44 Special vs 44 Special

[USBP379]

I haven't seen any 200g GD locally. I might order some and do another test in the spring. I was also interested in how those same rounds perform in a longer barrel. Gelatin is a pain to work with and that was a starting effort. Learned a lot.

Can I ask you about your barrier material? I have noticed that very few bullets in handgun calibers will expand properly after punching through four layers of denim. Many of these same bullets will expand nicely using the "FBI" protocol of cotton shirt materials followed by a layer of insulation and just one layer of denim.

Fabric samples as well as synthetic gel and melting materials are available from clearballistics.com

 

[200Apples]

USBP379

The xtp doesn't expand as aggressively as the gold dot. But the penetration is quite a bit better. It would no doubt make a better hunting bullet. If overpenetration is a concern in your home defense / self defense scenario I'd probably use the GD instead.

Thank you for your post!

Hornady *claims* controlled expansion within their recommended velocities of 700 fps to 1500 fps. I sourced these to use in a 3" .44 Special. Looking to load these to a leisurely 850-ish fps for that gun for both target and personal defense. According to Hornady's 9th Edition, 7.0 grains of Unique will produce that exact velocity from a 3" barrel.

Yes, we are warned to avoid handloaded ammunition for defense due to some perceived legal ramifications, but because I live in the suburbs within the city limits of Los Angeles we are unable to have commercially-loaded ammunition mailed to our door, and these will be responsibly loaded well within the speeds and pressures SAAMI specifies for the .44 S&W Special cartridge.

This 200 grain jacketed hollerpoint loaded lightly to run 1500 fps in Magnum-length brass from a 20" barreled Model '92 might be a real pleasant plinker.

 

[Drail]

Oh yeah! I have been loading .44 Spl. for a 16 in. Winchester Trapper and that little carbine delivers a serious punch with handloads. Anything from 200 to 300 gr. cast bullets will do anything I need out to 100 yards. Unique is a great choice for .44 Spl. And I really couldn't care less if a .44 bullet expands or not. It's already massive enough.

 

[200Apples]

Oh yeah! I have been loading .44 Spl. for a 16 in. Winchester...

YOU!

Drail! my good man. You were the one to suggest a 200-grainer for my inbound 696, you rascal!

I'll need a very-oversized cast bo0lit if I wanna run it in the microgroove-style-rifled bore of my Miroku 92... - hence the jacketed XTPs in both 200 and 240 grains - but thanks again for your fine advice on what to shoot in that 5-shot .44 Special (to preserve it's thin forcing cone).

 

[Drail]

My wife uses terms much more visceral than "rascal"....... but that has a nice ring to it. My Trapper surpised me the first time I peered down the bore. It's not exactly "microgroove" but it's pretty fine. It seems to have no trouble stabilizing any .430 cast bullets I shoot in it and leading is non existent. Finding the precise cartridge OAL it "likes" took some experimentation. A lot of people have complained about .44 Spl. rounds misfeeding in the Winchester 94. Mine just gobbles them up. I also have a .357 Trapper and it runs very well with Spl. or Magnum rounds. I hope you are enjoying that 696. I'm willing to bet that you are. DON'T EVER SELL IT!!! No matter what they offer you.

 

[Dain Bramage]

Can I ask you about your barrier material? I have noticed that very few bullets in handgun calibers will expand properly after punching through four layers of denim. Many of these same bullets will expand nicely using the "FBI" protocol of cotton shirt materials followed by a layer of insulation and just one layer of denim.

I did some quick research on the four ply denim test. Seems it was advocated by some CHPs (Cal Hwy Patrol) researchers in 1998 and picked up as one possible heavy clothing standard.

Contrary to web misconception, four ply denim is not an FBI standard. USBP379's description is a more accurate portrayal of the FBI heavy clothing test (one of many FBI protocols), except the actual standard is more detailed, including cloth counts for the fabric.

I prefer the four ply denim test for a couple of reasons:
1. It is easy to set up. Two overlapping legs of a pair of jeans provides the four plies.
2. It is easily repeatable. You may argue weights of denim, but most commercial fabric is similar enough for me.

Really, the cheap, web-recommended, food-grade ballistic gelatin substitute I used will be a bigger variable than the fabric.

The defunct Firearms Tactical website wraps up my sentiments with, "Therefore the four-layer heavy denim test is NOT intended to simulate any type of clothing; it is merely an engineering evaluation tool to assess the ability of JHP handgun bullets to resist plugging and expand robustly."

If it's a conservative standard, so be it.

 

[USBP379]

I did some quick research on the four ply denim test. Seems it was advocated by some CHPs (Cal Hwy Patrol) researchers in 1998 and picked up as one possible heavy clothing standard.

Contrary to web misconception, four ply denim is not an FBI standard. USBP379's description is a more accurate portrayal of the FBI heavy clothing test (one of many FBI protocols), except the actual standard is more detailed, including cloth counts for the fabric.

I prefer the four ply denim test for a couple of reasons:
1. It is easy to set up. Two overlapping legs of a pair of jeans provides the four plies.
2. It is easily repeatable. You may argue weights of denim, but most commercial fabric is similar enough for me.

Really, the cheap, web-recommended, food-grade ballistic gelatin substitute I used will be a bigger variable than the fabric.

The defunct Firearms Tactical website wraps up my sentiments with, "Therefore the four-layer heavy denim test is NOT intended to simulate any type of clothing; it is merely an engineering evaluation tool to assess the ability of JHP handgun bullets to resist plugging and expand robustly."

If it's a conservative standard, so be it.

I was initially using the four layers of denim (Levi's from Goodwill) but found it too restrictive. Known bullets like the Federal HST were failing and blowing through 32" of gel regularly.

Next time you mix some gel maybe try a t-shirt and regular shirt followed by a layer of thin insulation and one layer of denim. See how the bullets perform as opposed to the all denim test.

 

[USBP379]

Here's the 255 RN LHP from GT with a Keith-style dollop of 2400. I chrono'ed five of these and the average muzzle velocity is 1,082 fps. Low was 1063 and high was 1091.

The primers are pretty danged flat and recoil is a bit on the stout side. If I continue with this bullet and 2400 I'll actually work my way down a bit rather than up.

Anyway, the bullet in bare gel expanded probably about as far as it'll go without breaking apart. Penetration was about 12in. Through clothing the bullet still had impressive expansion and just right at 16in of penetration. My previous experimentation with Unique yields 950fps velocity and about 14in in gel. That's probably the load to use since recoil isn't as stiff yet penetration is still darned good.

 

[USBP379]

Here are a couple of the Barnes TAC-XP 200gr fired into both bare gel and heavy clothing.

The bare gel shot penetrated just shy of fifteen inches. It was low in the block and actually took a downward curve through the gel and was partially stopped by the table the block was sitting on. One petal is deformed as a result. It probably would have gone a bit farther had it not come in contact with the table.

The other bullet opened perfectly and penetrated to right at 16" and was resting in the backup block.

Muzzle velocity is 970ish with a charge of Unique. Cases look fine and extraction was easy. I had no load data for a bullet this long but what I used doesn’t seem excessive. Still, I can probably back it off .5 without too much loss of velocity or performance.

I'd really like to play around more with this bullet. Too bad they're so darned expensive...

 

[Lone Star]

I think a .44 Special full WC at some 875 FPS would be a very effective defense load. On bear, I'd want a Keith bullet of 250 grains, cast fairly hard, at about 1,000 FPS. I think it'd deck most dangerous animals, including those Burmese pythons breeding so well in Florida. They have big monitor lizards there now, too, the Nile water monitor, Varanus niloticus.

My idea of a .44 Special is a S&W M-624. I see merit in both the four and 6.5-inch barrels. I'd use Buffalo Bore hot loads in moderation. But how many bears, pigs, and similar animals do you shoot in most years?

Without looking, I suspect that wadcutter load isn't very high pressure. But neither were the .455 MK III or IV loads. Those Manstopper bullets worked well enough that some boxes bore the comment, Do Not Use Against Europeans. But that may be after WWI broke out and Germans may have lodged protests against "inhumane" ammunition. From the people who brought us poison gas attacks...

 

[USBP379]

I wouldn't choose a full wadcutter for anything other than target shooting.