What .44 Special Load Equals .45 ACP?

Status
Not open for further replies.
B

BluedRevolver

Member
Joined
Sep 2, 2011
Messages
123
Location
Louisiana
What .44 Special load would equal a 230 grain .45 ACP going 900 FPS as far as "stopping power"? I know stopping power is an over inflated term but I can't think of a better one.

In other words, how fast and how heavy must a .44 (.43 caliber) bullet be to make up for the .02 diameter difference of a 230 gr. .45 ACP going 900 fps?
 
To make up for the 0.02" diameter difference? Uh...none. The term "statisticaly insignificant" comes to mind. Really, that's a little more than 1/64th of an inch. Pretty difficult to even see with the naked eye. The bullets will expand/deform far more than that tiny diameter difference when they strike something anyway.

The difference that's most common is going to be bullet weight. Some .44 Spc ammo is loaded with 200 gr. bullets. And some (Win Silvertips) are loaded to ANEMIC velocity levels (like 700 fps...:barf:). Gotta watch out for that kind of stuff.

But a 230 gr. .451" bullet is going to be pretty substantially the same as a 240 gr. .430" bullet if they're moving about the same speed.
 
I'm not really aware of a load that is a specific mirror of hi-tech 230 gr. .45 ACP street loads ie; hydra-shok, Gold Dot, Talon, Starfire, etc. Sure would love to see a .44 Special 240 gr. HST or GDHP going an honest 850 from 3-4 inches...

That said, if you respect the 200gr cci/Speer/ATK/whomever "flying ashtray" in .45, then a couple of boutique ammo companies have got your back in .44 Special.

What I'm saying is that bullet design makes a lot more difference than the small diameter disparity.
 
^^^Oh, now we've opened a can o worms!

;)

That's sort of my point above; the old gals in .44 spec just aren't as popular as the LE rounds like .45, .40 or 9mil, so they have not had as much R n D, so far as high tech bullet design.

I'm comfortable with, say, that Buffalo bore 190gr "FBI load on steroids" (especially because I'm comfortable with the original FBI load in .38), but I do believe that the .44 special could really start to shine with some of the newer projectiles like Federal's HST, or Winnie's Ranger Talon.
 
I've posted this before, quite long ago I think. Thanks for bringing it up again. It's a great comparison. I think.

Iv'e shot and chrono'd Corbon 230g JHPs out of my Glock 30 at 950fps.

My handload in my N Frame 44 special is a Speer Gold Dot HP over 17.0g of 2400, and I have chrono'd it at 950fps too, out of a 3" barrel.

I'd call them equal, except for the quality of bullet. I have no idea what brand of JHP the Corbon used and whether or not it has better expansion characteristics than a GDHP.

I'd never shoot the 44 special load out of my 696 though, unless someone could pressure test it and tell me if my 696 could handle it, safely. I doubt it would.
 
There have been at least two Handloader articles

on loading the .44 S&W Spl. beyond the pressure standard of 15,500 SAAMI PSI. Handloader 236 is the exhaustive article, IIRC.

Factory ammo is, of course, built to the (original) standard. The Handloader articles publish tested loads at 22,000 and 27,000 respectively. The former are "Level II" loads, and the latter "Level III," intended to be shot from .44 Mag revolvers (IMO).

I have only worked with one powder in it so far--Power Pistol seems to work exceedingly well in the two Model 24s (4", 3") I have. 8.2 gr. behind a 240-GR. LFP ran about 950 from the 4" on a summer day with 78F temp.

The article's testing showed that 16.0 gr. of 2400 (Level II, or <=22,000 PSI) under the same 250-gr. LFP they used ran about 1150 fps from a 4.25" barrel. There's loads using different JHPs, too--including one that runs the 200-gr. GDJHP up over 1150. This is the load I plan to test next spring as I now have a Night Guard 396 as a possible carry gun....

Last I knew, they still had copies of Handloader 236 for sale. It's a must-have issue for working with the .44 S&W Spl.

Jim H.
 
Last edited:
Sam1911 said:
To make up for the 0.02" diameter difference? Uh...none. The term "statisticaly insignificant" comes to mind. Really, that's a little more than 1/64th of an inch. Pretty difficult to even see with the naked eye. The bullets will expand/deform far more than that tiny diameter difference when they strike something anyway.

The difference that's most common is going to be bullet weight. Some .44 Spc ammo is loaded with 200 gr. bullets. And some (Win Silvertips) are loaded to ANEMIC velocity levels (like 700 fps...:barf:). Gotta watch out for that kind of stuff.

But a 230 gr. .451" bullet is going to be pretty substantially the same as a 240 gr. .430" bullet if they're moving about the same speed.
Click to expand...
Sure the diameter difference isn't much. However, the significant factor is frontal area. And since the frontal area is a function of the radius squared (area = Pi*r²), a .452 bullet has 11% more frontal area than a .429. Which is a bit more significant.
 
Using a permanent wound channel calculator, and a full caliber wadcutter:

Wound channel diameter of 1.017" with a bullet with a meplat diameter of .452", and a striking velocity of 900 fps.
Wound channel diameter of 1.017" with a bullet with a meplat diameter of .429", and a striking velocity of 948 fps.
 
Some experts would prefer the higher sectional density of a .429 bullet to the broader front area of a .451, when comparing bullets of equal weight.

The original tests that led to the development of the .45 ACP evidently actually showed the 7.62 Mauser as the most effective round of the ones tested.
 
Sure the diameter difference isn't much. However, the significant factor is frontal area. And since the frontal area is a function of the radius squared (area = Pi*r²), a .452 bullet has 11% more frontal area than a .429. Which is a bit more significant.
Click to expand...
But that minor difference would still be more than overmatched by the manner in which slight differences introduced through the style of bullet, construction of bullet, hardness of the alloy, etc. would change how the bullet reacted in the target medium.

But assuming that you could make these things identical, I'd still call the 11% difference in frontal area insignificant in the question of damage done by two bullets of approximately 230 gr. and .430" -vs.- .451" being pushed to similar velocities.
 
Sam1911 said:
But that minor difference would still be more than overmatched by the manner in which slight differences introduced through the style of bullet, construction of bullet, hardness of the alloy, etc. would change how the bullet reacted in the target medium.

But assuming that you could make these things identical, I'd still call the 11% difference in frontal area insignificant in the question of damage done by two bullets of approximately 230 gr. and .430" -vs.- .451" being pushed to similar velocities.
Click to expand...


Whether an 11% difference significant or not is a matter of opinion. The point was that what should be compared is frontal area, not diameter.
 
JShirley said:
Some experts would prefer the higher sectional density of a .429 bullet to the broader front area of a .451, when comparing bullets of equal weight.

The original tests that led to the development of the .45 ACP evidently actually showed the 7.62 Mauser as the most effective round of the ones tested.
Click to expand...

Yes, sectional density is higher for a smaller caliber with bullets of equal weight. But that's always true. The way around it is to use a heavier bullet in the larger caliber.
 
The way around it is to use a heavier bullet in the larger caliber.
Click to expand...
Unless you're limited by a short case, like the .45 ACP's, so you can't really use a longer bullet. Only way to increase weight then is fill the HP, get rid of the copper jacket, and change the ogive (which could affect reliability from a semi-auto).

Well, it's an interesting thread; but it mostly revolves around what "equal" is supposed to mean. I'd rather hunt with a .44 Special, and rather carry a .45 ACP for SD (because of the pistol it comes in). If that means they're equal, fine: I do like them both.
 
I believe that the 200 grain CCI Gold Dot will do the job as a comparison. Yes it is 30 grains lighter, but it will hold its own in muzzle velocity, and energy compared to the 230 grain wonder ammo for the 45acp. Both are great calibers. Both will drop a bad guy. Defense ammo is more plentyful then the 44Special. But the Gold Dot and the Buffalo Bore ammo is all that is needed. I know the 190 and 200 from BB are truely awesome for defense.
The person being hit with either the 45 or the 44 will not know the difference. Shot placement still is the final nail in the coffin though. Shoot straight and keep your powder dry.
 
Whether an 11% difference significant or not is a matter of opinion.
Click to expand...
As no two shots are identical, and no two targets are identical or react the same way to being penetrated by a bullet, and because the testing which has been done to try and measure real benefits of differing bullet forms, construction, composition, and velocity has proved amazingly inconclusive and contradictory...then yes. All we're left with is opinion.

Does an 11% increase or decrease in frontal area, offset (or not) by a corresponding increase decrease in sectional density (or vice-versa) make a difference in the terminal performance of a handgun bullet striking a soft target at 900 fps? If so, that difference is so small that no one has ever been able to observe it conclusively.

The point was that what should be compared is frontal area, not diameter.
Click to expand...
In that specific way, you are right. But that's not the only thing that should be (or could be) compared, and if ANY of these things really "matter" when bullet strikes target, that one does not seem to.

Again, though...opinions are all we have.
 
JShirley:

How about a bit more information on the tests to develop the .45ACP?
I thought JMB wanted a 200 grain, non-expanding bullet, at 950 fps, to start with? Our military worried about horses, thought a heavier, slower bullet would penetrate better, hence the 230 grain 850 fps?

The standard they tried to equal was a 255-260 grain .45 Colt bullet at 950-1000 fps?

With expanding bullets,or solids and feet of horse at issue, sectional density is/was a very real issue. Some of the .45 ACP rounds are so good at opening up, penetration becomes a concern.

When I loaded for the .44 Special, I was VERY happy with a 240 grain HP, at 950 fps. Except when I shot my gun loose with that load.

Are SWC as good as hollow points? Better. They never fail to open up, tend to penetrate straight, and wound channel can be the same, or larger, depending on velocity, bullet weight, and design.
 
Last edited:
I have shot many, many different bullets into different media for personal experimentation and the joy of finding out for myself. JHP .44 bullets and JHP .45 bullets of similar weight, design, and construction and at similar velocity are often indistinguishable from each other after expansion. The only way to tell which is which, is with a pair of calipers across the back end and then not always .44 bullets fired at heavy special or light magnum velocities often expand more than .45 auto bullets and regularly make .70 or more caliber.
All of the above to say, they are both fantastic cartridges with fine bullets and fiercesome reputations. They are probably indistinguishable to the end reciever. Practice lots and be confident in either.
 
Prosser,

This was from one of the lectures given at Gunsite. IIRC, the test involved shooting cows, and seeing which cartridge killed the quickest. The only handgun cartridge that killed in a reasonable amount of time (2 minutes, I believe it was) was the 7.62 Mauser. Derek, TexasRifleMan, or 9mmepiphany probably have their notes on hand- mine are 4,000 miles away. The speaker was making the point that the specifications really had nothing to do with what was demonstrated to be most effective, at least on larger animals.

John
 
JShirley:
What cartridges were tested? I'm having a hard time believing a hard cast .45 Colt bullet/cartridge was less effective then the 7.62.

I do understand their is merit to deep, straight penetration, and that is the strong suit of that caliber, and the .375.
 
You may be confusing the effects of a modern hard-cast bullet vs an old soft lead rounded bullet. Projectile design does make a lot of difference.
 
You are right. I'm thinking the colt loads back then were hard cast, or jacketed, due to the Hague Convention of 1898. Were the tests prior to the convention?
 
Thompson-LaGarde Tests

http://unblinkingeye.com/Guns/TLGR/tlgr.html

In my opinion these are poorly done tests. My daughter's science fair project she did in the 4th grade used more "scientific method" than they used in this test. That we ended up with the .45ACP in its' current form, which by the way is my favorite round, is purely happenstance. Or decided on before the test, since there isn't anything in these tests that would favor one round over another.

No control group, no repeatable experiments, etc. It was a long time ago.

I consider the .45ACP and .44 Special to be equals.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

B
  • Locked
.44 Special vs. .45 ACP
2 3 4
Replies
84
Views
11K
Prosser
P
P
  • Locked
.44 Special vs .45 ACP
2 3
Replies
54
Views
5K
Fishslayer
Fishslayer
B
  • Locked
.44 Special Question
2
Replies
27
Views
1K
Magnumite
M
A
  • Locked
44 Special or the 45 ACP
2
Replies
40
Views
1K
Dave T
Dave T
B
  • Locked
.44 Special vs .45 ACP
2
Replies
39
Views
38K
CraigC
CraigC
Back
Top