Will Buffalo Bore 340 gr +P+ Hurt my New Ruger Redhawk 44?


PDA






Evergreen
August 5, 2011, 02:55 AM
I just purchased a brand new Ruger Redhawk 44Mag with a 4in barrel. I'm going on a trip to Glacier NP and decided to ditch my old S&W 629-4 4in, because I want the gun primarily to be used for bear defense and the 629 just cannot handle the heavy loads like the Ruger. After purchasing the Ruger and seeing its solid construction I really feel much happier with it than the Smith. Needless to say, even though I love the Smith, I cannot afford to keep it and will be getting rid of it..

I also own a S&W 460v which supposedly can handle the heaviest of the heaviest, yet the Buffalo Bore ammo screws up the gun and I have extraction issues, as well as cylinder locking issues. I had to force open my cylinder once as it got stuck after the last round. Only through constant hammer cocking and pulling the trigger could I finally get it to budge. I'm told there are many reasons why the Buffalo Bore 460 doesn't work in a .460. Everything from being too hot, to have improper dimensions on the casings or bullets, etc. I don't know why, but Buffalo Bore is out for my 460.

Now, I am told that the Ruger Redhawk can handle the heavy loads. So, I see Buffalo Bore makes a very nice 44 mag round that almost seems on par with a .454 Casull round. Since, I am going into Grizzly Bear country in Montana, I would like to have the best load I can handle. Also, I would like to do a little plinking and practicing with the round I load for my hikes. Basically, I would like to shoot a box or so. Would, using the Buffalo Bore 340gr +P+ hurt my Ruger Redhawk or can it take a good number of these rounds without any risk of abuse? I know my Smith could not even handle the 320gr hardcast COrbon loads. S&W told me themself on the phone not to shoot more than 3 or 4 rounds ever for the life of this gun for practice. I am told the Redhawk can take a steady supply of these without any issues. I guess, I know the Buffalo Bore is pushing the 44 mag to the limits and want to make sure there won't be any repercussions with this round. I do want to get a feel for it if I will be carrying it with me.

I'd appreciate to hear people's opinions. Do most people think I should stay with the Corbon Hunter 320gr Hardcast round or would it be to my advantage to use the 340gr +P+ Buffalo Bores, considering the Ruger Redhawk, is supposedly built like a tank .

My thoughts are accuracy won't be an issue, as if I am being charged by a Black Bear or Brown Bear I would only get one or two shots and would wait until it got close. For the most part I will rely on pepper spray for protection, but if I am in that unfortunate situation where all I can reach for is my gun, I'd like the best round I can get for that situation. I feel the more knockdown power the better.

I'm assuming I can handle the recoil of this round, because the Redhawk is a thick frame and I can handle the recoil of the .460 rounds out of my 5in S&W 460v. I'm assuming it would be somewhat comparable to that, although my 460v does have a compensator.

If you enjoyed reading about "Will Buffalo Bore 340 gr +P+ Hurt my New Ruger Redhawk 44?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
David Sinko
August 5, 2011, 10:13 AM
My 4" Redhawk .45 Colt does 335 gr. cast bullets at 1260 FPS. Your chambers have even more steel wrapped around them so you (and the revolver) will be just fine. Recoil is definitely brisk, but the cylinder latch is out of the way on the Redhawk and will not mangle your thumb. Also, I needed a taller front sight for proper regulation.

Dave Sinko

RETG
August 5, 2011, 10:46 AM
I would fire quite a few rounds and check for crimp jumping by the bullet out of the cartridge.

BUT, your statement on accuracy and getting two shots off after the bear gets close means you won't be around to see if the cartridges expand too much in the cylinder for removal.

You do understand that even if you were able to hit a charging grizz at 10 feet with two rounds, chances are, unless they were head shots, the grizz would still get to you and be able to do massive damage, possibly death?

Granted, most bear encounters happen at close range due to most happen when you suddenly come upon a bear. And from my experience with black bears (so far no grizz) has been if the bear is 25 feet away, they look, smell, then leave. Happy to say, I have never had a bear actually charge me. And only once have I come across a bear and her cubs and that was at a good distance away, and I just did not move and she and the cubs went their way, I went the other way.

My practice with a .44 mag for bear country is place a target 25 feet away with a 12 inch pie pan in the middle of the target; then turn and shoot four DA rounds at the pie pan and get at least three into the pan.

Believe me, it is not easy when shooting 320 Cor-Bons, which is the round I use in m Taurus Ultralite Titanium, and it took quite a few practices to do so, and when I venture into the rockies, I do this exercise before going.

highlander 5
August 5, 2011, 11:07 AM
Ruger Redhawks are tanks,you'll be hard pressed to break it. I have 3 Redhawks 357,44and 45 Colt and the only part that ever broke is the hook that goes from the hammer to the main spring and it's a 3 min job to replace it.

CraigC
August 5, 2011, 11:09 AM
No, those loads are MADE for Redhawks. You simply cannot get enoug slow burning powder into the case to produce enough pressure to damage a Redhawk. These guns are rated to 50,000psi in .45Colt and your .44 has more meat in the chambers.

Mike1234567
August 5, 2011, 02:11 PM
Sorry to hi-jack but I'm thinking it's better to post here than start a very similar thread.

What about the same round in a stainless steel Taurus Raging Bull?

ETA: (regarding post below) Thank you Evergeen. Yes, that link helped.

Evergreen
August 5, 2011, 03:18 PM
Probably would be better to post another thread, as these are two different guns and would probably get a different set of answers.. I'm trying to keep thread specific to the Redhawk.

I will say I have heard that the Taurus is not really built up to the standards or durability of the Ruger. That is one reason I generally stay away from Taurus.

Mike, I do have a post that you might helpful on another website about this:
http://www.taurusarmed.net/forums/taurus-revolvers/39097-safe-use-buffalo-bore-p-ammo-raging-bull-44-magnum-anyone-use-these.html

GRIZ22
August 5, 2011, 05:11 PM
I have always held the belief that you shouldn't try to make a gun something it was not designed for. If you feel you need more gun get more gun don't push the limits of what you have. If you feel you need more power than a 44 mag has to offer i'd suggest you carry your 460.

The Redhawk is much stronger than it needs to be. There is another issue you seem to not make mention of and that is controllability. That +P+ 44 mag load is a rhino roller but can you recover quickly enough for a second shot if the first doesn't stop that bear? RETG relates a practice regimen which is taking that into consideration.

I have zero experience trying to stop grizzilies but have read a little about it. Many of the people who do feel you can usually avoid confrontations by being alert and if it comes to shooting recommend a 12 ga with slugs.

Dan-O
August 5, 2011, 05:58 PM
Your wrist would probably break before the gun will.

beeenbag
August 5, 2011, 06:18 PM
Why not carry the 460? You don't have to use buffalo bore in it for it to be a powerhouse.

CraigC
August 6, 2011, 12:57 AM
You don't have to use Buffalo Bore loads in the Redhawk to make it a powerhouse either. Bullets and data are readily available.


I have always held the belief that you shouldn't try to make a gun something it was not designed for.
This line of thought never made sense to me. The .44Mag was "designed for" (whatever that means) a 240gr at 1500fps. Should we have just stopped there? Does that mean that nothing beyond a 240@1500fps should be used because it was not "designed for" a 330gr at 1350fps or 355gr at 1250fps, even though pressure levels are within SAAMI specs? Nonsense. What a firearm/cartridge is "designed for" is immaterial if it is capable of much more. It's a glass ceiling.

Evergreen
August 6, 2011, 03:02 AM
I agree with Craig.. If my gun can eat it and the gun is not damaged or abused from the load, I would classify it as "designed" for that gun. Why would I not want to pack the most powerful round possible when travelling in Grizzly country? And, if my Ruger can handle it, why not try to practice with the round and try to improve my skills with it? Of course, I would probably use a lighter round if I was hiking around Oregon, where Black Bears are the main threat. Anyway, I think Big Bore and heavy loads are fun.


Why not carry the 460? You don't have to use buffalo bore in it for it to be a powerhouse.
Why not carry the 460? Well, it's a tank for one. The thing weighs like 1.5 times more than my Redhawk and it takes up a lot more real estate. Also, the ported barrel will destroy my ears, if I ever have to use this gun in a defense situation. I have thought about carrying it with me, but I can just picture that big honkin piece of steel with take a lot of room on my chest and be a bit tough when hiking up steep grades on my hikes. I also will be carrying a 20-30lb pack with me.

hardluk1
August 6, 2011, 08:20 AM
The only place those heavy hot loads are a worry is in the few 2" barreled light weight revolvers . There it can be an issue with the bullets backing out of the caseing under recoil and causeing the cylinder to not rotate. Not a problem with your standard 4" model.

Stainz
August 6, 2011, 10:45 AM
They likely won't hurt the gun... but your hand & wrist will remember them!

Stainz

Mike1234567
August 6, 2011, 11:05 AM
"I have always held the belief that you shouldn't try to make a gun something it was not designed for."

If I "needed" to use a .44 Mag revolver to hunt medium-sized game (e.g. whitetail) I'd use a light-medium weight SP bullet with a relatively light charge in .44 Special. If I "needed" to use a .44 Mag revolver for SD I'd use a lighter HP bullet with a somewhat light charge in .44 Special. If I "needed" to carry a .44 Mag for protection against large boar or black bear I'll want the heaviest hard-cast semi-wadcutter bullet I can get (320gr ++) with enough power behind it to make a real mess.

Was the .44 Mag "designed" for any of the above scenarios? No.

ETA: (for clarity) I'll use whatever load a firearm is capable of handling to suit whatever need I have regardless of what the gun was "designed" for.

hardluk1
August 6, 2011, 11:22 AM
hay mike was the 30.06 designed for hunting game animals??? NO, but it also does a fine job of it.. 44mag does a good job of it to and it was not made for anything but hunting.

Mike1234567
August 6, 2011, 11:36 AM
hay mike was the 30.06 designed for hunting game animals??? NO, but it also does a fine job of it.. 44mag does a good job of it to and it was not made for anything but hunting.

Agreed... whole-heartedly... and this is what I meant with my post. I was agreeing with others who don't believe in "limiting" a firearm strictly to what it was "designed" for.

CraigC
August 6, 2011, 01:22 PM
Good posts, gents!

Waldo Pepper
August 6, 2011, 03:00 PM
22LR for rodent and plinking, 357 for range plinking, 10mm for when 45ACP isn't enough and 44 Magnum for everything else. :neener::neener:

Only thing stronger then Ruger Redhawk is Dan Wesson large frame in 44 Magnum or one of the super magnums with forged steel frames & cylinder. All that and they are renowned for accuracy, this one with the 8" barrel installed will out shoot the 20" Marlin 1894 or Ruger 44 Carbine.

http://i185.photobucket.com/albums/x245/oldnavy6393/SANY0014.jpg

CraigC
August 6, 2011, 04:34 PM
Dan Wessons are not stronger than Redhawks and Super Redhawks. The only thing stronger is a Freedom Arms 83.

Waldo Pepper
August 6, 2011, 04:37 PM
Don't bet your life on it.

Blued M-44 6" and it has heavy 2lb SA trigger and 744 has 1.5lb SA trigger and both have factory stock actions. Got to get a 4" barrel for this gun. it has 6", 8" and 10" barrels.

http://i185.photobucket.com/albums/x245/oldnavy6393/101_3007.jpg

CraigC
August 6, 2011, 05:20 PM
Prove it!

kwhi43@kc.rr.com
August 6, 2011, 06:02 PM
All-Right!! Lets blow something up!!

Waldo Pepper
August 6, 2011, 06:11 PM
I had it proved several years ago when a DW forum member took measurements of some of his DW's, S&W and his Ruger Super Redhawks. The DW's had thicker cylinder walls and frames the the S&W or Ruger, the cylinder wall thickness on his S&W 629 was so much thinner then the other two he sold the Smith later on.

This had come about when a guy on forum was shooting his DW and then switched to his S&W 44 and using same ammo blew up the cylinder and blew off top strap. I have shot 300 gr Noslers loaded to the max in my DW and they seem like the 850 fps stuff I load using Trail Boss for my 629 3" Smith.

Actually I really didn't there was that much difference between the two guns until about 2 years ago a friend blew a cylinder on his new Ruger SR with same load I have loaded to stop cars and bears. He said it happened on first round fired. He sent it back to Ruger and they replaced the cylinder, saying it was defective casting or defective cylinder, don't remember which. He still has the Ruger but he don't load any thing super hot anymore for it, he says he is looking for a good buy on DW 445 SuperMag. However says he's leaving the hot stuff to his T/C Encore, now there is a gun that's built for the big stuff.

Waldo Pepper
August 6, 2011, 06:20 PM
All-Right!! Lets blow something up!!

Sorry, raising two grandsons so no money to spare to tear up my toys.

Evergreen
August 6, 2011, 06:30 PM
Nice post Waldo.. So your opinion then is that a Dan Wesson 44 can handle even hotter and heavier loads than the Ruger Redhawk 44? With all that being said, do you think that my Ruger Redhawk can handle the Buff Bore 340 +P+ loads?

As for my S&W 629, it is up for sale now..

Waldo Pepper
August 6, 2011, 06:43 PM
I would think that the BB loads would be within max SAMII spec for 44 and if so yes. Remember these mfg's kind of watch pushing the limits for legal reasons. Or at least I would think so, but I am not sure as I don't buy factory ammo except for my 380 pocket gun and very little of that thanks to price.

That said I would not give it a steady diet of this stuff for range plinking, just enough to know how it shoots and feels. Then just carry to shoot when needed on a hunt or protection. I don't range plink with any hot loads other then to see how it shoots, for range duty I used light loads to save on wear and tear of gun and me.

hardluk1
August 6, 2011, 08:16 PM
The DW is in the load class is the ruger red hawk and freedom and they say the newest sw29. But i would not be willing to try that one out. AL of them can be blown up. just go scroll around youtub and you can atleast find a couple rugers blow apart. Rugers ain't super duty just tougher than old sw and other cheaper revolvers. Nut for the price of a freedom, Ain't got any enterest. DW have won more than there share of long range match's. There is one dw 15-2 on youtub that had 2 squib loads shot followed by a good load and it still did not blow up. It did bulge the barrel baddly. Changed barrels out and still good shoot.

Waldo Pepper
August 6, 2011, 09:35 PM
I had a squib for first time in one of my DW 22 last spring and removed barrel at the range and took pistol cleaning rod and got it out. I put the barrel back on and trucked on shooting.

Had one about a week later in my Mossberg 142A and pushed it out with cleaning rod, this time I tossed the rest of the brick.

http://i185.photobucket.com/albums/x245/oldnavy6393/101_3000.jpg

Evergreen
August 6, 2011, 10:31 PM
just go scroll around youtub and you can atleast find a couple rugers blow apart.
Are you sure this is from shooting loads like the Buffalo Bore and not from stupid people shooting improperly made handloads? Buffalo Bore on their website says that the Ruger Redhawk is safe to use with this round. Since they are assuring people the round is compatible with the gun, I think as others have said that they do have some liability issues. That said, I would certainly not go plinking with this round, but I would like a little more reasoning behind why you think it is risky to use this load in a Redhawk. There are plenty of videos of lots of guns blowing up, as people can do a lot of stupid things with any gun. I know a Ruger isn't a S&W 460, but what I like to know is what is its limits. A 44Mag +P+ is a hot load, but is this really beyond its limits?

GRIZ22
August 7, 2011, 12:17 AM
This line of thought never made sense to me. The .44Mag was "designed for" (whatever that means) a 240gr at 1500fps. Should we have just stopped there? Does that mean that nothing beyond a 240@1500fps should be used because it was not "designed for" a 330gr at 1350fps or 355gr at 1250fps, even though pressure levels are within SAAMI specs? Nonsense. What a firearm/cartridge is "designed for" is immaterial if it is capable of much more. It's a glass ceiling.

Staying within pressure specs with different loads is not my argument. The OP mentions a +P+ load so we are not talking about anything in SAAMI spec. I have no problem with experimenting with loads and staying in spec.

It most certainly is a glass ceiling which can be broken. Elmer Keith often related stories about the guns he destroyed by pushing them to the limit.

If I "needed" to use a .44 Mag revolver to hunt medium-sized game... the heaviest hard-cast semi-wadcutter bullet I can get (320gr ++) with enough power behind it to make a real mess.

Was the .44 Mag "designed" for any of the above scenarios? No.

ETA: (for clarity) I'll use whatever load a firearm is capable of handling to suit whatever need I have regardless of what the gun was "designed" for.


Mike I was referring to pressure levels not bullet weights and charges you speak of which make sense. How hard would you push that 320 gr bullet 40,000 psi? 50,000 psi? More?

Mike1234567
August 7, 2011, 12:21 AM
GRIZ22... I wasn't directing my post at anyone. I was only agreeing with those who stated that we shouldn't limit ourselves to original design specs. We're all on the same page.:)

GRIZ22
August 7, 2011, 12:25 AM
Thanx Mike:)

Evergreen
August 7, 2011, 01:00 AM
It most certainly is a glass ceiling which can be broken. Elmer Keith often related stories about the guns he destroyed by pushing them to the limit.
So Grizz, what is your opinion then about my question? Should I avoid using the 340gr +P+ loads altogether or would shooting a few of them and keeping it for outdoor defense be alright? I have no problem downgrading to the 320gr hardcast loads, like the Corbon Hunter. I know I am probably going a bit over the top with the 340gr +P+, but I figured if it didn't do any harm to my gun, then I would have no problem shooting it. However, if there is any risk of damaging the gun or wearing it out too soon, then I would want to totally avoid using the round. I would be happy plinking and carrying the 320gr loads. I guess, I was thinking the thicker frame of the Ruger could handle it and the recoil wouldn't be so bad with my Pachmayr grips. I actually don't find the recoil of the .460 or .454 to be so bad either. Some people are recoil drama queens IMO. I just focus on where the bullet is suppose to go and don't mind the little beating to my hand.

Who knows maybe after firing some of the .44Mag +P+ rounds I will hate it so much I will put the remaining rounds for sale, but if I find them manageable, my only concern will be if the round is causing damage to my gun.

CraigC
August 7, 2011, 01:27 AM
I have never seen any evidence, or heard any authority on this subject rate the Dan Wesson as stronger than the big Ruger DA's. If the Rugers can be loaded to 50-55,000psi, there is nowhere else to go.

The Buffalo Bore 340gr load was "designed for" Redhawks and Super Redhawks. It is even safe for Super Blackhawks which are considered to be a good 10,000psi weaker than the DA's. Believe me, you won't want to shoot enough of them for it to ever become an issue anyway. Tim Sundles knows what he's doing. Which is one reason why they're loaded too long for S&W cylinders.

GRIZ22
August 7, 2011, 01:59 AM
So Grizz, what is your opinion then about my question? Should I avoid using the 340gr +P+ loads altogether or would shooting a few of them and keeping it for outdoor defense be alright?

If their were a lot of people blowing up their guns with the Buffalo Bore load they wouldn't be selling it. The Redhawk is a very strong gun. Mine is over 25 years old and at an average of a couple boxes a month (magnum LSWC loads) it shows no signs of wear after about 25,000 rds with no problems.

I'm just not a fan of +P+ in anything I'm not sure of what the pressure is as the only limit is what the manufacturer can get away with without destroying guns.

That said I'd probably take the 460 or look for a non +P load for the 44 with a heavy bullet.

One of my concerns is controlability as I stated. If you're shooting that bear the pucker factor is going to be up there and shot placement is not going to be easy. How well do you shoot the 460 double action? The 44 with 240 gr loads? That's what you'll be doing to stop that bear if he's close and to me a good indicator if you should be considering that BB load at all. It gives you about 25% more foot lbs of energy but at what cost of controlability?

Believe me, you won't want to shoot enough of them for it to ever become an issue anyway.

An unsolicited endorsement for the controlability issue.

If I were in the same situation I'd load a 300+ gr bullet to sensible pressures for my Redhawk...and take a shotgun with full power slugs.

Evergreen
August 7, 2011, 02:15 AM
You have some very sound advice Grizz.. I will see how well I can control the Buff Bore rounds. I can put holes on paper at 10 yards with my .460. Considering I only shot one box of .460 Buff Bore through it and a few lighter loads, I would say that is good for now. I am far from being a proficient big bore shooter.

Actually, I found my 320gr Corbons were much easier on my hands then the 240gr Fiocchis I was shooting, which were much snappier.

I am proficient enough with my S&W 629 to put all my holes center mass at 10 yards. As far as grouping, I am not that great. Once again, I'd never really want to rely on a handgun for bear defense, it is just a last ditch effort. I figure if I ever bothered to shoot a bear I would wait until it is very close. I dare not waste that precious round.

If I were in the same situation I'd load a 300+ gr bullet to sensible pressures for my Redhawk...and take a shotgun with full power slugs.

Can I bring a shotgun with full power slugs to Glacier National Park with me? If I could open carry a shotgun, that would be my first weapon of choice.

Para Cassatt
August 7, 2011, 02:42 AM
Garrett is another good choice.

Waldo Pepper
August 7, 2011, 10:46 AM
I have never seen or heard of a cylinder blowing out on a DW an sometimes wonder if they are just built so so strong...or if we owners of DW's are more sensible with our Dan's. Over the last 40 years of my reloading and shooting I've seen S&W's with cylinders or barrels blown out, also Rugers, Taurus, and Colt's, but never a Dan Wesson.

Some years ago I bought a DW 357 M-15 with a bulged barrel that was stuck in frame and shroud. Took me about 4 hours to get the thing apart. The frame and cylinder were like new so I bought a new barrel and screw it into frame put the old shroud back on and went to the range with some of my reloads and gun shot like a champ and I still have it. That's it below.

http://i185.photobucket.com/albums/x245/oldnavy6393/DWScoped.jpg

CraigC
August 7, 2011, 03:02 PM
An unsolicited endorsement for the controlability issue.
Not in the least, that's related to physical pain and economics, not controllability. It takes a lot of practice to become proficient with these loads and those in question are VERY expensive. Redhawks are uncomfortable enough with standard loads. I will only shoot loads at that level out of a custom Bisley with proper grips.

Do you really think a .460 with a bear-capable load is going to be more controllable than anything you can feed a .44Mag???

Robert B
August 7, 2011, 03:43 PM
I purchased the Buffalo Bore 305 gr LBT LFN for my Ruger Alaskan snub. Tim in an email said that this load will kill a Grizzly even out of my snub. He said I should get 1150 fps from this 2.5 inch bbl. It won't hurt my Alaskan either. My round is a std pressure 44 mag round. I don't know why you would go with a +P+. The round that I am talking about here is probably a bit overkill as it is. Just my opinion.

hardluk1
August 7, 2011, 04:16 PM
evergreen NO it was not BB or any other factory load . Some home brewed junk. DW were always in class with ruger and freedom arms. There is not a factory load out that you can't shoot in a dw limited only by cylinder lenght. As Waldo can attest to , just simplely strong revolvers.

918v
August 7, 2011, 06:47 PM
There is more to revolver durability than just max pressure. I actually broke my First GP-100 shooting loads that did not stick in the chambers. With all that steel, what broke was the cylinder stop pin. You see, in addition to pressure, there is also torque. Heavy bullets going fast have alot of torque despite staying inside the SAAMI max pressures. They exert more torque on the frame and the cylider, the hand (in case you have a Python) and the cylinder stop.

GRIZ22
August 7, 2011, 07:33 PM
Can I bring a shotgun with full power slugs to Glacier National Park with me? If I could open carry a shotgun, that would be my first weapon of choice.

I would say yes as:

(b) Protecting the Right of Individuals To Bear arms in Units of the National Park System and the National Wildlife Refuge System- The Secretary of the Interior shall not promulgate or enforce any regulation that prohibits an individual from possessing a firearm including an assembled or functional firearm in any unit of the National Park System or the National Wildlife Refuge System if-- (1) the individual is not otherwise prohibited by law from possessing the firearm; and (2) the possession of the firearm is in compliance with the law of the State in which the unit of the National Park System or the National Wildlife Refuge System is located.

(2) states you have to be in compliance with state laws and in Alaska you can OC or CC anything with some of the usual exceptions. also not in buildings on the park where park employees usually work.

You can call them to be sure.

GRIZ22
August 7, 2011, 09:12 PM
Quote:
An unsolicited endorsement for the controlability issue.

Not in the least, that's related to physical pain and economics, not controllability. It takes a lot of practice to become proficient with these loads and those in question are VERY expensive.

I can imagine that that rhino roller round hurts to shoot. Most people would think pain equals distraction equals affecting control.

Redhawks are uncomfortable enough with standard loads. I will only shoot loads at that level out of a custom Bisley with proper grips.

I seem to do fine with Pachmyrs on my Redhawk with standard loads. To each his own

Do you really think a .460 with a bear-capable load is going to be more controllable than anything you can feed a .44Mag???

Don't put words in my mouth. If the OP can't control the 460 with standard pressure loads then controlling the 44 with the BB load would be even worse. My point is the 460 with a bear capable 460 load or even a 454 Casull load (both of which offer standard pressure ammo with ballistics superior to the BB +P+ load) might be a better choice. The 460's gun weight of about 70 oz vs the 50 oz or so of the Redhawk would enhance control. if i had more gun I'd consider using it.

Control in this issue is not "I'll shoot a super rhino roller round to impress my friends". Its a SD issue where you need to use the heaviest round you can handle. I have never done it but I'm pretty sure hitting a charging brown bear is fairly difficult and shot placement will be difficult. Having a fairly quick recovery time is essential so you can put enough lead into the target to stop it. I wouldn't count on anything short of a howitzer to stop a grizzly with one round.

Mike1234567
August 7, 2011, 09:25 PM
^^^ Lessened recoil and quicker recovery time is why I bought a Raging Bull .44 Mag. Some claim it isn't nearly as strong as a Super Redhawk but, so far, all I've read is hearsay from folks who don't own one. Others claim the moving parts won't hold up to high power loads but anyone who actually owns one and shoots the heavy loads have had no issues... that I've found anyway.

Bottom line is, from what I've read and after filtering out unsubstantiated garble, the Raging Bull and Super Redhawk should handle the hefty BB loads just fine. As with any firearm I wouldn't push their limits every day though. Why risk it for no good reason?

harrygunner
August 7, 2011, 10:53 PM
It didn't hurt my Redhawk. :)

I was glad to see Buffalo Bore extend the versatility of the .44 Mag. That ammo moves the performance of my 5.5" Redhawk to the lower edge of the .454 Casull. It was comforting to have on my hiking trip in the Absaroka-Beartooth Wilderness of Montana.

The recoil is quite manageable, at least to me. I bought a couple of boxes of it.

The ammo with the large bullet just under the shoulder holster is the 340gr Buffalo Bore .44 Mag, next to a 240gr round.

http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d199/harrygunner/hiking/woodsguns.jpg

Scipio Africanus
August 8, 2011, 01:23 AM
The Redhawk will handle the BB Ammo better than you will. Shoot a bunch and enjoy. Then give that Redhawk to one of your Grandkids someday.

NM Mountainman
August 8, 2011, 02:11 AM
The ammo won't hurt the Redhawk, but it might hurt your hand a little. I would recommend double hearing protection, too (plugs + muffs.) The Redhawk is an excellent revolver, and I'm sure the ammo you're considering will perform well, too.

Last year I went through the load development process to develop a .44 mag bear (both blackies and grizz)defense load. Using a few different assumptions and a little different POV, I arrived at a different solution.

I'm sure the the solution which you arrived it is a good one, and I'm confident that you have good reasons for choosing the load that you did. But just in case you might find it interesting or you might want to investigate my approach at some time in the future, I'd like to share it with you.

I've never shot a bear with a 44. mag revolver, but I have seen several large black bears dispatched with one. I claim no special knowledge or expertise. It seems that most shooters who research this topic end up choosing a max load with a flat nose hard cast bullet weighing 300 gr or more. Such loads have been used successfully with the largest animals in Alaska for decades.

In the process of researching hard cast bullets, I read some of Marshall Stanton's Tech Notes on his Beartooth Bullets website. He is among the original developers and advocates of heavy hard cast bullets with a wide meplat for hunting. He and some of his customers have done a lot of research on the relative importance of bullet weight, bullet hardness, meplat diameter, and velocity. The results of his research is contained in 3 charts in his first "Tech Note" on his website. I'm not a big believer in using charts and formulas to select ammo or bullets, but over the years the experience of Mr Stanton and his customers has pretty well verified the information in his charts.

I've decided to keep my 629 because I like it. Due to recurring problems with arthritis, I need to use a load which produces less recoil than the BB+p+ load. Mr. Stanton is an advocate of heavy hard cast bullets with a wide meplat for shooting big game with a revolver. But he believes that we have been oversold on the need for the heaviest bullets using the heaviest powder charges. According to Stanton's research as shown in his charts, a 250 gr Keith style bullet with an impact velocity of 1100 fps will penetrate just as deeply as his 325 gr. LWFNGC at the same impact velocity because the meplat of the Keith bullet is not quite as wide as the meplat on his WFN bullets.

The lighter weight Keith bullet will generate less than 2/3 as much recoil as the 325 gr bullet. Since the Keith bullet has a smaller diameter meplat, it will produce a wound channel that is .1 " smaller in diameter, according to Mr Stanton. So according to him, his 250 gr Keith bullet will penetrate just as deeply as his 325 gr LWFN bullet while producing a wound channel that is 90% as wide in diameter as the channel produced by the heavier bullet at the same velocity. And the load with the lighter bullet will produce less than 65% as much recoil.

According to Mr Stanton, all of his .44 cal hard cast bullets from 250 gr through the heaviest are capable of penetrating all the way through a grizzly bear or a moose when fired from a revolver and have done so many times in the field. Undoubtedly, in some loads in some revolvers, the heaviest bullets will penetrate the deepest. But it's likely that a 280 gr or 300 gr bullet fired from a .44 mag can accomplish anything that a .44 is capable of accomplishing on animals found on the North American continent.

The 250 gr, 280 gr, and 300 gr bullets will penetrate all the way through a grizzly bear with enough remaining power to penetrate at least a foot (a guesstimate) into a tree behind the bear. The bullets heavier than 300 gr. will completely penetrate through the bear and will penetrate even more deeply into the tree behind it. According to Mr. Stanton, the 250 gr Keith bullet will penetrate just as deeply as most of the heavier bullets, but the wound channel will only be 90% as wide in diameter. Even at velocities of 1100 to 1200 fps, the bullets have penetration to spare.

Buffalo Bore engineers are aware of how this works, and BB sells a lower recoil load for use in S&W 329 revolvers which drives a 250 gr Keith style bullet at 1250 fps. I will probably settle on a 265 gr or a 280 gr bullet at the same velocity. The pressure will be within SAAMI recommendations; it will be safe to fire in my 629; it won't hurt my arthritic wrist as badly; and the compromise in performance will be minimal or almost unnoticeable.

If this info had originated from some promotional ad copy, I probably wouldn't trust it. But Marshall Stanton is one of the original developers and advocates of this type of bullet. He has been researching the performance of these bullets for decades, and he has become convinced that the need for the heaviest bullets at the highest velocities has been exaggerated and oversold. He is going to sell many tons of bullets whether he advocates the use of heavier or lighter bullets. I have no choice but to use a lighter bullet, but, at least for now, you do have a choice. I (along with Marshall Stanton) think that it's likely that I will be sacrificing a lot less performance than the advocates of the heaviest bullets realize.

NM Mountainman
August 8, 2011, 02:22 AM
The Redhawk vs. the 629

I think it's probably true that the cylinder and frame of the Redhawk is stronger and will withstand greater pressure than the 629. The 629 uses an antiquated design which is long overdue for an upgrade. But the strength of the 629 is not the limiting factor. If you were to set out to test heavier and heavier powder charges by progressing in small increments, you would reach a point where the empty cases would be difficult to extract long before you would threaten the structural integrity of either revolver. At that point you will have exceeded a safe operating pressure level.

The limitation of the 629 is not the lesser strength of its frame or cylinder. The 629 has a shorter cylinder and can't handle the heaviest or the longest bullets. The earlier 29's and 629's would often shoot loose after firing thousands of maximum pressure loads. (I've also seen Redhawks and Super Blackhawks shoot loose with max loads, but it usually takes a few more thousand rounds to do it.) Most of the 629's problems have been solved or greatly reduced in 629's produced after the mid 90's. But shooters should not fire ammo which exceeds SAAMI recommended pressure limits or OAL in a 629. Most of the time, that's probably good advice for most Redhawk shooters as well, at least IMO.

Using loads with pressures under SAAMI limits, a 629 can fire a 300 gr. hard cast bullet at a velocity of 1250 to 1300 fps. The bullet will penetrate completely through a grizzly bear or a bull moose and will continue to penetrate deeply into a tree behind him. Using loads which exceed recommended SAAMI limits, a Redhawk can propel a 340 gr. hard cast bullet at 1350 fps. It will penetrate completely through a grizzly bear or a bull moose and will penetrate several inches (perhaps nearly a foot!) deeper than the 300 gr bullet into the tree behind him. It's all good.

I believe you can likely get a little more performance from a Redhawk than from a 629. I also believe that Buffalo Bore sells ammunition that is safe when used according to their recommendations. Your Redhawk will probably work extremely well with the Buffalo Bore ammo. It will be a great combination. You have made an excellent choice. Enjoy.

CraigC
August 8, 2011, 11:03 AM
double post

CraigC
August 8, 2011, 11:12 AM
I think it's probably true that the cylinder and frame of the Redhawk is stronger and will withstand greater pressure than the 629.
It's absolutely true, without question! In .45Colt, the N-frame should be held to around 22,000psi. While the Redhawk can be pushed to over double that. Which is purely a function of strength. Specifically the cylinder. The weakest point of the cylinder is the bolt notch. Where the N-frame's bolt cut is directly over the chamber, the Redhawk's is offset and between chambers. Not to mention the significantly larger diameter. Add that to the massive frame (yes forgings are stronger than castings but the Ruger is still stronger), along with robust lockwork and you have a .45 sixgun that can be loaded to 50,000psi. Loads that will grenade the S&W in short order.

I'll heed Linebaugh's position on reading pressure signs in straight-walled revolver cartridges.


The limitation of the 629 is not the lesser strength of its frame or cylinder. The 629 has a shorter cylinder and can't handle the heaviest or the longest bullets.
Strength is a limiting factor. The shorter cylinder is simply coincidence. These loads in question are too long for the N-frame but they also produce too much pressure for the guns.

hardluk1
August 8, 2011, 03:22 PM
My Dan Wesson 44 mag has a cylinder length of 1.764" and 1.96" wide. That would allow longer loads to chamber than several other revolvers out there and then if you have one of DW super mags they run anougher 3/10 longer.

NM Mountainman
August 8, 2011, 09:31 PM
Duplicate

NM Mountainman
August 8, 2011, 10:09 PM
CraigC:

I agree: the 629 is definitely not as strong as the Redhawk. Your .44 mag is definitely bigger, stronger, and heavier than my .44 mag. And when loaded with the highest pressure ammo that each revolver can handle, your .44 is more powerful than my .44! Your .44 can whup my .44's heinie!

And I agree that the location of the cylinder bolt cuts in the cylinder of the 629 is an incredibly poor design which S&W can and should correct with a redesign.

I wouldn't own an N frame in .45 Colt. (Or anything else in .45 Colt for that matter. If I want to go larger than .44, I will go to .454 Casull.) As far as I know they are not designed to handle pressures greater than the old SAAMI pressure limits for the low pressure factory loads.

But there is no evidence that the cylinder and frame of a 629 are not strong enough for .44 mag ammo which meets SAAMI specs. The frame and cylinder are not in danger of breaking or failing with recommended loads. That's what I meant by saying that the lesser strength of the 629 is not a limiting factor. When used with ammo which meets SAAMI specs, the lesser strength of the 629 does not result in any dangers or problems.

According to Linebaugh, firing a cylinder full of rounds at pressures of 50,000 cup will not cause the cylinder of a 629 to fail. And regardless of what your micrometer tells you about your case heads, you would be well advised to avoid pressures which exceed SAAMI specs by more that 4000 or 5000 cup. The superior strength of a Redhawk confers a little greater safety margin, but it is not a license to be reckless or unsafe. If you want to be able to extract your empties by hand, the strength of the brass case is still the limiting factor.

You will never need to fire more than a dozen or so rounds a year at pressures over SAAMI limits. I'm sure you're a competent handloader, but let Buffalo Bore load those rounds for you. They have the testing equipment and the know how, and they know how to safely approach the upper limits of your Redhawk.

Most revolvers of all brands have imperfect barrel/cylinder alignment and imperfectly adjusted timing. And all brands of revolvers (with the possible exception of Freedom) will need a tune-up and timing adjustment after thousands of rounds at max pressure. But that kind of heavy use poses no dangers and rarely causes any problems for the frame or cylinder of a 629 that was built after the mid 1990's. (I don't remember the exact year.)

I have owned a Redhawk and a Super Blackhawk. They were good hunting revolvers, but they (those particular revolvers which I owned) were not quite accurate enough for my needs. If I were going to fire thousands of rounds right at the SAAMI max pressure limit or if I wanted to experiment with loads which exceed SAAMI limits by a little bit, I would use a Redhawk or a Dan Wesson. (Preferably the DW in the hope that I would get one of the super accurate ones.)

I haven't checked his web site lately, but IIRC Linebaugh had an article a couple of years ago about revolver strength. In that article he stated that the 629 and the Super Blackhawk had both been tested with proof loads at over 80,000 cup and that he considered them to be essentially equivalent in strength. (He was referring to revolvers manufactured in the late 1980's, IIRC.)

He went on to state that the Redhawk is much stronger than those two revolvers which were based on older designs than the Redhawk. I agree with what he wrote in that article. (I posted without rereading the article and relied on my memory about what the article said. I hope I paraphrased the article accurately.)

The Redhawk is capable of firing heavier bullets at a higher velocity than a 629 when both are maxed out. When maxed out, either revolver can propel a hard cast bullet all the way through the largest Alaskan animals, according to Marshall Stanton's research. And according to Stanton's research, the wound track of a 300 gr hard cast FN bullet in the neighborhood of 1250 to 1300 fps (YMMV) from a 629 will be the same size (within .1" at the extreme) as the track of a heavier bullet fired from a Redhawk at 50 to 100 fps greater velocity at pressures exceeding SAAMI specs. In spite of its antiquated design and inferior (but more than adequate) strength, using a 629 instead of a Redhawk for hunting or defense is not a limiting factor.

Enough talk. I'm going shooting. Enjoy your Redhawk. It's a great revolver.

CraigC
August 9, 2011, 12:44 AM
I agree: the 629 is definitely not as strong as the Redhawk. Your .44 mag is definitely bigger, stronger, and heavier than my .44 mag. And when loaded with the highest pressure ammo that each revolver can handle, your .44 is more powerful than my .44! Your .44 can whup my .44's heinie!
This ain't a peeing contest. My ego is in no way related to my sixguns. I rarely use loads in this range and usually prefer to run a little more sedately. I've tested them and enjoy jawing about this stuff but all I have any actual, practical use for are standard weight bullets at 1000-1200fps.

PS, all my DA .44Mag's are S&W's. Had a Redhawk, traded it twice to get a 629MG. Don't miss it. ;)

NM Mountainman
August 9, 2011, 03:31 AM
Looks like I went overboard with listening to myself talk.

I've carried and shot 629MG's; they are definitely cool. I prefer the standard model 629 with a 4" barrel because the I like the feel of a little more weight towards the muzzle. In a 4" 629, my favorite practice load is a 210 gr JHP loaded with a Start load of AA#9 for about 1300 fps.

918v
August 9, 2011, 12:43 PM
It's absolutely true, without question! In .45Colt, the N-frame should be held to around 22,000psi. While the Redhawk can be pushed to over double that. Which is purely a function of strength. Specifically the cylinder. The weakest point of the cylinder is the bolt notch. Where the N-frame's bolt cut is directly over the chamber, the Redhawk's is offset and between chambers. Not to mention the significantly larger diameter. Add that to the massive frame (yes forgings are stronger than castings but the Ruger is still stronger), along with robust lockwork and you have a .45 sixgun that can be loaded to 50,000psi. Loads that will grenade the S&W in short order.

If you load a Redhawk to 50000 PSI it will not last. If the cases don't stick the brass will fail after two to three firings due to the generous chambers. This isn't a Freedom Arms revolver.

Evergreen
August 11, 2011, 10:20 PM
Well, I Just got back from the range and I am going to post a separate thread later with a little range report of my new Ruger Redhawk and the Buffalo Bore.

All I got to say about the Buffalo Bore 340gr +P+, is :eek:.. Ah, my hands are ruined for life.. :p


Ok.. :D Now, for an honest report.. I shot this Buffalo Bore 340gr +P+ out of my brand new Ruger Redhawk and I will say WOW.. What awesome ammo. I was afraid after all the posts on this and other forums about this ammo that my hands would little crack after the first round. Well, to my amazement, this Buffalo Bore ammo is a really kitty cat out of my Ruger Redhawk. I was like, WOW, is this stuff really +P+? My only fear now is that this stuff is not as hot and fast as Tim says it is, but assuming that Buffalo Bore is a company with integrity, I trust it must certainly be as fast and powerful as advertised. I was shocked that my 240gr Fiocchi rounds had the same felt recoil as this heavy duty +P+ ammo. Even my Double Tap 320gr Hardcast rounds had a bit more thump to them then the Buffalo Bore. Anyway, considering that I have .454 power out of my Redhawk with almost no major pain of recoil, I think this stuff is awesome. I said I would only shoot 6 rounds, but I saw that I was able to get some decent groups (relatively , considering I am not the greatest shooter) and I decided to shoot more. I ended up shooting 18 rounds total and the only thing that stopped me was the price of these rounds.. :'(

Oh yeah, my testing did me well.. I was planning on packing with 320gr Corbon HC LFN rounds for my trip, but I am glad I didn't! It turns out my Ruger Redhawk hates the Corbon Hunter 320gr HC LFN ammo. This is shocking, but the stuff locked up my cylinder just after firing one round. No matter what I tried, any attempt to fire a second round with this ammo failed. At first I thought it was my gun and I started to panic. Then, I ejected the Corbons and put them away. I thought my gun was having an issue so I then proceeded to test out various types of other 44Mag ammo and each fired very well without any problems. I might want to talk with other people about this and tell Corbon the issue I had with these rounds and see if they can reimburse me. At $1.80 a piece, they are not cheap.

Anyway, I just thought I share my little range report. I'm glad to know also from other people here of the tolerances of my Redhawk. It gave me a piece of mind when shooting this and the other heavy loads I was today.

harrygunner
August 12, 2011, 04:47 AM
Glad you like the ammo. The owner, Tim knows how to load ammo. Properly crimped to avoid having remaining bullets lock up the gun.

Internet pundits seem awfully afraid of recoil. I've learned to ignore most all of their warnings.

What are your thoughts about using it in a self-defense situation?

The bear will be coming straight at you, fast. After several discussions with hunters and Internet queries over the years, I've come to agree with those that recommend shooting for the mouth.

Not necessarily expecting the round to go down the bear's throat, but the mouth presents a clear, decent target. Misses around the mouth from the shoulders to the spine or chest may stop or slow the bear down, allowing a followup shot.

I'm sure I'll revert to training, so I practice drawing from my holster, shooting 240gr ammo. I also practice moving laterally after the shot. :eek:

Most likely, I will continue to enjoy nature's beauty without ever needing to make these moves. But since I love the wilderness so much, might as well be prepared.

Enjoy your trip!

hardluk1
August 12, 2011, 12:05 PM
Remember to practice drawing that big can of bear spray you will have too. After the bear can't see you or smell you then you have time to leave or shot it if needed.

Mike1234567
August 12, 2011, 12:27 PM
Remember to practice drawing that big can of bear spray you will have too. After the bear can't see you or smell you then you have time to leave or shot it if needed.
Yeah, but make DARNED sured the bear is down wind from you and your buddies!!

hardluk1
August 12, 2011, 06:49 PM
Spray your buddy too and your home free , ruuuun hehe

beatledog7
August 12, 2011, 07:43 PM
Everybody knows you don't have to be able to outrun a grizzly or any other dangerous game. You just have to be able to outrun your buddy.

Evergreen
August 12, 2011, 08:12 PM
Glad you like the ammo. The owner, Tim knows how to load ammo. Properly crimped to avoid having remaining bullets lock up the gun.

Internet pundits seem awfully afraid of recoil. I've learned to ignore most all of their warnings.

What are your thoughts about using it in a self-defense situation?
I really do love this ammo and still am shocked at how tame it is considering the amount of power and speed it puts out. I'm 100% for using this in a self-defense situation. I'm assuming you are referring to an outdoor/wildlife defense situation. Obviously, this is way too much gun for an urban-defense situation. And, even if you end up shooting the perp bad, what would the jury or court think about you packing a 340gr +P+ round in a 44 Mag? I'd probably say it would be very risky, due to overpenetration in an urban situation. But, for outdoor defense, I think this load would be ideal in any situaiton, even over the .357.

One problem many people have with shooting 44 Mag is that they shoot the gun with an exposed metal backstrap. This causes a lot of unnecessary pain in the joints and palms of the hand. The Pachmayr Presentation grips fit the Ruger Redhawk perfectly and I couldn't think of any other grip better for shooting the heavy loads than these.

Anyway, I will be loading my Redhawk with the BB rounds during my hikes in the Sawtooth Mountains and Glacier NP.


Everybody knows you don't have to be able to outrun a grizzly or any other dangerous game. You just have to be able to outrun your buddy.
If two guys with Ruger Redhawks loaded with Buffalo Bore 340gr +P+ cannot take a grizzly down, then I think they just deserve what happens to them.

moxie
August 12, 2011, 08:46 PM
evergreen,
Hate to rain on your parade, but the probability of two guys taking a grizzly down with those 340 grainers is very thin. I'd up the chances from thin to slim if both guys were crack shots and the bear was on the feeble side.
Keep this in perspective.
That heavy 340 round produces about 1600 foot pounds of energy (fpe).
The BB 30-30 round produces 1860 fpe. Note that many don't consider the 30-30 suitable for anything more than whitetail. You wouldn't hunt a grizzly with a 30-30, would you? Why do you think that a less powerful gun, even two of them, will "take a grizzly down?"
The .308 pumps in the neighborhood of 3600 fpe.
The 30-06 amps out at 4300 fpe.
So your hot .44 mag round gets less than a 30-30, and way less than half the .308 and .30-06 rifle rounds. (All ballistics data from the BB site.)
The .44 mag in any configuration is just a glimmer of a hope against an angry grizzly. Better than nothing? Of course. But know the facts of the matter.

Evergreen
August 12, 2011, 08:54 PM
Two say two guys firing at a grizzly with a 340gr is slim I think is a bit too hard. Sure, it is less than ideal. But you can multiply all the energy levels by two and note if two people are firing at a grizzly from different locations, I would think there would be enough time for follow up shots. Not to mention while the grizzly is dealing with person 1, person 2 would have time to deliver quite a few rounds into the angry grizzly.

I have heard stories of giant Alaskan bears that would not go down no matter how many .500 S&W rounds were put into it, but then the same stories can be said about people. I've heard stories of people who just kept on going, despite being hit with multiple rifle rounds; especially people on drugs.

Anyway, my gun is really as a last ditch effort and as I said from the beginning, which may have forgot by now, I would rely on bear pepper spray first. I've never advocated that any handgun was sufficient for use on a predatory animal, especially a large one like a grizzly. However, most grizzlies in Montana do not reach the very large sizes they do in Alaska. I've heard the males average around 500 lbs, which is not much larger than the coastal male black bears we have here in Oregon. The male coastal bears here tend to average around 300-400lbs.


I will also be in black bear territory, not to mention Glacier NP is home to more black bears than grizzly bears. I feel a 340gr +P+ 44 Mag is more than adequate to deal with black bears in most cases.

RalphS
August 12, 2011, 10:18 PM
Hate to rain on your parade, but the probability of two guys taking a grizzly down with those 340 grainers is very thin. I'd up the chances from thin to slim if both guys were crack shots and the bear was on the feeble side.
Keep this in perspective.
That heavy 340 round produces about 1600 foot pounds of energy (fpe).
The BB 30-30 round produces 1860 fpe. Note that many don't consider the 30-30 suitable for anything more than whitetail. You wouldn't hunt a grizzly with a 30-30, would you? Why do you think that a less powerful gun, even two of them, will "take a grizzly down?"
The .308 pumps in the neighborhood of 3600 fpe.
The 30-06 amps out at 4300 fpe.
So your hot .44 mag round gets less than a 30-30,and way less than half the .308 and .30-06 rifle rounds. (All ballistics data from the BB site.)
The .44 mag in any configuration is just a glimmer of a hope against an angry grizzly. Better than nothing? Of course. But know the facts of the matter.

More FPE does not mean more stopping power. FPE is just a formula that someone came up with. Useful for some comparisons but it does not translate to the real world. Know the facts of the matter.

While we're at it, stopping power is pretty meaningless too. It really comes down to getting a lucky shot in.

Here's a nice youtube video of some hunters being attacked by a lion. They are all blasting away at the lion with their big rifles with massive amounts of FPE but the only thing that stops the lion is a lucky shot from the hip of the guy who is about to be killed. Maybe we should all be practicing taking shots from the hip?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rIPAuLd-zvw

CraigC
August 12, 2011, 11:30 PM
Sorry moxie but that is typical drivel from folks who know nothing they didn't learn from a ballistics table. That .44Mag load will fully penetrate any critter in North American from near about any angle and kill it stone dead. Muzzle energy is meaningless. Nowhere is it more meaningless than when applied to big bore cartridges, particularly revolver cartridges and especially using it to compare them to small bore rifle cartridges. Energy is far too dependent on velocity and that is what these cartridges do not have an excess of. However, what they do have in spades are two things that make them far more consistent killers. That is bullet weight and diameter. In the real world, an equivalent of the original blackpowder .45Colt load consisting of a 250-260gr cast bullet at 900fps will penetrate end to end on any deer that walks but produces a paltry 450ft-lbs.


But know the facts of the matter.
I'd love to know where your "facts" come from because they certainly don't come from killing critters with heavy sixguns.

Evergreen
August 12, 2011, 11:46 PM
+1 to Craig and Ralph.. IT is like the difference between being hit by a freight train and a Toyota Prius. Which one at 150mph would you want to plow into you.. Not that either is a great choice. But the analogy holds weight against big game. Now multiply all this by two. Two people armed with hot and heavy 44 mag loads should more times than not, take out a single grizzly bear. There is always exceptions to the rule. I would say even a single person has a chance, assuming he doesn't miss, but obviously, I much prefer 12 or even 10ga slugs for defense against a giant 600+lb grizzly bear.

CraigC
August 13, 2011, 01:28 AM
Given proper shot placement, I'll take the .44 over 12ga slug any day of the week. The challenge will be getting a good shoulder, spine or brain shot. The 340gr .44 will break heavy bones and outpenetrate any 12ga slug on the market. They just don't have the sectional density necessary.

Gary A
August 13, 2011, 01:51 AM
Stop cars?

Ohhh-Kay...

918v
August 13, 2011, 11:00 PM
I'd like to remind everyone that the ability to penetrate through an animal does not equate to stopping it. A charging bear will rip you to pieces before he realizes he's been shot. The only thing that will stop a charging bear is a shot to the CNS and we all know how hard that is.

CraigC
August 14, 2011, 12:07 AM
The key to "stopping" any critter is breaking heavy bones. CNS hits are unreliable and difficult at best. Break the shoulder and he will at least change direction. Break the shoulder, penetrate the vitals and break the pelvis on the way out and you have at least made a killing shot. You need a bullet that PENETRATES to do this. Now you're in a better position to make a solid brain shot.

If you enjoyed reading about "Will Buffalo Bore 340 gr +P+ Hurt my New Ruger Redhawk 44?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!