Sam1911, no offense meant but what you need to do is pick up a copy of sixguns by Keith. Back then they were experimenters, but the logic is sound. If a gun is made to fire a cartridge with 23,000 psi another cartridge with similar characteristics would also work.
Are Elmer Keith's loads still safe?
- Thread starter 336A
- Start date
- Status
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
I need to pick up a copy? 
I understand your point. I also understand some of the things that have become better understood since his day, and that the great experimenters were not immune from the negative results of their experiments. In the eternal race to have everything better, faster, bigger, more, the manufacturers will push the limits as far as they safely can -- but they understand the factors involved better now, and they choose not to risk damaging guns and hurting people.
And, again, what is it that 17 gr. of 2400 does -- in practical terms -- that 13 or 14 (or whatever the current load guides say) won't do?
I understand your point. I also understand some of the things that have become better understood since his day, and that the great experimenters were not immune from the negative results of their experiments. In the eternal race to have everything better, faster, bigger, more, the manufacturers will push the limits as far as they safely can -- but they understand the factors involved better now, and they choose not to risk damaging guns and hurting people.
And, again, what is it that 17 gr. of 2400 does -- in practical terms -- that 13 or 14 (or whatever the current load guides say) won't do?
I would not use any of Elmer Keith's loads in vintage 44 Spls or 45 ACP's.
I tried one of his loads in a M1917 revolver, the recoil was horrible and I am certain a steady diet of the things would beat the thing to death.
Older, pre WWII revolvers, you find many that were never heat treated. Frames so soft you can easily bend them.
Do not use any Elmer Keith loads in Charter Arms Bulldogs. The first production year gunwriters were using Elmer Keith loads in these lightweight pistols. Check out the article by Major George Nonte in the 1975 Gun Digest. He actually loaded a 250 Keith Bullet with 17.5 grains 2400, thought that had too much recoil (duh!)
then shot a bunch of 250’s with 7.5 to 8.0 grains Unique.
The first load is now considered 44 Magnum level, the second are hot in a N frame. Firing these mini nukes in a light frame Bulldog, I am personally amazed the top strap did not come off!.
I will bet a number of top straps came off Bulldogs from owners who copied Nonte's loads.
When you get into later model pistols, it all depends on the pistol. I have shot the 240 LSWC in a M624, found the recoil objectionable and shelved that idea. Shot in Ruger 44 Magnums and it was a powerful load but not horrible in those heavier pistols.
As much as we all like Elmer Keith, the guy did was not using instrumentation, just logic, in developing his loads. If the gun did not blow apart, he shot it.
I cannot fault his 240/250 grain 22.0 grains 2400 in the 44 Magnum. It is an outstanding load.
I tried one of his loads in a M1917 revolver, the recoil was horrible and I am certain a steady diet of the things would beat the thing to death.
Older, pre WWII revolvers, you find many that were never heat treated. Frames so soft you can easily bend them.
Do not use any Elmer Keith loads in Charter Arms Bulldogs. The first production year gunwriters were using Elmer Keith loads in these lightweight pistols. Check out the article by Major George Nonte in the 1975 Gun Digest. He actually loaded a 250 Keith Bullet with 17.5 grains 2400, thought that had too much recoil (duh!)
then shot a bunch of 250’s with 7.5 to 8.0 grains Unique. The first load is now considered 44 Magnum level, the second are hot in a N frame. Firing these mini nukes in a light frame Bulldog, I am personally amazed the top strap did not come off!.
I will bet a number of top straps came off Bulldogs from owners who copied Nonte's loads.
When you get into later model pistols, it all depends on the pistol. I have shot the 240 LSWC in a M624, found the recoil objectionable and shelved that idea. Shot in Ruger 44 Magnums and it was a powerful load but not horrible in those heavier pistols.
As much as we all like Elmer Keith, the guy did was not using instrumentation, just logic, in developing his loads. If the gun did not blow apart, he shot it.
I cannot fault his 240/250 grain 22.0 grains 2400 in the 44 Magnum. It is an outstanding load.
Keith in his book says that the .44 spl is horribly underloaded and little more then a squib load. It is, in fact most reloading manuals warn about shooting jacketed bullets in the spl as sometimes the jacket stays in the barrel while the lead core exits. That's why Keith and others experimented with hotter loads. Had they not done this I don't know where the .44 mag and .357 would be.o
The current recommended loads were worked up using current cases that have thicker heads and less powder capacity. So yes they come close to duplicating similar loads of yesterday with smaller powder charges. Also later developments in gun powder has made it possible to duplicate most if not all of the performance at safer pressure levels.
Case capacity vs. powder charge is important, and often overlooked. It should be noted that when solid-head .44 Special cases came into common usage, Elmer cut his load. Also when the .44 Magnum was introduced he found some Remington (who developed the cartridge) loads to be "too hot," and cut his own back.
But CraigC is correct in pointing out that Keith's .44 Special loads (with modifications over time) have a long history, and they have not left piles of blown-up revolvers - and that includes Charter Arms.
Disclaimer: Never, ever would I shoot a Keith .44 Special load in my personal .44 Charter, but that's because I couldn't control it.
I tried the Keith loads in a .44 Spl N frame with no ill effects at all. But I worked up to it slowly looking for pressure signs. In the big N frame S&W's it's quite tolerable. In fact I'll admit that I liked it so much I use it in my .44 Mag guns with .5 gr extra in a mag case.
Because I now own guns in Spl and Mag I see no reason to shoot the Keith Spl loads in my guns for the .44 Spl. The hottest loads any of my Spls see is 7.5 gr of Unique with the 250 gr Lyman 429421, the old Skeeter load.
If any of you get the chance to read Sixguns by Keith it really is a good read. I read it about 10 years ago. It has a lot of information that is still useful even today.
Old Fuff is right about the Charter. I have a Taurus 445 which is pretty much a nice version of the Bulldog. It's the only .44 Spl that I own which I would not mess with hotter loads. Not that it would harm the gun but you can't control the gun as it's to small.
Because I now own guns in Spl and Mag I see no reason to shoot the Keith Spl loads in my guns for the .44 Spl. The hottest loads any of my Spls see is 7.5 gr of Unique with the 250 gr Lyman 429421, the old Skeeter load.
If any of you get the chance to read Sixguns by Keith it really is a good read. I read it about 10 years ago. It has a lot of information that is still useful even today.
Old Fuff is right about the Charter. I have a Taurus 445 which is pretty much a nice version of the Bulldog. It's the only .44 Spl that I own which I would not mess with hotter loads. Not that it would harm the gun but you can't control the gun as it's to small.
I was happy to see someone asked the question, "Were they ever safe?" 
I'm in the camp that stops a little shy of Elmer's max and load 20 grains of 2400 in the .44 mag. I shoot it through a 7 1/2" Redhawk that soaks up the recoil nicely and the downrange ballistics are impressive enough. A couple years ago I through and throughed a broadside muley buck at 50 yards, proving perhaps that I need to lay off the gas-checked, pure linotype bullets. I back off to 18 grains for less snort and beller, and I have shot the 22 grain load, but settled at 20 because it just shot better groups and like I said, plenty of gumption. I hated this load in my old Super Blackhawk, and in a Colt Anaconda; it just flat hurt my hands in those guns. I sometimes think the Redhawk is so stout, I could load 22 grains of C-4 in it and it would yawn.
On the Bulldog topic, I used to own a 4" .357 mag CA "Target Bulldog." At 19 ounces, a pure pleasure to carry. It's favorite fodder was 125 grain JHP with 9 grains of Unique behind it. It would really get your attention when you torched one of those off, and it would put the cylinder full into 4 inches at 25 yards. Since that's what I carried in it, that's how every practice session ended, but I'm certain a steady diet of those would have reduced the gun to rubble. My memory ain't what it used to be and my memory ain't what it used to be, but I seem to recall that the cylinder timing was failing to punch in every morning when I traded it off.
mike
I'm in the camp that stops a little shy of Elmer's max and load 20 grains of 2400 in the .44 mag. I shoot it through a 7 1/2" Redhawk that soaks up the recoil nicely and the downrange ballistics are impressive enough. A couple years ago I through and throughed a broadside muley buck at 50 yards, proving perhaps that I need to lay off the gas-checked, pure linotype bullets. I back off to 18 grains for less snort and beller, and I have shot the 22 grain load, but settled at 20 because it just shot better groups and like I said, plenty of gumption. I hated this load in my old Super Blackhawk, and in a Colt Anaconda; it just flat hurt my hands in those guns. I sometimes think the Redhawk is so stout, I could load 22 grains of C-4 in it and it would yawn.
On the Bulldog topic, I used to own a 4" .357 mag CA "Target Bulldog." At 19 ounces, a pure pleasure to carry. It's favorite fodder was 125 grain JHP with 9 grains of Unique behind it. It would really get your attention when you torched one of those off, and it would put the cylinder full into 4 inches at 25 yards. Since that's what I carried in it, that's how every practice session ended, but I'm certain a steady diet of those would have reduced the gun to rubble. My memory ain't what it used to be and my memory ain't what it used to be, but I seem to recall that the cylinder timing was failing to punch in every morning when I traded it off.
mike
CraigC
Sixgun Nut
Not at all, the technical aspect of the relative strength of .44Spl sixguns and appropriate loads is what it is. Not really open for interpretation. Although some folks will never see enough evidence to change their perception about this whole thing. I was referring more to the viability, appeal and application of the .44Spl as a cartridge. Which is a little more abstract. I've had this discussion dozens of times and there are always those who just don't get it. Many see no reason for the cartridge to exist and believe the .44Mag should've rendered it obsolete. The fact that I understand and others do not does not make ME a snob. Though it makes some folks feel better to think about it that way.
Then what do we need the .44Mag for, or the .357 for that matter??? Because a 250gr cast bullet shoots flatter and hits harder than the same slug at 750fps. Extensive testing has indicated that pushing a good hardcast bullet much beyond 1200-1300fps doesn't do much good. It flattens trajectory but doesn't appreciably improve penetration or effectiveness. At least, not relative to the vast increases in recoil and blast. The Keith load runs right at 1200fps. Ole Elmer had it all figured out when he published his first book in 1936 but did not yet fully understand why.
Yes but he did have his loads pressure-tested at H.P. White labs.
Regarding the guns. The .44Spl fits into smaller, tidier, handier and lighter platforms than the .44Mag. Such as the lovely 37oz mid-frame Blackhawk I posted the picture of. This sixgun is as much as a half pound lighter than a comparable Super Blackhawk. A half pound doesn't sound like much but that makes the .44Spl 80% the weight of the .44Mag. Not to mention that it handles much better and is quicker in and into action. It can survive all its life on the wonderful 950fps Skeeter load. Which is really a much more useful everyday load. It also does just fine with the 1200fps Keith load. Or the same charge under a 225gr Speer half jacketed SWC-HP. So if all you need can be handled by a .44Spl operating between 600fps and 1200fps, why carry a half pound heavier .44Mag capable of slinging a massive 355gr slug at 1200fps???
The difference is much less dramatic in N-frames. However, hold a bull barrel 6" model 29 in one hand and a tapered barrel 6½" model 24 in the other and you will definitely notice the difference. Not only do they look and handle better, they come with better sights. The full-tilt .44Mag has also proven to be a little too much for the N-frame. Those heavyweight cast bullet loads that a big Ruger thrives on would pound a S&W to dust before too long. They are best kept at 1200fps and under. Which is .44Spl territory.
Not that we hold anything against our beloved S&W .44Mag's.
CraigC
Sixgun Nut
They are built on the new mid-sized frame and fully capable of digesting the 1200fps Keith load. Some view them as the strongest .44Spl's available but I'm not so sure. USFA will probably never release it but they have successfully chambered their standard sized SAA in .44Mag by simply rechambering .44Spl's. Brian Pearce wrote of it in Handloader. I believe this would put them ahead of the Ruger but until the guns are tested to destruction, it's just conjecture and speculation.
USSR
Member
What CraigC is describing above, is exactly what I am doing with my S&W 25-5 in .45 Colt. Only, I am slinging 270gr SWC HP's at up to 1100fps. When you try to discuss this with some guys, you will invariably get the response "Just get a 44 Magnum". I simply smile because, they will just never understand.
Don
Don
Safe? Depends on how you look at it.
There are guns I would be comfortable shooting his hot .44 Spl load in, and guns that I would not be comfortable with. And I do not believe there are any of my guns I would want to feed a steady diet of those loads too. That is precisely why they came up with the .44 Mag, and exactly what Elmer wanted, a .44 Mag.
The load is over the pressures the manufacturers have to make the gun handle, or hold up to over time. Granted, many .44 Spl revolvers can handle more than the SAMMI max pressures for that caliber.
If you load over the SAMMI max pressure for your revolver/s, you are on your own. I am not saying that is a bad thing, or should not be done, I am just saying there is not much data/testing to back you up in whatever gun/pressure combo you choose to use.
A new beefier flat top Ruger SA .44 Spl? I would be willing to bet it could handle quite a bit of over SAMMI pressure loads, but I have no proof whatsoever.
There are guns I would be comfortable shooting his hot .44 Spl load in, and guns that I would not be comfortable with. And I do not believe there are any of my guns I would want to feed a steady diet of those loads too. That is precisely why they came up with the .44 Mag, and exactly what Elmer wanted, a .44 Mag.
The load is over the pressures the manufacturers have to make the gun handle, or hold up to over time. Granted, many .44 Spl revolvers can handle more than the SAMMI max pressures for that caliber.
If you load over the SAMMI max pressure for your revolver/s, you are on your own. I am not saying that is a bad thing, or should not be done, I am just saying there is not much data/testing to back you up in whatever gun/pressure combo you choose to use.
A new beefier flat top Ruger SA .44 Spl? I would be willing to bet it could handle quite a bit of over SAMMI pressure loads, but I have no proof whatsoever.
I guess it depends if you think your gun will stand the pressure. I'm sure they're safe in my Ruger flattop but I wouldn't think of putting a Keith load in my CA Bulldog or my 696 for that matter. I put even hotter loads in my Redhawk while my old 29-2 sees no more than Keith's practice load of 10gr of Unique.
ranger335v
Member
- Joined
- Dec 3, 2006
- Messages
- 3,797
"I cannot fault his 240/250 grain 22.0 grains 2400 in the 44 Magnum. It is an outstanding load. "
Works in my original M-29/6" too, since 1967. And the accuracy is outstanding even with irons! I went hotter a few rounds but had to drive the cases out so I backed off.
Works in my original M-29/6" too, since 1967. And the accuracy is outstanding even with irons! I went hotter a few rounds but had to drive the cases out so I backed off.
RevGeo
Member
When I was coming up, Elmer's load of 22gr of 2400 behind the #429421 was THE standard .44 Mag load. My first .44 Mag was a Ruger SB and the day I got it I loaded that recipe and went out and shot it. Great load, no pressure signs. But in a .44 Spec revolver, even an N frame Smith, I don't think so.
We gotta hand it to Elmer, Skeeter, Col. Whelen, Parker Ackley and the other guys of that generation (okay, maybe Skeeter was a little younger) for all the experimentation they did. They knew what they were doing and rolled the dice and took their chances. It was a less litiguous world then and I really doubt that Elmer would have sued Colt or S&W or Hercules or Lyman if he had touched off one of those rounds and blew his thumb off in the process.
Nowadays I always load a couple of grains below those loads. I can usually find a load that shoots quite accurately without it being a gun-rattling, wrist-twisting, ear drum-shattering handful. But it sure was fun reading the stuff those guys came up with and trying it out.
I remember when my dad got one of the first .41 Mag Model 57 Smiths and there was no ammo to be had. He made cases out of 30-30 brass with .410 shotgun slugs loaded in them. Crazy? Maybe, but they worked with medium loads until he could get .41 Mag brass and a bullet mould. He told me that as a kid they could get '73 Springfield 45-70 rifles for five bucks or so. If they had no 45-70 ammo they would wrap baling wire around the rim of a .45 Colt round so the extractor would grab it and fire those. It was a different time, I guess.
Elmer's loads are not dangerous per se, but they are hard on guns, ears and hands/wrists. I wish there were guys like Elmer, Skeeter and Parker around these days. They made the world an more interesting place.
We gotta hand it to Elmer, Skeeter, Col. Whelen, Parker Ackley and the other guys of that generation (okay, maybe Skeeter was a little younger) for all the experimentation they did. They knew what they were doing and rolled the dice and took their chances. It was a less litiguous world then and I really doubt that Elmer would have sued Colt or S&W or Hercules or Lyman if he had touched off one of those rounds and blew his thumb off in the process.
Nowadays I always load a couple of grains below those loads. I can usually find a load that shoots quite accurately without it being a gun-rattling, wrist-twisting, ear drum-shattering handful. But it sure was fun reading the stuff those guys came up with and trying it out.
I remember when my dad got one of the first .41 Mag Model 57 Smiths and there was no ammo to be had. He made cases out of 30-30 brass with .410 shotgun slugs loaded in them. Crazy? Maybe, but they worked with medium loads until he could get .41 Mag brass and a bullet mould. He told me that as a kid they could get '73 Springfield 45-70 rifles for five bucks or so. If they had no 45-70 ammo they would wrap baling wire around the rim of a .45 Colt round so the extractor would grab it and fire those. It was a different time, I guess.
Elmer's loads are not dangerous per se, but they are hard on guns, ears and hands/wrists. I wish there were guys like Elmer, Skeeter and Parker around these days. They made the world an more interesting place.
XxBulletBendeRXx
Member
mcofboise Said: "I sometimes think the Redhawk is so stout, I could load 22 grains of C-4 in it and it would yawn." still OTFLMAO!! Ahh .. Thats great... LOL....
I love this site.....!!
I love this site.....!!
Elmer Keith was very ambitious. I do believe it was necessary at the time though. In loading 44 Special and Magnum for my guns, I have never found it necessary to duplicate any of his loads.
EK was doing R&D and so had a purpose to his madness. I don't have a need to push the envelope that far. I have his famed 429421 bullet mold. I worked it up to 19.0 grains and stopped with no pressure signs. It shoots good and gets 1344 FPS out of my Ruger SBH. Going hotter would serve no sane purpose.
So I would have to say that EK's loads are not safe in general. I'm not saying his loads are impossible, just that time has passed and data is different now. Duplicating the performance of his loads without marrying the powder charges of yesteryear is easily possible and without having to ride the ragged edge of insanity as you would be doing with 22 or 22.5 gr of 2400.
Don't ask if you can load so much powder, ask if you can reach your target velocity with that bullet.
EK was doing R&D and so had a purpose to his madness. I don't have a need to push the envelope that far. I have his famed 429421 bullet mold. I worked it up to 19.0 grains and stopped with no pressure signs. It shoots good and gets 1344 FPS out of my Ruger SBH. Going hotter would serve no sane purpose.
So I would have to say that EK's loads are not safe in general. I'm not saying his loads are impossible, just that time has passed and data is different now. Duplicating the performance of his loads without marrying the powder charges of yesteryear is easily possible and without having to ride the ragged edge of insanity as you would be doing with 22 or 22.5 gr of 2400.
Don't ask if you can load so much powder, ask if you can reach your target velocity with that bullet.
If Elmer Keith jumped off a bridge to see what would happen to him, would you jump off a bridge just cuz Elmer did?.... lol
Some of the 'experimenters' were just that. Individuals pushing the envelope sometimes with no more test equipment that I have, namely how did that bad boy 'feel'? Nuthin' 'sploded? Lemme add more powder. Over the years some gained fame and fortune and survived their experiments.
I can't blame lawyers when folks who were in the 'hold my beer and watch this' class got 'blowed up sir' and then hired them to sue everyone on the planet who 'let' them be stoopid.
There are safe, published loads now that will NOT get me 'blowed up' and I see little reason to see if I feel lucky. I made it 63 years and counting so far by not trying too hard to become a statistic and don't feel inclined to change my MO in reloading.
I have ALWAYS wondered why if a person feels the need for more than max power out of a firearm they just don't buy a more powerful caliber?
Some of the 'experimenters' were just that. Individuals pushing the envelope sometimes with no more test equipment that I have, namely how did that bad boy 'feel'? Nuthin' 'sploded? Lemme add more powder. Over the years some gained fame and fortune and survived their experiments.
I can't blame lawyers when folks who were in the 'hold my beer and watch this' class got 'blowed up sir' and then hired them to sue everyone on the planet who 'let' them be stoopid.
There are safe, published loads now that will NOT get me 'blowed up' and I see little reason to see if I feel lucky. I made it 63 years and counting so far by not trying too hard to become a statistic and don't feel inclined to change my MO in reloading.
I have ALWAYS wondered why if a person feels the need for more than max power out of a firearm they just don't buy a more powerful caliber?
CraigC
Sixgun Nut
See what I mean???
USSR
Member
I am astonished that some people tend to portray EK as some kind of “country bumpkin”, who just added more powder and won fame by simply surviving their experiments. Elmer Keith was employed at one time by the U.S. at the government arsenal at Ogden, Utah, and was consulted later on by the heads of both Remington and Smith & Wesson, so this is hardly a man who simply won fame by surviving experiments. Just MHO.
Don
Don
And those consultations eventually led to the development of the .44 Magnum, and was partly influential in the arrival of the .41 Magnum. Bill Ruger went to Idaho for a discussion, and an opportunity to examine Keith's Croft-modified single actions while what was to become the first .357 Magnum Blackhawk was in the planning stage. One outcome was the incorporation of the Croft heavy topstrap.
He was also a writer/columnist for The American Rifleman, and other prominent publications of his day.
And again, I'll point out that there is no large pile of damaged and/or destroyed revolvers offered in evidence to support a claim that his loads were unsafe.
I agree, he and others of the time gave us a lot to be thankful for. Without them we'd probably be shooting the .44 Spl at 550 fps and there would be no .44 magnum. It was not only EK as there was a whole group that experimented with velocities in the .44 Spl at the time. One of my gun books had a story about a few of the others and how they would all compare notes. Wish I still had the article.
CraigC
Sixgun Nut
John Lachuk was another prominent experimenter of the time. He actually did a lot of his own work. He created solid head cases from scratch and rebuilt SAA's using rechambered .38Spl cylinders from Christies for his wildcat .44Lancer. Along with the group known as the ".44 Associates", of which Keith was a part of.
This is the list of names I have on record:
Gordon C. Boser (famous for his .401Spl wildcat)
George V. Chapman
Eric M. Farr
Elmer Keith
J.W. Landon
R.G. Mosgrove
F.C. Ness (have his book on .22's)
Lawrence I. Newton
Capt. Philip B. Sharpe (and his book on rifles)
J.A. Smith
George W. Spence
Ray C. Thompson (should be a familiar name)
Norman P. White
O.L. Yancey
Townsend Whelen (a very familiar name, have some of his books)
John Lachuk (wrote for G&A not too long ago)
Earl Naramore
P.O. Ackley (a very familiar name)
F.W. Mann (have his book on ballistics)
Julian Hatcher (have his notebook and pistol book)
Notable experimenter and author Phil Sharpe probably had more to do with the development of the .357Mag than anyone else.
This is the list of names I have on record:
Gordon C. Boser (famous for his .401Spl wildcat)
George V. Chapman
Eric M. Farr
Elmer Keith
J.W. Landon
R.G. Mosgrove
F.C. Ness (have his book on .22's)
Lawrence I. Newton
Capt. Philip B. Sharpe (and his book on rifles)
J.A. Smith
George W. Spence
Ray C. Thompson (should be a familiar name)
Norman P. White
O.L. Yancey
Townsend Whelen (a very familiar name, have some of his books)
John Lachuk (wrote for G&A not too long ago)
Earl Naramore
P.O. Ackley (a very familiar name)
F.W. Mann (have his book on ballistics)
Julian Hatcher (have his notebook and pistol book)
Notable experimenter and author Phil Sharpe probably had more to do with the development of the .357Mag than anyone else.
CraigC
Sixgun Nut
For those who are interested, here is all the info that I believe is available on the .44 Associates. Including a scanned copy of their literature. This is a rare glimpse at a very scarce document. It is worthy of note the pressure data listed and the technical proficiency displayed by these men, often disregarded as wreckless experimenters.
A collection of articles and the .44 Associates pamphlet.
http://www.goodrichfamilyassoc.org/44_Special_Articles/
More helpful discussion and articles. Be sure to check all the links to scanned and copied articles.
http://smith-wessonforum.com/s-w-hand-ejectors-1896-1961/71827-44-associates-44-special-data.html
http://castboolits.gunloads.com/showthread.php?t=138205
A collection of articles and the .44 Associates pamphlet.
http://www.goodrichfamilyassoc.org/44_Special_Articles/
More helpful discussion and articles. Be sure to check all the links to scanned and copied articles.
http://smith-wessonforum.com/s-w-hand-ejectors-1896-1961/71827-44-associates-44-special-data.html
http://castboolits.gunloads.com/showthread.php?t=138205
- Status
Similar threads
