The "boutique" .44 Specials are apparently mislabeled as well.
If they don't conform to the official standard, then yes, they are mislabeled.
And the guy whose maximum 9mm loads are right on the limit? Apparently half his magazine is not 9mm, but rather some kind of wildcat.
If he's overloading the cartridge, then he can't use its performance as an example of 9mm performance
because it isn't 9mm performance. I don't see how that's difficult to understand or how it can be controversial.
I think that saying a .44 Special is not a .44 Special if you put in too much powder is like saying a mile is not a mile if you cover it too fast.
No, it's saying that a .44Spl that doesn't conform to the official definition of a .44Spl isn't a .44Spl at all. Just like a mile that isn't 5280ft isn't really a mile at all.
The whole point of standards and official definitions is so that we can talk about something and all mean the same thing. If people decide they are going to make up their own definitions or use unofficial definitions then communication is difficult or impossible. It leads to confusion and exactly the kind of trouble we're seeing right now.
The .44Spl has always been a handloader's cartridge. 90% of its appeal lies in what it can do when handloaded.
Sure, that makes perfect sense. But if those handloads go beyond the performance possible when loading to the .44Spl's official definition then they can't be used to define .44Spl performance--because, by definition, they aren't .44Spl performance.
Both the classic Skeeter load and the Keith load are over-standard pressure. So when I compare the .44Spl to anything, that is the context of that comparison.
I realize they are
overpressure--that's why they don't provide .44Spl performance. They provide performance that is
over what the .44Spl is capable of. If you want to compare the .44Spl to something then you need to use the .44Spl's definition--that's why definitions exist, and using them is how you communicate.
If you are going to use some other definition, then you should specify what special definition you're using so that communication doesn't break down and we don't have to go through the laborious and irritating process of trying to redefine something that already has an official definition every time it comes up. The onus of making caveats and providing special definitions falls on the person who, for whatever reason, declines to adhere to the official definition. Oherwise we don't find ourselves in exactly the kind of situation we see here.
If you think that changes the definition of what a cartridge is 'supposed' to be, fine.
It does NOT change the definition--that's precisely the point. You are using the term .44Spl to mean something other than what it actually means. The official definition remains unchanged--the problem is that you are no longer communicating unless you provide additional information to explain what you mean.
1200fps is the nominal velocity of the heavy Keith .44Spl load. It's only been in constant use for 90 friggin' years.
How long it's been in use doesn't change the fact that it provides performance beyond what the .44Spl, as officially defined, is capable of. It would be one thing to say that 10mm provides performance comparable to the Keith load--then people who don't know what that means and want to know could investigate. A cartridge isn't defined by how much it can be overloaded without blowing up some of the guns chambered for it. It isn't defined by someone's pet load. Its definition doesn't change because a particular overloaded version of it is commonly used. That's just not how it works.
Before the advent of the .44Mag, Keith would've suggested a heavy rifle with the .44Spl or a .45Colt on your hip. ... How is that relevant?
Well, it isn't, of course.
I asked about a "
handgun loading" and you responded with information about rifles and handguns instead.
The 10mm guys can't argue that it has more oomph than the 44mag or 41mag - it doesn't.
Correct. The 10mm provides a performance level well below what either of those cartridges can dish out. I don't really think that there are a lot of experts out there who would recommend the 10mm for hunting large dangerous game. But then again, there are a lot of experts out there who wouldn't recommend any handgun for hunting large dangerous game. That means any time the topic of handguns comes up in the context of hunting large dangerous game, it tends to break down pretty quickly into swapping personal opinions. Doesn't help that it often gets mixed in with the topic of carry for self-defense against large dangerous game which isn't really the same thing.
How is that even relevant? The 5.56 is a military issue cartridge. Does that make it a bear stopper?
No, of course not. But to be fair, the 5.56 isn't issued for bear defense which is one of the purposes that the 10mm is issued. I'm not saying that the fact Denmark issues the 10mm for bear defense closes the story on whether the 10mm is adequate for bear defense, but there is some bit of relevance there--while the issue of the 5.56 has no bearing on the topic at all.
It used to be that we chose cased on killing. Now people choose based on wishful thinking.
To be fair, the idea that even much weaker cartridges than the 10mm can effectively stop bear attacks can be documented. That is enough to take it out of the realm of wishful thinking, but, I think, isn't really enough to prove, in and of itself, that it's a great choice for the purpose.
