ljnowell
Member
Its not usuallly required to shoot, but it makes reloading easier.
.357...10mm...now .44special? Maybe 624?
- Thread starter hariph creek
- Start date
- Status
Its not usuallly required to shoot, but it makes reloading easier.
You can't use BBI numbers when talking about revolver calibers.
Ballistics by the inch incorporates the OAL of a revolver cartridge into the barrel length, so their data for a 4in barrel is actually much shorter ( their 4in 357 data is actually from a 2.4in barrel)
Stainz
Member
A great attribute of a S&W 610 is that it will take .40 S&W as well as 10mm. After the last election's ammo mad dash, that was about all you could find in commercial SD ammo on the shelves around here. I'd keep the 610! As to a used/hard to find 4" 624 or a current 4" 629-6... I opted for the new 629s. I sold my '83 vintage 6.5" 24 and bought a new 6 " partial lug 629 8/05. No more worries re Keith-level loads. I later traded my 629MG, bought new 11/02, for a new stock 4" 629 4/06. The benefits of the 41.5 oz 4" 629, which weighs the same as the 4" 624, over the 39.5 oz 4" 629MG include OR/WO sights vs blk/blk; larger hammer; larger trigger; and a bit more weight forward to lessen muzzle flip. I know my 629's are '.44 Magnums'... but I shoot .44 Russians, Specials, and wimpy Magnums from mine.
My .44 Special revolvers:
Yeah, I know... the 296 & 696 on the left are real .44 Specials... but, in my world, so are the 629s! Same story here with .357 Magnum vs .38 Special. Of course, it's my little world...
Stainz
My .44 Special revolvers:
Yeah, I know... the 296 & 696 on the left are real .44 Specials... but, in my world, so are the 629s! Same story here with .357 Magnum vs .38 Special. Of course, it's my little world...
Stainz
hariph creek
Member
19-3Ben, I've fired the loads I'm looking at in a L-frame sized Taurus. No problem with follow up, recoil, etc... Even the 3" 624 weighs more. I'm looking for around 240-250 grains as close to 1000 FPS as I can get. Buffalo Bore is doing this with a 696 already.
Then there's the GP100? In order to get enough energy with that bullet. I put 4" as the minimum length, to achieve enough velocity. That for me it's the appeal of the .44 Special. Good energy with less "snap."
As far as range time being enjoyable? I load my own. I've got access to a virtually unlimited supply of 180 & 200 grain laser cast .44 bullets. I've also got a lot of IMR Trail Boss. Sounds like fun at the range, to me!
I was talking with a good friend yesterday, his dad gave him the advise..."instead of pushing the limits on a given round, step up to a more powerful round and dial back."
That to me is a good argument for the 629 over the 624.
Then there's the GP100? In order to get enough energy with that bullet. I put 4" as the minimum length, to achieve enough velocity. That for me it's the appeal of the .44 Special. Good energy with less "snap."
As far as range time being enjoyable? I load my own. I've got access to a virtually unlimited supply of 180 & 200 grain laser cast .44 bullets. I've also got a lot of IMR Trail Boss. Sounds like fun at the range, to me!
I was talking with a good friend yesterday, his dad gave him the advise..."instead of pushing the limits on a given round, step up to a more powerful round and dial back."
That to me is a good argument for the 629 over the 624.
hariph creek
Member
Dan-O I've never had any interest in a rimless cartridge in a revolver.
Or vice versa, I don't get it?
Or vice versa, I don't get it?
hariph creek
Member
jmr40, Ballistics By the Inch is a pretty interesting site. They don't always have the best ammo choices though. There is also the issue of the chamber in a revolver not being taken into account. Even with losses due to the barrel/cylinder gap.
Double Tap's numbers have been called into question lately. Either way, I load my own.
I do agree about barrel length for magnum loads. I'm not looking at magnum loads though.
Double Tap's numbers have been called into question lately. Either way, I load my own.
I do agree about barrel length for magnum loads. I'm not looking at magnum loads though.
hariph creek
Member
CH47gunner, are you suggesting snake shot for any kind of a defensive purpose, other than snake? No poisonous snakes here in the Pacific North Wet.
hariph creek
Member
XGibsonX, hunted once upon a time with a 454 field grade Casull. Amazing piece, cringed everytime it knocked on a tree branch. Short of rimfire I don't shoot single action revolvers any more.
hariph creek
Member
Unspellable, the .44 Mountain Gun is on my list. If I go 4", it'll be a MG.
Having owned a 624, what do you think of 240 @ 1000?
Buffalo bore is doing it, more our less, with a 3" 696. The 624 is a stronger gun. Other than load development and a cylinder or two, every couple few months. I'll be running powder puff loads in it.
Having owned a 624, what do you think of 240 @ 1000?
Buffalo bore is doing it, more our less, with a 3" 696. The 624 is a stronger gun. Other than load development and a cylinder or two, every couple few months. I'll be running powder puff loads in it.
hariph creek
Member
gandog56, I have NEVER in my life seen .44 Russian on the shelf in any shop.
I'll be rolling my own.
The bear is a red herring. I really want a 3" 624. I'm trying to justify it.
It has to serve a purpose though. Trail/house gun is about all I can figure.
I'm going to keep my Kimber 10mm. I've got too much into it and it just works.
I'll see about getting the 624, if I find it displaces the 10mm, I might make a choice. "Who does daddy love more?"
I'll be rolling my own.
The bear is a red herring. I really want a 3" 624. I'm trying to justify it.
It has to serve a purpose though. Trail/house gun is about all I can figure.
I'm going to keep my Kimber 10mm. I've got too much into it and it just works.
I'll see about getting the 624, if I find it displaces the 10mm, I might make a choice. "Who does daddy love more?"
unspellable
Member
44 Special loads
I have a few of my 240 grain cast @ 1200 fps loads left. Next time I start loading I will drop down to about 1000 fps. That's from a 6.5 inch barrel. (my oopsie, last time I said 6 inch.) At 1000 fps it should be fine in a 624. There are some revolvers I would not use it in, for example I have a 5 shot Taurus on a K size frame. The chamber walls are on the thin side and I would not use anything hotter than factory loads.
In a 624 or 29 with a 3 to 4 inch barrel you could probably get 1000 fps with a bit more powder than it would take in a 6.5 barrel. But such a load should be reserved for the stronger 44 Specials.
I do see a 4 inch 624 now and then at the gun shows.
For the 29, I personally would use 44 Mag brass, even for a 44 Special level load, I have a thing about using short brass in long chambers. At 1000 fps it's beyond factory 44 Special levels so the little powder in big case thing is a non-issue.
I have a few of my 240 grain cast @ 1200 fps loads left. Next time I start loading I will drop down to about 1000 fps. That's from a 6.5 inch barrel. (my oopsie, last time I said 6 inch.) At 1000 fps it should be fine in a 624. There are some revolvers I would not use it in, for example I have a 5 shot Taurus on a K size frame. The chamber walls are on the thin side and I would not use anything hotter than factory loads.
In a 624 or 29 with a 3 to 4 inch barrel you could probably get 1000 fps with a bit more powder than it would take in a 6.5 barrel. But such a load should be reserved for the stronger 44 Specials.
I do see a 4 inch 624 now and then at the gun shows.
For the 29, I personally would use 44 Mag brass, even for a 44 Special level load, I have a thing about using short brass in long chambers. At 1000 fps it's beyond factory 44 Special levels so the little powder in big case thing is a non-issue.
unspellable
Member
44 Russian
I have seen 44 Russian. I have a 50 round box of it by Fiocchi.
I have seen 44 Russian. I have a 50 round box of it by Fiocchi.
hariph creek
Member
unspellable, I know .44 Russian exists. Just never see it around. Like you, I run full length brass in any given revolver. I HATE ring around the chamber.
I appreciate your input on the 624.
Keith pushed the .44 Special well past what I'm interested in. Metallurgy has advanced quite a bit since his day, too.
I wonder if it's a matter of more powder, or the "right" powder.
As I devotee of the K-frame. I can appreciate the difference between what it can handle, and what it can handle alot of.
If I step up to 4", I'll just get a 629 Mountain Gun. Sure would simplify things.
I appreciate your input on the 624.
Keith pushed the .44 Special well past what I'm interested in. Metallurgy has advanced quite a bit since his day, too.
I wonder if it's a matter of more powder, or the "right" powder.
As I devotee of the K-frame. I can appreciate the difference between what it can handle, and what it can handle alot of.
If I step up to 4", I'll just get a 629 Mountain Gun. Sure would simplify things.
unspellable
Member
BTW
BTW: While Elmer Keith survived his experiments with the 44 Special some of his revolvers did not.
How ever, for the S&W 624 and 24s manufactured about the same time as the 624, S&W did admit they were made of the same metal ,of the same thickness, and same heat treating as the 629 & 29 cylinders which is why we are fairly confident using 44 special loads in them that go into Elmer's territory. (An additional point is that the yoke is similar. Most people think the Ruger Blackhawk only loads for 45 Colt are not suitable for the S&W because of pressure. Not so. The S&W 45's yoke tail & cylinder well bottom interface is the weak point. Overly heavy loads in the S&W will cause end shake.)
One VERY important exception. S&W did send out some 624 cylinders that were not up to snuff and had a recall on them. My 624 fell in the serial number range and I had to send it in to S&W for a check. It passed OK, not to my surprise since I'd already been running my heavy loads in it.
BTW, BTW One of the signs that you are a gun nut is that you run such heavy loads in a S&W 44 Special because Elmer did , but you run lower velocities in your S&W 44 Mag because they are known to be a bit delicate.
BTW: While Elmer Keith survived his experiments with the 44 Special some of his revolvers did not.
How ever, for the S&W 624 and 24s manufactured about the same time as the 624, S&W did admit they were made of the same metal ,of the same thickness, and same heat treating as the 629 & 29 cylinders which is why we are fairly confident using 44 special loads in them that go into Elmer's territory. (An additional point is that the yoke is similar. Most people think the Ruger Blackhawk only loads for 45 Colt are not suitable for the S&W because of pressure. Not so. The S&W 45's yoke tail & cylinder well bottom interface is the weak point. Overly heavy loads in the S&W will cause end shake.)
One VERY important exception. S&W did send out some 624 cylinders that were not up to snuff and had a recall on them. My 624 fell in the serial number range and I had to send it in to S&W for a check. It passed OK, not to my surprise since I'd already been running my heavy loads in it.
BTW, BTW One of the signs that you are a gun nut is that you run such heavy loads in a S&W 44 Special because Elmer did , but you run lower velocities in your S&W 44 Mag because they are known to be a bit delicate.
hariph creek
Member
I'll keep the 10, it just works.
Still be on the lookout for a 3" 624, once I've saved up a little money, though.
It appears the energy of a 240gr .44 @900-1000 is roughly equal to a very hot 180gr .357 from a 2"-3" barrel. With less a "flash bang whiplash" effect.
I've got those 200gr laser cast, too. Could probably easily hit 1200 fps? Poor sectional density at that weight, though. But still...
Still be on the lookout for a 3" 624, once I've saved up a little money, though.
It appears the energy of a 240gr .44 @900-1000 is roughly equal to a very hot 180gr .357 from a 2"-3" barrel. With less a "flash bang whiplash" effect.
I've got those 200gr laser cast, too. Could probably easily hit 1200 fps? Poor sectional density at that weight, though. But still...
LOW AND OUTSIDE
Member
- Joined
- Sep 26, 2012
- Messages
- 2
Howdy folks,
if it is any matter, i shoot and carry conceal a charter bull dog with the tiger stripe factory camo. I love this thing, 22 or so oz's, accurate enough, and never stops shooting. I have glocks, rugers etc, but when i leave in the morning , i strape this 44 special on.
Thanks
if it is any matter, i shoot and carry conceal a charter bull dog with the tiger stripe factory camo. I love this thing, 22 or so oz's, accurate enough, and never stops shooting. I have glocks, rugers etc, but when i leave in the morning , i strape this 44 special on.
Thanks
hariph creek
Member
Low and Outside, the Charter is pretty handy. I don't think it's rated for the kind loads discussed here, though?
hariph creek
Member
clang, I've never understood the appeal of rimless cartridges in a revolver. Except for competition, of course. Seems to complicate a rather elegantly simple apparatus.
I don't think you can load up 45acp to the same levels as 44 special?
Plus I've got access to, literally, thousands of (free) laser cast 180 & 200 grain bullets.
I don't think you can load up 45acp to the same levels as 44 special?
Plus I've got access to, literally, thousands of (free) laser cast 180 & 200 grain bullets.
hariph creek
Member
So my wife needs a trail gun. Maybe she needs a 3" 624? That's right it would be "her" gun. Too bad she's all of 4'-11" short. I don't think she could properly index the trigger?
Shame though, if she could, it would be allot more controllable than the 3" SP101 she has her eyes on.
Shame though, if she could, it would be allot more controllable than the 3" SP101 she has her eyes on.
gandog56
Member
I believe it IS necessary for a S&W 610!
And moon clips are certainly a necessity if you want to also shoot .40 S&W in a 10mm gun, since semi-autos headspace them on the necks of the cases, and .40's are shorter.
Somebody must, as I got a few pieces of brass for it from a range that somebody left on the floor. I only have like 5 cartridges made up from them.
ljnowell
Member
Why would it be? As far as I know it headspaces off the case mouth. You wouldnt have to use them to shoot it. If you wanted to use 40 S&W you would, obviously.
riomedinamike
Member
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2006
- Messages
- 61
I have a 624 3", a 24 3", and 4" 24's and 624's. I also have a couple of 696's.
The 624 is only a little bigger than the 696, plus one more round.
I tend to use the 624 3" more than the others, only because it just feels right.
I handload, and carry 7.5 grs of Unique with a 240 gr SWC. This load from this gun has amazing penetration - I have never recovered a bullet through the several deer and hogs I have harvested (around 200 lbs max).
Luckily, I was able to acquire the N-frames before they became so expensive.
The hard part is finding a pre-lock N-frame without having to sell your pickup.
The 624 is only a little bigger than the 696, plus one more round.
I tend to use the 624 3" more than the others, only because it just feels right.
I handload, and carry 7.5 grs of Unique with a 240 gr SWC. This load from this gun has amazing penetration - I have never recovered a bullet through the several deer and hogs I have harvested (around 200 lbs max).
Luckily, I was able to acquire the N-frames before they became so expensive.
The hard part is finding a pre-lock N-frame without having to sell your pickup.
- Status
