44 May Be Special. But it Ain't for Defense!

[dickydalton]

quote " followed to a lesser extent by expanded diameter."
people shooting 9mm's and 357's want expansion to 44 cal. People shooting 44's and 45's already have it.

 

[Jim NE]

I would not characterize the .38 S7W as a service round.

It used to be. But I don't see this as a discussion about what is and isn't a service round. I see my previous comments as part of a sub-discussion as to whether differing muzzle energy levels below 500 ft./lb.s have any relevance. Mavracer seemed to think they didn't. I believe they do. Why? Because all of these earlier service rounds that had roughly the same size and weight of projectile as a .38 Special (I'm talking about .38 S&W, .38 Colt, .38 Long Colt, etc.) were all eventually dropped by gun manufacturers and police departments who almost universally went to the .38 Special. But .38 Special (even +P), like the old .38 rounds I mentioned, is under 500 ft./lbs muzzle energy. I believe that gun makers and dept.s all saw an improvement in terminal performance with .38 Special, even though it was still under 500 ft./lb.s of energy.

I think that mavracer is right that too many people try to reduce their gun and ammo's performance to numbers - like energy - but I don't think that in and of itself makes energy numbers on lower power rounds irrelevant or not matter. Of course, while the projectiles of these different .38 rounds might have very similar size and weights, the human beings they shoot do not. A range of 150 pounds to 350 pounds isn't uncommon. The idea that differing energy levels under 500 ft./lbs won't matter might hold true with a person who's 275, but may not be true with someone who weighs 175. Thanks for the ballistics information and discussion.

 

[gotboostvr]

Most people would feel well armed with a 45acp. In the 44spcl properly loaded it will meet or exceed a 45acp in a similar package.

 

[Kleanbore]

I see my previous comments as part of a sub-discussion as to whether differing muzzle energy levels below 500 ft./lb.s have any relevance. Mavracer seemed to think they didn't

I don't see that in his comments.

 

[CraigC]

I think that different energy levels matter below 500 ft./lb.s. This is likely why almost NOBODY carries a .38 S&W (Regulation Police) anymore and millions of people carry .38 Special...and almost all ammo manufacturers offer .38 Special +P. All three rounds I just mentioned are under 500 ft./lb.s M.E. with very few exceptions. Is there no difference in terminal performance between the three? They all have essentially the same diameter and (more or less) same weight of projectile.

You could make the case that it's velocity that matters or expansion of a particular type of projectile that matters, but don't I believe the energy levels of standard type ammo are irrelevant. 250 ft./lb.s vs. 325 ft./lb.s may not make much difference, but 250 vs. 450 certainly does. That's like an 80% increase.

Energy is a meaningless number and we'd all be better off if it was left out of the discussion completely. It places way too much importance on velocity, too little on weight and none on diameter or bullet construction. It's a simple (and incorrect) answer to a very complicated question.

For example: Any .357 load is going to produce gobs more energy than any .38Spl load. Does that make the .357 universally more effective? Absolutely not. If that .357 is loaded with a roundnose solid and the .38 is loaded with a swaged lead semi-wadcutter, the .38 is going to be much more effective, despite much lower kinetic energy.

Reverse the bullets. A .357 loaded with a 125gr JHP is going to be infinitely more effective than a .38 roundnose but energy has nothing to do with it. The fact that the .357 is going to rapidly expand and cause far more tissue destruction is what makes it more effective.

Let's look at two different bullets in the same cartridge at the same velocity, the 125gr .357 example. While a 125gr JHP is going to be extremely effective, a 125gr FMJ is going to be dismal, despite the two rounds producing identical energy.

So I ask, of what use is kinetic energy in any of those very realistic examples? I would say none. It all begins and ends with the bullet. How big it is, how much it expands, how deeply it penetrates, how much tissue it destroys, etc.. How much energy it expends while doing so is irrelevant.

 

[John Joseph]

A large, heavy, slow moving chunk of lead= a large, heavy, slow moving chunk of lead, right?

 

[Jim NE]

Energy is a meaningless number and we'd all be better off if it was left out of the discussion completely.

Maybe you should send that note to the ammunition industry, which has been consistently conveying these numbers to the public for years. Then you can argue with them about it.

 

[farm23]

Craig C I understand what you are saying and mostly agree, but energy is required to deliver all rounds. The structure, shape and weight of the round is critical in handgun rounds. This morning I eliminated a deer inside my fenced in area [totally legal] with a Charter Arms 44 special using a 240 gr LSWC travelling about 800 fps. Not a lot of energy but enough to pass thru both sides of the deer at 40 yards.

 

[Crowman]

Maybe you should send that note to the ammunition industry, which has been consistently conveying these numbers to the public for years. Then you can argue with them about it.

Marketing.

 

[GBExpat]

...This morning I eliminated a deer inside my fenced in area [totally legal] with a Charter Arms 44 special using a 240 gr LSWC travelling about 800 fps. Not a lot of energy but enough to pass thru both sides of the deer at 40 yards.

That ... is my kinda Bulldog load.

After getting my Bulldogs I was stuck in the Faster_Is_Better mode ... un-til I realized that 240-250 traveling at 800± is just about perfect for the little wheelgun and the job that it is expected to (but, hopefully, never has to) perform.

 

[USBP379]

Craig C I understand what you are saying and mostly agree, but energy is required to deliver all rounds. The structure, shape and weight of the round is critical in handgun rounds. This morning I eliminated a deer inside my fenced in area [totally legal] with a Charter Arms 44 special using a 240 gr LSWC travelling about 800 fps. Not a lot of energy but enough to pass thru both sides of the deer at 40 yards.

Nice!

Would you mind sharing your load data?

 

[farm23]

I am starting to reload after a very long time off and do not own a crony so I can only estimate the velocity from others data. I have a small amount of Unique I was given to start the process. I hope to develop loads using BE86 and Titegroup but am using up the little amount of Unique. The load is pretty conventional of 240 gr LSWC and 6.6 gr of Unique. My Bulldog is the 3" classic with wood grips and the recoil is enough that I my look to Pachmayer grips for range work. I do not want to take away from this discussion and there is a thread on the Charter Arms that may be more appropriate for further talk.

 

[CraigC]

Maybe you should send that note to the ammunition industry, which has been consistently conveying these numbers to the public for years. Then you can argue with them about it.

Like I said, people want a simple answer to a very complicated question. The fact that people use it doesn't make it useful.

 

[eastbank]

their are people who are not comforitble with a large or any auto for defence for their own reasons and a large bore or any revolver may fit the bill for them. it must be admitted a revolver is far safer for a novice to use than a auto. i own and use-carry both large revolvers-autos for self defence and feel good carrying either, but i have been around large pistols for close to 60 years. the pro-con,s come with both types and with the ammo makers making good self defence loads for both, it comes down to personal choices. i lean towards a large revolver and you may lean towards a large auto, if both are fed good ammo and kept clean they both with do their jobs when called upon to do so. THE FACT THAT PEOPLE USE IT DOESN,T MAKE IT USEFUL, REVOLVER OR AUTOMATIC. IS A TWO WAY STREET . eastbank.

 

[Riomouse911]

So I ask, of what use is kinetic energy in any of those very realistic examples? I would say none. It all begins and ends with the bullet. How big it is, how much it expands, how deeply it penetrates, how much tissue it destroys, etc.. How much energy it expends while doing so is irrelevant.

I'll opine that the published energy figures are merely to be used as a comparison of the performance of one round vs another round, and should be utilized in a vacuum. I agree with you that the bullet design does have a much larger effect on the performance within the target than just the foot-pounds of energy imparted on it...and placement has an even greater effect on a round's effectiveness than anything else.

 

[Crowman]

Terminal ballistics is the final arbitrator.

So I ask, of what use is kinetic energy in any of those very realistic examples? I would say none. It all begins and ends with the bullet. How big it is, how much it expands, how deeply it penetrates, how much tissue it destroys, etc.. How much energy it expends while doing so is irrelevant.

I'll opine that the published energy figures are merely to be used as a comparison of the performance of one round vs another round, and should be utilized in a vacuum. I agree with you that the bullet design does have a much larger effect on the performance within the target than just the foot-pounds of energy imparted on it...and placement has an even greater effect on a round's effectiveness than anything else.

Agree! Terminal ballistics is the final arbiter. The rest is marketing on the part of manufacturers to get folks to spread the wealth their way.

 

[cfullgraf]

My unscientific testing and experience over the years convinces me that I feel comfortable trusting my well being to a large diameter, heavy, slow moving bullet.

I would not have a problem carrying one of my 44 Specials.

 

[antiquus]

I would think if you think a .45acp is a great self defense cartridge, the .44 spl should be able to be loaded pretty close without too much of a strain. Looking at Quickload, the .44spl is a rare round where the SAAMI pressures are higher than the CiP (euro) pressures - that is almost never the case. So it definitely hasn't been nerfed in the spec like the .38spl. Pressures near the top of a safe range in a 200gr Hornady XTP are predicted at 900fps at 356ft/lbs out of a 4" barrel. Compared to the .45acp in it's GI issue 400ft/lbs pretty reasonable. Of course if you view the penetration inadequate, then you always have the option of loading ball ammo, worked fine for the military. I don't know about you, but I think that is plenty enough recoil for a small revolver, and enough of a round to put down a bad guy.

 

[USBP379]

I would think if you think a .45acp is a great self defense cartridge, the .44 spl should be able to be loaded pretty close without too much of a strain. Looking at Quickload, the .44spl is a rare round where the SAAMI pressures are higher than the CiP (euro) pressures - that is almost never the case. So it definitely hasn't been nerfed in the spec like the .38spl. Pressures near the top of a safe range in a 200gr Hornady XTP are predicted at 900fps at 356ft/lbs out of a 4" barrel. Compared to the .45acp in it's GI issue 400ft/lbs pretty reasonable. Of course if you view the penetration inadequate, then you always have the option of loading ball ammo, worked fine for the military. I don't know about you, but I think that is plenty enough recoil for a small revolver, and enough of a round to put down a bad guy.

Problem is there don't appear to be many options for hollow points tailored for the 44SPL. Yes there is the 200gr Speer and a Barnes offering but pretty much everything else is made for 44 Mag and won't expand at Special velocity. The XTP works okay but those really don't expand but rather have a jacket that rolls back effectively turning the bullet into something akin to a full wadcutter. Not a bad thing but there might be some better options. Or at least there should be.

Case in point is the Speer 210gr Gold Dot. This bullet has proven to be very accurate in my GP100 even when pushed to higher velocity. But I haven't been able to get it to expand at SAAMI-type loading. I think a bullet like this, that's tough and/or bonded and designed to hold together while expands to .65in or more would be great.

Given the available options we probably are better off, or just as well off, shooting 240-250gr cast bullets. But is that ideal? Wouldn't those who carry and enjoy the 44SPL not want to see a modern pressure spec with modern data using modern powders? Why does that idea seem so hard to accept? Would not we love to see something like a Federal HST in the 215-225gr range running along at 900-1000 fps?

 

[CraigC]

I'll opine that the published energy figures are merely to be used as a comparison of the performance of one round vs another round, and should be utilized in a vacuum. I agree with you that the bullet design does have a much larger effect on the performance within the target than just the foot-pounds of energy imparted on it...and placement has an even greater effect on a round's effectiveness than anything else.

IMHO, it is not a number that is useful in any way, shape, form or fashion.

And in any discussion of terminal ballistics, proper placement is a given.

 

[Kleanbore]

IMHO, it is not a number that is useful in any way, shape, form or fashion.

I thought for a moment that I disagreed with that. After all, energy does play a role in expansion, and in some parameters of penetration.

But thinking about it, what would I do with the number?

And in any discussion of terminal ballistics, proper placement is a given.

Absolutely!

 

[CraigC]

I thought for a moment that I disagreed with that. After all, energy does play a role in expansion, and in some parameters of penetration.

But thinking about it, what would I do with the number?

Exactly! Energy itself is obviously at work but the number used to quantify it is useless and not a proper gauge of a cartridge's effectiveness. Never was. Most people can't differentiate the concepts.

 

[Deaf Smith]

So if a .44 Spl. with 240gr at 900 isn't effective then .45 ACP with 230 at 830 shouldn't be effective either.

Hmmm someone had better tell SOCOM this. They have been using all those ineffective .45 pistols on ops.

Deaf

 

[Kleanbore]

"Totin' my old .44"...

Okay, the lyrics probably refer to a .44 WCF.

But I'm still not convinced that the right factory defensive loads in a .44 Special would not be adequate.

Now , a five shot revolver would not be my first choice for self defense, and an "N Frame" would not be my first choice for everyday carry,

But a good Smith and Wesson Model 24 does appeal to me.

I have a five inch, seven shot 686 that I like today, but the "old .44" should do right nicely, I think.

 

[loose noose]

Personally I prefer the 165grn. FTX Hornady Critical Defense load in both of my .44 Specials, the recovery time from recoil is less, however you still have the existence of a large caliber bullet coming out the end of the barrel. Not only that, at self defense situations you have plenty of penetration therefore as Eastbank and Craig C. stated plenty of tissue damage to complete the job. I do know that as a retired police officer, that once we went to the 185grn. Law Enforcement CCI HP, in our .45ACP's that once the suspect was hit, it definitely took all the fighting he once had in him off the shelf; prior to that we used the 230grn. round nose standard bullet.