Shooting .44 spl in .44 magnum

Status
Not open for further replies.

alfon99

Member
Joined
Feb 13, 2013
Messages
317
Location
Cerro Largo, Uruguay
Ok, I know it is safe, but a friend says that shooting shorter cartidges than what the gun was designed for (we were talking about .44 spl in .44 mag) would increase erosion of the forcing cone, chamber etc. I DON'T agree with this. But what do you guys think?
 
Don't think so, the only issue you would have is the need to clean the cylinders when firing specials, just like a 38/357. Yoou will get carbon buildup in the front of the cylinders making magnums kinda sticky chambering and extracting. Just chuck up a brush in your drill and have at it with some Hoppes.
 
Does anyone use the search function? I have only been here since January and I know that I have heard this thread two or three times already.
 
Does anyone use the search function? I have only been here since January and I know that I have heard this thread two or three times already.
This thread is not about if you can, or is safe to shoot shorter cartidges in a longer chamber like .44spl/.44mag or .38spl/.357, but if shooting shorter cartidges increases erotion in the chamber and forcing cone which is what this friend said.
 
Search functions are great, but not necessarily easy to use. Plus

Is there really any topic that hasn't already been discussed in one way or another or to some degree -- I doubt it -- therefore no new topics need be generated -- just use the search function.

FWIW,

Paul
 
hartcreek said:
Does anyone use the search function? I have only been here since January and I know that I have heard this thread two or three times already.
If you find what appears to be an oft-repeated @SUBJ annoying, do as I do and just don't open the silly thing ... move along and find something that looks interesting to you. ;)
 
Hey expat I am with you. If you donot like a post do not read it.
 
It won't hurt anything at all. How could if affect the forcing cone any different? It can crud up the chamber ahead of the shorter brass after awhile making it necessary to clean them, but I doubt a fellow could shoot enough to damage that area.

Folks shoot a lot of .44 Spl in .44 Mag revolvers, and folks shoot billions of .38 Spl rounds in .357 chambers. If it damaged things, I believe we would know by now.

The THR search function isn't the best in the world. I use Google to search it. Like this: ".44 spl in .44 mag @ THR" - It seems to work better, but even when I know what I am searching for sometimes it can be hard to find.

Repeat topics? You bet, there are always folks new to the game or new to the subject looking for help, which THR members are so happy to provide. The members helping members is much of what makes THR great.

Let's see, I wonder how many times we have tried to answer "crimp" questions over in reloading. Just a few, just a few... :)
 
The forcing cone doesn't care one way or another and all you'll get in the chamber is a little extra crud between the case mouth and the lip of the .44Mag's chamber.
 
Agreed

Gbexpat thanks for those words. As a fairly new member and a member of various other websites it is frustrating to hear "just search previous threads" I have waded through hundreds of pages of old threads looking for specific info relevant to me. And if us newbies didn't start new threads the site wouldn't be refreshed as much! Thanks!
 
If folks really used the search function, there'd be virtually no new threads to check out every day, and no new weekly "what handgun for grizzly defense" and "who likes MIM parts?" debates.........:D


I wonder what one would come up with if they ran a search on "but my friend tells me........."?
 
Shot a lot of .38 in a .357 and shot a lot of .44 special in a .44 mag with my father in law...thousands of .44. No problems ever except the cleaning already mentioned.

Google searches turn up better stuff then the THR search function as Walkalong mentioned....I personally do not mind fielding the same discussions over and over as newer folks come in. It's a discussion forum - seriously, we have already discussed *all* of it so we could just post stickies with links or post links to past discussions and we'd never have to talk to each other at all.

What's the fun in that? :evil:

I do understand that folks get tired of the same thing over and over but usually there is some tiny tidbit of extra that comes each time if we are up to participating and discussing it again. :)

VooDoo
 
Your friend does not know what he's talking about. Keep that in mind when he tells you anything.
 
Your friend does not know what he's talking about. Keep that in mind when he tells you anything.

Howdy

I chose to be a bit more charitable than that. Often times these statements can be chalked up to a misunderstanding of basic definitions.

would increase erosion of the forcing cone, chamber etc. I DON'T agree with this. But what do you guys think?

A lot of folks think the forcing cone is that portion of a chamber where the diameter necks down from case diameter to bullet diameter. Just to get some definitions straight. The round thing with all the holes in it is the cylinder. The holes in the cylinder are chambers, or if you have Smith and Wesson, they are charge holes. The holes in your engine block where the pistons ride up and down are cylinders, but in a firearm, the holes are chambers, not cylinders. The portion of the chamber that matches the diameter of the bullet is the chamber throat. The forcing cone is the funnel shaped detail at the rear of a revolver barrel that gathers and straightens any bullets that have not left the cylinder perfectly true and in line with the bore.

So........if we examine this statement 'would increase erosion of the forcing cone, chamber etc.', what he may actually be saying is shooting short cases may increase erosion of the chamber at the point it narrows down to the chamber throat. This is absolutely true. The carbon ring that forms at the mouth of the cartridge case is a porous deposit of lead and carbon. Being porous, it can attract moisture from the air. Left unattended long enough the moisture in contact with the chamber wall can indeed cause corrosion to the chamber. I have a Model 19 that I bought a bazillion years ago, and unfortunately it sat uncleaned for about 20 years while I was not active in the shooting sports. There is indeed microscopic pitting where the carbon rings had formed, caused by the moisture in contact with the chambers for all those years. I have cleaned those chambers absolutely spic and span clean, there is no longer any carbon or lead there, but the microscopic pitting will be there forever. Has it adversely affected the accuracy or function of the gun? Absolutely not. But the pitting is there.

Now..........if the guy really meant shooting short cases can cause corrosion at the forcing cone at the end of the barrel, then yes, he does not know what he is talking about.
 
Does the accuracy go down by having the bullet seating deeper in the chamber?

To a certain extent, yes. But most shooters will not be good enough to actually be able to detect the difference between a bullet that has to jump a bit of freebore, compared to one that enters the chamber throat without any freebore. In theory, a bullet leaping across a chamber without any support for 1/10" or so could acquire some wobble, which might affect accuracy as it gets forced into the chamber throat and then the forcing cone. But in actuality, one would have to be a very good shooter to detect this.

Near the end of the 19th Century Smith and Wesson introduced a couple of special target cartridges called the 38-44, and the 32-44. Not to be confused with the 38-44 cartridge of the 1930s, this 38-44 was basically an extra long 38S&W, that extended the full length of the cylinder. Same with the 32-44. The '44' part of the cartridge name simply denoted that these cartridges were used in the large frame Top Break revolvers that were usually chambered for 44 caliber cartridges like the 44 Russian. The bullet was seated down inside the case, sub-flush. The idea was there was no free bore, and there was no chamber throat. The bullet left the confines of the cartridge case and entered the forcing cone directly, with no opportunity to wobble. Target accuracy records were achieved with these cartridges that have never been equaled, but this was at the international Olympic level of competition.

For most of us, a little bit of freebore does not matter much.
 
To a certain extent, yes. But most shooters will not be good enough to actually be able to detect the difference between a bullet that has to jump a bit of freebore, compared to one that enters the chamber throat without any freebore. In theory, a bullet leaping across a chamber without any support for 1/10" or so could acquire some wobble, which might affect accuracy as it gets forced into the chamber throat and then the forcing cone. But in actuality, one would have to be a very good shooter to detect this.

Near the end of the 19th Century Smith and Wesson introduced a couple of special target cartridges called the 38-44, and the 32-44. Not to be confused with the 38-44 cartridge of the 1930s, this 38-44 was basically an extra long 38S&W, that extended the full length of the cylinder. Same with the 32-44. The '44' part of the cartridge name simply denoted that these cartridges were used in the large frame Top Break revolvers that were usually chambered for 44 caliber cartridges like the 44 Russian. The bullet was seated down inside the case, sub-flush. The idea was there was no free bore, and there was no chamber throat. The bullet left the confines of the cartridge case and entered the forcing cone directly, with no opportunity to wobble. Target accuracy records were achieved with these cartridges that have never been equaled, but this was at the international Olympic level of competition.

For most of us, a little bit of freebore does not matter much.
Thank you for the explanation.
 
To a certain extent, yes. But most shooters will not be good enough to actually be able to detect the difference between a bullet that has to jump a bit of freebore, compared to one that enters the chamber throat without any freebore. In theory, a bullet leaping across a chamber without any support for 1/10" or so could acquire some wobble, which might affect accuracy as it gets forced into the chamber throat and then the forcing cone. But in actuality, one would have to be a very good shooter to detect this.

Near the end of the 19th Century Smith and Wesson introduced a couple of special target cartridges called the 38-44, and the 32-44. Not to be confused with the 38-44 cartridge of the 1930s, this 38-44 was basically an extra long 38S&W, that extended the full length of the cylinder. Same with the 32-44. The '44' part of the cartridge name simply denoted that these cartridges were used in the large frame Top Break revolvers that were usually chambered for 44 caliber cartridges like the 44 Russian. The bullet was seated down inside the case, sub-flush. The idea was there was no free bore, and there was no chamber throat. The bullet left the confines of the cartridge case and entered the forcing cone directly, with no opportunity to wobble. Target accuracy records were achieved with these cartridges that have never been equaled, but this was at the international Olympic level of competition.

For most of us, a little bit of freebore does not matter much.
You'd better stay away from the Black Powder folks. All the cap'n ballers insist on having the ball/bullet loaded to the front of the cylinder for accuracy, even if fillers are necessary. What do you say to that?
 
O.k This post has been open for 24 hours now, time to delete it before someone else sees it. That way tomorrow somebody else can ask the same question and not get yelled at. Geez take it easy over there.
 
You'd better stay away from the Black Powder folks. All the cap'n ballers insist on having the ball/bullet loaded to the front of the cylinder for accuracy, even if fillers are necessary. What do you say to that?

Who exactly are 'all the cap'n ballers? I have been shooting cap & ball revolvers since 1968, and I have NEVER done that. I never even heard of that. I also never use fillers. I dump in the powder, seat a felt wad, and then seat the ball down on top of the wad, being sure I generate some compression. The ball is always seated down a bit from the front of the cylinder. But what do I know, I am so new to cap & ball.
 
Hey,,,,,, I was just funning....

There is an old Western phrase, that first appeared in The Virginian published in 1902, variously quoted as "When you call me that, smile' or 'Smile when you say that'. It means if you are going to say something provocative, smile when you say it so we know you are just joking.

You might consider adding a smiley face if you are just funning, because nobody can see your face at the keyboard.
 
Quote from DriftwoodJohnson

To a certain extent, yes. But most shooters will not be good enough to actually be able to detect the difference between a bullet that has to jump a bit of freebore, compared to one that enters the chamber throat without any freebore. In theory, a bullet leaping across a chamber without any support for 1/10" or so could acquire some wobble, which might affect accuracy as it gets forced into the chamber throat and then the forcing cone. But in actuality, one would have to be a very good shooter to detect this.

As many people know, and my super testosterony screen name suggests, I really enjoy shooting S&W 460 magnum.

(That name is a joke between a friend and I actually. I said "I need a screen name." He said "What's your favorite cartridge?" "460 magnum." "You should be 460Kodiak....... yeah" while he made a mean face. I responded "Great...... now I have to grow a mullet.")

However, I do enjoy firing 45 colt and 454 casull in my X frame as well. I know you can also shoot 45 Schofield out of it too. I have often wondered about the change in accuracy do to the extended chamber jump that would take place because of this. The 460 magnum is a very long cartridge, and the Schofield is quite short in comparison. I wondered if the extreme difference would enhance that accuracy loss as a result. I have not noticed a difference in shooting colts out of it, but as you said, I and most shooters are not good enough to even notice a difference in accuracy.

I think it would be fun to put a target out at like 50 yards, put the gun on a ransom rest, and see what the different groups look like.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top