.44 Special vs .45 ACP

From John's book on the subject:

"With the lengthening of the case the powder charge increased from 23.0 to 26.0 grains of blackpowder under a round nosed 246 grain lead bullet. Yes, the .44 Special was originally a blackpowder load. Everyone doesn't agree that the first .44 Specials were blackpowder with some holding out for smokeless; it is a sure thing there was NO smokeless powder which could be used in the .44Special with a charge of 26 grains..."

You do realize that just because a gun writer wrote it doesn't necessary make it true?

Click to expand...

Hold the phone everybody, R.W. Dale, a welder from Arkansas, is now the world's foremost expert on the .44Spl. Forget Skeeter Skelton, Elmer Keith and their contemporaries John Taffin and Brian Pearce. Forget Mike Cumpston, his box of blackpowder loads and all the rest who have all dedicated their lives and their livelihood to the subject, he is now the last word. Why? Not because he has evidence or proof but simply because he says so.

Paco Kelly on the subject

"The 44 special was really never a BP cartridge....though black powder loads were available. Introduced around 1907 to take advantage of the new smokeless propellants...I thought it would be neat to see what it would do with black powder loads."



posted via tapatalk using android.

Uh yes the .44 SPL was loaded with black powder as was the .38 SPL. Here is evidence in the form of a article and actual period correct ammunition. Do you have any bonafide evidence to prove otherwise? http://www.leverguns.com/articles/44special.htm

OK suffice to say that EVERY SOURCE indicates the 44special was DESIGNED for smokeless powder.

Some manufacturers were just either lazy or cheap and loaded it with black anyway. Probably mostly Remington (imagine that)

posted via tapatalk using android.

Since I've got my copy of Cartridges of the World (11th edition) right next to me, I'll see if I can provide some insight. This excerpt is from page 305, in the 44 Smith & Wesson Special Historical Notes section.

With the coming of bulkier smokeless powders, the 44 Russian cartridge case proved too small to permit efficient use of full charges of the new propellants. Though originally a blackpowder cartridge, the 44 Special – which is about 0.2-inch longer than the Russian – eliminated this problem and provided more power, while using the same bullets as the older 44 Russian. This cartridge was introduced about 1907.

Click to expand...

From reading this description, it's not hard to see how someone could misinterpret (or misremember) it as claiming that the .44 Special was designed as a smokeless powder round, but that does not seem to be what the authors intended.

Metallic reloading page 313 3rd edition by M.L. McPherson

Based on the 44 s&w Russian, the 44 special was introduced in 1907 EXPRESSLY to accommodate the bulky smokeless powders of the era.

posted via tapatalk using android.

Lyman reloading handbook 49th

The 44 special came into being in 1907 as a lengthened version of the old 44 Russian cartridge to better utilize smokeless powder.

posted via tapatalk using android.

It's okay, you can admit you were wrong. We won't rub it in......much.

CraigC said:

It's okay, you can admit you were wrong. We won't rub it in......much.

Click to expand...

Ill admit that I was wrong about 44special being LOADED with blackpowder

IF

You'll admit the cartridge was DESIGNED for smokeless powder.


LOL on a side note in less than an hour we've probably compiled the largest collection reference material on the subject in any one place.

posted via tapatalk using android.

Deal.

CraigC said:

Deal.

Click to expand...

Why can't every discussion end this way?

:beer:


One thing I don't get though is all these sources reference the bulkiness of early smokeless powders as the reason for lengthening 44russian. But if that's the case how did manufacturers get by this on 9mm and 45acp which both predates 44spl?

R.W.Dale said:

Why can't every discussion end this way?

:beer:

Click to expand...

And that, folks, is why they call this site "The High Road"

I'm glad to have learned from this discussion.

I really don't know, I am not familiar at all with the early smokeless powders. Cheers.

Same as it did in this thread when you ask the same question Feb 23.
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=645273

rc

[Threads Merged -- No reason to open a new one.]

Reloading these old black powder designs poses a safety risk to handloaders as they can hold a double or even tripple charge of powder. If you double charge a 9MM or .45 ACP the extra powder will compleatly fill the case or even spill over the top and become very obvious. With a .38 or .44 it can be hard to see.

Click to expand...

Maybe I'm misunderstandung this statement, but...

I have loaded thousands of 45 ACP using various 'modern' powders (Bullseye, Win 231, Titegroup) and to me it looks like you could very easily fit a max-load double or maybe even triple charge (never actually tried this to see if it would fit) into a 45 ACP case without spilling over. Am I missing the point here?

I have loaded thousands of 45 ACP using various 'modern' powders (Bullseye, Win 231, Titegroup) and to me it looks like you could very easily fit a max-load double or maybe even triple charge (never actually tried this to see if it would fit) into a 45 ACP case without spilling over. Am I missing the point here?

Click to expand...

It depends entirely on the powder. With something very dense, like Titegroup, it would be easy to double-charge many cases.

The "problem," such as it is, with large volume revolver cases like .44 Spc. or .38 Spc, is that there is so much more empty room in there. A 9mm and a .38 Spc. might operate with roughly the same bullet and roughly the same powder charge, but that charge will be way down in the bottom of the .38 case.

I found once that I could actually charge a .44 cartridge FIVE TIMES with Titegroup without overflowing. Obviously, it would be pretty hard to visually tell the difference between a single or double charge...or a triple! That's why I like to use TrailBoss. Very fluffy, low density powder fills up those big old cases for a larger safety factor.

You have to be careful with powders like Titegroup. Even though I run it in the .38Spl on my Dillon 650, which has a powder checker, I make sure and visually check each case before seating the bullet. Which one should do anyway. I also run it in the .44Colt for my topless Colt replicas where it would easily take a double charge which would assuredly result in a catastrophic failure.

I see that an INTERNET! EXPERT! has "weighed in!" on the .44 special / black powder subject. Persons who have been into the history of metallic cartridges more than a few months and have read a few reloading manuals understand that the .44 special was an elongated russian made to hold a few more grains of Black Powder. That smokeless powders were available at the time does not alter the fact that early cartridges were loaded with black powder. The same is true of the 38 special -a black powder standard concomitently or soon after introduction to be loaded with smokeless powder also. Neither cartridge was designed for smokeless powder. both were designed for a heavier charge of black powder and, at least in the case of the .38 special - a slightly heavier bullet.
Here is a disassembled .44 special black powder ctg from prior to 1920,

this is the box it came in:


and, this is the article detailing the finding and testing of the black powder cartridges:
http://www.leverguns.com/articles/44special.htm

It is true that not everything a gunwriter says is "TRUTH" For instance, I said in this article that the bullet was totally cupro-nickel jacketed. I was wrong, The bullets have a c/nickel cap but the body of the bullet is a very hard lead alloy.

Understanding that may people view epistemology in the same vein as episiotomy- a pain in the A$$, it is still the person who deals in factual information rather than loud assertion that takes the high ground.

Early smokeless powders used for loading handguns included Hercules bullseye, lafland and Rand Infallable which is the same as Hercules Unique. These came into use in the 1890s to with either unique or bullseye dated at 1900 or before depending on your source. ( mIne is the speer #3 from 1959.) Neither were high loft powders. Neither took up very much room in handgun cases but both were factory standards for smokeless loadings of the 38 specia.. 44 special and .45 colt.

Aside from an blatant transparent attempt at "pot stirring thread necromancy" its clear you didn't take the time to read the parts of this thread where we covered and discussed everything you've posted a couple months ago MEC. Its called IRONY when the person lambasting others for being "internet experts" only brings a copy/paste repost of an already posted webpage. How about bringing some NEW information to light before dredging up a dead thread, or better yet cite some print examples not everyone has access to (like I did)

Aside from reading and copy/pasting an interweb article what background in 44spl development do YOU have that allows you to speak with greater authority in the long forgotten matters of its development? Or are you just selecting through all the same conflicting gun writers articles we are?

posted via mobile device.

Not so much Gunwriter articles as reloading manuals. Such as the Speer Number 3 as I mentioned:
Ref: 44 Special-" This is reportedly the best of the large handgun cartridges and the guns in which it is used provide fine accuracy, probably better than any others above 38 caliber. Although it started out as a black powder cartridge, it burns smokeless powder very well..." The Speer #9 says that it was introduced as a black powder loading in 1907. In all fairness to you, the later manuals do omit reference to the black powder origins.

And the 38 special: "It was loaded with 21 grains of black powder behind a 158 grain bullet compared to 18 grains behind a 150 grain bullet in the .38 long Colt."

The reason I flew off the handle is that after Craig cited my experiences with the box of black powder specials, you stated that not " all the things gunwriers say are true." I cannot argue with the basic truth of that statement but since it was a direct attact on my personal veracity, I was moved to answer in the same light. While I make my share of mistakes, I am careful about the things I put into print and I do not lie.

My statement was not especially directed at any one source but addressing the situation in general of us having conflicting sources. Obviously when two writers say opposite things someone is wrong.

I apologize if it was taken as a personal affront




I pondered for awhile the question "why did the special rounds need to be made longer to accomidate smokeless"

It took awhile to dawn on me with all the articles citing to be able to utilize smokeless.

Its not because early smokeless powders needed more case capacity, remember 9mm and 45acp predates "special" its really glaringly simple and has been overlooked by EVERYONE including myself.

44 and 38 special were designed to use smokeless. This redesign of the parent 38lc and 44rus was primary to prevent backwards compatibility. In other words the same reasons 357 and 44 magnum were longer than the special. So you can't use the higher pressure ammunition in older weaker firearms.

38 and 44 special were indeed loaded with black. But they were designed so that smokeless loads couldn't be used in 44 Russian and 38long colt revolvers. That's where "designed for smokeless" comes into play.

posted via mobile device.

I would say this really comes down to which platform you are comfortable with. Yes as stated there have been 45acp revolvers like the smith model 25 but for the most part it comes down to if you are more comfortable with a revolver or an auto.

Ballisticly speaking if you don't hand load the .45 acp is going to outperform the .44 special. If do you hand load the edge goes to the 44 special. Not only will the special drive a heavier bullet harder, the revolver platform allows for different bullet designs (ie Keith style) that probably wouldn't feed too well in an automatic. IMO a stiff charge of unique behind a 250 grain Keith is hard to beat.

What would Elmer Keith say ?