454 v 44

[jski]

Take a look at these 2 ammo offerings, 1 for the 454 Casull, the other for the 44 Magnum.



The 454 ammo makes sense but does the 44? The 44 has a max pressure of 37,000 PSI while the 454 has a max pressure of 65,000 PSI.

So Underwood is pushing a 340 grain bullet at 1425 FPS with their 44 ammo and pushing a 325 grain bullet at 1525 FPS with their 454s. Are these suboptimal 454s and 44s pushed to their absolute limits?

 

[DocRock]

I agree that the numbers appear incongruous and that your question seems valid. I have never heard even the most obsessed 44 Mag fancreatures sugges that the 44 Mag is the equal of the 454 Casull. So, it’s odd.

My knowledge of the 454 is in a 20” carbine Handi rifle. I use a 325 grs bullet over (I think; I don’t have my notes to hand) 26 grs H110 for, as I recall, about 1800 fps, so the 1525 from a revolver listed above seems correct.

The 340 grs at 1425 FPS for 44 Mag seems high to me. I would have thought 1225 FPS quite impressive, but I am not a 44 Mag aficionado. Worry not. It’s many fans will be along shortly to tell us these numbers are, if in any way wrong, they will be too conservative.

In the meantime, I too am skeptical.

 

[Targa]

The .454 Casull specs are pretty standard.
The .44mag is far from standard, it is from the .44mag +p+ line. Not your average .44mag round and cautioned for use in certain firearms only.

Below is the warning from Underwood.

Due to the amount of pressure generated by this +P+ loading we do not recommend it for every firearm. Safe firearms include, but are not absolutely limited to; Ruger Red Hawk, Ruger Super Red Hawk, Ruger Super Blackhawk or Vaquero, Freedom Arms Model 83, Taurus Raging Bull, Colt Anaconda, and Dan Wesson Revolvers. Suitable rifles include but are not limited to; H&R Handi Rifles, Thompson Center, CVA, Ruger No. 1 or No. 3, or any rifle with a falling-block action.

 

[WrongHanded]

.44 Magnum "+P+" doesn't sound too safety conscious to me. And certainly seems at odds with some of the firearms they've listed. We also don't know the barrel length, because Underwood doesn't like to mention it. So perhaps it's a 10" barrel or longer.

The .454 Casull may well not be loaded up to its full 65K potential. Buffalo Bore states that even they don't load the 454 all the way up. It seems many manufactures don't.

 

[Targa]

Although I haven’t shot these rounds, I have a Ruger Redhawk and Blackhawk that I wouldn’t hesitate to run these +p+ rounds through if they were given to me to try. These guns are rated for much higher pressure than a S&W N frame for example....I believe in the neighborhood of 50,000 or more psi compared to the N frames 36-37000 psi (if I remember that correctly anyway)
One of the members here, Craig C was just responding to a thread yesterday about running these heavy hitters similar to these +p+ rounds in his Super Redhawk.

 

[Speedo66]

Interesting that a Taurus was considered safe, but S&W was not included.

 

[Targa]

I can understand that but think of its frame size, the original Raging Bulls are very big and heavier than even my Redhawk which is a very large framed and heavy revolver. Taurus builds good revolvers, it isn’t their build quality that has given them their reputation of hit and miss it’s their quality control but if you get a good one you have an anvil of a gun.

 

[Walkalong]

If you need .454 power, or think you need +P+ .44 Mag level power, get a .454, and shoot .45 Colt in it when you don’t. And then you can load Ruger Only .45 Colt for midrange power.

 

[Hartkopf]

If you need .454 power, or think you need +P+ .44 Mag level power, get a .454, and shoot .45 Colt in it when you don’t. And then you can load Ruger Only .45 Colt for midrange power.

I've got a 44 SBH but after reading this, now I want a 454 Casull!

 

[mavracer]

I've shot the Buffalo Bore 340 +p+ 44 load, it's REAL.
I like the 480 Ruger better as a step up from 44 Mag than a 454.

 

[Speedo66]

I can understand that but think of its frame size, the original Raging Bulls are very big and heavier than even my Redhawk which is a very large framed and heavy revolver. Taurus builds good revolvers, it isn’t their build quality that has given them their reputation of hit and miss it’s their quality control but if you get a good one you have an anvil of a gun.

OK, that makes sense, sort of like the situation with earlier Rossi 92's.

 

[WrongHanded]

Although I haven’t shot these rounds, I have a Ruger Redhawk and Blackhawk that I wouldn’t hesitate to run these +p+ rounds through if they were given to me to try. These guns are rated for much higher pressure than a S&W N frame for example....I believe in the neighborhood of 50,000 or more psi compared to the N frames 36-37000 psi (if I remember that correctly anyway)
One of the members here, Craig C was just responding to a thread yesterday about running these heavy hitters similar to these +p+ rounds in his Super Redhawk.

You might be willing to run them through your Blackhawk, but I won't be running them through mine. The (Super) Blackhawk is not in the same category as the Redhawk and Super Redhawk. The frames are quite strong, but the cylinder is not on the same level.

 

[Hartkopf]

You might be willing to run them through your Blackhawk, but I won't be running them through mine. The (Super) Blackhawk is not in the same category as the Redhawk and Super Redhawk. The frames are quite strong, but the cylinder is not on the same level.

Ok just so I'm clear on what you're saying, The Super Blackhawk cylinders are not as strong as the Super Redhawk cylinders?

 

[CraigC]

They mirror Buffalo Bore's loads, except their heavy .454 is a 360gr. Very good reason for them to be similar, they're both around 50,000psi. Nobody loads the .454 to max pressure. The only guns that will tolerate it are the FA and BFR. So most are around 50-55,000psi. This is just an example of a .44Mag loaded to its fullest potential. I reckon you can always get a .454 if you want but if these loads in the .44 RH/SRH do what you want, there's not much reason to. What's the difference?

Brian Pearce did an article in Handloader with .44Mag +P+ "Redhawk only" data. There was a similar article with "Redhawk only" .45Colt data. You have to subscribe to LoadData.com to get the charge weights but the .44 data is here:

https://loaddata.com/Cartridge/44-Remington-Magnum-P-44-Magnum-P-Handloading-Data/5501

And .45Colt here:

https://loaddata.com/Cartridge/45-Colt-for-Ruger-Redhawk-Revolvers-ONLY/7793

Unfortunately the .44Mag is hamstrung by the S&W N-frame. Kinda like how the .45Colt was hamstrung by the Colt SAA for decades. If we can have "Ruger only" .45Colt, why not heavier .44Mag? These heavy duty hunting loads work great in the big Ruger DA's and it is because of this data that I had my Bisley Super Blackhawk rebuilt with an oversized six-shot cylinder. The increased length and strength allow the use of such loads. I take advantage of the lower crimp groove in several of my favorite heavy bullets. Using H110 loaded to 100% density, I was able to get a 330gr at 1442fps, 355gr at 1346fps and 405gr at 1160fps. **THIS IS ONLY IN REDHAWK, SUPER REDHAWK, BFR, FREEDOM ARMS, DAN WESSON OR CUSTOM GUNS WITH OVERSIZED CYLINDERS.**

 

[CraigC]

Ok just so I'm clear on what you're saying, The Super Blackhawk cylinders are not as strong as the Super Redhawk cylinders?

No. Perhaps close but not quite. The big DA cylinders are larger in diameter and the bolt notches are more offset. I have shot the Buffalo Bore 340gr loads in my Old Model Super Blackhawk and BB endorses this but I wouldn't make a habit of it. Even Brian Pearce suggests that they would be fine with his data with a slight reduction in maximums.

 

[murf]

So Underwood is pushing a 340 grain bullet at 1425 FPS with their 44 ammo and pushing a 325 grain bullet at 1525 FPS with their 454s. Are these suboptimal 454s and 44s pushed to their absolute limits?

yes. you can only push gas checked lead bullets so fast. i'm sure the 454 casull load could be increased quite a bit, but the bullet may not survive the ride.

murf

 

[halfmoonclip]

Good grief. My standard .44 Mag load was good for 1400'sec from a 29, and 1600'sec in a trapper carbine; this was with a 240 bullet and a coal scoop of H110.
This load always made deer DRT, and there was never a doubt when the big Smith went off.
The notion of more throweight and more velocity from a plowshare single action...yinz guys are braver than me.
(No manhood cracks; I've fired magnums from a 340SC...)
Moon

 

[jski]

So it’s an uber super 44 Mag round and a mild 454 round?

 

[CraigC]

Sort of. I wouldn't call it "mild" but it's not full-tilt-boogie.

 

[WrongHanded]

Nobody loads the .454 to max pressure. The only guns that will tolerate it are the FA and BFR. So most are around 50-55,000psi.

That's a useful piece of information to have. I didn't realize Rugers weren't really built to handle max pressure .454 Casull.

 

[CraigC]

They'll handle it. They get proofed over 90,000psi but when loaded to 65,000psi, extraction tends to get sticky. If they had gone to a five-shot instead of that exotic alloy, it wouldn't be an issue. Or at least less of one. We have to remember, the .454 cartridge and the FA83 were designed together. A racing engine in a racing chassis, so to speak.

Plus the .454 at 65,000psi is just a really unpleasant beast. It yields an abundance of performance at 50-55,000psi.

 

[Riomouse911]

Interesting that a Taurus was considered safe, but S&W was not included.

The Taurus Raging Bull uses two locks; a thumb lock in the traditional location and a frame lock like a Dan Wesson.



They were chambered in .454 as well as .44. The design, while sort of complicated to operate, makes these guns much stronger than an N frame Smith.

Stay safe.

 

[BreechFace]

They mirror Buffalo Bore's loads, except their heavy .454 is a 360gr. Very good reason for them to be similar, they're both around 50,000psi. Nobody loads the .454 to max pressure. The only guns that will tolerate it are the FA and BFR. So most are around 50-55,000psi. This is just an example of a .44Mag loaded to its fullest potential. I reckon you can always get a .454 if you want but if these loads in the .44 RH/SRH do what you want, there's not much reason to. What's the difference?

@CraigC where would you say the Ruger Alaskan (non-fluted cylinder) would land? I always thought those have a lot of meat in the cylinder.

 

[CraigC]

Interesting that a Taurus was considered safe, but S&W was not included.

Say what you want about Taurus but the Raging Bull is a strong revolver. Note they're specific to that model. The N-frame shoots loose at 36,000psi and is excluded for that reason, plus that of cylinder length.

@CraigC where would you say the Ruger Alaskan (non-fluted cylinder) would land? I always thought those have a lot of meat in the cylinder.

The Alaskan is a Super Redhawk. All the same applies to it. The Buffalo Bore 340gr load still breaks 1200fps out of its short barrel.

 

[no.5enfield]

Say what you want about Taurus but the Raging Bull is a strong revolver. Note they're specific to that model. The N-frame shoots loose at 36,000psi and is excluded for that reason, plus that of cylinder length.



The Alaskan is a Super Redhawk. All the same applies to it. The Buffalo Bore 340gr load still breaks 1200fps out of its short barrel.

Craig, I'm glad you chimed in on the .454 loads. Ever since I got mine, I was struggling to understand why all of the load data was well under 65kpsi.
Speaking on the .44mag and 29/629, I've heard plenty on them shooting loose as you say, but never a ruptured cylinder from "hot" loads. I have been under the impression that the Buffalo Bore, Garrett, etc. weren't for use in the Smiths due to cylinder length and frame stretching, rather than blowing up.
What is the consensus on this?