CraigC
Sixgun Nut
double post
Last edited:
Will Buffalo Bore 340 gr +P+ Hurt my New Ruger Redhawk 44?
- Thread starter Evergreen
- Start date
- Status
CraigC
Sixgun Nut
It's absolutely true, without question! In .45Colt, the N-frame should be held to around 22,000psi. While the Redhawk can be pushed to over double that. Which is purely a function of strength. Specifically the cylinder. The weakest point of the cylinder is the bolt notch. Where the N-frame's bolt cut is directly over the chamber, the Redhawk's is offset and between chambers. Not to mention the significantly larger diameter. Add that to the massive frame (yes forgings are stronger than castings but the Ruger is still stronger), along with robust lockwork and you have a .45 sixgun that can be loaded to 50,000psi. Loads that will grenade the S&W in short order.
I'll heed Linebaugh's position on reading pressure signs in straight-walled revolver cartridges.
Strength is a limiting factor. The shorter cylinder is simply coincidence. These loads in question are too long for the N-frame but they also produce too much pressure for the guns.
hardluk1
member
My Dan Wesson 44 mag has a cylinder length of 1.764" and 1.96" wide. That would allow longer loads to chamber than several other revolvers out there and then if you have one of DW super mags they run anougher 3/10 longer.
Last edited:
NM Mountainman
Member
Duplicate
Last edited:
NM Mountainman
Member
CraigC:
I agree: the 629 is definitely not as strong as the Redhawk. Your .44 mag is definitely bigger, stronger, and heavier than my .44 mag. And when loaded with the highest pressure ammo that each revolver can handle, your .44 is more powerful than my .44! Your .44 can whup my .44's heinie!
And I agree that the location of the cylinder bolt cuts in the cylinder of the 629 is an incredibly poor design which S&W can and should correct with a redesign.
I wouldn't own an N frame in .45 Colt. (Or anything else in .45 Colt for that matter. If I want to go larger than .44, I will go to .454 Casull.) As far as I know they are not designed to handle pressures greater than the old SAAMI pressure limits for the low pressure factory loads.
But there is no evidence that the cylinder and frame of a 629 are not strong enough for .44 mag ammo which meets SAAMI specs. The frame and cylinder are not in danger of breaking or failing with recommended loads. That's what I meant by saying that the lesser strength of the 629 is not a limiting factor. When used with ammo which meets SAAMI specs, the lesser strength of the 629 does not result in any dangers or problems.
According to Linebaugh, firing a cylinder full of rounds at pressures of 50,000 cup will not cause the cylinder of a 629 to fail. And regardless of what your micrometer tells you about your case heads, you would be well advised to avoid pressures which exceed SAAMI specs by more that 4000 or 5000 cup. The superior strength of a Redhawk confers a little greater safety margin, but it is not a license to be reckless or unsafe. If you want to be able to extract your empties by hand, the strength of the brass case is still the limiting factor.
You will never need to fire more than a dozen or so rounds a year at pressures over SAAMI limits. I'm sure you're a competent handloader, but let Buffalo Bore load those rounds for you. They have the testing equipment and the know how, and they know how to safely approach the upper limits of your Redhawk.
Most revolvers of all brands have imperfect barrel/cylinder alignment and imperfectly adjusted timing. And all brands of revolvers (with the possible exception of Freedom) will need a tune-up and timing adjustment after thousands of rounds at max pressure. But that kind of heavy use poses no dangers and rarely causes any problems for the frame or cylinder of a 629 that was built after the mid 1990's. (I don't remember the exact year.)
I have owned a Redhawk and a Super Blackhawk. They were good hunting revolvers, but they (those particular revolvers which I owned) were not quite accurate enough for my needs. If I were going to fire thousands of rounds right at the SAAMI max pressure limit or if I wanted to experiment with loads which exceed SAAMI limits by a little bit, I would use a Redhawk or a Dan Wesson. (Preferably the DW in the hope that I would get one of the super accurate ones.)
I haven't checked his web site lately, but IIRC Linebaugh had an article a couple of years ago about revolver strength. In that article he stated that the 629 and the Super Blackhawk had both been tested with proof loads at over 80,000 cup and that he considered them to be essentially equivalent in strength. (He was referring to revolvers manufactured in the late 1980's, IIRC.)
He went on to state that the Redhawk is much stronger than those two revolvers which were based on older designs than the Redhawk. I agree with what he wrote in that article. (I posted without rereading the article and relied on my memory about what the article said. I hope I paraphrased the article accurately.)
The Redhawk is capable of firing heavier bullets at a higher velocity than a 629 when both are maxed out. When maxed out, either revolver can propel a hard cast bullet all the way through the largest Alaskan animals, according to Marshall Stanton's research. And according to Stanton's research, the wound track of a 300 gr hard cast FN bullet in the neighborhood of 1250 to 1300 fps (YMMV) from a 629 will be the same size (within .1" at the extreme) as the track of a heavier bullet fired from a Redhawk at 50 to 100 fps greater velocity at pressures exceeding SAAMI specs. In spite of its antiquated design and inferior (but more than adequate) strength, using a 629 instead of a Redhawk for hunting or defense is not a limiting factor.
Enough talk. I'm going shooting. Enjoy your Redhawk. It's a great revolver.
I agree: the 629 is definitely not as strong as the Redhawk. Your .44 mag is definitely bigger, stronger, and heavier than my .44 mag. And when loaded with the highest pressure ammo that each revolver can handle, your .44 is more powerful than my .44! Your .44 can whup my .44's heinie!
And I agree that the location of the cylinder bolt cuts in the cylinder of the 629 is an incredibly poor design which S&W can and should correct with a redesign.
I wouldn't own an N frame in .45 Colt. (Or anything else in .45 Colt for that matter. If I want to go larger than .44, I will go to .454 Casull.) As far as I know they are not designed to handle pressures greater than the old SAAMI pressure limits for the low pressure factory loads.
But there is no evidence that the cylinder and frame of a 629 are not strong enough for .44 mag ammo which meets SAAMI specs. The frame and cylinder are not in danger of breaking or failing with recommended loads. That's what I meant by saying that the lesser strength of the 629 is not a limiting factor. When used with ammo which meets SAAMI specs, the lesser strength of the 629 does not result in any dangers or problems.
According to Linebaugh, firing a cylinder full of rounds at pressures of 50,000 cup will not cause the cylinder of a 629 to fail. And regardless of what your micrometer tells you about your case heads, you would be well advised to avoid pressures which exceed SAAMI specs by more that 4000 or 5000 cup. The superior strength of a Redhawk confers a little greater safety margin, but it is not a license to be reckless or unsafe. If you want to be able to extract your empties by hand, the strength of the brass case is still the limiting factor.
You will never need to fire more than a dozen or so rounds a year at pressures over SAAMI limits. I'm sure you're a competent handloader, but let Buffalo Bore load those rounds for you. They have the testing equipment and the know how, and they know how to safely approach the upper limits of your Redhawk.
Most revolvers of all brands have imperfect barrel/cylinder alignment and imperfectly adjusted timing. And all brands of revolvers (with the possible exception of Freedom) will need a tune-up and timing adjustment after thousands of rounds at max pressure. But that kind of heavy use poses no dangers and rarely causes any problems for the frame or cylinder of a 629 that was built after the mid 1990's. (I don't remember the exact year.)
I have owned a Redhawk and a Super Blackhawk. They were good hunting revolvers, but they (those particular revolvers which I owned) were not quite accurate enough for my needs. If I were going to fire thousands of rounds right at the SAAMI max pressure limit or if I wanted to experiment with loads which exceed SAAMI limits by a little bit, I would use a Redhawk or a Dan Wesson. (Preferably the DW in the hope that I would get one of the super accurate ones.)
I haven't checked his web site lately, but IIRC Linebaugh had an article a couple of years ago about revolver strength. In that article he stated that the 629 and the Super Blackhawk had both been tested with proof loads at over 80,000 cup and that he considered them to be essentially equivalent in strength. (He was referring to revolvers manufactured in the late 1980's, IIRC.)
He went on to state that the Redhawk is much stronger than those two revolvers which were based on older designs than the Redhawk. I agree with what he wrote in that article. (I posted without rereading the article and relied on my memory about what the article said. I hope I paraphrased the article accurately.)
The Redhawk is capable of firing heavier bullets at a higher velocity than a 629 when both are maxed out. When maxed out, either revolver can propel a hard cast bullet all the way through the largest Alaskan animals, according to Marshall Stanton's research. And according to Stanton's research, the wound track of a 300 gr hard cast FN bullet in the neighborhood of 1250 to 1300 fps (YMMV) from a 629 will be the same size (within .1" at the extreme) as the track of a heavier bullet fired from a Redhawk at 50 to 100 fps greater velocity at pressures exceeding SAAMI specs. In spite of its antiquated design and inferior (but more than adequate) strength, using a 629 instead of a Redhawk for hunting or defense is not a limiting factor.
Enough talk. I'm going shooting. Enjoy your Redhawk. It's a great revolver.
Last edited:
CraigC
Sixgun Nut
This ain't a peeing contest. My ego is in no way related to my sixguns. I rarely use loads in this range and usually prefer to run a little more sedately. I've tested them and enjoy jawing about this stuff but all I have any actual, practical use for are standard weight bullets at 1000-1200fps.
PS, all my DA .44Mag's are S&W's. Had a Redhawk, traded it twice to get a 629MG. Don't miss it.
NM Mountainman
Member
Looks like I went overboard with listening to myself talk.
I've carried and shot 629MG's; they are definitely cool. I prefer the standard model 629 with a 4" barrel because the I like the feel of a little more weight towards the muzzle. In a 4" 629, my favorite practice load is a 210 gr JHP loaded with a Start load of AA#9 for about 1300 fps.
I've carried and shot 629MG's; they are definitely cool. I prefer the standard model 629 with a 4" barrel because the I like the feel of a little more weight towards the muzzle. In a 4" 629, my favorite practice load is a 210 gr JHP loaded with a Start load of AA#9 for about 1300 fps.
Evergreen
Member
Well, I Just got back from the range and I am going to post a separate thread later with a little range report of my new Ruger Redhawk and the Buffalo Bore.
All I got to say about the Buffalo Bore 340gr +P+, is.. Ah, my hands are ruined for life..
Ok.. Now, for an honest report.. I shot this Buffalo Bore 340gr +P+ out of my brand new Ruger Redhawk and I will say WOW.. What awesome ammo. I was afraid after all the posts on this and other forums about this ammo that my hands would little crack after the first round. Well, to my amazement, this Buffalo Bore ammo is a really kitty cat out of my Ruger Redhawk. I was like, WOW, is this stuff really +P+? My only fear now is that this stuff is not as hot and fast as Tim says it is, but assuming that Buffalo Bore is a company with integrity, I trust it must certainly be as fast and powerful as advertised. I was shocked that my 240gr Fiocchi rounds had the same felt recoil as this heavy duty +P+ ammo. Even my Double Tap 320gr Hardcast rounds had a bit more thump to them then the Buffalo Bore. Anyway, considering that I have .454 power out of my Redhawk with almost no major pain of recoil, I think this stuff is awesome. I said I would only shoot 6 rounds, but I saw that I was able to get some decent groups (relatively , considering I am not the greatest shooter) and I decided to shoot more. I ended up shooting 18 rounds total and the only thing that stopped me was the price of these rounds.. :'(
Oh yeah, my testing did me well.. I was planning on packing with 320gr Corbon HC LFN rounds for my trip, but I am glad I didn't! It turns out my Ruger Redhawk hates the Corbon Hunter 320gr HC LFN ammo. This is shocking, but the stuff locked up my cylinder just after firing one round. No matter what I tried, any attempt to fire a second round with this ammo failed. At first I thought it was my gun and I started to panic. Then, I ejected the Corbons and put them away. I thought my gun was having an issue so I then proceeded to test out various types of other 44Mag ammo and each fired very well without any problems. I might want to talk with other people about this and tell Corbon the issue I had with these rounds and see if they can reimburse me. At $1.80 a piece, they are not cheap.
Anyway, I just thought I share my little range report. I'm glad to know also from other people here of the tolerances of my Redhawk. It gave me a piece of mind when shooting this and the other heavy loads I was today.
All I got to say about the Buffalo Bore 340gr +P+, is
.. Ah, my hands are ruined for life.. Ok..
Now, for an honest report.. I shot this Buffalo Bore 340gr +P+ out of my brand new Ruger Redhawk and I will say WOW.. What awesome ammo. I was afraid after all the posts on this and other forums about this ammo that my hands would little crack after the first round. Well, to my amazement, this Buffalo Bore ammo is a really kitty cat out of my Ruger Redhawk. I was like, WOW, is this stuff really +P+? My only fear now is that this stuff is not as hot and fast as Tim says it is, but assuming that Buffalo Bore is a company with integrity, I trust it must certainly be as fast and powerful as advertised. I was shocked that my 240gr Fiocchi rounds had the same felt recoil as this heavy duty +P+ ammo. Even my Double Tap 320gr Hardcast rounds had a bit more thump to them then the Buffalo Bore. Anyway, considering that I have .454 power out of my Redhawk with almost no major pain of recoil, I think this stuff is awesome. I said I would only shoot 6 rounds, but I saw that I was able to get some decent groups (relatively , considering I am not the greatest shooter) and I decided to shoot more. I ended up shooting 18 rounds total and the only thing that stopped me was the price of these rounds.. :'( Oh yeah, my testing did me well.. I was planning on packing with 320gr Corbon HC LFN rounds for my trip, but I am glad I didn't! It turns out my Ruger Redhawk hates the Corbon Hunter 320gr HC LFN ammo. This is shocking, but the stuff locked up my cylinder just after firing one round. No matter what I tried, any attempt to fire a second round with this ammo failed. At first I thought it was my gun and I started to panic. Then, I ejected the Corbons and put them away. I thought my gun was having an issue so I then proceeded to test out various types of other 44Mag ammo and each fired very well without any problems. I might want to talk with other people about this and tell Corbon the issue I had with these rounds and see if they can reimburse me. At $1.80 a piece, they are not cheap.
Anyway, I just thought I share my little range report. I'm glad to know also from other people here of the tolerances of my Redhawk. It gave me a piece of mind when shooting this and the other heavy loads I was today.
harrygunner
Member
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2006
- Messages
- 1,045
Glad you like the ammo. The owner, Tim knows how to load ammo. Properly crimped to avoid having remaining bullets lock up the gun.
Internet pundits seem awfully afraid of recoil. I've learned to ignore most all of their warnings.
What are your thoughts about using it in a self-defense situation?
The bear will be coming straight at you, fast. After several discussions with hunters and Internet queries over the years, I've come to agree with those that recommend shooting for the mouth.
Not necessarily expecting the round to go down the bear's throat, but the mouth presents a clear, decent target. Misses around the mouth from the shoulders to the spine or chest may stop or slow the bear down, allowing a followup shot.
I'm sure I'll revert to training, so I practice drawing from my holster, shooting 240gr ammo. I also practice moving laterally after the shot.
Most likely, I will continue to enjoy nature's beauty without ever needing to make these moves. But since I love the wilderness so much, might as well be prepared.
Enjoy your trip!
Internet pundits seem awfully afraid of recoil. I've learned to ignore most all of their warnings.
What are your thoughts about using it in a self-defense situation?
The bear will be coming straight at you, fast. After several discussions with hunters and Internet queries over the years, I've come to agree with those that recommend shooting for the mouth.
Not necessarily expecting the round to go down the bear's throat, but the mouth presents a clear, decent target. Misses around the mouth from the shoulders to the spine or chest may stop or slow the bear down, allowing a followup shot.
I'm sure I'll revert to training, so I practice drawing from my holster, shooting 240gr ammo. I also practice moving laterally after the shot.
Most likely, I will continue to enjoy nature's beauty without ever needing to make these moves. But since I love the wilderness so much, might as well be prepared.
Enjoy your trip!
hardluk1
member
Remember to practice drawing that big can of bear spray you will have too. After the bear can't see you or smell you then you have time to leave or shot it if needed.
Mike1234567
member
Yeah, but make DARNED sured the bear is down wind from you and your buddies!!
hardluk1
member
Spray your buddy too and your home free , ruuuun hehe
beatledog7
Member
Everybody knows you don't have to be able to outrun a grizzly or any other dangerous game. You just have to be able to outrun your buddy.
Evergreen
Member
I really do love this ammo and still am shocked at how tame it is considering the amount of power and speed it puts out. I'm 100% for using this in a self-defense situation. I'm assuming you are referring to an outdoor/wildlife defense situation. Obviously, this is way too much gun for an urban-defense situation. And, even if you end up shooting the perp bad, what would the jury or court think about you packing a 340gr +P+ round in a 44 Mag? I'd probably say it would be very risky, due to overpenetration in an urban situation. But, for outdoor defense, I think this load would be ideal in any situaiton, even over the .357.
One problem many people have with shooting 44 Mag is that they shoot the gun with an exposed metal backstrap. This causes a lot of unnecessary pain in the joints and palms of the hand. The Pachmayr Presentation grips fit the Ruger Redhawk perfectly and I couldn't think of any other grip better for shooting the heavy loads than these.
Anyway, I will be loading my Redhawk with the BB rounds during my hikes in the Sawtooth Mountains and Glacier NP.
If two guys with Ruger Redhawks loaded with Buffalo Bore 340gr +P+ cannot take a grizzly down, then I think they just deserve what happens to them.
moxie
Member
evergreen,
Hate to rain on your parade, but the probability of two guys taking a grizzly down with those 340 grainers is very thin. I'd up the chances from thin to slim if both guys were crack shots and the bear was on the feeble side.
Keep this in perspective.
That heavy 340 round produces about 1600 foot pounds of energy (fpe).
The BB 30-30 round produces 1860 fpe. Note that many don't consider the 30-30 suitable for anything more than whitetail. You wouldn't hunt a grizzly with a 30-30, would you? Why do you think that a less powerful gun, even two of them, will "take a grizzly down?"
The .308 pumps in the neighborhood of 3600 fpe.
The 30-06 amps out at 4300 fpe.
So your hot .44 mag round gets less than a 30-30, and way less than half the .308 and .30-06 rifle rounds. (All ballistics data from the BB site.)
The .44 mag in any configuration is just a glimmer of a hope against an angry grizzly. Better than nothing? Of course. But know the facts of the matter.
Hate to rain on your parade, but the probability of two guys taking a grizzly down with those 340 grainers is very thin. I'd up the chances from thin to slim if both guys were crack shots and the bear was on the feeble side.
Keep this in perspective.
That heavy 340 round produces about 1600 foot pounds of energy (fpe).
The BB 30-30 round produces 1860 fpe. Note that many don't consider the 30-30 suitable for anything more than whitetail. You wouldn't hunt a grizzly with a 30-30, would you? Why do you think that a less powerful gun, even two of them, will "take a grizzly down?"
The .308 pumps in the neighborhood of 3600 fpe.
The 30-06 amps out at 4300 fpe.
So your hot .44 mag round gets less than a 30-30, and way less than half the .308 and .30-06 rifle rounds. (All ballistics data from the BB site.)
The .44 mag in any configuration is just a glimmer of a hope against an angry grizzly. Better than nothing? Of course. But know the facts of the matter.
Evergreen
Member
Two say two guys firing at a grizzly with a 340gr is slim I think is a bit too hard. Sure, it is less than ideal. But you can multiply all the energy levels by two and note if two people are firing at a grizzly from different locations, I would think there would be enough time for follow up shots. Not to mention while the grizzly is dealing with person 1, person 2 would have time to deliver quite a few rounds into the angry grizzly.
I have heard stories of giant Alaskan bears that would not go down no matter how many .500 S&W rounds were put into it, but then the same stories can be said about people. I've heard stories of people who just kept on going, despite being hit with multiple rifle rounds; especially people on drugs.
Anyway, my gun is really as a last ditch effort and as I said from the beginning, which may have forgot by now, I would rely on bear pepper spray first. I've never advocated that any handgun was sufficient for use on a predatory animal, especially a large one like a grizzly. However, most grizzlies in Montana do not reach the very large sizes they do in Alaska. I've heard the males average around 500 lbs, which is not much larger than the coastal male black bears we have here in Oregon. The male coastal bears here tend to average around 300-400lbs.
I will also be in black bear territory, not to mention Glacier NP is home to more black bears than grizzly bears. I feel a 340gr +P+ 44 Mag is more than adequate to deal with black bears in most cases.
I have heard stories of giant Alaskan bears that would not go down no matter how many .500 S&W rounds were put into it, but then the same stories can be said about people. I've heard stories of people who just kept on going, despite being hit with multiple rifle rounds; especially people on drugs.
Anyway, my gun is really as a last ditch effort and as I said from the beginning, which may have forgot by now, I would rely on bear pepper spray first. I've never advocated that any handgun was sufficient for use on a predatory animal, especially a large one like a grizzly. However, most grizzlies in Montana do not reach the very large sizes they do in Alaska. I've heard the males average around 500 lbs, which is not much larger than the coastal male black bears we have here in Oregon. The male coastal bears here tend to average around 300-400lbs.
I will also be in black bear territory, not to mention Glacier NP is home to more black bears than grizzly bears. I feel a 340gr +P+ 44 Mag is more than adequate to deal with black bears in most cases.
Last edited:
More FPE does not mean more stopping power. FPE is just a formula that someone came up with. Useful for some comparisons but it does not translate to the real world. Know the facts of the matter.
While we're at it, stopping power is pretty meaningless too. It really comes down to getting a lucky shot in.
Here's a nice youtube video of some hunters being attacked by a lion. They are all blasting away at the lion with their big rifles with massive amounts of FPE but the only thing that stops the lion is a lucky shot from the hip of the guy who is about to be killed. Maybe we should all be practicing taking shots from the hip?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rIPAuLd-zvw
Last edited:
CraigC
Sixgun Nut
Sorry moxie but that is typical drivel from folks who know nothing they didn't learn from a ballistics table. That .44Mag load will fully penetrate any critter in North American from near about any angle and kill it stone dead. Muzzle energy is meaningless. Nowhere is it more meaningless than when applied to big bore cartridges, particularly revolver cartridges and especially using it to compare them to small bore rifle cartridges. Energy is far too dependent on velocity and that is what these cartridges do not have an excess of. However, what they do have in spades are two things that make them far more consistent killers. That is bullet weight and diameter. In the real world, an equivalent of the original blackpowder .45Colt load consisting of a 250-260gr cast bullet at 900fps will penetrate end to end on any deer that walks but produces a paltry 450ft-lbs.
I'd love to know where your "facts" come from because they certainly don't come from killing critters with heavy sixguns.
Evergreen
Member
+1 to Craig and Ralph.. IT is like the difference between being hit by a freight train and a Toyota Prius. Which one at 150mph would you want to plow into you.. Not that either is a great choice. But the analogy holds weight against big game. Now multiply all this by two. Two people armed with hot and heavy 44 mag loads should more times than not, take out a single grizzly bear. There is always exceptions to the rule. I would say even a single person has a chance, assuming he doesn't miss, but obviously, I much prefer 12 or even 10ga slugs for defense against a giant 600+lb grizzly bear.
CraigC
Sixgun Nut
Given proper shot placement, I'll take the .44 over 12ga slug any day of the week. The challenge will be getting a good shoulder, spine or brain shot. The 340gr .44 will break heavy bones and outpenetrate any 12ga slug on the market. They just don't have the sectional density necessary.
I'd like to remind everyone that the ability to penetrate through an animal does not equate to stopping it. A charging bear will rip you to pieces before he realizes he's been shot. The only thing that will stop a charging bear is a shot to the CNS and we all know how hard that is.
CraigC
Sixgun Nut
The key to "stopping" any critter is breaking heavy bones. CNS hits are unreliable and difficult at best. Break the shoulder and he will at least change direction. Break the shoulder, penetrate the vitals and break the pelvis on the way out and you have at least made a killing shot. You need a bullet that PENETRATES to do this. Now you're in a better position to make a solid brain shot.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
