I flame the .44 Special ....

Status
Not open for further replies.
Isn't it curious that we have had .44 Spl. revolvers for over 100 years but now everybody either insists on carrying a ultralight polymer or alloy .357 snub with +P ammo that they can not practice with enough to be proficient because of the recoil and blast? I have been carrying .44 Spl. revolvers for 30 years and I have not found anything better.
 
Up until a few years ago I was .44 Special poor. That was a shame, as one of my earliest projects was a custom built Colt New Service in .44 Special. After that came an early Charter Bulldog in .44 Special. I parted with that gun and went without a .44 Special for maybe twenty years or so. Here after rectifying the situation:

100_0084_zps549c9f9e.jpg

Since this photo was maken I've added this .44 Special:

100_0020_zpsjnuaz7wx.jpg

Yep, I like the .44 Special. Feel a little sorry for those who don't.

Bob Wright
 
CraigC said:
I personally can't tell a lick of difference between a 355gr .44 at 1200fps and a 360gr .45 at 1150fps.
Click to expand...

I can tell the difference between a high pressure load and the resultant sound pressure out of a short barrel, but maybe not as much as in your above example, where both of them are best described as "healthy". But there is definitely a difference, if one were to put a sound meter to it.
 
JohnKSa said:
The "little more to the story" is critical to understanding why he would take a shot on a game animal with a handgun at that distance when his thoughts on hunting loads clearly contradicted his actions.

The incident that you are referring to was Keith shooting at an already wounded animal. Another hunter had shot the deer (with a rifle) and ruined one front leg, but had failed to kill it. The range and terrain was such that there was a real chance of the animal escaping entirely. The other hunter was also trying to finish the animal, still using a rifle while Keith was shooting at it with his handgun.

There's no reason his comments on what he believed was adequate for hunting should be applicable to a situation where he was trying to finish off a wounded animal with whatever he had at hand.

I don't know of any situation where Keith took a long shot at any game animal with a handgun except under extenuating circumstances.
Click to expand...

I know why he took the shots he did, I just thought a little humourous that he wanted over 4000 ft./lbs. of energy for a deer rifle, but even bothered lobbing bullets that had to down around a twentieth of that energy at that range.

He has my respect as a pistolero, and writer, but I'd have trouble standing on both issues with a straight face! :uhoh:

For the record, I'd have shot too, if I had his skill, and knew the range and the drop. From what I understand taking those shots and writing about it was probably one of his biggest misgivings.

Seems he piled up a bunch of game, along with Bill Weatherby IIRC with the .357 when it was introduced. Again the size of game, and what he figured was ideal for punch, don't seem to jive.
 
Tactical Lever said:
I can tell the difference between a high pressure load and the resultant sound pressure out of a short barrel, but maybe not as much as in your above example, where both of them are best described as "healthy". But there is definitely a difference, if one were to put a sound meter to it.
Click to expand...
Not true at all. I did a write-up comparing the .44Mag and .45Colt in Max Prasac's latest book. I shot identical guns side by side. There is no difference in muzzle blast or recoil.

IMG_7100b.jpg
 
CraigC said:
Not true at all. I did a write-up comparing the .44Mag and .45Colt in Max Prasac's latest book. I shot identical guns side by side. There is no difference in muzzle blast or recoil.

View attachment 824722
Click to expand...

I didn't say there would be a difference in recoil, likely pretty hard to quantify the difference even in controlled testing.

But I did say that there would be a difference in blast. Can the human ear tell the difference uncovered? Doubtful, as you are well beyond what the limits of hearing are. A .22 out of a pistol is painful for me, a .357 is absolutely ridiculous.

If you reference quick load, for various loads, you can find out the residual pressure at the muzzle. The residual pressure directly correlates to the db sound pressure the shooter will experience. I referenced this shooting hand loads out of my Wife's rifle, and the same out of mine. Out of the short barrel, the shots are very loud, even taking into account the closer distance to the ear. When I shoot full power loads out of that 12" barrel, the sound is louder still.

Fooling around with very fast powders, I can get a 45-70 pretty quiet with a small charge. The pressure while not super high to begin with, quickly dies off and at the end of the barrel is scarcely pushing the bullet. Which is why you can get a low velocity .22 to be nearly silent. The combustion, and expansion of gases is nearly done in the first 12" of barrel, so when a gallery load is put down a 24" barrel, the extra 12" serves as an expansion chamber to catch the residual pressure.

Now comparing that to a revolver is a bit different as there is cylinder gap to contend with, but there will be a measureable difference between a 30 000 PSI load, and a 36 000 psi load if you choose to push it that far. I can't tell you how much of a difference there will be, but it would be interesting to see someone with sound equipment mic it.
 
If the 44 went away what would happen to Lorne Green's song lyrics....."he was looking down the bore of the deadly 44 of ...Ringo" :(
 
CraigC said:
Last I checked, .429 rounds to .43, not .42 and most .44Spl's are loaded with .430-.431" cast bullets. This is very often done for the purpose of deriding the .44's but apparently only by folks ignorant of the history of the cartridges in question. Please read up on your history of these cartridges before going any deeper in that.
Click to expand...

SAAMI specification caliber or bore diameter for 44 Magnum handguns is .417", which rounds up to 42 caliber. Page 166: https://saami.org/wp-content/upload...rfire-Pistol-Revolver-Approved-12-14-2015.pdf
 
I know why he took the shots he did, I just thought a little humourous that he wanted over 4000 ft./lbs. of energy for a deer rifle, but even bothered lobbing bullets that had to down around a twentieth of that energy at that range.
Click to expand...
It was what he had. It wouldn't have made sense for him to just watch it run away wounded when he might get a hit on it and at least help it die a little faster.
He has my respect as a pistolero, and writer, but I'd have trouble standing on both issues with a straight face!
Click to expand...
I don't see why. He wasn't carrying the .44 for big game hunting so I can't see how there's any contradiction.

Look, I don't think that .22LR is a good choice for self-defense, and if people ask me about it, I recommend against it. But if someone attacked me and all I had was a .22LR (maybe coming back from a range trip), I wouldn't stand there and let the guy kill me because I was afraid of people thinking that I was being inconsistent with my previous recommendations that make it plain that I don't think .22LR is a very good self-defense cartridge.

When you get in a jam, you use what you have even if it's not what you would normally use and even if you have recommended against it in the past. That doesn't create any sort of a contradiction.
Seems he piled up a bunch of game, along with Bill Weatherby IIRC with the .357 when it was introduced. Again the size of game, and what he figured was ideal for punch, don't seem to jive.
Click to expand...
He certainly shot a lot of animals with handguns, but they were primarily pest animals like coyotes and other varmints, not game animals--or they were shot in extenuating or carefully controlled circumstances, as I recall. If you have specific examples, of him hunting big game animals with handguns, and you provide them, I'll see if I can look them up in his writings. I have most of his books. It would be interesting to see what the circumstances of the hunts were to see if/how they aligned with his stated ideas about what's reasonable for big game animals.
 
JohnKSa said:
It was what he had. It wouldn't have made sense for him to just watch it run away wounded when he might get a hit on it and at least help it die a little faster.I don't see why. He wasn't carrying the .44 for big game hunting so I can't see how there's any contradiction.

Look, I don't think that .22LR is a good choice for self-defense, and if people ask me about it, I recommend against it. But if someone attacked me and all I had was a .22LR (maybe coming back from a range trip), I wouldn't stand there and let the guy kill me because I was afraid of people thinking that I was being inconsistent with my previous recommendations that make it plain that I don't think .22LR is a very good self-defense cartridge.

When you get in a jam, you use what you have even if it's not what you would normally use and even if you have recommended against it in the past. That doesn't create any sort of a contradiction.He certainly shot a lot of animals with handguns, but they were primarily pest animals like coyotes and other varmints, not game animals--or they were shot in extenuating or carefully controlled circumstances, as I recall. If you have specific examples, of him hunting big game animals with handguns, and you provide them, I'll see if I can look them up in his writings. I have most of his books. It would be interesting to see what the circumstances of the hunts were to see if/how they aligned with his stated ideas about what's reasonable for big game animals.
Click to expand...

I would too. Agree with what you are saying, but from my perspective he is an experience shot, and knew that the .44 would kill it at that range, and not just add to it's trauma. He just took the overkill thing to the next level IMO. Some of that stems from his considerable experience hunting with marginal cartridges, like the time he shot an elk with a 25-35 IIRC. Could have been an even smaller gun, or might have been a 44-40, but he had to track it for miles. He might have then favoured a 30-06 or .35 Whelen, but I'm pretty sure it was something even bigger. Case wise. I think he was fond of the .338 caliber, and I agree with his love of heavy bullets.

I'll see if I can find some references of him killing big game with the .357, and such.
 
Tactical Lever said:
I would too. Agree with what you are saying, but from my perspective he is an experience shot, and knew that the .44 would kill it at that range, and not just add to it's trauma. He just took the overkill thing to the next level IMO. Some of that stems from his considerable experience hunting with marginal cartridges, like the time he shot an elk with a 25-35 IIRC. Could have been an even smaller gun, or might have been a 44-40, but he had to track it for miles. He might have then favoured a 30-06 or .35 Whelen, but I'm pretty sure it was something even bigger. Case wise. I think he was fond of the .338 caliber, and I agree with his love of heavy bullets.

I'll see if I can find some references of him killing big game with the .357, and such.
Click to expand...
One thing we have to bear in mind with Keith is that he liked big bullets, big holes and exits. The jacketed rifle bullets of his day were a lot less advanced than what we have today. It may 'sound' like overkill by today's standards. Ethics are a different thing today than they were then. Keith wrote about killing hawks and that would be a big taboo today. Same for 'experimenting' on game with different bullets and loads. He did things that would be considered unethical today but had he not, we wouldn't even know what is or isn't ethical. He helped draw that map. ;)
 
CraigC said:
Delivering a 250gr at 950fps, the .44Spl makes a dandy packing pistol or trail companion in a package that is somewhat smaller and lighter than your average .44Mag. It will fully penetrate any deer that walks and has taken more than a few elk. If more is needed, more is available in the form of the famous 1200fps Keith load, or Brian Pearce's 300gr at 1000fps recipes.
Click to expand...

There is no load data published in any of the three loading manuals that I checked with your claimed velocity/bullet. I'm not saying it can't be done but most people who reload aren't going to load to those extremes if the data isn't published by a powder company or bullet manufacturer. I recall you saying something about some revolvers can handle those loads and some can't. The manuals don't tell you which ones those are so they stay in the safe zone of 15,500 psi.

Leading people to believe that a 44 spl can safely be loaded above that is doing a disservice to the reloading community.
 
Gimme a break with the safety nanny response. If you have to have your data from a mainstream manual, then choose another cartridge. If, however, you can think for yourself and research other sources, such as Handloader Magazine or 80 friggin' years of Elmer Keith, Skeeter Skelton, John Taffin, Ross Seyfried, Brian Pearce, etc., you might find something useful.

IMHO, powder/bullet manuals aren't the only source for "published" data.
 
CraigC said:
If, however, you can think for yourself and research other sources, such as Handloader Magazine or 80 friggin' years of Elmer Keith, Skeeter Skelton, John Taffin, Ross Seyfried, Brian Pearce, etc., you might find something useful.
Click to expand...

Not likely. I don't get my load data from gun writers or magazines. Most of those old stories and articles were written by people who had no access to labs or pressure testing equipment. They were/are in the business of selling print, not doing due diligence product testing.

But if you want to load up your 44 special to 25,000 psi I think you should absolutely be able to do that. ;)
 
Last edited:
CraigC said:
One thing we have to bear in mind with Keith is that he liked big bullets, big holes and exits. The jacketed rifle bullets of his day were a lot less advanced than what we have today. It may 'sound' like overkill by today's standards. Ethics are a different thing today than they were then. Keith wrote about killing hawks and that would be a big taboo today. Same for 'experimenting' on game with different bullets and loads. He did things that would be considered unethical today but had he not, we wouldn't even know what is or isn't ethical. He helped draw that map. ;)
Click to expand...

Yup, big bullets and big exits. I am definitely more of an Elmer Keith type guy than Jack O'Connor.

The old school jacketed bullets still perform over a wider velocity range than the copper alloy which need high velocity to perform right. The heavier jacketed bullets started off at a more modest velocity, lose less speed as a percentage and end up doing just what they need to.

I consider lead cast the original mono-metal bullets, and there isn't a better replacement at modest velocities.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

D
  • Locked
44 special derringer loads
Replies
1
Views
997
Snowdog
Snowdog
F
  • Locked
.44 vs .45 acp
Replies
11
Views
1K
joed
joed
L
  • Locked
Is 44 special a good carry gun?
2
Replies
48
Views
4K
wnycollector
W
MikeInOr
  • Locked
What weight bullets for mild 44 special loads
Replies
13
Views
425
Shivahasagun
S
If1HitU
  • Locked
In the woods with a .44 Special.
Replies
9
Views
6K
Loyalist Dave
Loyalist Dave
Back
Top