td>\n1,301 fps<\/td>\n1,200 fps<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>
All velocities are the average of five rounds measured in feet per second (fps). Velocity measured with a Competition Electronics Pro-Chrono DLX. Note: Some ammunition is no longer in production.<\/em><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

And the Winner Is\u00a0\u2026<\/h2>\n

Truthfully, I think we\u2019re all winners here. While I honestly feel the Mag-Na-Ports did help to keep muzzle flip down significantly, those same ports also didn\u2019t affect velocity in any manner anyone should fret over. If you\u2019re interested in competition where fast shooting and target-to-target movement are critical things, I\u2019d think about getting ports. What additional perceived blast there might have been was hardly noticeable, at least to me. For a defensive gun, I\u2019d be interested in seeing how these ports work on one of the smaller .380-sized autos, which tend to be snappy and flip the muzzle. Would a ported barrel for concealed carry work? I\u2019ll look into that.<\/p>\n

If you favor un-ported guns, that\u2019s fine too. I felt the overall recoil of the ported gun to be just a tiny bit snappier than the stock gun, while keeping the muzzle lower. That energy has to go someplace, so it goes backwards into you. Normally it\u2019s \u201cwasted\u201d generating muzzle flip, so the stock gun felt slightly \u201csofter\u201d in recoil, at least to me. But I don\u2019t think the owner of an un-ported gun can reliably exclaim his gun generates enough higher velocity to matter in the real world.<\/p>\n

We could go on about shooting a ported gun close to the body and the fact it may put some blast in your face. Or how the flash might \u201cblind you\u201d at night. In my own tests shooting \u201cflashy\u201d loads at night, I could hardly see them usually, and often didn\u2019t see them at all. I\u2019ve also shot ported guns close to my body with no ill-effects. I suppose if you aimed the ports right into your face it might make a difference, but at that point you\u2019re likely rolling around wrestling for your gun, so I doubt you\u2019d even notice?<\/p>\n

So, my final word? I wouldn\u2019t worry about this one bit. Shoot ported guns if you like them, or un-ported if they float your boat. I\u2019ll call it a draw, with each side having their own set of advantages \u2014 and disadvantages. And, wanting to try out Mag-Na-Porting it might just be a good excuse to buy a new gun!<\/p>\n

Editor\u2019s Note: Be sure to check out\u00a0<\/em>The Armory Life\u00a0Forum, where you can comment about our daily articles, as well as just talk guns and gear. Click the \u201cGo To Forum Thread\u201d link below to jump in!<\/em><\/p>\n

Join the Discussion<\/span><\/h5>\n

Go to forum thread<\/a><\/p>\n<\/p><\/div>\n


\n
Source link <\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

By Roy Huntington Ask just about any shooter with any experience how they like ported barrels on guns and you\u2019ll get some strongly worded answers. Some are raucously opposed to \u201cPutting holes in the barrel!\u201d, while others think a proper handgun can\u2019t be shot well without ports or a comp of some sort. The issue […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":865,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-864","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-uncategorized"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/gunowner-news.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/864","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/gunowner-news.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/gunowner-news.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/gunowner-news.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/gunowner-news.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=864"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/gunowner-news.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/864\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/gunowner-news.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/media\/865"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/gunowner-news.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=864"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/gunowner-news.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=864"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/gunowner-news.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=864"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}