The .44 Special threads reminded me...

[Mixed Nuts]

The threads on .44 Special reminded me of a question I’ve had about .44 Special and .45 Colt.

I’ll try to keep focused on the Special here, but info on either cartridge is appreciated.

Where does one find “Ruger Only” loads for the .44 Special? Is there even such a thing? Sometimes, when people mention the performance of their handloads in .44 Special, they describe heavier bullet weights at velocities beyond what any of my loading data lists at “max loads.”

My Lee, Modern Reloading Second Edition, has a section for “Ruger and T/C Only” in .45 Colt. But there is no similar section for .44 Special. My Lyman manual has a “T/C Only” section but Ruger is not specified as a platform for these heavier loads and there is no +P section for .44 Special.

Also,It seems like there are no Alliant 2400 loads in the Lee manual anywhere. There is powder, listed as HERC 2400, is this Alliant 2400? If not, why the listing, isn’t HERC 2400 a powder no longer manufactured?

I’m running in circles a bit here, but this is what happens every time I consider .44 Special. I get to thinking that the new Ruger, 5 Shot, 5” .44 Special shooting a 240 or 250 grain bullet at 1050 FPS or so, would be a great, compact and heavy hitting hiking gun, but then I remember that I can’t find loading data for those velocities. So then I get to thinking, “just get a .44 magnum and load it down.” But Except for that one S&W – I think the 629 – the .44 mags are all bigger guns and more weight to pack.

 

[Driftwood Johnson]

Howdy

I suspect the reason you won't find 'Ruger Only' loads for 44 Special in any loading manuals is because traditionally 44 Special revolvers were not as heavily built as a 44 Magnum, and would not take 'Ruger Only' pressures. Just like you don't see 'Ruger Only' loads for 38 Special, even though the old S&W N frame 38-44 revolvers, the forerunners of the 357 Magnum, could have taken the pressure.

It is a different story with 'Ruger Only' loads for 45 Colt because the frame and cylinder size Ruger uses for their 45 Blackhawks is the same frame and cylinder size as their 44 Magnum Super Blackhawk. That was of course before Ruger started making the New Vaquero and the current 44 Special Flat Top on a smaller frame. The big cylinder and frame of the 45 Blackhawks can take the increased pressure.

For loaded ammo, Buffalo Bore makes some 'Heavy' ammunition that does not exceed standard 44 Special pressures and can be fired in most 44 Special revolvers. However, be sure to read the specifics of each load. They specifically say which revolvers can and which revolvers cannot take these heavy loads.

 

[Slamfire]

Where does one find “Ruger Only” loads for the .44 Special? Is there even such a thing? Sometimes, when people mention the performance of their handloads in .44 Special, they describe heavier bullet weights at velocities beyond what any of my loading data lists at “max loads.”

It must have been thirty years after the introduction of the Ruger Blackhawk in 45 LC that reloading manuals started to show "Ruger Only" levels. It will be a while till we see "Ruger Only" 44 Special loads.

 

[WrongHanded]

The threads on .44 Special reminded me of a question I’ve had about .44 Special and .45 Colt.

I’ll try to keep focused on the Special here, but info on either cartridge is appreciated.

Where does one find “Ruger Only” loads for the .44 Special? Is there even such a thing? Sometimes, when people mention the performance of their handloads in .44 Special, they describe heavier bullet weights at velocities beyond what any of my loading data lists at “max loads.”

My Lee, Modern Reloading Second Edition, has a section for “Ruger and T/C Only” in .45 Colt. But there is no similar section for .44 Special. My Lyman manual has a “T/C Only” section but Ruger is not specified as a platform for these heavier loads and there is no +P section for .44 Special.

Also,It seems like there are no Alliant 2400 loads in the Lee manual anywhere. There is powder, listed as HERC 2400, is this Alliant 2400? If not, why the listing, isn’t HERC 2400 a powder no longer manufactured?

I’m running in circles a bit here, but this is what happens every time I consider .44 Special. I get to thinking that the new Ruger, 5 Shot, 5” .44 Special shooting a 240 or 250 grain bullet at 1050 FPS or so, would be a great, compact and heavy hitting hiking gun, but then I remember that I can’t find loading data for those velocities. So then I get to thinking, “just get a .44 magnum and load it down.” But Except for that one S&W – I think the 629 – the .44 mags are all bigger guns and more weight to pack.

I went through the same thing. And I also considered the 5 shot GP100 in .44 Special. I also had dreams of a 240gr bullet going 1,050fps from that gun.

From everything I've heard and read about hot loaded .44 Special, it really boils down to a choice. You can either make educated guesses with limited or no data, based on; fudging numbers down from .44 Mag data; from the guys who did it back before the .44 Magnum was created; or from whatever random untested/unvarified "data" you can find floating around online. Or you can do what I did, which is that I realized I'd be working in the dark with things I don't really understand, without enough knowledge or experience, and pushing a gun made for SAAMI specs (and probably less safety margin than other revolvers built by the same company) into potentially unsafe territory. That was not a place I wanted to go, but I understand why some do.

 

[MidRoad]

https://www.gunsamerica.com/blog/ross-seyfried-lipseys-ruger-flattop-44-special-bisley-revolvers/

Good read

Here's another

http://www.downrange.tv/blog/review-lipseys-ruger-gp100-44-special/40511/

Just stick to the Skeeter load like to said and you'll have a sweet packing pistol with the gp100. Not a Smith guy, but there's always the new model 69 too. But I bet the 44 mags wouldn't be fun to shoot out of it and you end up with hot 44 special loads anyways.

 

[RKRCPA]

Easiest way to get up to speed on modern 44 Special loads is Handloader magazine. There have been several very comprehensive articles written by Brian Pearce.

http://www.goodrichfamilyassoc.org/44_Special_Articles/

Lots of good reading at the above link.

 

[Paladin7]

Personally, I'd go with the S&W Model 69 in 44 Magnum at 37.4 oz vs the Ruger GP100 44 Special at 36 oz. Not sure if 1.4 oz even matters.

The Brian Pearce Handloader Magazine Article referred to by RKRCPA is a good reference for hotter 44 Specials and the guns that can handle them, but these 5 Shot revolvers in 44 Special like the S&W 696 or Ruger GP100 tend to have very thin forcing cones. So, bottom line, they may not be the best for hot 44 Specials, esp. if fired frequently.

As to why there are 45 Colt "Ruger Only" Loads, it is most likely due to the fact that the Ruger guns are plenty strong enough to allow for magnumizing (if that's even a word) the 45 Colt. With the 44 Special, there is no need to hot rod it, since you have the 44 Magnum.

Hope this helps...

 

[gotboostvr]

https://www.gunsamerica.com/blog/ross-seyfried-lipseys-ruger-flattop-44-special-bisley-revolvers/

Good read

Here's another

http://www.downrange.tv/blog/review-lipseys-ruger-gp100-44-special/40511/

Just stick to the Skeeter load like to said and you'll have a sweet packing pistol with the gp100. Not a Smith guy, but there's always the new model 69 too. But I bet the 44 mags wouldn't be fun to shoot out of it and you end up with hot 44 special loads anyways.

Man, I really wanted one of those 5" 44spcl GP100's but thought the forcing cone looked real thin. I just kept thinking about the earlier S&W 44spcl L frames busting forcing cones. So I talked myself out of it. But I haven't heard any complaints yet, plus I still really want to like it. So I might have talked myself back into it.

 

[Charlie98]

With the 44 Special, there is no need to hot rod it, since you have the 44 Magnum.

Really... this ^^^ There is no need to hotrod the .44SPC, it's a fine cartridge just the way it is. It would be like taking a .38SPC revolver and trying to load heavy Ruger-only .38SPC loads for it. Could it be done? Sure, but why... when there is the .357MAG?

Personally, I'm kind of over the whole '.44SPC is magical' thing. I've got one... a Lipsey's Flattop 5.5", and while it's a handy pistol in a reasonable cartridge, it's nothing that my .41's don't do... and it would be one less mouth to feed if I didn't have it. I never owned a .44 until I took a chance on my Flattop, and if and when I sell it, it'll be my last one.

 

[MidRoad]

Really... this ^^^ There is no need to hotrod the .44SPC, it's a fine cartridge just the way it is. It would be like taking a .38SPC revolver and trying to load heavy Ruger-only .38SPC loads for it. Could it be done? Sure, but why... when there is the .357MAG?

Personally, I'm kind of over the whole '.44SPC is magical' thing. I've got one... a Lipsey's Flattop 5.5", and while it's a handy pistol in a reasonable cartridge, it's nothing that my .41's don't do... and it would be one less mouth to feed if I didn't have it. I never owned a .44 until I took a chance on my Flattop, and if and when I sell it, it'll be my last one.

I kind of see 44 spl vs 41 mag like indo 30-30 vs 35 rem. 44 spl and 30-30 are classics that can be over looked for what they are capable of an seen as underpowered compared to more modern caliber. Yet get the job done while still being easy on the user,yes there are better calibers but simply they just plain work when used within their limits while oftern coming in smaller lighter packages.

Same goes for the 41 mag and 35 rem. Again underrated ,kinda like the redheaded step children ( no offense intended to anyone there!)of the gun world yet are quite possible some of the best all around big game calibers you can come across for their inteded use yet people seem to go for the latest and greatest magnums or big bores than taking a look at what may actually provide excellent performance in a well balanced package.

Edit to add:
My father has a sbh Hunter in 41 mag and I must say I've been impressed with how it shoots and the performance you can get out of it.

 

[eastbank]

my S&W SS 624,s forcing cone is fine and I shoot a 240gr cast bullet at 900-1000 fps and have shot thru a large doe from stem to stern. if I need any more I take my S&W 29 in 44 mag

 

[CraigC]

There were heavy loads several decades before Ruger got into the game, going back to the 1930's. Fact is, Ruger is but one manufacturer whose guns are capable of heavier loads than the milquetoast factory stuff. Any post-war Colt SAA, New Frontier, USFA, late model Uberti, N-frame, etc., are capable of handling the Keith load. Except for the GP-100, it's all spelled out pretty clear in Handloader #236, #286 and numerous other articles by Pearce, John Taffin, Skeeter Skelton and the like.

Here's the reason for playing on other side of the fence with the .44Spl. Thirty seven ounces of pure joy. At least half a pound lighter than your average .44Mag. If all I need is a 250gr at 900-1200fps, why would I want to pack around something capable of a 355gr at 1200fps?

 

[35 Whelen]

The threads on .44 Special reminded me of a question I’ve had about .44 Special and .45 Colt.

I’ll try to keep focused on the Special here, but info on either cartridge is appreciated.

Where does one find “Ruger Only” loads for the .44 Special? Is there even such a thing? Sometimes, when people mention the performance of their handloads in .44 Special, they describe heavier bullet weights at velocities beyond what any of my loading data lists at “max loads.”

My Lee, Modern Reloading Second Edition, has a section for “Ruger and T/C Only” in .45 Colt. But there is no similar section for .44 Special. My Lyman manual has a “T/C Only” section but Ruger is not specified as a platform for these heavier loads and there is no +P section for .44 Special.

Also,It seems like there are no Alliant 2400 loads in the Lee manual anywhere. There is powder, listed as HERC 2400, is this Alliant 2400? If not, why the listing, isn’t HERC 2400 a powder no longer manufactured?

I’m running in circles a bit here, but this is what happens every time I consider .44 Special. I get to thinking that the new Ruger, 5 Shot, 5” .44 Special shooting a 240 or 250 grain bullet at 1050 FPS or so, would be a great, compact and heavy hitting hiking gun, but then I remember that I can’t find loading data for those velocities. So then I get to thinking, “just get a .44 magnum and load it down.” But Except for that one S&W – I think the 629 – the .44 mags are all bigger guns and more weight to pack.

Jiminy Christmas, some people must live under rocks!!

"Heavy" data for the .44 Special has been around for decades, anyone here ever heard of Elmer Keith??? After Alliant (then Hercules) 2400 was introduced in the 1930's, Mr. Keith began loading cast 250 gr. SWC's over 18.0 +/- grs. of 2400 in balloon head cases in his Colt SA .44 Special, achieving a velocity of around 1200 fps. This load was later tested at about 25,000 psi. With todays solid head cases, 17.0 grs. of 2400 will do pretty much the same thing, or at least it has for me.



.44 Special Heavy Loads.

TheSixguns and Loads of Elmer Keith

The best modern resource: Loading the .44 Special

And by far the best resource is www.loaddata.com wherein one can find, download and print over 300,000 loads including several hundred for the .44 Special, with many broken down into pressure categories (14,000, 22,000 and 25,000 psi).

I shoot the .44 Special more than all my other revolvers combined (I own five .44 Special revolvers), and just tonight tested some loads in my Flat Top Blackhawk. They consisted of a home-cast 250 gr. SWCHP of the gas check variety over 8.5 grs. of Unique. This load is <22,000 psi and velocities averaged 1068 fps with 50 yd. accuracy more than sufficient for deer size game. Last night after work I tested 8.0 grs. of Unique in my Cimarron Model P .44 Special with the same bullet. For some reason the lighter load gave almost the same velocity in the Cimarron as the heavier load did in the Black hawk. It too was plenty accurate at 50 yds.



So, I guess to my way of thinking, why would I want a .44 Magnum when a ,44 Special will do what I need??

35W

 

[Mixed Nuts]

There were heavy loads several decades before Ruger got into the game, going back to the 1930's. Fact is, Ruger is but one manufacturer whose guns are capable of heavier loads than the milquetoast factory stuff. Any post-war Colt SAA, New Frontier, USFA, late model Uberti, N-frame, etc., are capable of handling the Keith load. Except for the GP-100, it's all spelled out pretty clear in Handloader #236, #286 and numerous other articles by Pearce, John Taffin, Skeeter Skelton and the like.

Here's the reason for playing on other side of the fence with the .44Spl. Thirty seven ounces of pure joy. At least half a pound lighter than your average .44Mag. If all I need is a 250gr at 900-1200fps, why would I want to pack around something capable of a 355gr at 1200fps?

View attachment 796944

Thanks for the info on the limits of the GP100 as a +p .44 Special. Looks like the Blackhawk (and a few other single actions) would be the move for shooting higher pressure .44 Special.

 

[375supermag]

Really... this ^^^ There is no need to hotrod the .44SPC, it's a fine cartridge just the way it is. It would be like taking a .38SPC revolver and trying to load heavy Ruger-only .38SPC loads for it. Could it be done? Sure, but why... when there is the .357MAG?

Personally, I'm kind of over the whole '.44SPC is magical' thing. I've got one... a Lipsey's Flattop 5.5", and while it's a handy pistol in a reasonable cartridge, it's nothing that my .41's don't do... and it would be one less mouth to feed if I didn't have it. I never owned a .44 until I took a chance on my Flattop, and if and when I sell it, it'll be my last one.

 

[Mixed Nuts]

Oh. And I wrote a e-letter to Alliant. They wrote back to say that HERC 2400 is the same as Alliant 2400. So anyone who wasn't sure. You may still not be sure but now you've heard some internet guy tell you that Alliant says it's the same thing.

 

[cfullgraf]

Personally, I do not hot rod the 44 Special or 45 Colt for that matter. If I want higher velocities than 44 Special or 45 Colt, I'd get a 44 Magnum or 454 Casull revolver. (I do currently have a 460 S&W Magnum revolver if I want wrist snapping recoil and big engine block penetration performance.)

In the days of Elmer Kieth and others, the magnum guns and cartridges were not available and through their efforts we have a variety of Magnum guns and cartridges available for our use. But, it is reported that Elmer Kieth destroyed a bunch of large frame 44 Special guns in his pursuit of what became the the 44 Magnum.

To me, these days, it just does not make sense to push the old cartridges beyond what they were originally designed for even though many of the current manufactured guns are stronger. If you want higher performance, buy a gun designated for the higher performance cartridge.

But, what do I know, do what floats your boat.

 

[CraigC]

In point of fact, Elmer Keith never blew up a .44Spl.

It makes sense to me to load these guns heavier than SAAMI specs because the guns are smaller and lighter. Going back to the beginning, all Keith wanted was for the industry to adopt his heavy 26,000psi, 1200fps .44Spl load. What we got was 250fps faster and over 10,000psi higher pressure. While S&W adapted their +50yr old N-frame, for other makes and models, it required a larger frame and heavier gun than Keith's load would've required. So we got the large frame Blackhawk and Super Blackhawk, along with the Redhawk and Super Redhawk from Ruger. As I stated before, sometimes you need more than factory .44Spl but less than .44Mag. That .44Spl mid-frame pictured above is over a half pound lighter than a comparable .44Mag and that makes a big difference on the hip. Because like the 34oz GP100, it's a .357 sized frame. Same for the Colt SAA (or replica), much handier than any Super Blackhawk. Again, if all I need is a 250gr at 1000-1200fps, why would I carry something capable of a bullet 100gr heavier at the same speed? There's a big performance gap between a 246gr at 700fps and a 250gr at 1450fps or a 355gr at 1200fps. Slightly heavier .44Spl loads fill that gap handily and they do it in the perfect sized sixgun.

 

[MidRoad]

Personally, I do not hot rod the 44 Special or 45 Colt for that matter. If I want higher velocities than 44 Special or 45 Colt, I'd get a 44 Magnum or 454 Casull revolver. (I do currently have a 460 S&W Magnum revolver if I want wrist snapping recoil and big engine block penetration performance.)

In the days of Elmer Kieth and others, the magnum guns and cartridges were not available and through their efforts we have a variety of Magnum guns and cartridges available for our use. But, it is reported that Elmer Kieth destroyed a bunch of large frame 44 Special guns in his pursuit of what became the the 44 Magnum.

To me, these days, it just does not make sense to push the old cartridges beyond what they were originally designed for even though many of the current manufactured guns are stronger. If you want higher performance, buy a gun designated for the higher performance cartridge.

But, what do I know, do what floats your boat.

I've heard that Elmer did not actually destroy a .44 special. It was actually a 45 colt. Apparently it happened on the 4th of july,shooting at a BBQ/party.It was a mild round that wasn't hot rodded. The case apparently split and failed,so the gun was bit at fault. And he blamed it on being loaded previously with black powder,weakening the case or maybe it was a loose chamber or something,not sure which one.

 

[MidRoad]

In point of fact, Elmer Keith never blew up a .44Spl.

It makes sense to me to load these guns heavier than SAAMI specs because the guns are smaller and lighter. Going back to the beginning, all Keith wanted was for the industry to adopt his heavy 26,000psi, 1200fps .44Spl load. What we got was 250fps faster and over 10,000psi higher pressure. While S&W adapted their +50yr old N-frame, for other makes and models, it required a larger frame and heavier gun than Keith's load would've required. So we got the large frame Blackhawk and Super Blackhawk, along with the Redhawk and Super Redhawk from Ruger. As I stated before, sometimes you need more than factory .44Spl but less than .44Mag. That .44Spl mid-frame pictured above is over a half pound lighter than a comparable .44Mag and that makes a big difference on the hip. Because like the 34oz GP100, it's a .357 sized frame. Same for the Colt SAA (or replica), much handier than any Super Blackhawk. Again, if all I need is a 250gr at 1000-1200fps, why would I carry something capable of a bullet 100gr heavier at the same speed? There's a big performance gap between a 246gr at 700fps and a 250gr at 1450fps or a 355gr at 1200fps. Slightly heavier .44Spl loads fill that gap handily and they do it in the perfect sized sixgun.

Well put Craig!

Was Keith shooting less than 26000 psi with his load because it was originally in a balloon head case? Still trying to learn about the man!

 

[CraigC]

If I recall correctly, it was with balloonhead cases that he first had them pressure tested at HP White Labs. Brian Pearce has since had them tested at the same pressure in solid head brass.

Keith blew an old surplus .45 SAA with a .45-70 bullet cut down to 300gr, loaded over a caseful of finely ground blackpowder. He attributed it to a chainfire caused by a creeping primer. All it did was blow off the loading gate. Thus began the myth of the weak .45Colt case that persists to this day.

 

[35 Whelen]

Personally, I do not hot rod the 44 Special or 45 Colt for that matter. If I want higher velocities than 44 Special or 45 Colt, I'd get a 44 Magnum or 454 Casull revolver. (I do currently have a 460 S&W Magnum revolver if I want wrist snapping recoil and big engine block penetration performance.)

In the days of Elmer Kieth and others, the magnum guns and cartridges were not available and through their efforts we have a variety of Magnum guns and cartridges available for our use. But, it is reported that Elmer Kieth destroyed a bunch of large frame 44 Special guns in his pursuit of what became the the 44 Magnum.

To me, these days, it just does not make sense to push the old cartridges beyond what they were originally designed for even though many of the current manufactured guns are stronger. If you want higher performance, buy a gun designated for the higher performance cartridge.

But, what do I know, do what floats your boat.

Craig and Bones are correct; Elmer Keith didn't blow up any .44 Specials. The two instances of blowing up revolvers I recall from his book Sixguns were both 45 Colts. One was the weak balloon head case loaded with finely ground black powder that ruptured and blew off the loading gate, and the other was while he was celebrating the 4th of July, firing his revolver into the air from a hotel balcony. If memory serves, that time his 45 Colt was handloaded with No. 80 powder, but I do not remember the exact circumstances.

Lots of folks seem to refer content of Keith's books, but have never read any of them.

35W

 

[CraigC]

Lots of folks seem to refer content of Keith's books, but have never read any of them.

That seems to be the case, more often than not.

 

[MidRoad]

That seems to be the case, more often than not.

I'm guilty of that, the community around here has been great and full of knowledge and really help e broaden my interests in shooting. I think it's time to do some reading.

 

[CraigC]

Get Max's latest book too, it turned out really good.