[StrateShooter]

Is the light recoil of the .44 Special only an urban legend? Since it has the same stopping power and weight and basically the same caliber and muzzle velocity as the .45 ACP which has an 8 ft.lb. kick u would think it has the same kick, 2, but is sid to be 4.5:confused:. Or is the low recoil version of the .45 ACP the same? My inf. is from Chuck Hawks and Volny.

[j21blackjack]

I had a 3" CA Bulldog .44 spl. I've also owned a 5" 1911, a 3.5" 1911, an XD 45 compact, and a Taurus PT145. I can tell you the .44spl has a much more powerful recoil than any of the mentioned guns. It didn't seem as bad as a snubbie .357 mag, but it bruised my hand on many occasions. On a short range day I could easily shoot 200 rounds of .45, but I never shot more than 50 .44spl at a time. That being said, I loved every round I shot out of it.

[Dave T]

Totally dependent on the load and the gun being used. In the above mentioned Charter the old Elmer Keith load (250 SWC @ 900 fps) will hurt a bit. Today's Cowboy Action loads are like 38 Specials when shot from N-Frame Smiths, Colt SAAs or Ruger Vaqueros.

Dave

[Stainz]

Ignoring the Recoil Energy that is consumed in working the action, a
230gr FMJ over 4.8 gr Titegroup in a .45 ACP case making 830 fps from a 5" 1911 weighing 41 oz will produce a RE of 5.63 ft-lb.

A 240gr LSWC over 4.8 gr in a .44 Special case fired from a 41.5 oz 4" 629 producing 790 fps will yield a RE of 5.50 ft-lb. Very similar.

That 240gr LSWC over 3.5 gr in a .44 Russian case will make a poof load 693 fps from a 3" 696 weighing 36 oz and produce a RE of 4.56 ft-lb. An 'all-day' load - but makes 'major power factor'!

Now, shoot a 200gr CCI Blazer Gold Dot .44 Special, or GA Arms Starline brass loaded with that same Speer #4429 GDJHP, from that 3" 696 - it makes 835+ fps for a RE of 5.3 ft-lb. It definitely feels 'snappier'.

For some real fun, shoot the above commercial round in a 296 - a 2.5" AirLite Ti of 18.9 oz - and they make 805 fps for a RE of 9.46 ft-lb - that downright smarts!

Yeah, in a SS or CS revolver, standard .44 Specials aren't so bad - very similar to .45 ACP ball ammo in a 1911 or even typical .45 Colt revolver 'cowboy' loads. Go to a lite weight, and things change!

Stainz

PS The powder used above was Titegroup. The RE for the Speer #4429 GD loads were all determined utilizing 5.7gr Titegroup - which gave the same velocity as the Blazers and GA Arms loads.

PPS For comparison - a 148gr full wadcutter (target load) at 650 fps from a 642 produces 4.97 ft-lb.

[wuluf]

I can't argue with any of the above, But factory .44 special out of my 47 oz Redhawk is negligible compared to .45ACP through my 25 oz Kimber. Both are great fun to shoot.....

[Walkalong]

Well yea, .44 Spl out of a Redhawk is really light.

The recoil from a 696 is no pussycat, and from a 21 ounce CA Bulldog it is stout to say the least.

.44 Spl from my 6" Astra .44 Mag is light, but again, that is a full sized (N frame like) gun.

The .44 Spl is no slouch. It is a great round. :)

[Lou22]

I had a S&W 296 for a while, which I believe was about 18oz. I had bought it for CC but found it a bit large for pocket carry. Also it came with lovely rosewood grips, but boy those things hurt my hands when I shot 200gr Blazer in it (like Stainz noted). I'm pretty recoil tolerant, comfortable with shooting +P .38 loads in my Smith 642, but that 296 was too painful shooting more a couple cylinders at the range in one session. Even +P+ 9mm loads in my Kahr PM9 where much less painful.

Lou

[1911Tuner]

Depends on how heavy the gun is. Recoil is nothing more than the gun accelerating backward away from the bullet...which is being accelerated forward away from the gun at the same time.
The lighter the gun, the faster the rate of backward acceleration with a given cartrdge, and vice-versa.

The 19-ounce Charter Bulldog could be pretty brisk, even when firing the standard, "anemic" 246-grain lead RN at 755 fps. The same ammunition fired from a Ruger Redhawk wouldn't upset your grandmother.

[Stainz]

Of course, the formula used to calculate my RE values above takes into account the mass of the firearm. They don't take into account grip material, size, position, or whether a steel backstrap bears directly on your palm.

As an example, the .38 full wadcutter target load is known to be mild, but from a normally boot-gripped 642, you know when it goes bang. A larger gripped L-frame, like my 696 blasting away with a similar RE in .44 Special, is far more comfortable.

Now, the 296 - with it's original dimunitive rubber boot grips - fits a Mika pocket holster - and into ~2/3 of my britches front pocket. It is miserable - but, it wasn't designed for plinking - just CC. You can make it more comfortable to shoot, ad absurdium, by subbing the Hogue/S&W X-frame grips, which are OEM on .460/.500 Magnum S&Ws:

http://s171.photobucket.com/albums/u307/Stainz_2007/IMG_0713.jpg

Of course, it won't fit in anything but a huge trenchcoat pocket gripped that way, although shooting it is much kinder to the mitt. Gripped as it came, it really isn't a huge CCW - see it below with a 642, both with Mika's excellent pocket holster... and both are palm whackers:

http://s171.photobucket.com/albums/u307/Stainz_2007/IMG_3891.jpg

Want a real .44 Special plinker... with some reserve capacity? A new 4" 629 will run you less than what some are getting for their 696s. In either case, wood grips are fine, they increase the surface area of the backstrap that bears on the palm. The 4" 629 sports Ahrends 'Retro Targets'; the 696 sports their 'Square Conversion'. Both are cocobolo and have no finger-grooves.

http://s171.photobucket.com/albums/u307/Stainz_2007/IMG_3509.jpg

I fitted the X-frame grip shown on my 296 in the first picture on that 4" 629 and shot a bunch of medium+ range .44 Specials Thursday. I could have shot all day - if I had brought more ammo. Mass and proper grips help... as does being able make you own ammo... .44 S&W Specials are fun!

Stainz

[nulfisin]

The key is lighter loads, which is the reason to shoot .44 sp. in the first place. My gun is about average in 5" revolver weight; bigger guns obviously absorb more recoil.

The felt recoil is clearly more than a .38 sp., but much less than a .357 or, of course, .44 mag. Frankly, the .44 sp is my favorite round!:)

[Deanimator]

Is the light recoil of the .44 Special only an urban legend?
That's purely a function of how you load it.

You can have a .44 Magnum load that's more pleasant to shoot than a .44 Special load if the former is loaded to the minimum and the latter to the max.

You can have a .500 Magnum with less recoil than a .44 Special. It's a matter of how each is loaded.

My 4" S&W Model 29-2 is absolutely PLEASANT to shoot with Speer .44 Special 200gr. Gold Dot Blazers. Handload .44 Specials equivalent to the loads that Elmer Keith used to develop the .44 Magnum, and it'd be as gruesome as Winchester White Box 240gr. Magnums.

[fred in nc]

The .44 spl load that is a pussycat in my Ruger SB 44 mag can be pretty stiff in my Taurus 445. Part of it is the lesser weight of the Taurus and part is the ergonomics of the grip.

[StrateShooter]

We can conclude that it's no urban legend but it depends on the gun and cartridge variant. There is still a discrepancy in the .45 ACP recoil but I think Stainz' version makes more sense than that of Chuck Hawks.

Thanks to all of you.:)

[NMGonzo]

Get stronger hands and forearms, or get a smaller calibre weapon.

[bestseller92]

I can only speak from my own experience, but recoil from the Rossi 3" that I used to have, with Silvertips, was negligible, at least in my view. Not bad at all.

[1911Tuner]

We can conclude that it's no urban legend but it depends on the gun and cartridge variant. There is still a discrepancy in the .45 ACP

Comparing recoil between a revolver and an autopistol isn't really apples to apples.

The impulse in a revolver is transferred directly to the frame while in an autopistol, it's transferred to the slide...which moves on rails against increasing spring tension. You don't feel much recoil in an auto directly from the cartridge firing, and 90% of the muzzle flip is the result of the slide impacting the frame.

[RidgwayCO]

Recoil is entirely subjective. What i think is a lot somebody else might think is negligible. You can try to quantify it with equations, but they don't include a variable for the grip type or material. As Stainz has mentioned, put the recoil tamer grip from the S&W X Frame on your K,L, or N Frame and feel the difference!

Personally, i find recoil in the .44 Special to range from comfortable (Freedom Arms 5 1/2" and S&W 624 6-1/2") to tolerable (S&W 296 at 18-1/2 oz) with factory 200gr GDHP ammunition. Interestingly, the 18 oz S&W 396 is much more comfortable to me than heavier .44 Special revolvers like the Rossi 720.

[Sam1911]

recoil from the Rossi 3" that I used to have, with Silvertips, was negligible

This is a great example of "it depends what .44 Spc."

Winchester really made a dog with the .44 Spc. Silvertips. I've chrono'd them through my 4" 629 and they were barely making 700 fps! Which is a crying shame for what could be a stellar defensive round.

For comparison, the load I normally carry in my .45 ACP are 230 gr. moving at over 900 fps. Trading 8+1 of them for only 6 -- that are 30 gr. lighter and moving 200 fps SLOWER would be stupid!

It's enough to make old Elmer want to go kick something! ;)

-Sam

[sig220mw]

Used to have a 44 mag and shot many 44 specials through it. They were extremely accurate. Just ordered myself a new Ruger 44 special.

[batmann]

Recoil of the .44 Spl vs the .45 ACP is virtually the same given the same weight weapon. As Stainz points out, grips, overall weight and the type of load all make up the 'recoil' factor.
I have some 'heavy' (Buffalo Bore) .44 Specials that recoil almost as much in my Blackhawk .44 Spl 'Flattop' as some of my lighter 'target' loads do from my .44M.

[Dave T]

When I was competing in revolver class a few years ago I had a 5" M-24 and a 5" M-25. The only real difference was the tapered barrel on the M-24. 200g cast bullets at ~800 fps in both calibers were close enough that I couldn't see any difference in shootability. Reloading with full-moon clips made the M-25 the best choice, but recoil was virtually the same.

Dave

[StrateShooter]

This message was entered by mistake as I pressed the wrong button.

[StrateShooter]

"Recoil is entirely subjective"-RidgwayCO.
Recoil is only partly subjective, it is mostly objective.

1911Tuner makes a good point stating that some recoil is absorbed by recoil-operated semi-autos; I'm not sure felt recoil is measured.

I'm not sure how good his point is about semi-auto cartridges or recoil not being very comparable to revolver cartridge or recoil; I imagine there would be some difference of opinion on this matter,too, among gun experts.

[1911Tuner]

I'm not sure how good his point is about semi-auto cartridges or recoil not being very comparable to revolver cartridge or recoil;

Let's do a little hypothetical thing, and maybe it'll become clear.

Let's build a straight blowback pistol with frame rails 30 feet long and mount the slide way out front.

Let's pretend that the slide is mounted on roller bearings so as to minimize frictional resistance as it moves.

Let's remove the recoil/action spring completely. Let's also pretend that the gun is electronically fired, and requires no hammer or mainspring.

Fire the gun, and you won't feel anything at all in the way of recoil, unless the slide travels the entire 30 feet and hits the impact surface in the frame.

Because...there is no direct, solid connection between the gun...the barrel and slide...and the frame...the gun mount. All recoil forces are transferred to the breechblock...the slide...and the slide is mounted on rails.

The revolver, on the other hand...is a fixed breech weapon. All recoil forces impinge directly on the frame via the recoil shield. When the bullet accelerates forward...away from the recoil shield, the frame accelerates backward at the same instant away from the bullet. Recoil is felt in real time...instantly.

With the autopistol, recoil is initially transferred to the frame through the recoil spring.
Because the spring pushes harder as it compresses...that transfer is not only spread over time...it initiates a softer push at the beginning, during the time that the action/reaction event within the chamber is happening. Then...when the slide strikes the impact abutment in the frame...we get 90% of the total muzzle flip in an instant. Before that, the gun doesn't move all that much.

So...with an autopistol...most of what we feel as recoil actually comes from a separate closed system...the recoil system...because by the time the slide hits the frame, the bullet is long gone...and the recoil that was generated by firing the gun is long since over.

[StrateShooter]

1911Tuner,
I see ur point. Thanks 4 the detailed explanation.

[Arcticfox]

44 special out of a 629 is nothing. 44 special out of a 696 is entertaining. I don't know about a bulldog pug, but I imagine its noticeable.

[Walkalong]

I don't know about a bulldog pug, but I imagine its noticeable.
Quite. ;)

[StrawHat]

To compare the cartridges fired from a similar platform use the S&W revolvers, M24 and M25-2. I don't recall any noticable difference when both were loaded to similar levels. I still prefer the 45s.

[memphisjim]

i used to have a s&w296 basicallllly a 19 ounce 44spec
recoil closer to blistering than mild

[Stainz]

I'll have to argue your comparison, Arctic Fox. My favorite loads for .44 S&W Special is a 240gr LRNFP/LSWC over 4.5-4.8 gr Titegroup in Starline brass with a Fed LP primer. My first .44 was a 629 MG, a 4"-er weighing 39.5 oz. I bought it seven years ago - and it got a set of Ahrends square conversions in cocobolo - perfect for my 'Specials'. It gained a pair of siblings, both a new 296 & a 696. The 696 also got a set of Ahrends square conversion grips in cocobolo, the same external size as the N-framed 629's. The fit in the hand is similar - the recoil impulse was indistinguishable from that of the 4" 629MG. Even when the MG was replaced by a 4" 629, at 41.5 oz, little difference in recoil with similar lead loads was noted... the greatest being that the 629s went bang one more time between reloads.

The reason? First, the 696 is a heavy 'little' revolver - 35.5 oz. Second, even with my fast Titegroup propellant, the 3"-er doesn't produce the muzzle velocity that the 4" 629s do. In use, the 696 and a 4" 629 are quite similar, recoil-wise, with 'normal' .44 S&W Special loads. Heavy Keith-type loads should not be in a X96's diet due to it's minimal forcing cone. The 629 is a moose-gun - a real .44 Magnum - and more of a 'keeper' than the 696, IMHO.

Stainz

PS I asked Elmer... and he approved of my earlier computations and my loads.

http://s171.photobucket.com/albums/u307/Stainz_2007/P8278777.jpg

Yeah, I named my cat Elmer...

[rfurtkamp]

The 296 is tolerable with lighter loads, but my first box was bone-bruising full power 240gr loads closer to magnum than not.

These days it gets 180gr for range use, 200gr JHP for actual carry if I need it.

[Sam1911]

http://i213.photobucket.com/albums/cc184/sam1911/Teaching.jpg

The load she's shooting is 6.9 gr. of Trailboss under a 200 gr. LRN at 850 fps.

That's my IDPA load and in a 41.99999 oz. 629, it's pretty tolerable.

But she's 7, so she's used to handling recoil. :D

-Sam

[SwampWolf]

"Recoil is entirely subjective"-RidgwayCO.
Recoil is only partly subjective, it is mostly objective.

I not only agree with StrateShooter but would argue that recoil, per se, is entirely objective. The perception of recoil on the part of human beings is mostly subjective.