Magnum primers for Longshot in mild .44 Magnum?

[Buck13]

My goal here is to work up a mild .44 Magnum round for plinking (maybe literally in IHMSA Field Pistol) at up to 100 yards. Plan is to use a .44 Mag case and Xtreme 240 grain RNFP bullet* seated to .44 Special OAL, crimped lightly over the shoulder of the ogive. Nearly a .44 Special load in .44 Magnum brass. At a COAL of 1.455", I should have exactly 0.455" of the bullet shank in the case. My goal is to keep it subsonic and aim for decently low SDs.

Looking at this https://www.handloadermagazine.com/44-s-w-special-p Longshot, of which I have plenty, should be capable of the modest velocities I'm looking for at very reasonable pressures. Whether it will give good accuracy is the question. I'm thinking to start with 0.5 grain steps from 7.0 to 8.5 grains. Since these look like pretty modest charges for that powder, and I've seen rather large powder-forward vs. powder-back velocity deltas in light revolver loads before, I'm tempted to try magnum primers to light them off regardless of where the charge is laying. Crazy idea?

I'd try both standard and magnum primers immediately and look at the SDs, but I don't have enough empty .44 brass at the moment to build two large-enough sets of ammo across the charge range. I need to shoot more and reload less, apparently!

Over all, this may be a fool's errand, since Longshot meters at best +/- 0.1 grain in my measure, and I'm not willing to hand weigh every charge. We'll see...

*If I find a truly good load, I might later splurge on Nosler 240 JHPs, but by my measurements the shank would be the same depth into the case, so I hope/expect that will perturb the load minimally.

 

[FP1201]

My goal here is to work up a mild .44 Magnum round for plinking (maybe literally in IHMSA Field Pistol) at up to 100 yards. Plan is to use a .44 Mag case and Xtreme 240 grain RNFP bullet* seated to .44 Special OAL, crimped lightly over the shoulder of the ogive. Nearly a .44 Special load in .44 Magnum brass. At a COAL of 1.455", I should have exactly 0.455" of the bullet shank in the case. My goal is to keep it subsonic and aim for decently low SDs.

Looking at this https://www.handloadermagazine.com/44-s-w-special-p Longshot, of which I have plenty, should be capable of the modest velocities I'm looking for at very reasonable pressures. Whether it will give good accuracy is the question. I'm thinking to start with 0.5 grain steps from 7.0 to 8.5 grains. Since these look like pretty modest charges for that powder, and I've seen rather large powder-forward vs. powder-back velocity deltas in light revolver loads before, I'm tempted to try magnum primers to light them off regardless of where the charge is laying. Crazy idea?

I'd try both standard and magnum primers immediately and look at the SDs, but I don't have enough empty .44 brass at the moment to build two large-enough sets of ammo across the charge range. I need to shoot more and reload less, apparently!

Over all, this may be a fool's errand, since Longshot meters at best +/- 0.1 grain in my measure, and I'm not willing to hand weigh every charge. We'll see...

*If I find a truly good load, I might later splurge on Nosler 240 JHPs, but by my measurements the shank would be the same depth into the case, so I hope/expect that will perturb the load minimally.

"Magnum" Primers are said to be a little hotter, and in a case size of the .44 Special it might be better to use regular Primers and adjust with powder charge, that said Winchester Large Pistol Primers clearly indicate on the Package "For Standard and Magnum Loads".
On a side note: I had a S&W 624 that was dismal with Factory Ammo, but when handloaded to maximum levels shot as well as my M29 and Anaconda....I'm supposing the .44 Specials were light in case they were used in old Colt SAA's or maybe the Charger Arms Bulldog.

 

[Grumulkin]

When you say "magnum primers" I presume you mean large pistol magnum primers.

If I were doing it, I would use large pistol magnum primers, forget the standard deviations and see how the load prints on paper at the intended range to be shot at. If the results were unsatisfactory I might then try standard large pistol primers.

 

[GeoDudeFlorida]

My goal here is to work up a mild .44 Magnum round for plinking (maybe literally in IHMSA Field Pistol) at up to 100 yards. Plan is to use a .44 Mag case and Xtreme 240 grain RNFP bullet* seated to .44 Special OAL, crimped lightly over the shoulder of the ogive. Nearly a .44 Special load in .44 Magnum brass. At a COAL of 1.455", I should have exactly 0.455" of the bullet shank in the case. My goal is to keep it subsonic and aim for decently low SDs.

Looking at this https://www.handloadermagazine.com/44-s-w-special-p Longshot, of which I have plenty, should be capable of the modest velocities I'm looking for at very reasonable pressures. Whether it will give good accuracy is the question. I'm thinking to start with 0.5 grain steps from 7.0 to 8.5 grains. Since these look like pretty modest charges for that powder, and I've seen rather large powder-forward vs. powder-back velocity deltas in light revolver loads before, I'm tempted to try magnum primers to light them off regardless of where the charge is laying. Crazy idea?

I'd try both standard and magnum primers immediately and look at the SDs, but I don't have enough empty .44 brass at the moment to build two large-enough sets of ammo across the charge range. I need to shoot more and reload less, apparently!

Over all, this may be a fool's errand, since Longshot meters at best +/- 0.1 grain in my measure, and I'm not willing to hand weigh every charge. We'll see...

*If I find a truly good load, I might later splurge on Nosler 240 JHPs, but by my measurements the shank would be the same depth into the case, so I hope/expect that will perturb the load minimally.

I'm not familiar with Longshot but with respect to the method of testing and assembly, regards your goal of a light magnum for target, it seems like an overall good plan. The only thing I'm not 100% sure about is crimping over the ogive. It's been done - heck, I've done it with SWC's - but it's not generally known to improve accuracy. That's the only fly in the ointment I see and it's probably not a real problem. Holes in paper will tell the whole story.
did'ja see what I did there?

 

[Buck13]

When you say "magnum primers" I presume you mean large pistol magnum primers.

Yes, I don't reload for rifle. I have CCI magnum, S+B standard and a few Federal magnum large pistol primers. I used to have Winchester LPPs but I think I am out of them.

 

[Buck13]

did'ja see what I did there?

That's nothin'. A guy I knew in Boy Scouts circa 1982 posts the MOST HORRIBLE puns to Facebook on the reg.

 

[GeoDudeFlorida]

Yes, I don't reload for rifle. I have CCI magnum, S+B standard and a few Federal magnum large pistol primers. I used to have Winchester LPPs but I think I am out of them.

This doesn't apply to your situation, Buck but, it might help someone else out or it might help you with this project if you change firearm platforms. In my (admittedly limited) experience, theres only a couple of situations where recutting a LP primer pocket for LR primers makes any sense: A) if you're using a hard-to-ignite powder - some ball powders are like this - in very cold conditions; or, B) if you're loading for a pistol-cartridge rifle/carbine with a rifle-length/rifle-sprung firing pin - like the Ruger 77's and some older Savage/Stevens rifles - where there's a possibility of a softer pistol primer being pierced by a rifle-style firing pin. There is a third situation but it's to be avoided (!!!) and that's when you're loading so far over LP primer pressure spec's that it's possible the primer will pierce and degas into the action, where a LR primer will hold pressure. That would be a really stupid load, though.

 

[JFrank]

I would be very surprised to see a big difference in fps by just changing primers, why not experiment with powder type and charge weight ?

 

[Buck13]

I would be very surprised to see a big difference in fps by just changing primers, why not experiment with powder type and charge weight ?

Agree that what you say is what I've read, in general, although I've seen people say that 2400 loads performed worse with magnum primers. I've never been methodical enough myself to explore this.

I have more magnums now than standards in large pistol, so that's another attraction of using them.

 

[Buck13]

The only thing I'm not 100% sure about is crimping over the ogive. It's been done - heck, I've done it with SWC's - but it's not generally known to improve accuracy.

I seated and pulled unprimed brass with 4 each to the normal depth and to 1.455 to see if the bullet shank would get swaged down at the base and couldn't find any difference in the diameters before and after seating. Since the shoulder happens to correspond almost exactly to .44 Special COAL and there are data for that with Longshot (if you call that magazine article "data"), I figure I can get more consistent burning in a shorter case volume (lower aspect ratio should have less powder-forward vs powder-back difference). Whether that bright idea reflects reality, we'll see...

Or we won't, since I probably won't repeat the process at normal .44 Mag COAL with the same powder charges.

 

[GeoDudeFlorida]

I seated and pulled unprimed brass with 4 each to the normal depth and to 1.455 to see if the bullet shank would get swaged down at the base and couldn't find any difference in the diameters before and after seating. Since the shoulder happens to correspond almost exactly to .44 Special COAL and there are data for that with Longshot (if you call that magazine article "data"), I figure I can get more consistent burning in a shorter case volume (lower aspect ratio should have less powder-forward vs powder-back difference). Whether that bright idea reflects reality, we'll see...

Or we won't, since I probably won't repeat the process at normal .44 Mag COAL with the same powder charges.

Yup. Sometimes in handloading, the process is the result.

 

[Buck13]

Of course, if someone wanted to run my seating depth and 8.5 grains of Longshot through Quickload and get a pressure and velocity prediction, fired from a 7.5" barrel, that would be of great interest!

 

[Rule3]

Longshot doesn't need a mag primer but if you have them sure use them

Why seat the bullet to 44 special length. I don't get it? What benefit is there?

 

[Buck13]

Why seat the bullet to 44 special length. I don't get it? What benefit is there?

See my post at 8:40 this morning for my explanation.

 

[Rule3]

See my post at 8:40 this morning for my explanation.

I do not see anything from 8:40 am? Most be Pacific time??
Easier to post what post number. All I can gather is trying to make a 44 mag the same COL as a 44 special, if so I still do not see the reason? Other than you are trying to make 44 special +P with Longshot and have been reading Brian Pearce articles. He doesn't shorten the coal or use your bullets.

Seems like a different powder would be easier than your "workaround"

What gun are you using?

 

[243winxb]

Use Win or Rem. Only 1 of each available.

I'm tempted to try magnum primers to light them off regardless of where the charge is laying. Crazy

 

[Buck13]

I do not see anything from 8:40 am? Most be Pacific time??
Easier to post what post number. All I can gather is trying to make a 44 mag the same COL as a 44 special, if so I still do not see the reason? Other than you are trying to make 44 special +P with Longshot and have been reading Brian Pearce articles. He doesn't shorten the coal or use your bullets.

Seems like a different powder would be easier than your "workaround"

What gun are you using?

Post #10. I made that last reply from my phone, and it doesn't display post numbers. I wondered why I didn't see a #.

Short COAL has a couple of attractions:

1. Xtreme bullets have a poor excuse for a canneleur. Neck tension seems good (even longer seated bullets took three whacks to pull) and crimp jump not really a concern, but crimping over the shoulder means no worry about breaking the plating. This is a *very* minor benefit.

2. Shorter case volume and higher % fill should (?) minimize powder positional variation. Even with much faster burning powders, I've seen some pretty dramatic differences over the chrono powder-forward vs powder-back. Hard to believe that couldn't affect POI at longer ranges, at least off a rest. (Standing on my hind legs, we have much larger problems to worry about, but best to fix what can be fixed.)

3. Longshot is known to "prefer" fairly high pressure (relative to standard-pressure Specials). I have a lot of it, and it seems quite suitable for the velocities I'm interested in if a modest charge can be made to burn cleanly and consistently. I've read multiple accounts of it "cleaning up" at pressures well below the normal operating range of .44 Magnum, so I expect that the desired burn quality and velocity will come at a sane pressure. If I'm not seeing the accuracy I hope for at 50 yards once the burn cleans up, I'm not going to keep pushing the charges up hoping for some revelation.

Shooting from a 7.5" .44 Magnum Redhawk (my only .44), so moderate pressure excursions above .44 Special standards are not really a concern, and desired velocity should not require impressive pressure. I wouldn't try ANY of this in a Charter Arms Bulldog.

 

[Rule3]

If you search for 44 special and longshot you will find that you are not the first on this subject. Most refer to the article you linked. Still no sure why you want to reduce COL other than the increase pressure?? Powder position is not gonna mean much. Just use the min charge and seat to the "canelure" such that it is.
Longshot (even though you have a lot) is not indicated for what you want to do.
I use a lot of LS and 0.1 grain is not gonna matter.

But heck, if you want to experiment. go for.

 

[black mamba]

Running your 8.5 gr. load through GRT I get the following:

1,035 fps @ 21,510 PSI w/ 98.8% propellant burned. Should be a very good load.

 

[Buck13]

Running your 8.5 gr. load through GRT I get the following:

1,035 fps @ 21,510 PSI w/ 98.8% propellant burned. Should be a very good load.

Thanks, sounds like just what I'm looking for. To confirm, that's with my quirky COAL?

As I said in the OP, my biggest concern is that the stuff meters slightly better than dog biscuits. I'd much rather use AA#5 for it's beautiful flow through my powder measure, but I have very little of that. If Longshot doesn't pan out, I'll see if Power Pistol meters and performs any better (haven't used it in long enough that I've forgotten). I have a fair amount of that, too, and I suppose charges would be a bit smaller. All I can really remember about Power Pistol is that it had a pretty white cylinder gap flash in my .357s.

 

[Rule3]

Longshot is fondly known as LOUD SHOT
Power Pistol is also loud. Surely you have other powders that would fit what you are trying to do??


Also to quote from the article,

"Regardless of the loads chosen, be certain to use data exactly as listed, as changes in bullet design, bullet seating depth and overall cartridge length, primer, etc., will change the pressures and performance of the load."

 

[The Glockodile]

Longshot is fondly known as LOUD SHOT

Thet be raaaht!

Sulfur an' brimstone be rainin' down 'pon an' singin' thy brow!!

'Tis th' fire an' thunder from th' heavens!!!

At the local pistol range, whenever I'm there shooting 9x25mm Dillon, anyway

 

[Buck13]

Longshot is fondly known as LOUD SHOT

Yes, I'm familiar with that nickname for Longshot. Not completely undeserved. I've fired max loads of Longshot and Blue Dot in a 10 mm, and they were both freaking loud. Of course, a max load of anything in 10 mm is pretty loud, but I'll allow that the blast from those LS and BD loads may be why I no longer own a 10 mm. It was aggravating my flinch.

But do you REALLY believe that a 22,000 PSI load of Longshot in .44 Special is going to be louder than a 38,000 CUP load of HP-38 or Unique in a .44 Magnum?

I don't think this is going to be a problem. Anyway, I almost always wear muffs over plugs, because even if I'm only shooting .22LR from a long-barreled target pistol, there's usually a guy sporting a .40 with a comp drilling his Major loads, or some wonderful person with a 5.56 SBR 20 yards down the line making everyone's day easier.

Also to quote from the article,

"Regardless of the loads chosen, be certain to use data exactly as listed, as changes in bullet design, bullet seating depth and overall cartridge length, primer, etc., will change the pressures and performance of the load."

Sure, but I don't see any claims in the article that their "data" is actually validated by piezo testing. My bet is that their empirical trials were simply preceded by some software predictions. Which we already have in this thread thanks to black mamba.

It would be nice to see Quickloads as well, but beggars can't be choosers. I only have MacOS these days, so I'm a bit handicapped there.

 

[black mamba]

To confirm, that's with my quirky COAL?

Not that quirky to me . . . I deep seat a lot of bullets, and have used that exact COAL before with several bullets in .41 and .44 mags.

 

[Rule3]

Only mention as for some reason you what subsonic (not that the report is the same) but you want quite , powder up 44 mag loads
I don't bring a decibel meter to the range

Plinking loads for a 44 mag or 357 mag just don't make sense.

You are making it more difficult than need be, But like I said go for it.