Are you a fan of the 44 Special?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Off the mountain, and where the luxury of more varied choice without complications works well, the lighter carry guns are my favorites.

Some mountains are harder to come down from than others.

I have a Casull as my travel gun because of limited resources. Specifically, limited space in my bag, and my limited willingness to carry a lot of guns around. Another perfectly valid resource to limit on is money. A .44 special costs about the same as a magnum. If I can only afford one, I may well be willing to lug around a few more ounces in order to have the greater range of capabilities a magnum offers.
 
What makes sense for one person does not make sense for all. You can't force folks to see the sense of your sense.

Elmer Keith in Sixguns IIRC made the point that if he had only one gun it would be in 44 Spl. because it would do over 90% of all he wanted to do with a revolver.

He also made the point that if he was limited to commercial ammo and had only one gun it would be in 45 Colt.

He made these points in the 1960s and after he had developed the 44 Magnum. It was also when ammo choices in both rounds was less varied than it now is. Meaning that commercial ammo choices are better today for those two calibers than in the 1960s.

Of course a fella will say that what Keith thought makes no difference to him, he'll make his own choices dammit! Same person will then turn right around and tell me his version of what's best as if I should apply more weight to it than Keith's opinion.

My opinion is based on what I know I can do with a sixgun and what I can't. Some calibers and loadings it's best for me to leave alone and use a carbine on. The 44 Spl. works well for me on most things in a gun that size for what I need it for. Charter Arms Bulldog to an N frame.

But as they say, your mileage may vary.

tipoc
 
Why does the potential of the .44 Special, when handloaded, upset people?
I don't know but it happens every time. I'm sorry but this is a well-beaten trail. Elmer Keith figured it out in the 1930's. The loads have been pressure tested. We KNOW what guns they are safe for. It is no more dangerous to handload 1200fps .44Spl loads than it is anything else.

Some folks just have a need to pigeon-hole everything.
 
It is no more dangerous to handload 1200fps .44Spl loads than it is anything else.

I checked Western, Alliant, and Hodgdon and did not find a .44 Special load near that velocity.
 
1200 fps is actually doable. it just needs a typical test barrel in the 8 inch length class. and a 168 or 180 grain bullet.
 
Originally posted by Bezoar
1200 fps is actually doable. it just needs a typical test barrel in the 8 inch length class. and a 168 or 180 grain bullet.


The 1950's NRA loading manual I have shows the 250 gr Lyman bullet No 429421 with a 6 1/2" Smith & Wesson pressure barrel and a Smith & Wesson 1950 target* (later to become the model 24) giving 1233 fps with the old balloon head cases and Keiths original load of 18.5 grs 2400, giving 20,870 PSI (almost certainly what we term CUP today, as the copper crusher was the method that was generally used). When the new solid head cases came out it was recommended to drop the load a bit, as the old load increased in pressure by about 7000 PSI in the new case. Different people dropped it by different amounts. The NRA manual recommended dropping it to 16 grs, giving 1138 fps, and 18,860 PSI.

For my use, I decided on 17 grs with the Lyman bullet, old type Lyman Alox lube (not the modern liquid) in W-W cases, and standard CCI primer. It does truly shoot to the exact point of aim as my 6 1/2 grs Unique loads with the same bullet, making swapping loads simple to deal with. The NRA manual showed 17.5 grs 2400 as giving 1163 fps, with 22,960 PSI with the Lyman 250 gr 431244 gas checked bullet. Close enough info, and works for me.

All the data was with "old" 2400. I understand it was changed at some point in the semi-recent past, and data needs to be checked velocity wise with newer versions of the powder to see where loads are compared to the old data. I still have enough "old" 2400 to take care of my needs for heavy loads for some time.

* The gun showed slightly less velocity than the pressure barrel.
 
Last edited:
As I posted way earlier in the thread, I loaded 17.0 grs. of the new 2400 under an NOE 429421 260 gr. SWC and got just over 1200 fps. Grouped really nice at 100 yds. too. OK, been there, done that and at this point have no need in a load that powerful. It is nice however, to know the potential is there should I ever decide that shooting through a deer with a slower load just isn't satisfying.... or something.

35W
 
I missed your post details, but let me commend you on your excellent taste in loads. :D

I too rarely shoot the heavy stuff, but keep them handy, as I do live in the edge of true good grizzly country. I want to duplicate my medium 44 mag load of 9 grs Unique w/250 gr Lyman bullet, giving roughly 1000 fps. That should make a very nice medium power range load for the spl. Its downright pleasant to shoot in the 44 mag, and gives much better trajectories than 44 spl level loads out at 300 yards.
 
Have a Stainless S&W 629 Perf. Center .44 mag 3" that's very heavy for concealed carry. (Carry it constantly during trips in bear country though). Also have a S&W 329PD .44 Mag 4" I carry a lot. I always carry Defense ammo in .44 Special. I've never had a difficult time finding factory ammo for the above guns. Never see it 50 to a box though... just the 25 per box Self-Defense ammo. I have had some difficulty finding .44 Special brass though so I just load the magnum brass down to Special loads. In my 'what should I carry today?" mode, I sometimes carry the Vaquero but in .45 Colt. I think anything hit with either bullet would agree... it would suck to be hit with either. Welcome to the world of .44's!
 
I got a hold of a box of 44 spl and reloaded my first 10 rounds of it. Was really suprised when I shot it at the low recoil out of my 1894 Marlin rifle. Now I've loaded up all my brass and am taking the SIL shooting tomorrow. I am now a big fan of the 44 spl.
 
I think that's been covered. The point???

The point is promotion of loading well beyond the recognized maximum and doing so matter of factly, as if an authority on the matter. Wildcatting should be topically confined, where those considering such things recognize that they are on their own.
 
The point is promotion of loading well beyond the recognized maximum and doing so matter of factly, as if an authority on the matter. Wildcatting should be topically confined, where those considering such things recognize that they are on their own.
This is not some trumped up data that some anonymous internet personality came up with in his basement. It is 80 YEARS OLD and has been constantly in print since Elmer Keith's first book in 1936. Brian Pearce is a wealth of data for heavy .44Spl loads beyond just the Keith load. All of which has been published in Handloader magazine in the last several years. Those that have actually educated themselves on the subject know what guns these loads are safe for. Those that have not, have their unfounded fear. I'll take fact over feelings any day of the week. I'm not an authority but unlike 'some', I know who is and I know where to find the facts.
 
"The point is promotion of loading well beyond the recognized maximum and doing so matter of factly, as if an authority on the matter. Wildcatting should be topically confined, where those considering such things recognize that they are on their own."
__________________
RealGun
---------------

Well said RealGun. a basic freedom we enjoy, those that wish to, do and those that don't don't.

Stu
 
True the loads some have discussed here are above the current book loads, though they have a long history of safe use in the appropriate guns. In the case of the Keith loads, that means N frame Smiths and Colt SAA's. I certainly wouldn't shoot them in Charter Bulldogs, L frame 5 shooter Smiths intended for 44 spl, or a Taurus of any sort unless a 44 mag.

Heavy 45 Colt loads for appropriate guns comes up at times also, and sometimes has the same reaction. They are entirely safe in the appropriate guns. We can add 45-70 loads to the list, some guns are entirely safe for heavier than SAAMI loads, some are not. I use heavy loads in both of these cartridges also. If one chooses to limit themselves to the low end factory loads, that's fine by me, but I have no qualms about them. The information is well tested and long used in the models of guns I use them in.

The point is promotion of loading well beyond the recognized maximum and doing so matter of factly, as if an authority on the matter.

Uh, no. The loads listed are recognized maximums, not well above. Above SAAMI level, but not above tested maximum for the guns used. They have been used with complete safety for many years, and data with pressure testing in loading manuals. That data isn't in modern manuals, but at the time they were published, the smaller guns weren't on the market. They are quite safe in the appropriate guns. See above comments for 45 Colt and 45-70.
 
Last edited:
Uh, no. The loads listed are recognized maximums, not well above.

Published under what authority? There may be a subculture of reloaders and "ballistics engineers" probing the limits of what won't blow up, but what is the certification process? Where are the reference documents? Can anyone suggest books that have these loads beyond what powder and bullet companies test, get past their lawyers, and publish?
 
As has been already stated, it's been published in Handloader magazine numerous times, along with American Handgunner, GUNS, G&A, along with every book written by Elmer Keith, John Taffin, etc.. Not to mention older reloading manuals. You are more than welcome to pretend none of this information exists but you'll never provide any evidence that it's unsafe. Sorry but it's just too well established, even if you are entirely ignorant of it.

FACT: Pressures for the .44Spl are kept low in deference to older guns and small frame snubs.

FACT: Quite a few .44Spl's exist that are much stronger than those and are suitable to heavier loads.

FACT: We KNOW what they are. We KNOW what loads are safe in them.
 
Originally posted by RealGun

Published under what authority? There may be a subculture of reloaders and "ballistics engineers" probing the limits of what won't blow up, but what is the certification process? Where are the reference documents? Can anyone suggest books that have these loads beyond what powder and bullet companies test, get past their lawyers, and publish?

If I thought you were interested in anything beyond arguing at this point, I'd provide further references, even though several have been provided already. At this point, I do believe that all you're interested in is arguing the point, and whatever anyone provides wont change your mind in any way.

Have a swell day!
 
you'll never provide any evidence that it's unsafe.

Except that it is well above what powder and bullet companies recommend. "I read it on the internet" is not a safe reference.

In any case, if I was somehow finding my .44 Special loads insufficient, I would just reach for my .44 Magnum (or maybe a .41).
 
If I thought you were interested in anything beyond arguing at this point, I'd provide further references, even though several have been provided already. At this point, I do believe that all you're interested in is arguing the point, and whatever anyone provides wont change your mind in any way.

Bullying and insulting is not a valid way to defend your point.
 
Except that it is well above what powder and bullet companies recommend. "I read it on the internet" is not a safe reference.
You obviously have not been reading what we have been posting. I'm pretty sure the internet did not exist when Elmer Keith's first book was published in 1936. We have provided PLENTY of references, you have provided nothing but an uninformed opinion.


Bullying and insulting is not a valid way to defend your point.
Accusing everyone who disagrees with your uninformed opinions of bullying and insulting you is not a valid way to defend your defenseless position either. You have been debated and in a respectful manner, not bullied or insulted.
 
Originally posted by RealGun
Bullying and insulting is not a valid way to defend your point.

I thought it was a very valid, and polite comment, considering.

^^ This post only confirms my earlier feelings. I choose not to participate in any further discussion with you, for the reason I mentioned above.

Hope your day turns out happier for you.
 
Gentlemen, this thread has gone beyond circling the drain, so I suggest we start over without the vitriolic comments Feel free to start a new thread.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top