I commented some time ago. Don't remember what I said and to lazy to look it up. Read a few scattered posts since then, got a few laughs and a few head shakes both vertical and horizontal. I just wanted to step back in to say that my bedside gun is a .44 Spl and it is not going anywhere.
44 May Be Special. But it Ain't for Defense!
- Thread starter USBP379
- Start date
- Status
Riomouse911
Member
And you should be well-served with that .44 Special if (God forbid) you need to employ it to save your skin during a break-in.
Stay safe!
This may seem a bit off topic but please bear with me and read the entire post.
In the 1980s, I belonged to a gun club that was big into IHMSA handgun silhouette. We had practice targets at the various ranges mounted on springs.
I generally shot the revolver and production class with a 357 Magnum gun. On the 100 meter practice pig, the impact would be a "splat" and the target would barely move. (The 357 Magnum would reliably knocked down the pig as long as I hit it.
)
I'd frequently shoot my S&W Model 25 45 Colt revolver at the 100m pig. I loaded standard 45 Colt rounds not the hot rodded stuff some folks load. The big, heavy slow moving rounds would hit with a resounding gong type ring and the target would oscillate back and forth. It gives one an appreciation of what a slow moving heavy projectile could do.
I realize that a standard pressure 44 Special produces less velocity as a 45 Colt but it would still have similar effects on the practice targets as the 45 Colt ammunition I was shooting. I did not have any 44 caliber revolvers at the time.
I'll agree, the 44 Special has some limitations when used as a self defense round but I do not feel it is much. As long as one considers its limitations in its use such as it probably won't punch through much wood, the 44 Special will do its job admirably.
As I said before, I'd have no hesitation trusting my life to a 44 Special.
In the 1980s, I belonged to a gun club that was big into IHMSA handgun silhouette. We had practice targets at the various ranges mounted on springs.
I generally shot the revolver and production class with a 357 Magnum gun. On the 100 meter practice pig, the impact would be a "splat" and the target would barely move. (The 357 Magnum would reliably knocked down the pig as long as I hit it.
)I'd frequently shoot my S&W Model 25 45 Colt revolver at the 100m pig. I loaded standard 45 Colt rounds not the hot rodded stuff some folks load. The big, heavy slow moving rounds would hit with a resounding gong type ring and the target would oscillate back and forth. It gives one an appreciation of what a slow moving heavy projectile could do.
I realize that a standard pressure 44 Special produces less velocity as a 45 Colt but it would still have similar effects on the practice targets as the 45 Colt ammunition I was shooting. I did not have any 44 caliber revolvers at the time.
I'll agree, the 44 Special has some limitations when used as a self defense round but I do not feel it is much. As long as one considers its limitations in its use such as it probably won't punch through much wood, the 44 Special will do its job admirably.
As I said before, I'd have no hesitation trusting my life to a 44 Special.
OP
OP
USBP379
Member
- Joined
- Dec 27, 2005
- Messages
- 709
This ties in with what I've been saying. We've known for decades that 44SPL really isn't being loaded to its full potential by the big companies. Why is that? And why do people who are posting here seem to be completely opposed to the idea of a modern higher pressure spec for the 44? And why buy premium self defense ammo that's not pushing the bullet fast enough to do anything other than act like a solid bullet? Who wants to spend $1.50 or $2.00 per cartridge for ammo that arguably isn't going to perform all that different than a Magtech 240gr lead bullet at half the price?
CraigC
Sixgun Nut
IMHO, kinetic energy is simply a marketing tool. For a century, the American hunter and shooter has been obsessed with velocity. Kinetic energy is just the way they decided to market it. It's use as a way to gauge a cartridge's effectiveness is easily debunked with just a few examples. All it takes is an open mind.
No one is arguing that there is not a difference in performance between any two cartridges. Only that KE is not the proper metric with which to quantify that difference.
Kinetic energy is a scientifically defined and experimentally verified quantity that defines the potential of a moving object to do work. It was discovered, quantified and verified in the late 1600s or early 1700s, without any interference or assistance from ammunition companies.
It certainly does not tell the whole story of how a particular projectile will perform, nevertheless, it is a small but important part of understanding how projectiles perform. The two most common problems with using kinetic energy to characterize the performance of cartridges are over-emphasizing its importance and under-emphasizing its importance.
It is not THE proper metric by any means, but it is certainly ONE of several proper metrics that must be understood to have a reasonable chance of grasping the basics of terminal performance.
CraigC
Sixgun Nut
I never said they invented the concept. That it's used as a marketing tool that is of no use in terminal ballistics. Understanding is hindered, not helped by it. We would all be better off and have a better chance of understanding if it were left completely out of the conversation.
I didn't say you said they invented it. My comments are in response to the incorrect claim that kinetic energy is "simply a marketing tool".
Although it has certainly been used as a marketing tool, since long before that, it has been understood to be one of the basic physical/scientific properties of moving objects.
Although it has certainly been used as a marketing tool, since long before that, it has been understood to be one of the basic physical/scientific properties of moving objects.
Since terminal ballistics is, by definition, the science of the effect of moving objects on a target medium, understanding the basic physical scientific properties of moving objects is part of understanding terminal ballistics. The problems come when people either over-emphasize kinetic energy by pretending that it's the most important thing, or the only thing that matters, or when they under-emphasize it by trying to dismiss it entirely.
LubeckTech
Member
Does this mean the .44 Special is not lethal?????????????????
Momentum is another of the basic physical/scientific properties of moving objects. In the same way that kinetic energy relates to the potential of a moving object to do work on a target medium, momentum relates to the potential of a moving object to penetrate and/or to apply force to a target medium.
Of course not. Pretty much any firearm cartridge has the potential to be lethal.
I'm amused that folks who will carry a j frame with 158 gr. LSWCHPs consider an equivalent 44 special loading inadequate...
dickydalton
Member
And that 44 is a 250 grain LSWCHP at the same velocity as a 158 grain .357! Shazam!
I am a "momentum" fan.
Yup, if for no other reason, you'll probably knock the bad guy down or thow him off balance and gain a few seconds to make adjustments.
With a 44 Special or a 45 Colt, I feel I can easily get a first round hit versus a 44 Magnum, 460 Magnum or even a 357 Magnum. A hit trumps a miss regardless how powerful the cartridge that misses is.
While shooting someone may disrupt their future plans and give the defender an advantage, it won't knock them down or off balance.
Attached are some frames from a test done by Mythbusters. They shot a dummy with a steel armor plate in its chest at point blank range with a .50BMG. The dummy was balanced carefully so that a thrown baseball would dislodge it from the balance.
It's easy to see that while the dummy was dislodged from the supports, it was not knocked backwards to any significant extent in spite of taking something like 700grains of lead at around 2600fps.
Here's a link to a video of a person testing a rifle vest/plate by having someone shoot him at point blank range with a .308 rifle. In the test, he balances on one leg to show how little the bullet pushes him around.
TheSpaceWanderer
Member
+1 to that. I bought a S&W M29 .44mag with the intention of it being my new woods gun. Unless I'll have time time to insert ear plugs I don't ever want to shoot that gun. I get looks every time I pull the trigger at the range. It is loud to say the least. It's a great range gun, but my god the report is intense. I have a 629 with an 8 3/8 barrel that is still loud but not even close to the 4 inch.
I picked up 686-6 plus next. I think for where I live(southern NH) that it is much more appropriate. The chances of me running into a moose are slim to none and anything else I may encounter will learn from a .357mag. If they don't learn from the first I have 6 more lessons to teach.
Around town I carry .38spc jhp. I worry that should I have ever have to use it a .357 would pass through my target into who knows what or who else. Which would be fine if the bad guys where nice enough to form a single file line. But they are an inconsiderate lot...
OP
OP
USBP379
Member
- Joined
- Dec 27, 2005
- Messages
- 709
I spoke to one of Hornady's sales reps today and asked him about the shallow penetration with the Critical Defense.
Basically the bullet is designed for shallow penetration and maximum expansion. Being primarily a civilian loading it is not meant to pass the FBI tests and is not meant for auto glass, etc.
Still, the FBI specs are well regarded across the industry and penetration could probably be a little better.
This brings up another thought. How many people nowadays wear denim? Cotton shirts and undergarments make sense as does the Polartec fleece insulator. But maybe the FBI should take a fresh look at the outer jacket material and maybe update to some type of nylon weatherproof shell or whatever.
Basically the bullet is designed for shallow penetration and maximum expansion. Being primarily a civilian loading it is not meant to pass the FBI tests and is not meant for auto glass, etc.
Still, the FBI specs are well regarded across the industry and penetration could probably be a little better.
This brings up another thought. How many people nowadays wear denim? Cotton shirts and undergarments make sense as does the Polartec fleece insulator. But maybe the FBI should take a fresh look at the outer jacket material and maybe update to some type of nylon weatherproof shell or whatever.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
