Low pressure 44 Magnum loads

[Onty]

Searching for low pressure loads in 44 Magnum. The goal is to make a loads using lead bullets 265 up to 300 grains, to get about 1100 fps from revolver with 6.5"-7.5" barrel, but pressure up to 23 000 CUP. I looked on internet but the only load I found close to my wish is on Hodgdon website https://www.hodgdonreloading.com/reloading-data-center?rdc=true&type=53 :

270 GR. SPR GDSP, powder HS-6, 11 grains, 1036 fps (barrel 8.275"), 22 200 CUP

Since this is jacketed bullet, but fired from 8.275" long barrel, I would expect that lead bullet 265 grains will do about the same from revolver with 7.5" barrel.

However, when going to 45 Colt (Ruger, Freedom Arms & T/C only) loads, also from Hodgdon, things are getting very interesting:

325 GR. CPB LFN PB, powder H110, starting load 21.0 grains, loaded round OAL 1.680", 1109 fps (barrel 7.250"),18 100 CUP
335 GR. CPB LFN GC, powder H110, starting load 20.5 grains, loaded round OAL 1.680", 1109 fps (barrel 7.250"),19 200 CUP

Now, if we scale down noted 45 (,453) bullets on 44 (.431), and powder charges, we are getting these results:

45-325 scaled to; 44, 294 grains, powder H110, 19.0 grains, loaded round OAL 1.680" (DO NOT USE, for reference only)
45-335 scaled to; 44, 303 grains, powder H110, 18.56 grains, loaded round OAL 1.680" (DO NOT USE, for reference only)

When checking closest 44 bullet and and powder charge:

300 GR. HDY XTP, powder H110, starting load 18.0 grains, loaded round OAL 1.600", 1266 fps (barrel 8.275"), 35 100 CUP

As you could see, just straight scaling down powder charges is something that shouldn't be done. Obviously, higher friction of jacketed bullet and shorter loaded round OAL make a big difference in pressure and velocity.

Going to Hodgdon website and checking 41 Magnum, 265 grains:

265 GR. WLNGC, powder H110, starting load 19.5 grains, loaded round OAL 1.710", 1410 fps (barrel 10.125"), 24 400 CUP

Scaling up 41-265 bullet and its powder charge, we are getting:

41-265 scaled to; 44, 290 grains, powder H110, 20.79 grains, loaded round OAL 1.710" (DO NOT USE, for reference only).

Obviously, using one caliber and its loads, scale them up or down for another caliber, is a very risky, rather dangerous proposal. ONLY TESTED LOADS SHOULD BE USED. However, this little exercise indicates that that even loads at moderate pressure range 20 000-23 000 CUP could lunch bit heavier bullets at a reasonable velocity..

On the end, I wish that powder and bullet manufacturers standardize their load testing procedures using setup that will properly simulate revolver, with about .004" gap and barrel 6.5".

I would appreciate your opinion and eventual correction.

 

[black mamba]

According to GRT, my load of 13.5 gr of Vihtavuori N105 under the 265 SWC GC bullet @ 1.685" OAL
from a 6½" barrel gives 1130 fps @ 23.3 kpsi with 95% burnt propellant.

 

[fxvr5]

On the end, I wish that powder and bullet manufacturers standardize their load testing procedures using setup that will properly simulate revolver, with about .004" gap and barrel 6.5".

Typical SAAMI barrel/cylinder gap for revolver calibers is .008". They also have barrel length standards.

https://saami.org/wp-content/upload...FP-and-R-Approved-2015-12-14-Posting-Copy.pdf

 

[Onty]

According to GRT, my load of 13.5 gr of Vihtavuori N105 under the 265 SWC GC bullet @ 1.685" OAL
from a 6½" barrel gives 1130 fps @ 23.3 kpsi with 95% burnt propellant.

Thank you Sir, this is information I am looking for! Especially since I have hard tome getting powders made in USA. Good thing N105 is available in my area. BTW, I was checking VIHTAVUORY reloading data for 44-267 LSWC, but they list just N32C powder. And there is nothing about pressure for any load.

Question; is GRT this website https://www.grtools.de/doku.php?id=start ? Looks like very useful. Just joined them, and will try to search more loads for 44 Magnum and other cartridges.

 

[Onty]

Typical SAAMI barrel/cylinder gap for revolver calibers is .008". They also have barrel length standards.

https://saami.org/wp-content/upload...FP-and-R-Approved-2015-12-14-Posting-Copy.pdf

Thanks for this crucial info. To be honest, those specs for testing barrels confuse me. First (for vented ones), up to 45 Colt, barrels' length are 4.000", and gaps are .008". Of all revolvers I had seen on shooting range in Canada, 357 Magnum and up, I would say that at least 80% had barrel length 5.5" to 7.5", majority 6" to 6.5". Things are different in USA because a lot of handguns (before revolvers, now semiauto pistols) are used by LE agencies and for self defense. However, as far as I found, those are almost all loaded with factory ammo. Contrary to that, I would say that at least 95% ammo on the range are handloads. And for all those years I didn't fire more than dozen rounds of factory ammo.

As for the gap, I never had revolver (except .455 Webley) that had a gap more than .006". One Ruger Bisley 45 Colt (second cylinder) and one S&W M27 (I suspect that gap was reduced by smith) had gap about .002". And I would never purchase a revolver with .008" gap. Other shooters I know wouldn't bother touching such revolver. My point is that, all other things being equal, a load in revolver with smaller gap, like .004", will have higher pressure than in vented test barrel with .008" gap.

Please correct me if I am wrong!

 

[fxvr5]

Thanks for this crucial info. To be honest, those specs for testing barrels confuse me. First (for vented ones), up to 45 Colt, barrels' length are 4.000", and gaps are .008". Of all revolvers I had seen on shooting range in Canada, 357 Magnum and up, I would say that at least 80% had barrel length 5.5" to 7.5", majority 6" to 6.5". Things are different in USA because a lot of handguns (before revolvers, now semiauto pistols) are used by LE agencies and for self defense. However, as far as I found, those are almost all loaded with factory ammo. Contrary to that, I would say that at least 95% ammo on the range are handloads. And for all those years I didn't fire more than dozen rounds of factory ammo.

The 4" vented barrel was 'standardized' around 1976/77 by Remington, since they wanted the ballistics to reflect the majority of guns made in those calibers and what is typical of the average service revolver. For the 357 Magnum, most companies were listing speeds from 8 3/8" barrels, and for the 44 Magnum, speed from the 6.5" barrel was commonly reported. But those ballistics didn't apply to the majority of guns, especially for the 357 Magnum. Factory ammo or reloads doesn't matter. The 'common' barrel length does.

American companies, mostly American consumers. There's no need to cater to the small number of countries, including Canada, outside the USA. Doesn't Canada have a limit for the shortest allowed barrel length?

As for the gap, I never had revolver (except .455 Webley) that had a gap more than .006". One Ruger Bisley 45 Colt (second cylinder) and one S&W M27 (I suspect that gap was reduced by smith) had gap about .002". And I would never purchase a revolver with .008" gap. Other shooters I know wouldn't bother touching such revolver. My point is that, all other things being equal, a load in revolver with smaller gap, like .004", will have higher pressure than in vented test barrel with .008" gap.

Please correct me if I am wrong!

Do you and the other shooters you know take a feeler gauge with you to the gun store?

An old S&W inspection guide states, "The ideal B/C gap is .006”. The normal usable range is from .004~.010”."

Why is a .008" gap so evil?

 

[Onty]

The 4" vented barrel was 'standardized' around 1976/77 by Remington, since they wanted the ballistics to reflect the majority of guns made in those calibers and what is typical of the average service revolver. For the 357 Magnum, most companies were listing speeds from 8 3/8" barrels, and for the 44 Magnum, speed from the 6.5" barrel was commonly reported. But those ballistics didn't apply to the majority of guns, especially for the 357 Magnum. Factory ammo or reloads doesn't matter.

I think it does matter for self defense. If I remembered correctly, No. 1 legal advice is factory ammo only, no handloads.

The 'common' barrel length does.

American companies, mostly American consumers. There's no need to cater to the small number of countries, including Canada, outside the USA. Doesn't Canada have a limit for the shortest allowed barrel length?

Do you and the other shooters you know take a feeler gauge with you to the gun store?

An old S&W inspection guide states, "The ideal B/C gap is .006”. The normal usable range is from .004~.010”."

Why is a .008" gap so evil?

As far as I now, all competition revolvers have barrel longer than 4". I did see from time to time short barrel revolvers on the range, but rarely. Even those shooters regularly bring 6" revolvers on the range.

Regarding Canada, some 25-30 years ago minimum legal barrel length became 4.2", but owners that had shorter barrel handguns before that were grandfathered. Since 2022, no handgun could be purchased or sold. Current owners are grandfathered until they live. After owner dies, by-by handguns. I am in Europe now, but from what I've learned when talking with friends in Canada, conservatives promised to change noted law to previous status if they win next federal election. I was trying last year to convince an older gentleman, that has nothing but top notch guns (S&W 629 Classic DX, SIG P210, etc., plus several custom rifles), worth at least $50 000, probably closer to $100 000, to sell me S&W 657-3, 8-3/8" barrel. He refused my offer. Now, he is not so well and law was changed.

As for the gap, the only new handgun I bought was Ruger SBH 5.5", now converted to Bisley, and gap is .005"-.006". I purchased it in Vancouver and it was mailed to Toronto area. BTW, very well made revolver, locks cylinder almost like FA. It's a keeper. All other handguns I have or had were used ones. On some I did check gap with filler gauge, on some I didn't. But I did check others visually. After checking some revolvers with filler gauge and looking toward light, any shooter could learn to spot larger gap than .006".

Regarding .008" gap, it would be interesting to see haw many shooters will purchase brand new revolver knowing it has such gap, something like S&W 29/629, 586/686, Col Python, Anaconda or FA revolver? I bet none!

 

[fxvr5]

Regarding .008" gap, it would be interesting to see haw many shooters will purchase brand new revolver knowing it has such gap, something like S&W 29/629, 586/686, Col Python, Anaconda or FA revolver? I bet none!

You would be wrong.

 

[Palladan44]

OP-
Unique, W-231, Power Pistol, BE-86, or CFE pistol would do the trick, in my opinion.
You wouldn't need to push the limits of the data with any of these, but you will still know you're shooting a magnum, that's for sure.
Good luck!

 

[Bill M.]

I can see wanting a certain low velocity. But...why do you want a "low pressure" load in a .44 Mag.?

 

[N555]

The only way to load H110 is compressed or nearly compressed. Don't try to down load H110. H110 wants to be at least around 80% of case volume after the bullet is seated.
Ideally for light loads you want a single base powder.
My "low pressure" 44mag loads are all in 44spl cases and use an over max charge of unique which is not single base but it's hot enough to burn the unique completely. It's definitely hotter than any 44spl but is way softer shooting than any full power 44mag factory load.
It used to be that one nobody wanted 44spl brass... That's all changed in the last 3 years.

 

[Varminterror]

Searching for low pressure loads in 44 Magnum.

The answer to this question is pretty simple, far simpler than all of the scaling math and comparison done in the opening thread.

In general, 10% can be added to 44spcl load data when seated longer in the longer 44mag cases to achieve nearly the same operating pressure, but typically with a very slight (and not commensurately proportionate) velocity increase. For common intents and purposes, the same bullet at nearly the same speed as would be achieved in 44spcl.

Do you and the other shooters you know take a feeler gauge with you to the gun store?

I used to, and still would if I were buying new S&W, Ruger, Colt, or Taurus revolvers from the shelf.

An old S&W inspection guide states, "The ideal B/C gap is .006”. The normal usable range is from .004~.010”."

Why is a .008" gap so evil?

0.008” is evil because 0.003” exists.

I would disagree that 0.006” is “ideal,” other than to acknowledge that S&W would certainly publish that as a target spec - as concession that they aren’t machining true mainpin bores, cylinder faces, chambers, or barrel tenons, so they aren’t able to guarantee their mass produced parts would be interchangeable if they targeted a truly ideal, smaller gap. There’s no reality in stating powder fouling will cause issues for a tighter gap, with the exception of loose tolerance factory revolvers which may vary notably from one chamber to the next, or even top to bottom and side to side on an individual chamber.

 

[Onty]

I can see wanting a certain low velocity. But...why do you want a "low pressure" load in a .44 Mag.?

So I can do coup de grace when hunting, or as a last ditch defense when hunting wild boars. They are nasty, aggressive, mean critters when wounded. We have some as big as 250 kg (550 lb). And they are real wild boars, not feral pigs, we don't have those.

Why 265 grains at 1100 fps, and pressure 20 000 to 23 000 CUP? Well, if such bullet will go right thru full grown cow ( https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...un-hunting-another-view.903836/#post-12255542 , #1 post) I think that should be more than enough for any wild boar, and my ears wouldn't be blasted as with full power magnum loads at 36 000-38 000 psi. When hunting (with rifle), I don't wear earplugs. Too cumbersome and cannot hear properly to locate approaching animal or another hunter. I just don't see a reason to be exposed to such ear piercing blast. Yep, years back I was a macho guy shooting occasionally full power 357 Magnum without ear protection. Ringing in my ears now, reminds me how foolish I was at that time.

 

[cfullgraf]

The answer to this question is pretty simple, far simpler than all of the scaling math and comparison done in the opening thread.

In general, 10% can be added to 44spcl load data when seated longer in the longer 44mag cases to achieve nearly the same operating pressure, but typically with a very slight (and not commensurately proportionate) velocity increase. For common intents and purposes, the same bullet at nearly the same speed as would be achieved in 44spcl.

I agree, if you want low power 44 Magnum loads, look at 44 Special load data.

My main 44 Magnum load uses Unique (in 44 Magnum cases) and runs a bit higher velocity as the equivalent 44 Special load. It is no where near magnum levels but is pleasant to shoot.

H110/W296 does not play well at reduced loads. They are not a good powders for low power loads. I like W296/H110 for my full power 357 Magnum and 44 Magnum loads vs Alliant 2400. But no way I'd down load them in an attempt to get softer shooting ammunition.

Besides Unique, W231, or Accurate #5 would be good for low power 44 Magnum loads. There are other powders in this range that work well but I have not tried them.

If you want soft shooting 44 Magnum ammunition, look at 44 Special load data. If loaded in a 44 magnum case, use the max 44 Special data, maybe add a few percent to the powder weight, and have a good time. Adjust the powder charge if the accuracy is to what you desire.

As we always say, pick a safe starting point and work up your loads.

P.S. I'm not excited with shooting magnum loads these days as I pass my 70th birthday in a day or two. I enjoy shooting my revolvers, just not interested in fire breathing loads any more.]Besides, if I want wrist snapping recoil, I'll drag out the S&W 460 XVL. But, I do have a nice 45 Colt level loaded in 460 cases for plinking with the 460 S&W Magnum revolver.

 

[Onty]

You have a number of valid points. The only problem with 44 Special loads in 44 Magnum case, even if bumped up 10% as suggested in another post, I still get 44 Special level round, far less than desired 1100 fps.

HS-6 powder looks promising, I will have to search through manuals to find something for 44 Magnum I could use.

An excellent example how useful could be HS-6 is one load for 45 Colt:

When a little more horsepower is called for, I turn to the beautiful work of Miha Prevac and cast some HPs using the Cramer style 2-cavity mould he made for me built around the Dave Scovill design (RCBS 45-270-SAA). This 280 grain HP loaded over 13.0 grains of HS-6 gives me 1150 fps from a 7 1/2" Ruger Blackhawk with excellent accuracy and expansion. (Glen E. Fryxell)

http://www.lasc.us/Fryxell_Book_Chapter_13_CastingHPBullets.htm

Back when I was working up loads with the 284 grain Scovill bullet (the RCBS 45-270-SAA SWC), the best load I found in my guns was 13.0 grains of HS-6, which gave 1050-1150 fps, depending on barrel length, and excellent accuracy. According to the pressure data in the Hodgdon manual, this load generates roughly 22,000 CUP (again, not suitable for older, or weaker sixguns). So, naturally, I tried that load with the 280 grain (25-1 alloy) Miha Prevec HP. Once again, I got very good accuracy and velocities averaged 1162 fps. I like HS-6, it is a very useful revolver powder. (Glen E. Fryxell)

http://www.lasc.us/FryxellMpMolds.htm

I do not have 45 Colt revolver yet, nor mold for RCBS 45-270-SAA SWC, but I do have this one, 45-503-SWC, close to 290 grains, should be just right for Ruger NMBH and Bisley:

When MP-Molds https://www.mp-molds.com/ started making their MP 432-256 PB SOLID (actually H&G #503, https://www.mp-molds.com/product/mp-432-256-pb-solid-4-cav/ and https://www.mp-molds.com/product/mp-432-256-pb-solid-6-cav-alu/ ), I asked them to make 45 cal. bullet mold using same profile milling end mill as for 44 cal. mold. It is just tad heavier than RCBS 45-270-SAA SWC, but sticks out from the case bit more, so pressure and velocity should be close to noted Scovill 45 bullet.

Regarding desired loads for 44 Magnum, unfortunately, HS-6 is hard to find in my area, but according to this chart https://www.snipershide.com/shooting/attachments/e765eda1-0797-4214-a7d6-a7ec3d48109e-png.7759073/ , some promising Vihtavuori powders are close or bit slower than HS-6. Will contact Vihtavuori and ask for advice. In the mean time, I will try to see if I can get some loading data from GRT https://www.grtools.de/doku.php?id=start .

 

[EricBu]

My plinking 44 Mag load: 240 MBC coated cast (use the same load for 240 SWC, and RNFP). 7.3 grains of TG, medium crimp. Ruger New Model Blackhawk, 7.5 inch barrel = 1038 fps/SD 5 @ 10ft from muzzle. Super clean burning, very accurate. No pressure readings, and never worked it up in GRT or Quickload, but the pressure is probably very close to what you're looking at.

 

[GeoDudeFlorida]

Searching for low pressure loads in 44 Magnum. The goal is to make a loads using lead bullets 265 up to 300 grains, to get about 1100 fps from revolver with 6.5"-7.5" barrel, but pressure up to 23 000 CUP. I looked on internet but the only load I found close to my wish is on Hodgdon website https://www.hodgdonreloading.com/reloading-data-center?rdc=true&type=53 :

270 GR. SPR GDSP, powder HS-6, 11 grains, 1036 fps (barrel 8.275"), 22 200 CUP

Since this is jacketed bullet, but fired from 8.275" long barrel, I would expect that lead bullet 265 grains will do about the same from revolver with 7.5" barrel.

However, when going to 45 Colt (Ruger, Freedom Arms & T/C only) loads, also from Hodgdon, things are getting very interesting:

325 GR. CPB LFN PB, powder H110, starting load 21.0 grains, loaded round OAL 1.680", 1109 fps (barrel 7.250"),18 100 CUP
335 GR. CPB LFN GC, powder H110, starting load 20.5 grains, loaded round OAL 1.680", 1109 fps (barrel 7.250"),19 200 CUP

Now, if we scale down noted 45 (,453) bullets on 44 (.431), and powder charges, we are getting these results:

45-325 scaled to; 44, 294 grains, powder H110, 19.0 grains, loaded round OAL 1.680" (DO NOT USE, for reference only)
45-335 scaled to; 44, 303 grains, powder H110, 18.56 grains, loaded round OAL 1.680" (DO NOT USE, for reference only)

When checking closest 44 bullet and and powder charge:

300 GR. HDY XTP, powder H110, starting load 18.0 grains, loaded round OAL 1.600", 1266 fps (barrel 8.275"), 35 100 CUP

As you could see, just straight scaling down powder charges is something that shouldn't be done. Obviously, higher friction of jacketed bullet and shorter loaded round OAL make a big difference in pressure and velocity.

Going to Hodgdon website and checking 41 Magnum, 265 grains:

265 GR. WLNGC, powder H110, starting load 19.5 grains, loaded round OAL 1.710", 1410 fps (barrel 10.125"), 24 400 CUP

Scaling up 41-265 bullet and its powder charge, we are getting:

41-265 scaled to; 44, 290 grains, powder H110, 20.79 grains, loaded round OAL 1.710" (DO NOT USE, for reference only).

Obviously, using one caliber and its loads, scale them up or down for another caliber, is a very risky, rather dangerous proposal. ONLY TESTED LOADS SHOULD BE USED. However, this little exercise indicates that that even loads at moderate pressure range 20 000-23 000 CUP could lunch bit heavier bullets at a reasonable velocity..

On the end, I wish that powder and bullet manufacturers standardize their load testing procedures using setup that will properly simulate revolver, with about .004" gap and barrel 6.5".

I would appreciate your opinion and eventual correction.

You definitely want to stick to powder on the slower side of the scale: Blue Dot, HS-6, No.9, etc, and powder that works well in the lower range of the data. I got this from the Lyman’s 48th Ed.:

If you can find Blue Dot I highly recommend the 10.5-11gr load range for a heavy bullet.