I found a 1965 article about the testing of the 44 Magnum..

[saturno_v]

I posted this message by mistake in the autoloader section..I apologize, I propose it again here....

It is an article in an old (1965) Italian publication.
They tested the 44 Magnum and, among other things, showed the famous pictures of Bob Petersen shooting polar bears with a S&W 44 Mag revolver.

The regular factory Norma loads tested (240 gr) were doing 460 m/sec (1518 fps) in a 4" barrel, 500 m/sec (1650 fps) in a 6" barrel and 530 m/sec (1749 fps) in a 8" barrel!!!!!

They seems statospheric numbers by today's 44 Magnum factory standards, maybe even hotter than some modern +P offerings by Buffalo Bore or Garrett...so 44 Mag loads were way hotter in the past??

So in the 60's a 44 Mag was considered appropriate for Polar Bears??

 

[Uglyoldpoorman]

That is a good point and I have no ideas why the bears were easier to kill back then other than speculation. If I were to guess I would say that global warming has made the hides of todays bears tougher.

 

[rcmodel]

Yes!
Way hotter.
And Norma .44 Mag was hotter then American stuff.

Those old Norma loads would light the grass on fire, and then blow it out when the air sucked back in around the fireball!

SAAMI has de-tuned several calibers in recent years including the .44 Mag and .357 mag.

Winchesters old .357 mag 158 grain LSWC load had to have the empties pounded out of a lot of S&W's & Rugers.

rcmodel

 

[buck460XVR]

in the 1960's the standard polar bear hunt for non-indigenous hunters was from an airplane.....it wasn't until the 1973 International Agreement on the Conservation of Polar Bears that the scardy-cat practice was banned. Basically they found a bear out in the open and flew over it peppering it with bullets until it either succumbed to gunshots or exhaustion. Guess it was kinda hard for a wounded Polar Bear to successfully charge a flying aircraft.

 

[keyboard commando]

Dead

Dead is dead................

 

[ants]

We have also seen old films of polar bears being shot from tracked sno-cats at the town garbage dump, at a range of about 10 feet. Polar bears don't hibernate, so they sometimes become a nuisance foraging around far northern Canadian towns during winter.

From this article, we really don't know the distance or the circumstances at which the bears were shot.

 

[mec]

Elmer Keith complained in one of his columns that that norma load was way too hot.

 

[.38 Special]

Keith actually felt that pretty much all the major manufacturers went overboard with the .44. He felt the 240 SWC at 1400 FPS was perfect, and that it was foolish to "try to make a rifle out of a handgun".

It's funny, considering his reputation, but he was actually pretty conservative in that area. He wrote several columns to the effect that "maximum" loads were a bad idea, and in his write-up of the .454 Casull he complained that the loads were way too hot and that almost nobody would be able to do good shooting with it.

 

[saturno_v]

Accordingly with the article, the polar bear was shot from 25 yards, the first shot was broadside just behind the shoulder
Norma loads, 240 gr.
A total of 5 shots within 7 or 8 seconds, the last two frontal chest.

 

[Piedmont Plinker]

You can kill a bear with a .22. Stopping one, that's a different story.

 

[dogrunner]

Memories, memories!.............That Norma stuff was GREAT ammo. Nickled mild steel jacket, meplat that strongly resembled a slightly truncated wadcutter and HOT!.............Carried a full cylinder( yep, all 6!) of it in my old flat top in Alaska then for the bear confrontation that thank God never happened. That stuff would cut cloverleaves all day long but the blast and attendant recoil would sure get your attention............Don't know how long its been off the market but I still have about 90 pieces of brass left with Norma's stamp and wish I could find some more, it seemed nearly everlasting!

Anybody that played with the .44 (.357 for that matter) during the '50's and early '60s has gotta recall just how hot that factory stuff was. I started out with my .44 using Remingtons half jacketed swcs and those loads would flip that muzzle to 90 degrees every time, the .357's were as sharp a recoiling round as I have ever used in that caliber but were remarkably bad for leading bbls and nearly uncontrolable in the light framed M/19.

 

[publiuss]

Hunting polar bear with a 44 mag. Much more of a man than me. I've seen a shoulder mount of one. Look at the size of the head of that thing in the picture!

 

[Ron James]

You can rest assured that when that bear was shot , there was someone standing behind the shooter wit a very large caliber rifle.

 

[mec]

...but were remarkably bad for leading bbls

It must have been difficult to design a bullet that would lead that badly. Six shots in a ruger flattop would totally obscure the rifling. The remington jacketed roundnose was just as bad, Jacket over the nose and whatever breed of pure lead totally exposed on the bearing surface. I never could come up with a bullet-cast or swaged from lead wire that would coat the bore so thoroughly.

 

[saturno_v]

You can rest assured that when that bear was shot , there was someone standing behind the shooter wit a very large caliber rifle.

You are quite correct, there were 2 back-up guides with 375s....


But it is the same even for a guy hunting a bear with a 375 himself...he would always have a backup

 

[tipoc]

There was a couple of articles in Reloader magazine a year or so ago on the velocities posted by ammo manufacturers in the 50s through the 70s. IIRC they were by Brian Pearce. The ammo was a bit hotter then but the testing was also not standardized. Published data was often from 8" non vented barrels, which show higher velocities. By the 70s a switch was on to show data from 6" vented barrels which more closely showed what did happen out of a gun. As a result the velocities dipped across the board.

I'm not sure off hand when reliable velocity gages were developed but those of the 40's through the 70s were also not as reliable as the current crop.

Yep you can take a brown or a polar bear with the .44 mag or the .45 Colt with the right load. A well placed shot at the right distance and it can be done. Moose, caribou and elk as well. It is considered a proper hunting round for big bears.

tipoc

 

[Thernlund]

...I have no ideas why the bears were easier to kill back then...

Evolution? Kind of like how a 30-30 isn't good enough for deer anymore?


-T.

 

[DWFan]

Not evolution...devolution. All the present Magnums are pale shadows of their former selves. This is due to handguns being made smaller and the manufacturers trying to appeal to more handgunners by "taming" the recoil. Some rifle cartridges are being done the same way.
All the Magnums started out with loads well over 40,000 cup. Slowly this was reduced to 35-38,000 cup, then the "new" psi standard was put to use while the numbers stayed the same.
35,000 psi is NOT the same as 35,000 cup; it is actually 12 to 17% lower.

 

[eliphalet]

Recently inherited two boxes of Remington 41 mag and one box of Winchester 44 Mag from the 60's. Haven't shot any 41 yet but the 44 is considerably hotter compared to a box of factory stuff from today. Shot from a 7 1/2" Blackhawk, we didn't chrono it, but the feel/recoil and sound was enough to really tell the difference.

I have been reloading my 41 for a couple of decades from a manual printed in the 60's, the loads are above any printed today. So far so good with no signs of excessive pressure. After all the gun was made in 1968 why not use data from then too? Grin!

 

[Confederate]

That Norma stuff was GREAT ammo. Nickled mild steel jacket, meplat that strongly resembled a slightly truncated wadcutter and HOT!.............Carried a full cylinder( yep, all 6!) of it in my old flat top in Alaska then for the bear confrontation that thank God never happened. That stuff would cut cloverleaves all day long but the blast and attendant recoil would sure get your attention....

Wouldn't these hot loads make short work of a Model 29? The .357s on the old N-frames might be something else completely, but I'd like to hear if the Norma rounds resulted in any damage to the revolvers. I've heard some people say the 29/629s are pretty tough; others say hot loads ruin them. I'd think a Ruger Redhawk could handle the Normas without a problem, but lighter frame guns would be more susceptible to warping and binding.

All the present Magnums are pale shadows of their former selves. This is due to handguns being made smaller and the manufacturers trying to appeal to more handgunners by "taming" the recoil. Some rifle cartridges are being done the same way.

I don't think it was solely because of smaller guns, though they certainly factored into the equation. Much of it was practicality. Anyone with a reloading manual can work their loads up to their former glory, but few reloaders choose to do so. Even factory .44 mag ammo these days are a bit hard on the hands. I recall seeing a number of .44s behind glass and sold with a near full box of ammo. Even so, I noticed the price hadn't gone down as a result as demand was as hot as ever. Many of the early .44 mags ended up in safes and passed among friends who were anxious just to see or handle one. I finally got a nickel plated 29 and sold it when I got the chance at a 629. Although I love the 629, I still wish I had my old one back. It was a beaut, but I got scared off by folks saying that the nickel plate would blow off those big magnums. I also griped to S&W about their decision to ship the datgum things with cheese-grater type grips. They graciously sent me a new pair of smooth wood grips which adorn it to this day.

 

[slabsides]

In my files I have clippings of articles in the March American Rifleman by Maj. Gen Julius Hatcher, and the May 1956 Argosy magazine by Pete Kuhlhoff. Both titled 'The World's Most Powerful Handgun' (not necessarily true even back then...the .45 Colt with handloads, some .44 Special loads, and the 9 MM Mars auto, I believe, were all in the running for the same title.)
Both articles praised the workmanship and accuracy of the new S&W/Remington combination, which had a mv of 1300+. Cost of the new revolver: $135.00 list!!!!!

 

[ranger335v]

"Keith actually felt that pretty much all the major manufacturers went overboard with the .44."

Old Elmer knew more practical hunting and gun/ammo data than his detractors all put together. Like today's liberal media, they would grab a line or statement, pull it out of context, distort it and try their best to make Elmer look like a baffoon. Guess they succeeded with some folks but not many. His passing was a great loss to the shooting community.

Don't think the original list price of $135 was trivial. In the mid-fifties, that was close to a week and a half, or more, after tax pay for most men and it was difficult to find a dealer who would give much of a discount off MSRP.

 

[Supertac45]

Fred Bear and a host of other bow hunters have killed Polar Bears with a bow. It's your backup with the cannon that covers up your blown shots.

 

[paul105]

The Guy in the Picture is Robert E Petersen Founder of Guns & Ammo Mag

Here's a link to the original article in Guns & Ammo

http://www.gunsandammomag.com/classics/polar_1007/

Petersen was truely an American success story.

http://www.gunsandammomag.com/petersenob_032607/

Petersen's first issue of Guns & Ammo, published in 1958.

Robert E. Petersen, Founder of Guns & Ammo, Petersen's Hunting Magazines Passes On at 80

Robert E. Petersen, an entrepreneur, automobile enthusiast and avid sportsman, who single-handedly created the largest special-interest publishing company in America, was instrumental in the evolution of the hot-rodding culture, and who, with his wife Margie, realized his dream of establishing an educational museum to pay tribute to the automobile, died on Friday, March 23, at St. John's Hospital in Santa Monica, Calif. after a short but valiant battle with neuroendocrine cancer. He was 80.


"After graduating from Barstow High School in the mid-1940s, he moved to Los Angeles, working at MGM studios as a messenger boy. Following service in the Army Air Corps toward the end of Word War II, Mr. Petersen, now an independent publicist immersed in the burgeoning customized auto culture of California, was instrumental in creating the first hot rod show at the Los Angeles Armory. To help establish the event, in January 1948 he launched Hot Rod Magazine, and hawked the magazine at local speedways for 25 cents a copy. Motor Trend, a more upscale publication for production car enthusiasts, and dozens of other titles aimed at specialty automotive segments, soon followed.


A native of Southern California, Mr. Petersen's mother passed away when he was 10, leaving him with his Danish-immigrant father, who worked as a truck and equipment mechanic. As a young man he picked up his father's skills, learning to weld, de-coke engines, and hone his fascination with cars.


Mr. Petersen spent decades as Chairman of the Board of Petersen Publishing Company, which was at one time America's leading publisher of special-interest consumer magazines and books before its sale to private investors in August 1996. Among its other diverse successful titles were Teen, Sport, Rod & Custom, and Guns & Ammo. He also headed a wide variety of other businesses including ammunition manufacturing, real estate development and aviation services that each reflected another passion he shared.

Firmly established as an American success story, Mr. Petersen had one lasting vision: an educational museum to pay tribute to the automobile. On June 11, 1994, the lifelong dream of Robert E. Petersen was fulfilled with the opening of a 300,000-square-foot automotive museum named in his honor, made possible by his $30 million endowment.

Mr. Petersen, a dedicated hunter and firearms enthusiast, founded Guns & Ammo in 1958, and then followed up this success several years later with Petersen's Hunting, Petersen's Bowhunting, Handguns, and Rifle Shooter. Over the years these magazines proved to be some of the most influential and widely read journals of their type ever published."

Paul

 

[tipoc]

Interesting article and a good one. 3 of 5 rounds penetrated to vital areas but 5 rounds hit. So 2 of the 5, for one reason or another, did not penetrate to vital areas. Meaning, I guess, they missed the vitals or penetration was not sufficient for one reason or another.
tipoc