Would it be foolish to to pair a .44 spl only revolver with a .44 mag rifle?

Back in 1991 I picked up a Winchester 94 Trapper (.44 Mag.) and several .44 Spl handguns. All I load is .44 Spl. for those guns. Quite a few people have reported feed problems in the Trappers when using .44 Spl. ammo but mine eats them like candy. Never really saw a need for the .44 Mag. when I can handload stout Specials for the carbine and the handguns.

If you don't have a feeding issue then I guess I'm not seeing a problem myself. Seems like you answered your own question really.

It sounds like the handgun will be used as a backup or emergency gun when in the field. If that's true I would buy a .44 Magnum revolver as a companion to your Marlin. In an emergency you could mistakenly try to load the wrong ammo in a .44 Special and if things are going bad you don't need to slow down a reload. Stress will slow you down enough, no need to add another variable.

IMO to combat excessive weight you can buy a S&W M69 and when in the field load it with .44 Magnum ammo but when shooting it for fun or practice you can shoot .44 Special ammo or downloaded rounds in .44 Magnum brass. You get the best of both choices.

Jason_W said:

My other option is to treat my rifle like it's a .44 special. I'll mostly be using the pair for fun at the range, so why burn all that powder for nothing? On account of being a denizen of the great stucco sprawl of brown, dry sadness that is the Sacramento metro area, I honestly don't know when I'll be able to hunt next.

Click to expand...

So if you're not carrying the revolver thru the woods all day hunting, and the only distance you will have to pack it is from the car/truck to the bench at the range, why the concern over the few extra ounces that a .44 mag revolver will weigh? Those few ounce will make for a much more pleasant shooting handgun, even with .44 special type loads. Like others have said, why bother with two cartridges when the .44 mag can be downloaded to .44 special levels that will still feed reliably in a lever. Even if you wanted different loads for each gun.

Still, it's your monies and your firearms. Why worry about what we think? Get what trips your trigger and trust your own judgment of what's okay for you. Last thing I think abut when I buy a new firearm is what others will think or how well it will work for them. I get what I think will work for me.

I think the 5 shot S&W M69 with a 4.25" barrel in 44mag might be in the running for the best companion piece.

Should be a great range run with specials, and a trusty woodland defense piece loaded (literally) for bear.

Nothing inherently wrong or foolish about what you propose. But it isn't what I would do if I was "pairing" a rifle and a revolver. To my mind, "pairing" means complete interchangeability. That is accomplished easily enough if ALL you maintain and load for are .44 special cases. If, however, you introduce .44 magnum cases into the mix, you no longer have a pair.

Were I you, I'd opt for a .44 magnum revolver and load it light for plinking and other light duty ... if it is important to you to have interchangeability. If that is NOT important to you, might as well have a .44 special revolver and a .45 colt rifle ... or a .30-30.

I also would go for the 44 MAG revolver. For the simple fact that you can use it full power if you so choose in the future. Just download it for now. It seems the once fired 44 SPL brass I find is more expensive and not as available as the MAG brass so I also load light loads in the MAG brass for my revolvers.

Starline has 44 Magnum cases for $176/1000 and 44 Special cases for $174.50/1000.

The facts are Westerners chose their Carbines and rifles based more on availability of ammo. The most available cheap ammo was from Military forts. The .45 Colt and .45-70 etc were very popular.
The use of matching ammo for handgun and carbine is some what over rated.

Dog Soldier said:

The facts are Westerners chose their Carbines and rifles based more on availability of ammo. The most available cheap ammo was from Military forts. The .45 Colt and .45-70 etc were very popular.
The use of matching ammo for handgun and carbine is some what over rated.

Click to expand...

That is a rather drive-by comment. If one wants to specialize ammo in a rifle paired with a side arm, they could just carry hotter ammo than they would care to shoot in the sidearm but could if necessary.

I would match the calibers and keep it simple .

Civilians bought ammunition from soldiers who ran a Black Market on everything. Two .45 Colt cartridges bought a shot of cheap whisky. The Frontier saloons sold the ammunition for cash. Where else did you find ammunition on the Frontier? Ammunition was a medium of exchange in the Frontier west. The meat hunters were supplied and paid in ammunition as well.
"Can you also add the names of companies supplying ammunition on the frontier near forts". Forts were the only industry that supplied anything. When you were 400 miles from Denver on horseback where would you go?

It is interesting that you added the .30 WCF which was not available until after 1894. The Frontier was officially closed in 1890. The .30 WCF was later it was used by prison guards and deer hunters.
The last Indian battle in Wyoming was fought by Troopers using the 1903 caliber .30-03.

If you scrap the B Movie Westerns and study true Western ordinance you may find some interesting facts. On the Northern Frontier the large bore rifles were far more popular. The .45-70, .45-90 etc lever guns are much more common than the .44 WCF. The .44 WCF/.44-40 was banned as a hunting caliber in Wyoming after the close of the Frontier and is to this day. There is a misconception that all Westerners carried carbines and revolvers of matching calibers. If you were a "Puncher" on the Northern Plains where a Grizz could out run your horse? Would you choose a .44-40?

I'll give you my take on carrying both in the woods.... hunting mostly, right. You are not likely going to be shooting a lot of rounds and one load in the revolver is probably all you need (with one full reload). The rifle will be used mostly if you are like most folks that carry both. So, pairing a 44 spl revolver and 44 mag rifle is not a big deal from my point of view. I would make sure the 44 mag cartridges will not fit in the revolver. If they do, I would think twice about this choice.

What did population play in this? The reason the time factor is mentioned is the laws. Many Federal Territory and state laws were implemented and enforced after 1890. Those wide open spaces exist today. But the laws enacted after 1990 are voluminous and growing. A mere 18 years after the closing of the frontier was only a "blip" during those days.

Jason_W said:

y other option is to treat my rifle like it's a .44 special. I'll mostly be using the pair for fun at the range, so why burn all that powder for nothing?....

Click to expand...

I was thinking this way as I read down the replies.

It's easier to find .44Mag brass too. At least around here it is. And if you are reloading you are in control anyway. So pair it up with a .44Mag revolver and just load all your range ammo to .44Spl power. And if you find you ever DO need some full power .44Mag ammo you can load that up as well. Just mark it with a red Sharpie marker swipe across the case heads so when you open the box and see the heads staring at you it's VERY clear what you're looking at.

I have a Browning Mdl. 92 .44 Mag. and a S&W 29-2 .44 Mag. They are not the same? The Mdl. 92 has a Wnchester Japan Micro Groove barrel. The Mdl 92 needs a .434 bullet to shoot accurately. The S&W 29-2 needs a .430. I expect an older Marlin may have this Micro Groove dimensional difference.

Kleanbore said:

Population density, as measured by the Census Bureau, was the factor on which the "official closing" of the frontier was based.

Click to expand...

You are totally correct on all these points. Thanks for your corrections.

This thread has been catching my eye ever since it started 3wks ago, but I've been reticent to respond.

I started shooting a 44mag revolver when I was 7, carried one on my hip around the ranch most days throughout middle school and high school, and the Marlin 1894 in .44mag has been a tradition of sorts in my family for 3 generations - every man in our family has one, and we all used to have the same ammo available in the farm trucks, barns, ranch house, etc. I also shot Cowboy Action for a number of years, pretty heavily for about 5yrs, then off and on for about 5yrs after that as work took me elsewhere.

As I read the thread title - "Would it be foolish to to pair a .44 spl only revolver with a .44 mag rifle?" - the only thought I have is this: "does it make sense, really, to pair a revolver with a leveraction rifle?"

If you have a context for which it does, such as working on our ranch where 44mag revolvers and rifles were standard, or shooting cowboy action, then great. Matching up makes SOME sense. Otherwise, it's non-sequitur to ask the question whether it makes sense to NOT match up, because it doesn't make sense TO match up either for most people.

I appreciate a lot of reloaders want to produce one load and have many firearms which will use it, and for those guys, sure, why not? For handloaders who tailor their rifle load to their rifle and their revolver load to their revolver, no, it doesn't make sense to match up. When I was CAS/SASS shooting, I used nickel plated brass for my revolver loads which and yellow brass for my rifle loads, so I could keep the two straight. I didn't even shoot the same bullet between rifle and pistol - 240's in the rifle and 180's in the revolvers.

The history of the frontier and the old west is always interesting, but when it comes to a modern age reloader and shooter selecting their firearms, what the TV Western's lied about for firearms prevalence and applications just don't apply.

Ultimately, you have to answer the question for yourself - if it gives you heartburn to have 2 sets of brass or to not be able to share ammo, then don't get firearms which use different ammo. The levergun should feed .44spcls, but do you really want to castrate your 44mag rifle by limiting it to specials? I wouldn't, but you might be ok with that.

Personally, I don't ever worry about carrying the same ammo. It's just not pertinent in 2017. I almost ALWAYS carry a side arm in the field, often two, since I'll have my EDC Ruger LCP in tow as well, so I might have a 44mag and a 300win mag, or a 357 revolver and a 223 AR, or a 357/44mag revolver and a 243win... Never ever made sense to me to have the same ammo in both - one tool is for short ranges, one for long.

I don't really have a practical application, but my vision for my pistol caliber rifles is for handling longer shots than I expect a sidearm and my shooting skill, not to mention my vision, to handle. I also get to rest the rifle on something for a steady shot, if I am lucky. If I really wanted to reach out and touch something, I would go with my 30-30 and scope. Lots of other more specialized caliber choices too.

In any case, I don't think there is any question that 44-40 was chambered in both revolvers and rifles. I don't think everyone marched around carrying a buffalo gun either. I could also say that the West, where people had guns as a matter of routine, was a lot bigger than Wyoming. There was a lot more going on in Texas, Kansas, and the southeast, I believe.