a 357 MAX conversion??

[CraigC]

I think you are arguing purely for the sake of arguing.

I'm not arguing for the sake of arguing, you're saying that the Ruger Maximum is not long enough for the Supermags and I'm saying you're wrong. And I've got the guns to prove it. If there are indeed Ruger Maximums that have been successfully converted to .414 and .445Supermag, then you are clearly wrong. If the Ruger needed a longer custom cylinder, they wouldn't be rechambering the factory cylinder.

 

[unspellable]

lenght again

I can only repeat. When loaded to SuperMag specs, the SuperMag cartridges are longer than the Ruger Maximum cylinder. This is original published SuperMag loading data.

You're not simply arguing with me, you're arguing with Elgin Gates, Ruger, Remington, SAAMI, et al.

You are entitled to your own opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts.

I have the feeling that no amount of hard facts will change your stated opinion.

There are only two solutions to this. Either we ignore each other or we get together on one or the other's patio with a jug of Dickel's 7 year old and come to some agreement. (Don't care as much for Dickel's 9 year old.) Used to be down your way until Obama sent my job to Russia.

 

[CraigC]

What hard facts? That .125" you quoted could easily be made up for with a custom long cylinder in a Ruger but nobody is doing that. Since I'm too stupid to understand how you a sixgun can not exist, even if I'm looking at a picture of it, why don't you tell me what folks are doing with Ruger Maximums converted to .414 and .445Supermag? Because I'm looking at .414 and .445 data on LoadData.com and I see compatible OAL's. Tell me, what can a Dan Wesson or Seville .445 do that Taffin's Ruger .445 built by Ben Forkin cannot???

 

[unspellable]

A question

Ok, you are last asking a half way sensible question.

If you bore out a Ruger Maximum to 41, 44 or what ever, you must make up loads that fit the Ruger cylinder, hence too short to be a standard SuperMag load. BTW: I've never heard of this conversion. Back in the day there were various and sundry 44 wildcats based on a bored out Dan Wesson 357 SuperMag. The advent of the 445 SuperMag pretty well killed them off. Part of the reason for not boring out a Ruger is that the Dan Wesson is easier to come by.

The Seville or Dan Wesson cylinder is about 0.125 inch longer than the Ruger Maximum's. This allows seating a heavy bullet (200 grains or more) to 0.125 inch longer OAL with 0.125 inch more powder room. This would be a standard published 357 SuperMag load before the advent of the Maximum. The extra powder room allows the SuperMag to out perform the the 357 Maximum with heavy bullets.

Due to the confusion that I have mentioned many times, I am sure somebody is loading various calibers to Maximum length thinking they are proper SuperMag loads. And for God's sake, don't believe everything you see in print.

The Ruger Maximum frame window is simply not long enough to do this even with a custom cylinder.

Remember, Ruger declined to make the window long enough for the SuperMag against Elgin Gate's advice.

Now I had been loading 357 SuperMag since before the 445 SuperMag even existed. I bought my 357-44 Bain & Davis cylinder off a fellow who had a Ruger Maximum. We went out to the local range and none of my SuperMag loads would chamber in the Ruger. (As a side issue, his Ruger Maximum had poor chamber alignment, a point to check before buying any revolver. I have two ROAs with a similar defect, as well as having seen it in Taurus and S&W revolvers. (The S&W was not so far off as the others.)

 

[Blade&Bullet94]

waah lordy!

i certainly didnt mean to cause this wildfire of a debate to start over my day dreams ><. i like... custom things. i like having something that few others have, something unique, that is practical enough not to kill me in the long run. now i keep hearing this 360 Dan Wesson cartidge thrown about and it intrigues me. you say it was so they didnt have to lengthen their frame and they could use the 44 frame. going waaay back to the original topic, would THIS be a more feasable conversion for the 8 shot taurus?

 

[CraigC]

I've never heard of this conversion.

Obviously. The word from those who actually OWN these conversions, including Taffin, is that the length only presents a problem in the .375. Which is what I figured. So if the actual owners and users of these guns are loading 265's and 300's, crimped in the crimp groove, then what do these loads you insist will not fit consist of???

 

[unspellable]

More of the same

I don’t know what Taffin is putting together, but it’s obviously not a standard 357 SuperMag load.

Keep in mind the 357 SuperMag and production revolvers for it were in existence before the 357 maximum came along. Ruger SPECIFICALLY did not want to make the frame window long enough to accommodate the SupoerMag. Hence the separate Maximum.

You have a similar situation with the 41 magnum and the 41 Special wildcat. The 41 Magnum was there first. The 41 Special is a shortened version of it. Nobody calls it a 41 Magnum.

If Elgin Gates, Bill Ruger, Remington, et al, all considered them to be two separate cartridges why do you insist they are the same? Elgin Gates originated the 357 SuperMag, was consulted on the Maximum project and specifically said the Ruger would not chamber the SuperMag. The Maximum was also designed for a very different purpose and Elgin predicted they were headed for the fiasco they ended up with. Every parameter of the two is different except for diameters, same as the 38 Special compared to the 357 Magnum.

I’ve used bullets as light as 158 grains crimped in the groove for SuperMag loads that will not chamber in the Maximum. These loads were to the original SuperMag specs, particularly for OAL When loaded with heavy bullets the Maximum has 0.125 inch less powder room than the 357 SuperMag. This makes a significant difference in loading data. If you look at a commercially loaded 357 Maximum with a 158 grain bullet, you will see that even such a light bullet is seated very deeply in the case.

The case length is slightly different. The SuprMag nominal case length is 1.610 while the Maximum,s max case length is 1.605. The Max chamber is 1.610 so there will be examples where the tolerances fall such that an empty SuprMag case will not chamber in the Maximum

I don’t take every thing I see in print as gospel, there’s a lot of misinformation out there. A lot of it gets repeated so many times people take it as gospel. It sometimes pays to go back to the original source.

Another point of confusion from the early days of the SuyperMags was the proliferation of 44 wildcats. There are examples of entirely different utterly non-interchangeable cartridges with the same name and I think examples of the same cartridge with two different names. There is the 44 Rhino based on the 444 Marlin case with the marlin base diameter. This chamber is oversized at the base for the 44 Magnum or 445 SuperMag. On the other hand I’ve had people pop up who were running a 44 Wildcat with 44 Mag base diameter and calling it a 44 Rhino. On the other hand there is a 44 wildcat based on the 444 Marlin case with the base turned down to 44 Mag diameter called the 44 Ultra Mag. There was also a necked up 30-40 case wildcat.

I guess NO amount of evidence is going to convince you. You’re not arguing against me, you’re disputing Elgin Gates, Bill Ruger, Remington, et al. Since Elgin developed the 357 SuperMag in the first place, I’d say he was the final authority on what was and what wasn’t a 357 SuperMag.

As for the 360 Dan Wesson, it’s not a cartridge I ever had anything to do with, and I can’t quote the case and OAl off the top of my head. I have a Dan Wesson 44 Mag here, but cannot find my calipers. (In the process of moving, again!) Using a ruler the cylinder measures about 1.70 inches. This does not include rim thickness. The S&W 44 Mag cylinder is the same length as closely as I can measure it with a ruler. Keep in mind that if you put it in some other revolver you will be constrained by that revolver’s cylinder length.

 

[CraigC]

If Elgin Gates, Bill Ruger, Remington, et al, all considered them to be two separate cartridges why do you insist they are the same?.....You’re not arguing against me, you’re disputing Elgin Gates, Bill Ruger, Remington, et al. Since Elgin developed the 357 SuperMag in the first place

Uh no, I'm not! I don't care about the .357, Max or Supermag, one tiny little bit. Nowhere in this thread did I say they were the same. Taffin did and I never said he was right or wrong. I'm talking about converting Ruger Maximums to .414 or .445.

I'll be more blunt. Tell me exactly what kind of .445Supermag load will NOT fit in a converted Ruger. Do you even know???

What's wrong with this cartridge drawing?

 

[unspellable]

lenght again

I have never seen a 445 load like that. It’s too short, either an underweight bullet or a bullet seated too deeply. I have nothing that looks like that in any of several different sets of loading data. As I’ve said any number of times here, a standard SuperMag load is longer than the Maximum cylinder. A standard load would have an OAL of around 2.000 inch or longer, up to 2.110 inch.

 

[CraigC]

That's the drawing from Handloader magazine, which came from Hodgdon. Do they have it wrong??? And yet the Maximum has a maximum overall length of 1.990". I'm also hearing of .445 loads in the 315-330gr range with no issues with regards to length. I'm looking at cartridges of the world and it says the .445 has an overall length of 1.985".

How long is a Maximum cylinder? How long is a Seville cylinder? How long is a Dan Wesson cylinder?

A standard load would have an OAL...up to 2.110 inch.

With what bullet? Crimped in the crimp groove???

 

[unspellable]

Cylinders

The Dan Wesson SuperMag cylinder is 2.07 inche as clsely as I can measure with a ruler. Add 0.060 for the rim and you have an absolute maximum cartridge OAL length of 2.13 inch. I don't know the exact measurements of the Seville, but it's superMag length so should be about the same. The Maximum cylinder is about an eigth of an inch shorter.

Cartridges of the World, while a heroic effort has many many errors in it and is very incomplete.

It's entirely possible Hogden has it wrong.Remember, when an error is repeated as many times as this one has, it starts to become accepted as gospel. Most of my laoding data is from the period before the confusion arose. The OAl of the SuperMag vs the Maximum came straight from Elgin Gates among others, and that's fromn the horses mouth.

Among the cartridges that I hand load is the 400-360 2-3/4 Nitro Express Purdy. Absolutely every thing I could find in print about it was totally dead wrong until very recently when I obtained a book of British sporting rifle cartridges. This book is limited to British sportng rifle caridges and is almost as thick as Cartridges of the World which gives you some idea of how much is NOT n Cartridges of the World.

Even SAAMI can get it wrong. The SAAMI maximum OAL for the 9 mm Parabellum is actually DWM's original minimum OAL.

PS When it comes to Hogden's word vs Elgin Gates, I'll take Elgin Gates, he designed it.

 

[CraigC]

You're not giving me much here. You say I'm wrong but provide few numbers and have yet to answer several of my questions. I give you one of the most respect gunwriters of our time, who owns all of the sixguns in question, in particular a Ruger converted to .445, with which you admittedly have zero experience. Along with a few others who also own Ruger .445's and .414's. I give you numbers from Handloader magazine, Hodgdon, Barnes and Accurate Reloading. You simply respond with "you're wrong, because I say so". I'd love to be proven wrong and I have a vested interest here because I've always wanted a Bisley .445 but you're not giving me anything solid.

I'll ask again, what loads, what bullets, where are they crimped???

 

[unspellable]

Too long

It's not that I'm saying a SuperMag is too long for the Maximum. That's what Elgin Gates and Bill Ruger said. And I will take their word over Hogden's. Until this thread 'd never even heard of a SuperMag load as short as your drawing and I've been shooting them (And researching their history) for over twenty years. It's possible that late loading data may show a shorter length but that doesn't make it correct. That happened to the 9 mm Parabellum. Of course the original DWM drawings for the Cartridge and chamber won't carry any weight here.

All the loading data I have shows the longer length. At present it's all in storage with this d**n moving around. Any way, specific load doesn't matter. If Elgin Gates & Bill Ruger said the SuperMag was too long for the Maximum, then it's too long for the maximum. Keep in mind the 357 Maximum was specifically intended to be shorter than the SuperMag.

Can't recall the specific bullet, but I have some 158 grain bullets in a standard SuperMag load that will not chamber in a Maximum by actual in my paws trial. (158 grain bullet is the lightest recommended for the SuerMag.) In general the SuperMag runs about an eigth of an inch longer than the Maximum.

Another point is that the two cartrdiges are designed for two different purposes. The Supermag is a sillohuette cartridge intended to throw a heavy bullet at less than hyper velocities, while the Maximum was designed to throw a light bullet at hyper velocities. Such a load is not suitable for sillohuette shooting.

 

[CraigC]

It's not that I'm saying a SuperMag is too long for the Maximum.

That's exactly what you're saying.

The Ruger Blackhawk Maximum does not have a frame window long enough to chamber the 357 SuperMag or the other SuperMag cartridges.

That's interesting. Doing some math, after finding the actual cylinder lengths of all three guns, you have to run a heavyweight LBT to run too long for the Maximum cylinder.

Another point is that the two cartrdiges are designed for two different purposes. The Supermag is a sillohuette cartridge intended to throw a heavy bullet at less than hyper velocities, while the Maximum was designed to throw a light bullet at hyper velocities. Such a load is not suitable for sillohuette shooting.

Hogwash, unless you think Ruger engineer Roy Melcher is full of beans when he said that the Ruger Maximum was "designed for the sport of metallic silhouette shooting". The Maximum was indeed intended as a silhouette cartridge. The problem arose when users tried to make them into a rifle by pushing light bullets at insane speeds with spherical powders.

Any way, specific load doesn't matter.

Uh, yeah, it most certainly does matter.

If Elgin Gates & Bill Ruger said the SuperMag was too long for the Maximum, then it's too long for the maximum.

Were they not referring to the case length???


IMHO, all your information is far too vague to even be useful. I think I'll side with the men who own Ruger .414's, .445's and the men who build them.

 

[hardluk1]

CraigC Heres a page out of accurate reloading guide on the 445 that differs from your info. may add to the fire to this discussion.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/36302640/Accurate-Reloading-Guide

 

[unspellable]

again

Well I guess I did say the SuperMag was too long for the Maximum, but I'm only quoting Elgin Gates and Bill Ruger. Elgin designed the SuperMag and Ruger designed the Maximum. But I guess they had no idea of what they were doing.

It was the Maximum factory loads that generated the erosion problem. Good handloads don't. It was never an issue with the SuperMag. The silloheutte shooters had been fat dumb and happy with the SuperMag for some time before the Maximum came along. The most common factory load used a too light for silloheutte bullet at hyper velocity. (158 grain) There was supposed to be a 200 grain factory load, but I've never seen it in the flesh. Saying something is for silloheutte doesn't always make it so. S&W came out with a variant of the Model 29 for silloheutte that was a joke. It would develop end shake in short order if used for really serious silloheutte shooting.

It doesn't take a heavy bullet to make the SuperMag too long for the maximum. My 158 grain loads won't chamber in a Maximum. The OA is set to standard laoding data. I don't try to push the 158 grain bullet to hyper velocities.

I think you have plenty of numbers here. And if the Ruger was specifically made too short for the SuperMag that kind of settles it.

I don't think any amount of facts or numbers are going to convince you.

I can only say that I think what Elgin Gates and Bill Ruger said about it have to be taken as gospel, even over Hogden or Taffin.

 

[Blade&Bullet94]

OP Forgotten

yikes.... when you guys stop firebombing eachother... can we all calm down and return the purpose of the thread?

 

[hardluk1]

Closest your going to get in a 44mag frame is the 360DW cartidge and starline brass maybe a sw model 28 or 27 but better measure the lenghts. DW 44mag frame and the ruger DA hawks are about the same lenght. If you read the LASC story and you can figure it all out. My DW 44mags cylinder measures 1.767 for lenght. .http://www.lasc.us/RangingShotDanWesson360Revolver.htm

Just you could check with CZ to see if they still have any cylinders around and I would bet EWKarms could build a barrel. Maybe

 

[CraigC]

Saying something is for silloheutte doesn't always make it so.

Saying something is not doesn't make it so either, especially when a direct quote from a Ruger engineer refutes it.

I don't think any amount of facts or numbers are going to convince you.

You've posted very few facts. I have provided gunsmith's that build the guns, shooters who own them and data from various sources. You have provided NONE. You keep clinging to whatever it was that Elgin Gates and Bill Ruger said when it can easily be attributed to the case length. Not the cartridge length. Did they say why, or are you taking what they said out of context? Or are you just clinging to the only shred of evidence, thus far uncredited, that supports your argument?

That said, from everything I've heard from folks WHO OWN .445 RUGERS, is that they work perfectly fine for anything up to 300gr and a few heavier as long as the nose-to-crimp length is .400" or less. Which covers a lot of ground because the heavyweight 330-355gr LBT's that I use in the .44Mag aren't really appropriate to the .445.

CraigC Heres a page out of accurate reloading guide on the 445 that differs from your info.

That's interesting and it does in fact have some data there that is too long for the Ruger cylinder. All those over 2" would not fit but all those under certainly would. I have to wonder if every load we are seeing, including those in unspellable's data, are seated long and not crimped in the crimp groove/cannelure. In which case, it's not really a "standard" load at all. It's worthy of note that the maximum OAL in the Accurate data is still 1.985" and THAT will fit in the Ruger.

 

[hardluk1]

Ether a round will fit a cylinder and pay off with a increase in performance or it will not work. Ether way the person try'n it out will figure it out.

Why not stop the sniff'n and pee'n and go shoot'n.

 

[unspellable]

Hardluk1's advice

OK, here are some hard facts.

1.
Elgin Gates developed the 357 SuperMag and the SuperMag line of cartridges. It follows that what he said was a SuperMag is one and what he said wasn’t one isn’t one. Regardless of what Hugden, Taffin, or whoever may say to the contrary.

2 Gates was consulted on the Ruger Maximum project. Ruger declined to make the frame window long enough for the SuperMag. (Note, I said window, not cylinder.) The hypervelocity load was already in the works at this time as Gates advised Ruger it wouldn’t work. And it didn’t. It obviously follows that the Maximu is too short for the SuperMag line of cartridges. (I have no idea why Ruger declined to make the longer frame.) That alone should prove the point. (And no, it’s not out context.)

3
Before you can say a revolver is chambered for a particular cartridge it must be able to chamber all standard loadings for that cartridge. The Maximum clearly cannot chamber all standard loadings of the SuperMag Cartridges.

4
Taffin may come up with a short version of the 445, but the reamed out Maximu still will not chamber all standard 445 loadings, there fore it is not chambered for the 445, it is only reamed out to allow a shortened version which might better be called a 44 Maximum wildcat. And if he’s going to shorten it, why does the 375 give him a problem?

5
Seating the bullet deeper than standard may enable the 445 to chamber in a reamed out Maximum, but in the process you are giving up an eighth of an inch of powder space with a corresponding loss in performance.

6
All this strays a bit. The starting point of this line (not the thread) was that the 357 SuperMag was too long for the Maximum, not any of the other calibers. (And I do have strictly by the book 357 SuperMag loadings crimped on the crimp groove that will not chamber in a Maximum. I’ve never tried to cook up any loads of my own for it. (I save that for the 400-360.)


The case length in your drawing is the correct nominal case length, but as I’ve said. I’ve never seen an OAL that short. I think my cast 240 grain plinkers are longer.

What’s silly about all this is that back in the day all this was relatively well known, only later did all the confusion and misinformation arise. And this kind of thing is hardly unique or new. Look up the old canard about the 32 Special being a dual purpose smokeless and BP round that loses accuracy as soon as the barrel begins to wear. That’s been circulating since before WWII. I don’t know how the BP baloney started, but the loss of accuracy story started when Winchester tried to get rid of a surplus of 8mm bullets by loading them into 32 Specials.

My questions:
Why would you not want to use a 330 or 355 grain bullet in a 445? It’s main purpose in life is to accommodate heaver bullets, the higher velocity is a secondary benefit.

Why would any one want to bore out A Ruger Maximum? They are rare and command high prices. It would be much simpler to just get a Dan Wesson, or if you insist on a SA, a BFR. I don’t know what a Seville would cost, but it might be cheaper than the Maximum as it’s not as well known and it has the longer cylinder.

But then I suppose some would say I’m nuts for messing around with a 357-44 B&D.

From this point on I will take hardluk1’s advice.

 

[hardluk1]

I know a couple of you guys are going to hang out here and compare size till the cows come home.

 

[Missionary]

Greetings
Cylinder length determines Cartrige Overall length. The cylinders of DW's are longer than a Ruger thus have a more usable powder capacity with the same bullet because the bullet can be seated farther out.
Now if a smithy wants he can remove the Ruger barrel, install a longer cylinder and install a shorter seating barrel. The Ruger frame has the room.
Me I would just buy a DW 445 SM and have the best of it all. Set your own barrel gap to .0015 and you have less power loss from excessive barrel gaps. Tension the barrel properly with the barrel nut and you have a barrel thast will vibrate less and evenly for precise accuracy.
Been shooting DW's since 1982 and all the others can only hope to one day win as many Silly-wet titles as the DW's have over the years. I have a 357 SM. I have a 375 SM that also has a 414 SM fitted cylinder and custon threaded 414 SM barrel for the 375 SM frame.
May one day fit a 445 SM cylinder and custom barrel to my 357 just to have them all... But at this minute I do not see a 445 doing anything much better than the 414 can.
Mike in ILL till Jan.

 

[CraigC]

The cylinders of DW's are longer than a Ruger thus have a more usable powder capacity with the same bullet because the bullet can be seated farther out.

Bingo! The Seville's cylinder is even longer. The fact that bullets can be seated longer in those guns is not in question. However, I'm still waiting to hear about those .445 loads that are too long. Unspellable, what bullets and where are they crimped??? The difference is that you are probably referring to loads utilizing rifle bullets, not pistol bullets.


1. I don't care what Gates said, if you're going to take it out of context. It's really irrelevant.

2. Ditto.

3. Every single cartridge drawing and set of loading data, now from several sources, lists a maximum overall length of 1.985". So either they're all wrong, or you're wrong. So far, you have yet to provide anything to the contrary but your own word.

4. No one is shortening the .445. If it was shorter, it wouldn't be a .445. Standard weight bullets of 240-300gr are being seated and crimped in the cannelure. This is basic math sir, try some.

5. Again....

6. No, you said ANY of the SuperMags. When in fact, the only one of the four Supermag cartridges that poses a problem is the .375, because it uses long rifle bullets.

Why would you not want to use a 330 or 355 grain bullet in a 445?

Because those bullets are best for large, dangerous critters and the added velocity the .445 would yield is not really necessary. Nor is carrying the extra heavy sixgun required.

Why would any one want to bore out A Ruger Maximum?

Because it's a Ruger single action and thus, very friendly for customization. Plus it can be converted to a Bisley which is imminently more comfortable with heavy loads than any double action. Maximums are relatively easy to find. I've never seen a long frame Dan Wesson. Rugers are also easier to fix if anything goes wrong. While the Maximum is out of production, nearly everything is easily replaced.

It would be much simpler to just get a Dan Wesson, or if you insist on a SA, a BFR.

Not really, as I said. Not everybody wants a BFR. The stretch frame BFR's are chambered in much longer cartridges than any of the Supermags anyway.

I know a couple of you guys are going to hang out here and compare size till the cows come home.

This is not a "measuring contest". This is a discussion. If you can't handle it, you are free to leave at any time.

 

[unspellable]

Bunch of DWs

I too have a bunch of DWs in assorted calibers.

The non-Dan Wesson crowd will tell you that you cannot survive with less than 0.006 inch cylinder gap. Nominal gap for the SuperMags is 0.003 inch. I've never had a problem with 0.003 inch. A gap of 0.0015 might be squeezing it a bit. Maybe it depends on your reliability criteria. (And how true the cylinder face is.),

I'm not so convinced about the Ruger idea. The first problem is the longer cylinder. Expensive custom job. Assuming you can make it work the barrel is the least of your problems, it's easy to shorten the breech end. But on a modern revolver you must have some barrel breech extending from the frame. And there's the ultimate rub. The frame window isn't long enough. The custom cylinder would not only require more length, it would also need a shorter neck, probably precluding a gas ring and reducing reliability against fouling tie ups. All in all, it might get get bit closer to a true SuperMag. Worth the extra effort? I doubt it.