S&W needs a Bulldog

Status
Not open for further replies.
The problem is there is no place in the modern world for the .44spl. S&W is now making that same L-frame, 5 shot in .44Mag so who is going to pay just as much for a "limited" cartridge when they can have one that delivers BRAGGING RIGHTS!
Sure, MOST people who buy .44Magnums end up shooting nothing warmer than a hot .44spl, but the thing is the gun still says .44 MAGNUM on the barrel and that's what counts because everyone standing in awe knows they COULD be loosing off the most powerful round ever sent down to Earth IF they wanted too!
THIS is why Charter Arms has been successful with the Bulldog...they built it as light and compact as possible and aimed at a niche market where it competes only with .38spl snubbies - a competition it EXCELS at since even a mild .44spl round eclipses a .38spl from a snubbie.
So S&W brings out an L-frame in .44spl...YAWN. Who is going to pay the vig for a S&W to have nothing "better" than a MUCH less expensive, yet just as reliable, SMALLER, and LIGHTER Charter Arms Bulldog? And Charter Arms owns the rights to the name "Bulldog" which sounds bad-to-tha-BONE!
To counter this S&W brings a warmed over L-frame that weighs 37 ounces and is NOT currently listed in the lineup thanks to the debut of the .44 Magnum version. So the consumer is expected to pony up 3X the vig for an S&W over a CA for a gun that's HUGE in direct comparision, and weighs the equivalent of an entire gun MORE to shoot the same power load and be carried concealed!
CA Bulldog = 22oz.
S&W = 37oz - 15 ounces MORE ...even my Beretta Tomcat weighs less than that! My Kahr P380 weighs a full THIRD less than that! When it comes to concealed carry, 15 UNLOADED ounces matter! An S&W 642 is only 14oz unloaded and Charter Arms' has snubbie .38's that weight just 12 ounces!

So CA has priced and aimed their product squarely at the "user" consumer whereas S&W has aimed their product squarely at the "gun nut" who already owns six of everything and wants something "new." The gun nut will pay the vig...the person price shopping for a reliable CC handgun will not pay $900 for a Smith when the CA is laying there for $400.

I'm sure someone will chortle that an S&W is WORTH three times the money despite NOT being built to do the job of the "lesser" gun...hey, each to his own, but HISTORY is on my side in that Charter Arms has been selling ".44 Bulldogs" like hotcakes for DECADES now while no other maker has managed figure out that the best way to BEAT the competition is to COPY the competition! The INSTANT S&W, or Colt, or Ruger brings out a .44spl built SMALL to compete directly with the CA Bulldog and PRICE it competitively they'll take the market...but that hasn't happened in 30 years, so it looks like CA will be "KING" of the .44 spl market for the foreseeable future.
 
A big hole in the barrel dose t always mean power.
Take a gander at the FPE a 3".357mag produces!
Plenty pf power! More than a .44 spec!
IMHO
BPDave
Click to expand...

A real 357 load makes extra noise and pressure waves because of velocity. The subsonic 44 special should be better, in some ways comparable to 45 ACP in semiautos. It depends on the application. For example, the 357 is a notoriously bad choice for shooting indoors.
 
kilibreaux,

Do you really think the Charter Arms Bulldog can take the shooting a S&W can?

I mean 10,000 rounds? 20? 30?

Can it take the abuse?

As for being heavy, folks go look at your gut and see how many extra pounds you carry there and then think hard to find a justification to gripe about an extra 20 ounces of gun.

Oh yea... and I pack a Glock. Yes I have a passel of S&W revolvers and I do hanker to carry a S&W Lew Horton 624 .44 Spl.,and I could pack my S&W 3 inch 625 .45 Acp, but well a glock is a glock.

So I have no real gun to defend in this debate.

Deaf
 
That's a good question Deaf. I don't recall anyone ever running ten or twenty thousand rounds through one. I think that's a marketing mistake that Charter made years ago. They should have had someone like Elmer do just that and see what happens.

As far as I know, it's never been established. We all "know" that they are limited round count guns, but is that anything more than heresy? I honestly don't know.

I do know that the first one I bought in about 1976 or so took a diet of the 250 grain Keith over 18.5 grains. of 2400, a fairly stout load. :)

I don't recall how many round of that load the poor little thing suffered through but it was more than just a few. But it never showed any ill effects. I only sold it 'cause I'm an idiot

The good ones are pretty tough little pieces.


Cat
 
its called the Taurus 445. S&W design, C.A. size, better than average quality, affordable price.

see post #75 if you need further.
 
The closest S&W ever got was the 696 and it was just possibly the best idea they ever had since the Model 57. But it just couldn't stand up to all of the fools that insisted on loading up to .44 Mag levels or using very light bullets at very high velocities. I really don't blame S&W for dropping it. In a .44 Spl. snub carry gun all you really need is about 200-220 grains of bullet at about 850-900 fps. If guys would stick with that and forget about +P Corbon/Buffalo Bore loads the guns would hold up practically forever. Mr. Tony sir, I LOVE those wadcutters. Hard cast? How fast are they traveling? I think those make a VERY GOOD carry load. Anyone gets hit with one of those is going to have a serious problem.
 
Last edited:
Loved to have gotten a S&W 58 .41 magnum, rebored to .45 LC, chopped barrel to 3 inches, and rounded the butt. Add a hard chrome finish to boot.

But that would be one expensive undertaking today.

And that is why I want a .44 Spl. Lew Horten 3 inch 624!

Deaf
 
Thank you, Drail. Those are the Buffalo Bore 200 grain hardcast wadcutters.

I clocked 8 of them over a Prochrono and got a mean of 920 ft/s out of the 2.5" S&W 296.

I shot a bunch of my favorite .44 special loads with the 296 and with a Ruger Blackhawk Bisley in .44 special for comparison purposes. Data copied below.

Unfortunately the wadcutters were too powerful for the lightweight 296. The best power to accuracy ratio I have been able to find so far is Corbon's DPX load of the Barnes 200 grain all-copper hollowpoint TAC-XP bullet. Buffalo Bore loads the same bullet too hot, and Doubletap completely screwed it up and loads it way low. I would go back to the wadcutters as a second choice if I ran out of Corbon DPX or really thought I needed the penetration for whatever reason.

The Corbon version is just about right in the short barrel. I shot it through a bunch of water jugs and was happy with the totally meaningless and anecdotal destruction. Went through 3 jugs and was recovered in the 4th. More importantly, I am accurate with it.

I would use the wadcutters in the Blackhawk but they are eclipsed by heavier Keith bullets in that platform. The 200 grainers would make a compelling 696 load, I am quite sure.

I'm not a fan of the Gold Dots in .44 special.

44chart_zps72137d5e.jpg

Distribution_zps4920ce87.jpg

Bullets44_zps9847f50d.gif

From left to right: 255 Gr. Keith SWC, 200 Gr. Wadcutter, 200 Gr. Barnes TAC-XP, 200 Gr. Gold Dot
 
Last edited:
Sox that is positively BRILLIANT. Not joking here. Light and a big bore.
 
The wadcutters do look pretty rough. Probably not the quickest thing to reload with under pressure though.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

S
  • Locked
Snubbies I'd like to see- Dreamin'
2
Replies
31
Views
2K
antiquus
A
N
  • Locked
Price Check: S&W 642
Replies
17
Views
780
Polishrifleman
P
B
  • Locked
Charter Arms .44 Special Bulldog -- worth buying?
2
Replies
26
Views
4K
jwr747
J
wally
  • Locked
Charter Arms .40S&W Bulldog?
Replies
12
Views
1K
wally
wally
C
  • Locked
What is wrong with the Charter Arms Bulldog?
Replies
23
Views
13K
smokeater201
S
Back
Top