BB Rvlr":2zguxfnv said:Brian Pearce did a great write up in Handloader Magazine #260 that covers what he feels it can loaded to. That article was one of the deciding factors that promped me to jump on the flattop/44 special bandwagon.
Jayhawkhuntclub":7a8boxte said:BB Rvlr":7a8boxte said:Brian Pearce did a great write up in Handloader Magazine #260 that covers what he feels it can loaded to. That article was one of the deciding factors that promped me to jump on the flattop/44 special bandwagon.
How do I obtain a copy of this article? thanks.
Really? How many .44Spl's did Elmer Keith destroy??? I'll give you a hint, it starts with "z" and ends with "ero". How many of the already available .44Spl's have been destroyed at the hands of reloaders? :roll:surveyor47":21l9rtio said:And who said that old Elmer Keiths data was not going to be resurected? Something tells me that we are going to know "the real upper limit" of the 44 Special in short order.
Why not? So it's okay to push the .45Colt to 32,000CUP in guns strong enough to handle it, which is more than double SAAMI pressure standards but it's not okay to push the .44Spl to 25,000psi in guns strong enough to handle it?surveyor47":21l9rtio said:I CANNOT see pushing a 44 Special to 44 Magnum ballistics. A 240 grain bullet at 1200 fps IS a 44 Magnum and these guns are built on a 357 frame.
Nobody said you had to buy a .44Spl and load it to 1200fps.surveyor47":21l9rtio said:In my opinion, that is pushing things too far.
This logic is interesting but unfounded in reality. There IS NO .44Spl loading data in print that will destroy a Ruger Blackhawk .44Spl. None. However, there is PLENTY of .45Colt loading data in print that will destroy the Colt SAA .45Colt, its replicas as well as the New Vaquero and even the large frame Blackhawk. This apparently has no impact on the production of those guns. Why? Because it is the responsibility of the handloader to know the limitations of the guns he loads for. Always has been, hopefully always will be.surveyor47":16ioqpte said:If Ruger starts getting a bunch of destroyed 44 Specials, I would expect to see manufacture of the 44 Special ended sooner than later. This is not the first time this issue has come up.
Quite a few, if you're looking for .38-44 loading data. Okay, so first the guns are not strong enough, now it's the cases??? Are you just trying to be a wet blanket, because it doesn't seem like you have much knowledge on this subject?surveyor47":3qw72vls said:How many articles do you see about pushing the 38 Special case beyond 1000 fps in 357 frame guns? Not many? That is because the 38 Special case is thinner than a magnum case. Virtually every reloading manual I have ever read has specifically warned not to load 38 Special cases to 357 levels even when used in 357 guns due to the weakness of the Special case and extremely high pressures due to the 1/10 inch shorter case length.
I've had cases split on the second firing too. Like anything else, you have to find cases that work. I use Starline almost exclusively but the above-mentioned loads were assembled in Remington UMC once fired brass from their bulk ammo. Twenty plus firings.surveyor47":2jl7m40m said:I have experienced many 38 Special cases splitting with target loads...
Wall thickness is not everything. Some folks make the same statement about .38 and .38 +P brass but the only difference is the headstamp.surveyor47":2jl7m40m said:There is a difference in wall thickness.
Care to share the details?surveyor47":2jl7m40m said:I destroyed a 357 with published data and learned my lesson.
Agreed, 100%.surveyor47":2jl7m40m said:I frankly find little need for loadings exceeding 1000 to 1100 fps for the vast majority of loadings in 357, 41 or 44 Magnums, particularly practice or target ammo.
So what??? The data is out there, it has been tested, it is proven and it works.surveyor47":2jl7m40m said:I have checked the Hodgon and Alliant websites, Lyman and Hornady relaoding handbooks and do not find any +P44 Special data.