Ruger Blackhawk .44 Special: Buffalo Bore 255 Grain "Keith" S.W.C. G.C.

[Tony_the_tiger]

The purpose of this thread is to provide a platform for discussion on this particular example of the eponymous Skeeter (Skeeter Skelton) load of the Keith (Elmer Keith) bullet in .44 special.

Some of you may have noticed a photo of this bullet featured in a recent thread about .44 special snub velocity. I purposefully excluded the data for this load from that thread since for my own purposes I don't consider this round a candidate in a light-weight snub revolver.

In the Blackhawk, however, or in other heavy .44 special or .44 magnum revolvers, this is a very intriguing round!

Descriptive Statistics:



I had a good bit of fun sighting this gun in and the result is an enhanced data set for these statistics with N of 34. There is a generous spread but the standard deviation (the average distance of each observation from the mean) is relatively low.

Buffalo Bore publishes this round at 1044 ft/s from a 6" Super Blackhawk.

We can visualize this distribution via a boxplot with whiskers.



The shaded area is the interquartile range, which is inclusive of 50% of the shots fired. The dark line in the shaded area is the median. The dotted line and the number represent the mean.

In general, presenting the mean in a boxplot can be misleading, especially if there is a skew in the data or outlying data-points. In this case, the mean is virtually identical to the median.

Here is another plot to show where this round fits in with some of the 200 grain rounds that were fired today:



A top-view of different bullet designs:



Above, from left to right: Buffalo Bore's 255 Grain S.W.C. G.C., Buffalo Bore 200 Grain Hard Cast Wadcutter, Corbon 200 Grain DPX, and an Underwood 200 Grain Gold Dot "Bull-Dog" branded round.

Discussions regarding the "Keith" #429421 semi-wadcutter can and do fill books. There is a tremendous amount of literature on the topic.

In my opinion, this style of bullet at this velocity is the quintessential .44 special.

Buffalo Bore takes it to 255 grains and adds a gas check.

It's very accurate, boasts mild recoil, and looks like it could achieve about anything you might ask of a six-gun. For those of us who do not reload yet, this is an option worthy of consideration.



Featuring the Ruger Bisley Flattop Blackhawk commissioned by Lipseys and sporting a 4-5/8" barrel (catalogued as RNVB-444-SPL).

Thanks for listening!

-Triple T

 

[tipoc]

Thanks for your work!

tipoc

 

[DPris]

A fair degree of extraneosity there, and I strongly feel it'd be more of an incarnation than an incarnate, but Buffalo Bore puts out an excellent product.

For my entire shooting life I found the .44 Special in conventional loads to have zero interest.
The introduction of the 4 5/8-inch Ruger Flattop created an interest in the caliber for me, but only in that gun & only in heavier loads.

My best reload in terms of accuracy & medium recoil is a Keith-style 255 grainer at 1060 FPS.
Anything higher & I'd go with a .44 Mag.
Anything lower & I wouldn't bother with a .44.

And if you say interquartile again on a public forum, I'll call the cops on you.
Denis

 

[CraigC]

For my entire shooting life I found the .44 Special in conventional loads to have zero interest.

For shame.

 

[Tony_the_tiger]

Denis, thanks for the constructive comments. I changed "incarnate" to "example" and reduced some of the poetic dialogue. I did keep iqr in there for lack of a better term. I'm guilty as charged.

But my question for you is: what do you think a 255 Keith load at 1060 ft/s is going to accomplish that a 255 Keith load at 1000 ft/s won't? Note also that fifty percent of the shots fired for this test exceeded 1000 ft/s.

 

[35 Whelen]

For my entire shooting life I found the .44 Special in conventional loads to have zero interest.
The introduction of the 4 5/8-inch Ruger Flattop created an interest in the caliber for me, but only in that gun & only in heavier loads.

My best reload in terms of accuracy & medium recoil is a Keith-style 255 grainer at 1060 FPS.
Anything higher & I'd go with a .44 Mag.
Anything lower & I wouldn't bother with a .44.

I'm not sure what you're referring to as a conventional load. If you're talking about a 246 gr. RN @ 750 fps, I'm with you. If you're talking about light loads in general, I'm with Craig; you're missing out.

After acquiring my Flat Top, I feverishly worked up loads for my home-poured 260 gr. SWC's until I had them ranging from 800 fps to a little over 1200 fps. I may use the upper end load for deer, but I doubt it. I typically keep a box or so loaded with 6.5 grs. of 20/28 which nets around 850 fps and another box loaded with 7.5 grs. of the same powder for around 975. so far, for general use around the place, I just haven't found the need for more power, but I'm glad top know it's there in case I do!

35W

 

[bannockburn]

Tony

Thanks for your diligent research and for sharing this information with us. I have been a big fan of Skeeter Skelton since I first started reading his featured articles in Shooting Times magazine some forty years ago. Likewise I was drawn into the cult of .44 Special devotees at the same time. A few years back I finally picked one up, the Flattop Ruger Blackhawk with the 4 5/8th barrel, and have been enjoying it tremendously ever since.

 

[Tony_the_tiger]

Excellent choice, bannockburn. The Skeeter and Keith loads are as interesting for their history as they are for their performance. Have any photos of your blackhawk you might share here?

Best,

 

[Old Fuff]

I’ve gone through a lot of .44 Special revolvers in my day, and to say I’m a fan would be an understatement.

At the moment one favorite is a little Taurus model 445, that is a 5-shot, blued, all-steel, unported 2” snubby. I don’t hot dog it with overloads such as those offered by Buffalo Bore, and much prefer it to any .357 Magnum in a similar configuration, as it is only slightly larger the a K-frame Smith & Wesson.

In my view, controlling recoil is as important as raw power, and what really matters over both the .38 Special and .357 is that it makes a larger primary hole that is not dependent on bullet expansion.

Going to a larger frame revolvers (again in my very much then less then humble opinion ) in a 2 to 2 ½” snubby results in a total package that too big for the purpose most of its intended uses, and a longer barrel becomes very advantageous when considered against what mode of carry is going to be used with the beast.

 

[Tony_the_tiger]

At the moment one favorite is a little Taurus model 445, that is a 5-shot, blued, all-steel, unported 2” snubby. I don’t hot dog it with overloads such as those offered by Buffalo Bore, and much prefer it to any .357 Magnum in a similar configuration, as it is only slightly larger the a K-frame Smith & Wesson.

Thanks for your input, Old_Fuff. You know I am appreciative of your experience and your activity on these forums.

My only caveat to this statement is that Buffalo Bore has been introducing several rounds across calibers that defy their reputation for pushing maximum velocities. One example of this, discussed in the .44 special snub thread, is their 200 grain Hard Cast Wadcutter that pulls in just over 900 ft/s out of a 2.5" barrel (with a mean of 920.25 ft/s). In .357 Magnum, they have loaded a 140 Grain Barnes XPB bullet that clocks at 1150 ft/s out of a snub. Both of these loads could have been pushed harder, but in the platform they were designed for they achieve reasonable power without sacrificing accuracy or ability to make quick follow up shots and control the firearm.

Since I do not handload, I have come to appreciate Buffalo Bore's consistency, more so than their ability to push the envelope in terms of velocity, which is why they have been featured in these tests. Even with this 255 Grain Keith load, the company appears to be honoring Skeeter Skelton's vision for the round rather than loading it as hot as possible.

My own criteria for bullet selection places emphasis on accuracy, followed by penetration and bullet design. It's often difficult to find factory level output that can hit that sweet spot in a snub platform. In a Blackhawk, as featured in this thread, everything is easier. Given the weight of the Blackhawk (even on the medium frame), these 255 Grain loads at 1000 ft/s are downright pleasant to shoot.

 

[DPris]

Tony,
Not quibbling over 60 FPS, just saying dropping down below that range wouldn't justify me bothering with a .44 Special at all.
And, I forgot to mention you left out the pie charts. No concern with the verbiage; verb yourself all you want.

Craig & 35,
I was indeed referring to the old 246-er.
For me, the anemic factory loads were pointless.
The .44 Special does nothing in & of itself that the .45 Colt can't do. I've had .45 Colts for many years. I'm set up to reload, I've carried one in uniform, I've carried the caliber in the wilds. I have a couple .45 Colt leverguns.
There has simply never been any reason to bother getting into the .44 Special to duplicate performance I already had with my .45s.

The .44 Special was a reloader's caliber, as far as I was concerned, and I already had enough calibers to load for.

Then I worked with the first Lipsey's .44 Special Flattop model that came out.
The gun was what sold the caliber for me.
I liked the gun. Trim, all steel, decently accurate, and a shade better finished than other Ruger Blackhawks.

Standard .44 Special factory loads are worthless for my purposes, specialty makers' stuff that makes the caliber worthwhile is too expensive to do much with on a regular basis (practice), and I had no interest in shooting the gun recreationally.
I bought it from Ruger when I was done with the T&E.
The intention was to build up a lead load that exceeded what I was doing with my .45 Colts, but not get up into .44 Mag levels. If I want .44 Mag power, I carry one of the .44 Mags.

Goal was above 900 FPS in my .45 Colts, but not far enough above to duplicate the magnums I already had.
A noticeable boost in .45 power, but not too much.

With 255 grains of hardcast Keith lead & 2400 powder I tried different charge weights & found the most accurate one in the velocity range I was looking for put it at 1060 FPS.
A useful increase in power over what I use in the .45 Colts & Smiths, and it's not annoying to shoot with Ruger's cheesegrater hard rubber grips on the gun. (The .44 Mag Flattop with those grips IS quite annoying.)

This load was developed after some discussion with Taffin over the limits of the frame size. Coulda gone higher, but didn't see the point.
I have what I call a "mid-range" .44 load, in a gun I quite like, for use in areas where I think that degree of power is appropriate on animals I may need it for.

That, in my case, doesn't mean hunting.
Here in my state we have wide open areas where cattlemen run free-range herds on public land much of the year.
I've mentioned before that twice I've run into sizable bulls that did not like me being in their territory while I was passing through on an ATV.
Yes- I can out-run them IF I'm in the machine. But, we get out on foot for various reasons & I like to have some sort of heavier-than-normal artillery on me for the possibility of being caught on the ground. We do a fair amount of back country exploring & never know.

No free-range hogs in my state (yet), but wolves are moving in.
Two years ago a coyote attacked a human on the other side of the mountain I live by.
We do have cougar.
This gun & load should be able to handle any of the above critters that could pose a threat to me or anybody else in the group. (I have politely nudged other travel partners to bring something a shade more useful than the 9mms, or nothing at all, that they routinely carry, but... )

So- my one & only .44 Special is here because I liked the gun, not so much the caliber, and because it's a tool carried for a specific use, with one specific load, for one specific power range.
It's had a white outline rear blade and a red front insert installed for quicker acquisition, and the corners of the rear sight base rounded off & re-blued to avoid snagging and gouging.
Belt Mountain basepin.
Indexing plunger removed, it's now a free-wheeler.
Debating on aftermarket grips, but for now they're still factory.

Still no interest in the .44 Special in, or for, anything else.
I could have stayed with a .45 Colt Blackhawk that's been lightly gone over, since I can shoot some heavy stuff through it, but it has an alloy gripframe & ejector housing, and it's just not quite as...appealing as the .44 Flattop.

Denis

 

[Old Fuff]

Both of these loads could have been pushed harder, but in the platform they were designed for they achieve reasonable power without sacrificing accuracy or ability to make quick follow up shots and control the firearm.

That’s largely dependent on what particular revolver configuration is being used. What is controllable in a larger mid-frame-or-larger/4” barrel or longer, double-action or Ruger Blackhawk can become something else in a much lighter/smaller/snubby package, such as my Taurus or some made by Charter Arms. I also consider “controllable” to mean in both one-handed as well as two-handed shooting, as for various reasons the latter may not be an option.

When going to larger guns I am in agreement with both you and fellow member DPris.

 

[Tony_the_tiger]

Thanks again for the input, Old_Fuff. I'd love to hear what you are shooting out of that Taurus. Perhaps you could make an appearance on the .44 special snub thread. I'd like to keep us focused on the Blackhawk here and the use of the caliber in other medium to large frame revolvers.

 

[CraigC]

I like the .44Spl over the .45Colt for several reasons. It's hard to ignore how much variation there is in factory-cut .45Colt chamber dimensions. Some makers do their mouths too small, some too large. Ruger has done both, Colt still cuts them oversized. Almost everybody cuts their chambers too large, particularly in rifles. This means debris in your face with light loads, overworking the brass and a slight loss of efficiency. Of course, this is not the cartridge's fault.

The .45Colt is a lot of wasted case capacity at this strength level (14-22,000psi). The .45ACP, .45AR or .45S&W are all the capacity you need for that pressure range. Unless you're shooting black powder.

The .44Spl 'tends' to not have any of those issues. Guns are usually accurate without gunsmith intervention. Chambers are usually properly dimensioned. Case capacity if a perfect fit for its performance potential. You can get the same potency out of a similarly sized sixgun with less powder. Due to thicker and stronger chamber walls, you can get more velocity with an acceptable margin of safety. Greater load density with less powder with 250's at 900fps and more velocity on the top end of 1200fps. I just think it strikes a better balance than the .45Colt.

 

[bannockburn]

Tony

Here's my Ruger Flattop as per your request. It's currently sporting American Holly grips from Private's Custom Grips. Craftsmanship is outstanding and I love the way they look on a blued gun.

 

[DPris]

I'd considered ivory on mine, but don't know if I want to go quite that smooth.
Does yours tend to wander under recoil with heavy loads?
Denis

 

[bannockburn]

This is an earlier photo of it with Ruger's Rosewood grips, which I bought shortly after I had the gun, to replace the original factory plastic grips. Very nicely made grips (of course, anything would have been better than those black plastic ones), but I really had a hankering for some white American Holly grips.

 

[bannockburn]

Denis

I can't say (about heavy loads), as everything I have in .44 Special ammo at the time is pretty much on the mild side.

 

[DPris]

When I got the 6.5-inch .44 Mag Flattop, it took one shot to realize those shredders were not going to work.
Ordered a pair of the Ruger rosewoods, they didn't fit well enough to keep.
Ruger grips/frames vary in outline. Returned 'em.
Didn't feel like gambling again for either it or the .44 Special.
Have not fired the .44 Mag since, had to finish that session with a glove. On the back burner.

If Ruger'd just tone down the aggressive checkering a bit, I think more people would be happier with them. I certainly would.
For mild stuff, they're fine. Get up into a higher-stepper, they're not.
Worked with one in .357 Mag a couple weeks back. The hottest stuff was two Buff Bore loads (also the most accurate) & those were controllable in the gun, but unpleasant in the hand, and I don't have particularly sensitive hands.
Denis

 

[CraigC]

I never even shot my 50th .44 with the factory cheese graters. I'm at my limit with standard weight bullets at 1200fps. Any more than that and I want a Bisley.

 

[DPris]

There you go again- you sure do have some ugly guns, Craig.
Denis

 

[bannockburn]

Denis

Yep he sure does, with grips to match!

 

[DPris]

How would it be to be able to own hundreds of those ugly guns like he does?
Denis

 

[DPris]

Back to the caliber, wish Marlin would produce a good .44 Special 1894 to match my Flattop.
Denis

 

[Tony_the_tiger]

What is your vision for an 1894 in .44 special that would differ from the 1894 in .44 magnum?