Does anyone make a J-frame .44 special?

[Old Fuff]

I was once a party in a group which included a well known gun magazine writer (who is also a member of THR) and a Smith & Wesson engineer. The discussion turned to why S&W didn't make a 5-shot/.44 Special on the K-frame. The engineer opined that it couldn't be done. The writer pointed out that some custom gunsmiths were already doing it. The engineer, obviously suprised, pulled out a pocket calculator and started crunching numbers. After a bit of time passed while he pushed keys, he shook his head "no," meaning "yes they could, but no they wouldn't."

Smith & Wesson never marketed a K-frame .44 Special, but they did make some on they're slightly larger L-frame.

Taurus made a 5-shot/.44 Special on their mid-frame (the model 445) one of which I have, but it won't fit into a S&W K-frame holster, which is way too tight. Clearly the Taurus is midway between S&W's K and L frames.

Somewhere in all of this is a message. I would say the likelyhood of Smith & Wesson making a J-frame in .44 Special is somewhere between zip and zero.

 

[CraigC]

In this case, I really don't care what the maker said (the one from Spokane?). These guns are long defunct and knowing how thin the chamber walls and forcing cone is on the larger L-frame 696, I certainly would NOT push those custom K-frames beyond SAAMI pressures.

 

[tdstout]

Alright, I know that "J Frame" is S&W, what I should have said was small frame instead. Sorry for the confusion. But what it sounds like though is that there aren't any small enough to fit in a pocket and yet strong enough to handle anything bigger than the light loads. What about .45 acp? I know that they make a few revolvers chambered for this round, and I already have a 1911 chambered for that round. Are there any of those that are small, and how do they compare to .44 special?

 

[rcmodel]

.45 ACP is bigger around then .44 Spl, so no, there are no truly small revolvers in .45 ACP either.
For the same reason.

The most powerful small pocket revolver you will find is chambered in .357 Magnum.

rc

 

[CraigC]

The .45ACP is not only larger but also operates at higher pressures. A step in the wrong direction. The wildcat .41Spl would be a step in the right direction but it still won't fit in a J-frame.

 

[DM~]

In this case, I really don't care what the maker said (the one from Spokane?). These guns are long defunct and knowing how thin the chamber walls and forcing cone is on the larger L-frame 696, I certainly would NOT push those custom K-frames beyond SAAMI pressures.

In this case, i'll go with what the "designer" of the conversion told me, as NO ONE KNOWS more about them than he does. I also know that he fired a pile of rounds to come to that conclusion.

I also know that he sent one to S&W and they fired it MANY thousands of rounds before returning it, and none of them blew up, broke or failed in any way...

Lastly, i have fired mine for years with my own cast 250 grain lead bullet at 900fps without any problem at all, i see no reason to stop now despite what someone who has never even seen one in person thinks he knows.

DM

 

[CraigC]

Lastly, i have fired mine for years with my own cast 250 grain lead bullet at 900fps without any problem at all...

THAT'S STANDARD PRESSURE!!!!!!!!

What have I been saying all along??? I've been saying they should probably be kept to standard pressures. You can drive a 250gr Keith bullet at 900fps at standard pressures all day long and twice on Sunday.

I also know that he sent one to S&W and they fired it MANY thousands of rounds before returning it, and none of them blew up, broke or failed in any way...

Lastly, i have fired mine for years with my own cast 250 grain lead bullet at 900fps without any problem at all...

Where did I say they were unsafe??? Where did I say they were unsafe at 900fps???

...someone who has never even seen one in person thinks he knows.

What I think I know is that the 696 should be kept to 1000fps or so. Paco Kelly is the only authority on the subject who pushes his luck with these guns but far as I know, he does so sparingly. The weak point, as we know from guns that have been damaged, is the thin forcing cone. So what I 'think' I know is that the barrel shank and thus the forcing cone, is larger on an L-frame than it is on a K-frame. What I also 'think' I know is that the cylinder is also larger in diameter on an L-frame than a K-frame. These are two good things to 'think' you know because they happen to be true.

You have no friggin' clue what I know or what I've seen. I'd appreciate you kept your personal comments to yourself and not presume to know anything about the individual on the other end. Clearly, you do not. The truth is you thought you were gonna show everybody how smart you are and created an argument to that end. Sorry if I wasn't impressed, those guns aren't "that" obscure.

 

[jimniowa]

I carry taurus .44sp 2" hammerless s/s 5 shot revolver. I would not recommend Taurus to my friends because of other issues, this gun will work. I load it with 210g sthp ammo. My wife carries a .32 H&R mag 2" in Taurus and is very happy with it. Her favorite is a S&W 686.
Jim

 

[PabloJ]

I looked over Charter Arms 'Bulldog' .44 Special with 4" barrel and adjustable rear sight. It was very light. Is it safe to shoot?

 

[DM~]

THAT'S STANDARD PRESSURE!!!!!!!!

What have I been saying all along??? I've been saying they should probably be kept to standard pressures. You can drive a 250gr Keith bullet at 900fps at standard pressures all day long and twice on Sunday.



Where did I say they were unsafe??? Where did I say they were unsafe at 900fps???



What I think I know is that the 696 should be kept to 1000fps or so. Paco Kelly is the only authority on the subject who pushes his luck with these guns but far as I know, he does so sparingly. The weak point, as we know from guns that have been damaged, is the thin forcing cone. So what I 'think' I know is that the barrel shank and thus the forcing cone, is larger on an L-frame than it is on a K-frame. What I also 'think' I know is that the cylinder is also larger in diameter on an L-frame than a K-frame. These are two good things to 'think' you know because they happen to be true.

You have no friggin' clue what I know or what I've seen. I'd appreciate you kept your personal comments to yourself and not presume to know anything about the individual on the other end. Clearly, you do not. The truth is you thought you were gonna show everybody how smart you are and created an argument to that end. Sorry if I wasn't impressed, those guns aren't "that" obscure.

I never claimed to be smarter than the maker of the revolver in question, but you sure claim to be... I trust his opinion much more than someone who has never even seen one. Also my personal experience trumps internet arm chair experts every time...

I could push my 44spl. a bit more, but why should i? That's why they invented the 44mag., and i have several of those too...

You should buy some of the guns you talk about and shoot the heck out of them, they are great fun to own and shoot, and you never know, along the way, you just might learn a few things about them. That's what i did, and it works for me...

DM

 

[DM~]

I looked over Charter Arms 'Bulldog' .44 Special with 4" barrel and adjustable rear sight. It was very light. Is it safe to shoot?

PabloJ, Over the years i've owned 3 or 4 of them... All of them were safe to shoot and they shot "ok", but i thought the actions were a bit rough and the fit and finish could have been better, so down the road they went...

DM

 

[CraigC]

I guess I'm a little confused. I say that they must be kept to standard pressures. You say I'm wrong, you've shot yours at 900fps for years without issue. 900fps is standard pressure. Where's the argument???

Your attack on my character and credibility is an interesting deflection.

Also my personal experience trumps internet arm chair experts every time...

Your personal experience doing exactly what I said???

You should buy some of the guns you talk about and shoot the heck out of them...

Ya think???

 

[Guillermo]

You should buy some of the guns you talk about and shoot the heck out of them

Hey Craig...what is your average round count per month?

 

[Tallinar]

Not sure why this is becoming so hostile.

I don't have my manuals in front of me at the moment, but I am pretty darn sure that published data will agree with Craig that a 250gr cast bullet at 900fps can be achieved under SAAMI spec (15,500 PSI) in .44 special using a variety of different powders, thus meaning that it's not considered a +P load. I'll check my manuals when I get home.

Let's be sure we're not confusing a "stout" load with a "high-pressure" load.

 

[CraigC]

Hey Craig...what is your average round count per month?

Usually at least a couple thousand, including rimfire. Three years ago I had to get a Dillon 650 to feed my .44Mag habit. This year I've been doing more .38Spl and .45ACP, trying to wear out two new guns. Ended up with a conversion kit to load .38's on the 650 as well.

The .38Spl is a USFA Rodeo II:


The .45 is a Springfield Range Officer, with new grips and some Ed Brown goodies:



Hunting season is almost here so I'll be unlimbering the Uberti 1873 Deluxe Sporting Rifle .38-40 again. Need to install a new front sight and rezero it. Have three different bullets to try, to see what this cartridge does on small whitetail. Here it is before I installed the Marbles tang sight. Along with a Cimarron 1860 Richards Type II cartridge conversion .44Colt.



I've also got another Old Model Ruger .357 that I want to have converted to a 7½" .38-40 to go with my 1873. Hopefully I'll be able to send it off in the next few months.

But no, I don't have any guns or do any shooting.

Not sure why this is becoming so hostile.

Nor I.

 

[DM~]

Not sure why this is becoming so hostile.

I don't have my manuals in front of me at the moment, but I am pretty darn sure that published data will agree with Craig that a 250gr cast bullet at 900fps can be achieved under SAAMI spec (15,500 PSI) in .44 special using a variety of different powders, thus meaning that it's not considered a +P load. I'll check my manuals when I get home.

Let's be sure we're not confusing a "stout" load with a "high-pressure" load.

My Answer isn't about 900fps being +P or not, it's about whether the master pistol smith who designed the "K" frame 44spl's was right that his conversions were safe with 250/1000fps loads. Our mutual friend seems to think HE is more knowledgable than the designer/builder, i think not! The builder tested these conversions, i have shot some 1000 to 1050 fps loads, but settled on 900 because i like that load...

The least one could do to decide, is AT LEAST have some personal experience with the firearm....in this case, the "arm chair" comment fits perfectly!

DM

 

[CraigC]

I don't have to lick a turd to know that I do not want to eat it. Nor do I have to blowup a K-frame .44Spl to know what NOT to do. God gave me a brain and the ability to use it. Fortunately in this case, I've spent much time applying it to this very subject.

I stand behind what I said. Regardless of what the `smith said, I would NOT exceed standard pressures in such a gun, nor would I recommend anyone else did so. Period. If you feel differently, that is certainly your prerogative. The K-frame cylinder is 0.120" smaller than the L-frame 696. That's almost 1/8"! In this context, that is a huge difference. The outer chamber wall on the 696 is a mere 0.050" thick. Do the math. Not to mention that the barrel shank is smaller in diameter, by 0.022". The 696's forcing cone is already paper thin at 0.058", whereas the unmodified model 19's is 0.060" at the 6:00 position cutout. Those two changes are the L-frame's whole reason for being, just to contain the .357 cartridge.

Further, NO authority on this subject will recommend exceeding standard pressures in the 696, let alone the dainty K-frame. So this "armchair" shooter has plenty to support his position. You, on the other hand, have the third-hand word of a long retired gunsmith. Who produced a very obscure custom gun that was at the absolute end of its design limits, that is completely irreplaceable today because no contemporary gunsmith would touch such a job. Why? Because there is very little safety margin.

Your personal comments questioning my character and credibility have not been warranted or appreciated. Nor have they contributed at all to the discussion at hand. Stuff your "armchair" comments. I'm not an easily impressed or bullied child or a mall ninja and will respond in kind.

...his conversions were safe with 250/1000fps loads.

More than a little vague.

 

[EMC45]

That frame must be bigger than the 431 that Taurus put out, because my 431 (4 inch SS Fixed sight 5 shot .44 Special) fits both my K frame holsters wonderfully.

 

[CraigC]

What's the cylinder diameter on the Taurus?

 

[Guillermo]

NO authority on this subject will recommend exceeding standard pressures in the 696, let alone the dainty K-frame

That is absolutely the truth.

If the gunsmith in question actually did so, I would not trust him.

Also, I have chatted w Craig on THR for quite some time. We may disagree but his positions are always well thought out. The only ones he is wrong about are the ones that he disagrees with me.

 

[DM~]

You, on the other hand, have the third-hand word of a long retired gunsmith. Who produced a very obscure custom gun that was at the absolute end of its design limits, that is completely irreplaceable today because no contemporary gunsmith would touch such a job. Why? Because there is very little safety margin.

Dang! I sure wish i had your crystal ball, you even know all about the pistol smith, even though i never stated who did this particular conversion, even calling "first hand" info, third hand. lol

I sure can't compete with your crystal ball, so i'll just leave you to it and "google" to keep typeing away...

You have a great day,

DM

 

[Tallinar]

...his conversions were safe with 250/1000fps loads.

More than a little vague..

Very vague.

There are multiple ways to arrive at a given velocity with a given bullet weight. The actual pressure specs can vary radically with different powders due to varying burn rates, etc.

I'm a bit hesitant to take anyone's word on safety if they referenced only a bullet weight and velocity as being safe - especially when referring to loads that are on the hotter side of the spectrum for a given cartridge, and even moreso when referring to a gun with such questionable (or abnormally skinny, at very least) dimensions.

If you were able to fire such rounds safely in that gun, then that's sweet. I'm glad nothing has gone wrong for you.

Maybe I missed it earlier in the conversation, but can we get any pics of this .44 special K-frame? I'm very curious.

 

[CraigC]

The only ones he is wrong about are the ones that he disagrees with me.

I try not to do that too often!

Very vague.

Much like the rest of it.

 

[Guillermo]

I try not to do that too often!

You are a smart guy...



And CERTAINLY smart enough not to push beyond the design capability of a lightweight weapon.

Apparently some folks aren't.

(or more likely, they were misunderstood)

 

[azgunner]

I own a Rossi 720C. It is a K frame gun, with a J frame grip. It is great for carry. Fits in a K frame holster. Very concealable. My Taurus 431 is a great carry weapon also. But it is not as easy to hide as the Rossi. You cant go wrong with either weapon. Both are wonderful shooters. The Rossi 720 is the best weapon Rossi has ever put out. I also believe the Taurus 431 is the best revolver Taurus ever put out. A close second would be the 669 in 357 magnum. Load your own for practice, and factory for defense.