Heavy 44 Special loads- Was Elmer Keith crazy or genius?

Status
Not open for further replies.
I think to understand Keith, you have to go back 100 years or more to a frame of mind that hardly exists anymore.

As a society we now have everything we need. For example, exploring new country as pioneers did 150 years ago is incomprehensible to most today because we have all the land we need. Few men today would dream of mounting horse and riding off in to the unknown, yet that was what you did back then.

Likewise, many handloaders today wet their pants at the thought of exceeding a published max load by 1/10th of one grain, clamoring "just use a bigger cartridge!", yet 80-90 years ago there WERE no bigger cartridges, so men like Keith paved the way by experimenting. He wasn't crazy, he was cutting edge; a pioneer if you will.

I personally have a soft spot for the "pioneer" type thinking.

35W
 
<>many handloaders today wet their pants at the thought of exceeding a published max load by 1/10th of one grain, clamoring "just use a bigger cartridge!",<>
Click to expand...

There is no need to be disrespectful of those who follow the limits of the published loads. They might also have alternative guns that the demigods lacked, making a possible excess with the .44 Special merely academic.
 
Likewise, many handloaders today wet their pants at the thought of exceeding a published max load by 1/10th of one grain, clamoring "just use a bigger cartridge!", yet 80-90 years ago there WERE no bigger cartridges, so men like Keith paved the way by experimenting.
Click to expand...

Very true.
The questions that some people ask as to whether those loads are safe now. Hell, they weren't safe then, he just didn't have a .44 mag so he made do with the shorter Special. I read an article that he wrote where he says he had 3 six guns blow up in his hand.

Yes, Elmer was the man and we should all look up to him and be thankful for the innovations he inspired and invented. But there is no need in the year 2014 to push the .44 Special to the limits that he pushed it. It is no longer necessary, thanks to him.
 
I think to understand Keith, you have to go back 100 years or more to a frame of mind that hardly exists anymore.
Click to expand...

Well said, and so true. As someone with 50+ years experience in the shooting sports, I remember having to wait 30 days before receiving each month's American Rifleman, Guns & Ammo, and Shooting Times magazines, so as to glean whatever bit of information I could from them. In this day of computers, with a complete library and instant gratification at your finger tips, there is a completely different mindset. I can only imagine what it was like in E.K.'s time.

Don
 
I stayed a week with him in 1964. I found him OK. I did have a Ruger to work
with. If you thought his loads were scary, you haven't seen anything yet .
 
Elmer certainly helped pave the way for all of the magnum handgun cartridges so yeah I guess he was a genius. However I think that a lot of folks are forgetting the other great contribution that he left us, that being his famous bullet designs. For a guy that only had a eighth grade education I'd say he was pretty darn sharp. To this very day people are still trying to come up with a better mouse trap. But at the end of the day there is nothing to improve on the Keith bullets. He designed his bullets so that the majority of the weight would be outside of the cartridge case, thus allowing one to make the most of case capacity for full power loads, yet still allow for half of the bullet to be of bearing surface.

A true Keith SWC is the closest thing to the all around bullet there is IMHO. They make for good target loads, in a pinch will suffice for HD, and of course we all know of they're hunting pedigree. Elmer really knew what he was doing when he came up with his design. Here is some good reading on Keith bullets for those that haven't seen it http://www.lasc.us/Fryxell_Book_Chapter_12_KeithSWC.htm

And here is some writings by Elmer
http://www.elmerkeithshoot.org/GA/
 
Keith wasn't crazy. He did have decidedly strong opinions on some things and he got up on them, rode them and didn't get off. He also changed handgunning for the good.

As far as I can recall he only blew up one gun and that was a Colt SAA in 45 Colt. This was in the 1920s and the experience helped him to focus on the 44 Spl. for the reasons folks have explained.

In all his writings (Sixguns and Gun Notes in particular) he warned re-loaders to be cautious about their loading. He did not like the term "maximum loads" as used in the reloading manuals, as he believed it encouraged some re-loaders to begin at that point mistakenly thinking that those loads might be safe for their guns.

His favorite load for the 44 Spl. and later the Magnum was a 250 gr. Keith bullet at about 1200 fps from a 4" barrel. He explains this many times. In an article published in Gun Notes from March 1969 he says that the pressures were acceptable and that from a 6 1/2" barrel he got 1296 fps with the load, 1371 fps from a 7 1/2" Ruger, and 1396 from a 8 3/8" S&W M29.

There is some dispute as to whether he got that 1200 fps from a 44 Spl. gun without overdoing the pressure. He says he did with the older ballon head case but that after the 44 special brass was strengthened velocity fell off some due to less case volume.

When the 44 Spl was introduced the commercial ammo for it was loaded to the older 44 Russian loads about 700-750 fps. Shooters who had been waiting for the new round were disappointed. So they began experimenting and uploaded it.

Until the arrival of the 44 magnum Keith swore that his heavy load for the Special was the best load available from a handgun. He said this many times. The same load became his "pet load" for the 44 Magnum. (Gun Notes Vol. 1 page 132-133)

But after the Magnum arrived he laud off the Special a good deal, sometimes.

Keith kept trying to get a heavy load for the 44 Spl. introduced and marketed. But no ammo manufacturer was interested especially after the Magnum. Keith was critical of too hot 44 Magnum loads from some manufacturers. He thought that the factory loads set at 1500-1600 fps performed poorly and had frail bullets. He mentions this several times in Gun Notes.

Keith developed the 41 Magnum. When he spoke to Carl Hellstrom of S&W about it he told him that the best round for police work would be the heavy load of the 44 Spl. but that no one was interested in producing that but maybe they could sell a 41 Magnum. (Gun Notes, Vol. One page 47).

Keith left the 44 Spl. behind some for the 41 and the 44 Magnum. But the 44 Spl. remained for him a reference point round. That is he measured all handgun round performances against his heavy load for the 44 Spl.

In an article published in 1969 in Guns and Ammo on pistols he admitted he was a confirmed wheelgunner. He said...

"When the chips are down, my own preference in handguns would be a Smith and Wesson 41 or 44 Magnum or a Ruger single action in the same calibers and my next choice is a Colt target single action in 44 Spl. caliber with my heavy loads."

The whole article can be read here...

http://www.elmerkeithshoot.org/GA/1969_07_Elmer_Keith_Part_3_Autos.pdf

http://www.elmerkeithshoot.org/GA/

tipoc
 
Last edited:
Keith was convinced that heavier bullets worked best and that heavier faster bullets worked better still.

He believed that the .308 Winchester round for a rifle was a mistake both as a military round and a hunting round. Too light a bullet.

He believed that a 200 gr. bullet was a good place to start in a rifle. If you needed greater distance and a flatter trajectory you upped the power.

Light bullets at high velocity fell to pieces upon impact and did not penetrate deep enough. He said often.

Now this last bit was true for a good long time. Keith was old school. A heavy bullet worked well and had for a good long time. Keith knew this and worked with it. The 45-70 works. But he clung to his opinion long after improved bullet designs made his stubborn opinion outdated. He was slow to accept that a lighter faster bullet could kill game at distance very reliably and do it with less recoil. We take this latter for granted today but Keith resisted it.

Nosler, Sierra, and others were making good bullets for may years till Keith finally began to accept them reluctantly.

Phil Sharpe and P.O. Ackley, masters of ballistics, bullet and rifle design had a wry opinion of Keith.

tipoc
 
Originally posted by RealGun
Tilting with windmills, maybe, but why can't reloading manuals include loads of this level? They do it for .45 Colt.

The bigger question is how one without the historical background would know any of this without I-read-it-on-the-internet references, WADR.
Click to expand...

I have a couple of older reloading manuals with the general info and specific load data in them. It may get in to copyright issues to post them in their entirety, but if you send me a PM with your email, I'll take pics of them and send them to you if you'd like.

I think one of the reasons they stopped listing the heavier loads for the 44 spl was the Charter Bulldog. It's definitely a small cylinder and much lighter gun than the older N frame Smiths and Colt Single action Army's. That, and the prevalence of 44 mag guns as time has gone on has likely also dampened enthusiasm for 44 special specific heavier loads.

And to the bullet weight question, the Lyman 429421 bullets generally are 250 gr, give or take a few grains for varying lead alloys. I cast mine from straight wheel weights, I don't recall the exact weight, it was a few grains over the listed weight, but I dont think by much. Lyman uses No 2 alloy for their listed weights, which is a little harder and lighter than wheel weights.
 
Originally posted by tipoc
Keith was convinced that heavier bullets worked best and that heavier faster bullets worked better still.

He believed that the .308 Winchester round for a rifle was a mistake both as a military round and a hunting round. Too light a bullet.

He believed that a 200 gr. bullet was a good place to start in a rifle. If you needed greater distance and a flatter trajectory you upped the power.

Light bullets at high velocity fell to pieces upon impact and did not penetrate deep enough. He said often.

Now this last bit was true for a good long time. Keith was old school. A heavy bullet worked well and had for a good long time. Keith knew this and worked with it. The 45-70 works. But he clung to his opinion long after improved bullet designs made his stubborn opinion outdated. He was slow to accept that a lighter faster bullet could kill game at distance very reliably and do it with less recoil. We take this latter for granted today but Keith resisted it.

Nosler, Sierra, and others were making good bullets for may years till Keith finally began to accept them reluctantly.

Phil Sharpe and P.O. Ackley, masters of ballistics, bullet and rifle design had a wry opinion of Keith.

tipoc
Click to expand...

I think I'd disagree with several thoughts here. The 308 wasn't much different than the military loads in '06, which Keith was pretty familiar with. I've never heard that, that he thought it light. Maybe for larger game, but not as a military load.

Have you read Keiths book Rifles and Cartridges for Big Game? Keith was by no means a large bore slow bullet only guy. He worked with a wide variety of calibers and loads, some quite high velocity. He worked some with front ignition to achieve even higher velocity, it was used on some artillery shells, but in the end I think he decided it was too much trouble for the gain. He did like larger calibers for the larger game, and we was a believer in and proponent of premium bullets. Most of his gripes with the medium bore calibers and loads that others liked was poor bullet performance that he had seen, and in the book mentioned that changing to premium bullets upped the results across the board for any given caliber/chambering. He liked Barnes, the Nosler Partitions, and Rem Cor-Loct bullets, and I think he mentioned others. His preference for larger than common calibers/bullets tended to start when elk were in the picture. He had lost elk to poor bullet performance, and what consistently worked for him was larger heavier bullets. He had messed with wildcatting some 338 loads with a couple other guys, one was similar to the 338 Win, another was similar to the 340 Weatherby level load. I believe he liked the 7mm mag, and the 300 mags also. He didn't seen to be bothered much by recoil, one of the reasons many don't like the larger calibers.

Just a few thoughts.



Its interesting, how we sometimes put people in niches. Ive heard Keith didn't care for high velocity, but I've read several of his books and that didnt seem to be the case. I've also read that O'Conner didn't care much for anything besides the 270. I have one of his books (which I also enjoy) and he goes into detail on a great number of various rounds, including the 30-06 300 mag 338 mag, 375, and others. He didn't seem to put them down by any means, actually he was quite complimentary on their uses and abilities. That he liked the 270 was no secret, but he did write that the '06 was probably better for an all around gun if larger game was to be commonly pursued.
 
well now you've done it! i just got done reading "hell i was there". now i have to read all this other stuff you guys have posted.

elmer also hotrodded the 38 special prior to the introduction of the 357 magnum. the load was known as the 38-44. those loads would blow up an m&p (later the model 10) and, for that reason, lead to the development of the 357.

probably why no gun manufacturer wanted to hotrod the 44 special.

murf
 
As a kid, long before my interest in handguns, I read Jack O'Connor religiously and still today concur with his ideas of good rifle hunting calibers. I read a little of Keith, mostly in his Gun Notes columns in Guns & Ammo magazine. His beliefs regarding rifle cartridges for hunting was where he totally lost me.

I know he considered the 270 Winchester a good varmint round at best and I can't quote him per se, but recall reading that he thought a good hunting caliber and bullet started at about .33" and 200 grs. He obviously had infinitely more experience in the field than I, but I couldn't help but find it a little odd that he looked down upon those who used, say, a 30-06 for elk, yet he condoned the use of a .44 caliber handgun for the same game?:scrutiny: And further, flung handgun bullets at deer some 3/8 mile away? Hmm....

Didn't mean to get away from the subject of this thread.

35W
 
I was just looking in Gun Notes from 1968 pg. 127 of the paperback edition. Keith says:

"The last rifle we tested was a model 88 in caliber .308. I could never see much use in the .308 cartridge, either as a military or sporting cartridge. It is simply a .300 Savage with a longer neck and is suitable for bullets up to 200 grains only. It is not as good a cartridge as the old .30-40 220-grain for timber shooting and is not high enough in velocity with 150- to 180- grain bullets for long range. It is, to me, inferior in every respect to the 30-06."

Immediately afterward he speaks highly of the 358 Winchester cartridge with a 250 gr. bullet. He calls it a "real cartridge" presumably compared to the .308 Win.

It may be easy to pigeon hole Keith if we just read some of his writings. His opinions changed some over time. They weren't the same in 1980 as they were in 1930. Only the dead don't change their minds.

Keith was fond of a good many excellent rounds and rifles. There is a wealth of good information in his writings. He did have a strong fondness for a heavier bullet was about always better and that handling powerful recoil was a matter of technique.

tipoc
 
Last edited:
Studying Keith's work with the heavy .44 Special loadings, it's important to understand how he looked at the problem.

He preferred overpenetration. Two holes to bleed from if he could get it. That called for a solid, non-expanding bullet.

That...with solid bullet...mass and diameter are more efficient killers than velocity and "energy dump" and that beyond a certain point, more velocity serves mainly to flatten trajectory. There's little that a 250 grain bullet can do at 1200 fps that it can't do at 900...except extend the effective range.

If he'd had a New Model Blackhawk to work with, I seriously doubt that he'd have given the .44 Special more than a passing interest...and the .44 Magnum might never have been born...and what we know as the .454 Casull might have been the .454 Keith.

As for the standard .44 Special's 246-grain LRN loading being little more than a "squib"...the victims of David Berkowitz might beg to differ.
 
Keith was a genius. He had figured out a lot of things about killing critters with handguns in the 1930's that folks are still arguing about. His passion for the sport he helped create is undeniable. He developed his .44Spl loads through experimentation and part of that was killing critters. He concluded that it killed better than any other cartridge, including the .357Mag.

There is a lot of misinformation on the 'net about Keith. One is that he blew up a lot of guns. He did not. He blew the loading gate off one military surplus .45 SAA. He did this with a cut-down 300gr .45-70 bullet over a full case of blackpowder. That is when he started focusing on the .44Spl.

The fact is that his 1200fps .44Spl load is indeed safe for certain guns. It wouldn't have been in print over the last 30yrs if it weren't.


elmer also hotrodded the 38 special prior to the introduction of the 357 magnum. the load was known as the 38-44. those loads would blow up an m&p (later the model 10) and, for that reason, lead to the development of the 357.
Click to expand...
It's worthy of note that Phil Sharpe is considered to be more responsible for the development of the .357 than Keith.


If he'd had a New Model Blackhawk to work with, I seriously doubt that he'd have given the .44 Special more than a passing interest...and the .44 Magnum might never have been born...
Click to expand...
Yes but the large frame Blackhawk would not have existed were it not for Keith's work, that led to the .44Mag.


There is no need to be disrespectful of those who follow the limits of the published loads.
Click to expand...
That works both ways.


The bigger question is how one without the historical background would know any of this without I-read-it-on-the-internet references, WADR.
Click to expand...
Funny, Keith's work has been in print since the 1930's. I didn't need the internet to learn about it. I read books and magazine articles. As I suspect most others did.
 
"A 250gr at 1200fps is a .44Mag load!"
We hear that often in these discussions. It is not. It is a .44Spl load. A 250gr at 1450fps is a .44Mag load. A 355gr at 1250fps is a .44Mag load. What's the point in carrying a .44Mag if a .44Spl will do the job??? Because you 'think' it's safer? If you can point me to a single instance where the Keith load destroyed or even rattle a gun loose, I'm all ears. The fear is unfounded and borne out of ignorance.


They might also have alternative guns that the demigods lacked, making a possible excess with the .44 Special merely academic.
Click to expand...
For the "get a bigger gun" crowd. The reason for the .44Spl's popularity is that it fits into smaller guns than the .44Mag. The Colt SAA and sixguns of similar size are the perfect home for the cartridge. A mid-frame Blackhawk or New Frontier is a wonderfully capable package without being an overweight clunk. My custom Ruger flat-top weighs a scant 37oz and is a wonderful shooter. Even an N-frame .44Spl weighs several ounces less than a comparable model 29.

All fine places for the .44Spl......

Custom mid-frame Ruger:
IMG_7120e.jpg


USFA Pre-war:
IMG_2980b.jpg


S&W 24-3:
IMG_3199b.jpg
 
There is no need to be disrespectful of those who follow the limits of the published loads.

That works both ways
Click to expand...

That seems argumentative. Can you quote someone who was clearly disrespectful, excluding yourself, of course?

The bigger question is how one without the historical background would know any of this without I-read-it-on-the-internet references, WADR.
Click to expand...

Funny, Keith's work has been in print since the 1930's. I didn't need the internet to learn about it. I read books and magazine articles. As I suspect most others did.
Click to expand...

Except there is no clear reason why one would pursue the information or need it. If it was so essential, new reloaders should expect to find it in the ubiquitous loading manuals and powder company data on the internet sites. No beginner can buy them all, and there is no exam. We have to rely on the more experienced to share what they know and hopefully with some measure of grace and humility.
 
If you can point me to a single instance where the Keith load destroyed or even rattle a gun loose, I'm all ears. The fear is unfounded and borne out of ignorance.
Click to expand...

I think you are too fond of using the word ignorance. The air must be pretty thin up there in that ivory tower.

The rest was very useful. Thanks for that. Nice guns.
 
Elmer Keith was a remarkable man. He was the very first recipient of the Handgunner of the Year award that I believe John Amber did through Gun Digest. He paved the way for for folks like Dick Casull in the sense that a wider segment of the hunting hangun market were receptive to the idea of the big bore for hunting.

I don't believe Keith ever really carried a revolver (44 spl, 44 mag, 41 mag) as a primary gun on his hunts. He used the revolver for shots of opportunity mostly. He was a big bullet guy with rifles who pretty much believed in the 0.33 caliber for medium sized game like elk.

I found the book "Hell I was there" by Keith to be a remarkable biography into into the man and what made him what he was.

I didn't read a lot of Keith stuff when I was younger simply because I was never interested in handguns or had an opportunity to even shoot handguns until I was 21. I was heavily influenced by Jack O'Conner and chose the 270 as my medium game do it all caliber in a rifle.
 
That seems argumentative. Can you quote someone who was clearly disrespectful, excluding yourself, of course?
Click to expand...
You mean aside from those who accuse others of bullying and insulting them just because they disagree???


Except there is no clear reason why one would pursue the information or need it. If it was so essential, new reloaders should expect to find it in the ubiquitous loading manuals and powder company data on the internet sites. No beginner can buy them all, and there is no exam. We have to rely on the more experienced to share what they know and hopefully with some measure of grace and humility.
Click to expand...
One should find the information rather easily, as long as they read material other than new reloading manuals. I find it difficult to even respond to this, as Keith's work is bread & butter to any revolver fanatic. If it's not, it should be. I was 12yrs old when I started reading this stuff, long before Al Gore invented the internet.


I think you are too fond of using the word ignorance. The air must be pretty thin up there in that ivory tower.
Click to expand...
If a person's knowledge is lacking in a certain area, ignorance is the only word to use. It's not an insult and should not be taken the same as "stupid". I'm ignorant about a great many things but I do my best to fill the voids in my brain at every opportunity. Ignorance is curable and that is exactly what I'm trying to do here. Some folks just resist with all their might. Sometimes the "grace and humility" is lacking in the student. What I would suggest to you is to open your mind, be honest about what you don't know and do everything you can to correct it. Stop taking it as a personal insult when someone knows more than you do. Take it as an opportunity to learn something new.

Here's a good start:
http://amzn.com/lm/RM9Z74Y8KBG4D
 
Yes but the large frame Blackhawk would not have existed were it not for Keith's work, that led to the .44Mag.
Click to expand...

Chicken/Egg. It was purely academic.

Besides...somebody probably would have gotten around to a .44 Magnum eventually...like the .454 Casull evolved from the .45 Colt.

Sooner or later, somebody's gonna push the envelope.

Craig and RealGun...Let's try to keep the discourse civil.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

M
  • Locked
The .44 Special threads reminded me...
2 3 4
Replies
78
Views
6K
MJ
MJ
Tony_the_tiger
  • Locked
Ruger Blackhawk .44 Special: Buffalo Bore 255 Grain "Keith" S.W.C. G.C.
2
Replies
32
Views
3K
horsemen61
H
T
  • Locked
New Ruger Flat-top .44 Special strength...You decide.
Replies
15
Views
5K
BlkHawk73
B
F
  • Locked
.44 S&W Special Revolver Shooter's Thread
2 3 4 5
Replies
105
Views
12K
Confederate
Confederate
P
  • Locked
.44 Special Ammo Report: Buff Bore, Cor-Bon, Black Hills, etc.
Replies
21
Views
9K
B36
B
Back
Top