Are you a fan of the 44 Special?
- Thread starter Arizonan
- Start date
- Status
ExMachina
Member
That's not what said or what I meant. I never said anything about reloading manuals and was referring to (over pressure) reloading data the one finds on the internet. And by taking such reloading data "with a grain of salt", I meant don't just barrel ahead blindly with that kind of information (ie, do not be cavalier.)
35 Whelen
Member
Personally I do not understand buying an enormous revolver such as a 44 Magnum or 454 Casull and loading it down. Why lug around the extra weight if you're just going to load the cartridge down? If you don't need the power, why buy the gun?
Regarding loading a cartridge beyond SAAMI specifications, no one jumps up and down over the 45-70 being loaded up for Marlins or Rugers. Just because the cartridge was designed for the 1873 Springfield doesn't mean we have to load it to blackpowder pressures forever. Likewise with the 7x57 being loaded up in a Ruger 77 or Remington 700. Firearms technology has evolved by leaps and bounds over the last 100+ years. And so it goes with the .44 Special....
You do realize the upper-end loads for .44 Specials are published, don't you?
Read up:
http://www.handloads.com/articles/default.asp?id=4
Handloader #163
Handloader #166
Handloader #183
Handloader #236
Handloader #260
Ross Seyfried on the .44 Special
As I've said many, many times, if a person has a problem with these level of loads, I'd suggest going to the source, the people who developed and published the loads rather than folks like myself who use the loads.
35W
Stainz
Member
I am sorry - listed on the internet vs published in a printed loading manual are two different things entirely.
As to carrying a heavier Magnum vs a Special revolver - I started that as an availability issue. As an example, try to find an eight-shot .38 Special and you'll understand my affinity for the 627. I'll grant you, my 4" 627 is a larger frame size than my 4" 64 - and outweighs it by nearly six ounces. Comparing the new 4.25" 66 with a 4" 67 reveals a half ounce difference. Now, the big old 4" 629 and it's little brother in .44 S&W Special, the hard to find 4" 624, both weigh 41.5 oz. BTW, my L-frame 5-shot 3" 696 only weighs six ounces less.
I started my .44 S&W Special craze with the 296, 696, and both a 6.5" 24-3 and a 6.5" 24 Heritage series - and a 629MG. I spent the production 24's money on a new 6" 629 - which seemed nearly the same in my hand, as to heft and balance (I got the other S&W weights from S&W catalogs.). It certainly is easier to clean - and I liked it's larger trigger. Ultimately, I replaced my 4" 629MG with a production 4" 629. I'm happy!
Stainz
As to carrying a heavier Magnum vs a Special revolver - I started that as an availability issue. As an example, try to find an eight-shot .38 Special and you'll understand my affinity for the 627. I'll grant you, my 4" 627 is a larger frame size than my 4" 64 - and outweighs it by nearly six ounces. Comparing the new 4.25" 66 with a 4" 67 reveals a half ounce difference. Now, the big old 4" 629 and it's little brother in .44 S&W Special, the hard to find 4" 624, both weigh 41.5 oz. BTW, my L-frame 5-shot 3" 696 only weighs six ounces less.
I started my .44 S&W Special craze with the 296, 696, and both a 6.5" 24-3 and a 6.5" 24 Heritage series - and a 629MG. I spent the production 24's money on a new 6" 629 - which seemed nearly the same in my hand, as to heft and balance (I got the other S&W weights from S&W catalogs.). It certainly is easier to clean - and I liked it's larger trigger. Ultimately, I replaced my 4" 629MG with a production 4" 629. I'm happy!
Stainz
35 Whelen
Member
Ah, you didn't even follow the links, did you? Had you done so, you'd have seen all but one were scans of articles and columns out of Handloader magazine. No matter. As they say, You can lead a horse to water....
35W
Stainz
Member
Perhaps I got bored after the first couple of 'reprints', of dubious authenticity due to their being a 'digital' reprint. This horse is just choosy as to the water quality in the pond. Sorry - 'digital' just isn't the same as published 'printed' media. Powder manufacturers have a vested interest in 'publishing' such accurate media, while Harry down the street in his garage reloading facility can get by with 'just' a disclaimer. I have no ambitions or desires to alter your thought processes, 35Whelen. Please don't try to get me to wear your shoes - they just won't fit.
Stainz
Stainz
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
Ahh, how things change. It used to be that printed in a manual or reloading journal was "the bible." And a scan of that would be considered authoritative. Now we pretty much accept that some of the old data published in the printed media were a bit optimistic or overly aggressive due to the lack of the quality of testing equipment manufacturers and load developers have now.So the most current, most accurate data is indeed what's published on line by the manufacturers -- AND/OR published in their most up-to-date printed media.
I would however, say that there are far bigger concerns in the world than the rather extreme supposition that someone might have faked a digital scan of a printed load recipe...
I'd say that's pretty far-fetched.
35 Whelen
Member
Perhaps the manifestation of your ennui was due to your innate fear of either a) being wrong or b) learning something new. In either case, the loss is yours.
35W
35W
Sam Cade
Member
As we start our metaphorical trench run, I'd like to encourage our members to..
...like Red Five and focus.
...like Red Five and focus.
OK, I'll bite - what is Red Five?As we start our metaphorical trench run, I'd like to encourage our members to..
...like Red Five and focus.
35 Whelen
Member
Me too. We're waiting...
Sam Cade
Member
Luke Skywalker's call sign.
I was gently encouraging our members to stick to the topic at hand lest our fellowship be broken by acrimony.
Also, thread closure and infractions.
35 Whelen
Member
Point taken.
Who's Luke Skywalker? Is that the guy at the circus who walks the tightwire?
Who's Luke Skywalker? Is that the guy at the circus who walks the tightwire?
I got the gentle encouragement part, but was totally out of the call sign - oh well.....Luke Skywalker's call sign.
I was gently encouraging our members to stick to the topic at hand lest our fellowship be broken by acrimony.
Also, thread closure and infractions.
Arizonan
member
Lets just agree that the 44 Special has its place in firearms history. (past and present). The caliber will do what it was intended to do. And that is all that really matters.
the 44 special does have a special place, both in history and in usefulness.
The guns well, the normal 240 grain lswc in a 2 inch barreled 44 special will knock you guts around well but wont drop a horse at ten paces. but push the same powder charge and bullet out of the 6 inch barreled version and you can shoot through a normal deer at 40 yards.
I think the OP o meant to ask " are you happy with a 44 special handgun loaded with standard saami 44 special cartridges. Or doyou feel it necessassery for it to be loaded with elmer keith or skelton loads?"
The guns well, the normal 240 grain lswc in a 2 inch barreled 44 special will knock you guts around well but wont drop a horse at ten paces. but push the same powder charge and bullet out of the 6 inch barreled version and you can shoot through a normal deer at 40 yards.
I think the OP o meant to ask " are you happy with a 44 special handgun loaded with standard saami 44 special cartridges. Or doyou feel it necessassery for it to be loaded with elmer keith or skelton loads?"
Monac
Member
HexHead, is that a square-butt frame and are those factory grips? I have an S&W 22-4, an N-frame square butt in 45 Auto Rim, and I am looking for good grips. Thanks!
Monac
Member
Shucks! They looked like they'd work better than anything I've found so far.
Keep in mind, most people don't carry their guns much if at all. The appeal of a gun a few ounces lighter that shoots a cartridge that works in the heavier gun is lost on many.
Again, I think few people that buy powerful guns need them, they like them, which is of course plenty of reason to buy them. On the same note, many of us like the lighter gun in a similar caliber, for particular reasons (like carry), and just be cause we like them.
* the 4" 29 isn't enormous, I find them very comfortable and easy to carry, just a little heavier than the 4" 24.
35 Whelen
Member
I pretty much agree with you regarding the fact that most folks don't actually carry their handguns as much as they talk about it. I wasn't really thinking of the S&W 29 when I used the "enormous" adjective, rather I was thinking of the Redhawks which start out at about 3 lbs. and go up from there. Heck, even my 4" S&W 24-3 weighs 1/4 lb. more than my 4 5/8" single action .44 Special.Keep in mind, most people don't carry their guns much if at all. The appeal of a gun a few ounces lighter that shoots a cartridge that works in the heavier gun is lost on many.
Again, I think few people that buy powerful guns need them, they like them, which is of course plenty of reason to buy them. On the same note, many of us like the lighter gun in a similar caliber, for particular reasons (like carry), and just be cause we like them.
* the 4" 29 isn't enormous, I find them very comfortable and easy to carry, just a little heavier than the 4" 24.
Personally if I'm just shooting, I don't really care how heavy a revolver is, but when I go on my evening walks, which cover about 4 miles of the ranch next door, I want something light(er).
Yes, sometimes I have to stop and remember that not everyone thinks like I or live like I!
35W
Its just not realistic for most to carry much, if they do, its a concealed carry gun. The regular outdoorsy types are the ones that seem to like the nice balance point of size/weight/cartridge that the 44 spls can be. In the SA's, the only one I have in 44 is a magnum 4 5/8" fluted Blackhawk (marked Super), which isn't as light as a 45 Colt Blackhawk or old Vaquero. I don't think the 44 SA is as light as the 24 though. Yours may be the lighter frame?
I don't get out in the mountains as much since I trashed my back, but even walking around the home place, bears (the G type) come around now and then, and several have been caught very close. I always have heavy loads with me, even with the lighter guns like the 44 spl.
I don't get out in the mountains as much since I trashed my back, but even walking around the home place, bears (the G type) come around now and then, and several have been caught very close. I always have heavy loads with me, even with the lighter guns like the 44 spl.
RealGun
Member
My Taurus 441 is not that much to carry. However, it is a 5 shot, 3" barrel on a medium frame.
I don't think I want to discredit a caliber just because carry type platforms are being neglected by gun makers. There has to be a reason why the current Charter Bulldog is featured in so many shops. I'm betting it's a good mover. Other makers answering with a 5 shot .44 Magnum will likely find it regarded as less packable, if the gun is safely capable of the Magnum round.
I don't think I want to discredit a caliber just because carry type platforms are being neglected by gun makers. There has to be a reason why the current Charter Bulldog is featured in so many shops. I'm betting it's a good mover. Other makers answering with a 5 shot .44 Magnum will likely find it regarded as less packable, if the gun is safely capable of the Magnum round.
Ed Ames
Member
To add an alternative point of view on the subject of loading down...
I live in an urban area with no particular use for big magnums near me. I am also fortunate enough to be able to travel to more rural places 2-3 times a year.
When traveling I don't want to bring an "ideal" suite of guns. Yeah, I could have a pocket gun, a compact, a full size self defense gun, a light woods gun, and a dangerous predator gun, but at an average of 2lbs each that's 10 pounds of steel before you get into holsters, ammo, and other stuff. I have actually done things that silly and it is a chore. So I have my Casull with a holster that works IWB, OWB, and on a chest harness, and an assortment of .45/.454 ammo. I might also have a pocket gun, depending on circumstances. That saves me a lot of weight and bother for the trip, even though it means I might be carrying more weight than I want as I wander through the Sam's Club in Fairbanks (or wherever).
Of course my Casull is on the lighter side at 44oz (per Ruger) but it is still heavier than I need most of the time.
I live in an urban area with no particular use for big magnums near me. I am also fortunate enough to be able to travel to more rural places 2-3 times a year.
When traveling I don't want to bring an "ideal" suite of guns. Yeah, I could have a pocket gun, a compact, a full size self defense gun, a light woods gun, and a dangerous predator gun, but at an average of 2lbs each that's 10 pounds of steel before you get into holsters, ammo, and other stuff. I have actually done things that silly and it is a chore. So I have my Casull with a holster that works IWB, OWB, and on a chest harness, and an assortment of .45/.454 ammo. I might also have a pocket gun, depending on circumstances. That saves me a lot of weight and bother for the trip, even though it means I might be carrying more weight than I want as I wander through the Sam's Club in Fairbanks (or wherever).
Of course my Casull is on the lighter side at 44oz (per Ruger) but it is still heavier than I need most of the time.
Ed, that makes perfect sense in that context. When I do go in the higher mountains, I take the 29, and one other centerfire pistol as a spare, usually the SA Ruger 45, either of which are full power capable. Having lighter loads is always part of the plan. Not everything requires full power ammo. At some point I'm wanting to work out a very light round ball load for both calibers for grouse. My recent favorite grouse gun is a 348 with round ball loads, magazine loaded with full power stuff.
Off the mountain, and where the luxury of more varied choice without complications works well, the lighter carry guns are my favorites.
As with many gun related things, what folks enjoy doing isn't always about sheer practicality. It may be more interesting to work up loads in a different caliber rather than grab the easiest, most practical way to achieve the end result. That's part of what makes this interesting to many of us.
Regarding the heat treatment, its my understanding that at some point, Smith started heat treating the K frame 38's the same as the 357's, and the info coming out of the factory when they reintroduced the 24's back in the 80's was that they were built to basically the same specs as the 29's regarding steel alloys and heat treatment, acknowledging that many were interested in using the old Keith type loads. The older 24's seemed to do just fine on that load regardless, but they still upped the materials/heat treat from what I understand. Other makes? I don't know.
Off the mountain, and where the luxury of more varied choice without complications works well, the lighter carry guns are my favorites.
As with many gun related things, what folks enjoy doing isn't always about sheer practicality. It may be more interesting to work up loads in a different caliber rather than grab the easiest, most practical way to achieve the end result. That's part of what makes this interesting to many of us.
Regarding the heat treatment, its my understanding that at some point, Smith started heat treating the K frame 38's the same as the 357's, and the info coming out of the factory when they reintroduced the 24's back in the 80's was that they were built to basically the same specs as the 29's regarding steel alloys and heat treatment, acknowledging that many were interested in using the old Keith type loads. The older 24's seemed to do just fine on that load regardless, but they still upped the materials/heat treat from what I understand. Other makes? I don't know.
Last edited:
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked