44 special +p ?

[CraigC]

H.P. White Labs. I don't have the book in front of me but Elmer Keith had it tested a very LOOOONG time ago. Brian Pearce has had the load tested since. Which is why his article indicated such.

So what exactly does your blown up .357 have to do with the current discussion? I'm unaware of the 125gr/Blue dot anomaly but it doesn't really appear to be related. You blew up your gun with a published load. Who wrote the article in question?

 

[c.r.]

CraigC,

You might be able to help me remember something. Hasn't one of our favorite authors shared some info about the pressure of Keith's orginal load and today's Keith load?

Something along the lines of 18.5 grains of 2400 in a balloon head case was X psi. When solid head cases came out, 17gr of 2400 gave the same pressure

BUT

over the years, 2400 has gotten a slight bit "hotter" and now it's more like 16.x gr of 2400 in a solid head case produces the same pressure the original 18.5 did in the balloon head cases.

Does that ring a bell or am I confused?

And what do you mean, "Nobody said you had to buy a .44Spl and load it to 1200fps."? What else am I going to shoot in my FA mdl 97?. Oh yeah, some of Pearce's 300 gr. bullet loads. That article of his from back in 8/05 is a real good article. I paid my 10 bucks for a copy from Wolfe Publishing.

However, I have chosen not to shoot "Keith's Load" in my Ruger based 44 specials. Just my choice.

~c.r.

 

[Sonnytoo]

There is a difference in wall thickness.

Okay, I realize you're not specifying the .44 Special case here, but you ARE implying that it's weaker than the .44 Maggie case.
Well, here is the quote from Brian Pearce, HANDLOADER No. 236, August 2005, page 41:
"Modern .44 Special cases, manufactured withiin the past half-century, are of solid head construction and share similar head and wall thickness as the .44 Magnum. In short they are easily strong enough to handle any of the loads listed."
These loads include his "Category Three" loads which have been tested and proven to be 25,000 psi or less. Perhaps that will put this matter to rest. If I see this (weak .44 Special case wall) in print again, I will post Brian's quote again...as long as it takes.

Another surveyor47 quote: "If I purchase one of these new Ruger Bisleys, I would not exceed 1000 fps with a 240 grain lead bullet in deference to the 357 frame. I have checked the Hodgon and Alliant websites, Lyman and Hornady relaoding handbooks and do not find any +P44 Special data."

I counted approximately 76 recipes, in Brian's two articles, for the .44 Special that have been pressure-tested between 22,000 and 25,000 psi. And Brian also stipulates that the new Lipsey's Ruger can stand a regular diet of these +P loads. You are simply not reading all of the available literature.

Now we're back to another of Brian Pearce's quotes, this one from HANDLOADER #260, June 2009, and page 41.
Brian states here that "a number of the loads mentioned herein exceed that pressure limit (25,000 psi) and are intended specifically for the New model Ruger Blackhawk or guns of similar strength. And for the record, the strength and longevity of modern solid-head .44 Special cases manufactured in the last 60 years are equal to the .44 Magnum."

Sir, you are entitled to your opinions just as long as you don't imply that they are factual. I am sorry that you don't read the relevant HANDLOADER articles, as posted above, and educate yourself as to the wonderful possibilities that exist with this fine cartridge.
Of course there are some "magazine article experts" who share your opinions, and some of them are really good guys. But read the available literature and then reevaluate your opinion of the .44 Special.
Sonnytoo

 

[Sonnytoo]

Hasn't one of our favorite authors shared some info about the pressure of Keith's orginal load and today's Keith load?

Something along the lines of 18.5 grains of 2400 in a balloon head case was X psi. When solid head cases came out, 17gr of 2400 gave the same pressure
BUT
over the years, 2400 has gotten a slight bit "hotter" and now it's more like 16.x gr of 2400 in a solid head case produces the same pressure the original 18.5 did in the balloon head cases.
Does that ring a bell or am I confused?

That stuff is on page 39 of HANDLOADER #260, JUNE 2009. ELMER had cut the load to 17.5 grains with solid-head cases. Brian Pearce specs it as 17.0 grains and still gets 1211 fps with the Lyman 429421 250-gr bullet.

And what do you mean, "Nobody said you had to buy a .44Spl and load it to 1200fps."? What else am I going to shoot in my FA mdl 97?. Oh yeah, some of Pearce's 300 gr. bullet loads. That article of his from back in 8/05 is a real good article. I paid my 10 bucks for a copy from Wolfe Publishing.

And, for the record, in HANDLOADER #236, page 41 (again?), Brian Pearce says your Freedom Arms could be in a special pressure category "that run up to 36,000 psi, or the same as current .44 Magnum loads."

However, I have chosen not to shoot "Keith's Load" in my Ruger based 44 specials. Just my choice.
~c.r.

and I don't blame you. I am not a recoil junkie either...and I have a FA model 97 in .45 Colt.
Sonnytoo

 

[CraigC]

And what do you mean, "Nobody said you had to buy a .44Spl and load it to 1200fps."? What else am I going to shoot in my FA mdl 97?.

:wink:
I rarely use the Keith load myself in my .44Spl's, although my little flat-top is unreasonably accurate with it and the 225gr Speer half jacket over the same charge. I typically run them with the equally famous Skeeter load.


Many thanks to Sonnytoo for the excellent posts!

 

[KWYJIBO]

Great, here we go again! :lol:

Seems like Mister E. Keith tried pushing the limits of the 44 Special, and eventually just convinced Smith and Wesson to develop the 44 Magnum. So we had a .429 cal revovler cartridge capable of high pressure (and hence, high velocity). Now everyone wants to go back to the 44 Special because it's so cool--1/10 of an inch shorter cylinder, slightly smaller and lighter frame, etc. First Lipseys and now Ruger make a 44 Special, and what are people doing? Taking this progression full circle. I'm confused.

If you want magnum power, why not get a .44 Magnum? If you like smaller guns, get the .44 Special. Not to put down anyone who thinks hot 44 Special loads would be cool, but I just have to ask: Why?

 

[Sonnytoo]

And my thanks to CraigC for your posts and the reference to the .45 Colt and its theoretically low SAAMI operating pressure.
Sonnytoo

 

[surveyor47]

Are we really talking about placing faith in a magazine article rather than a SAAMI recognized reloading manufacturer such as Hodgdon, Alliant, Accurate, Hodgdon, Alliant, Sierra, Speer, Lyman? The problem is that these manfucaturers have not as yet published data on +P44 Special loadings- at least none that I have seen.

Isnt the question: Just how strong is the new Ruger 44 Special? Other than Ruger and perhaps a few labs and ballistic engineers, who actually knows the answer to that question?

The problem is that the new Ruger gun APPEARS to be substantially stronger than other guns on the market; but is it really? Do you know that as a fact? Is it not a fact that these new Ruger 44 Specials are built on a frame that is relatively close in strength to the Colt Single Action Army, originally designed for Cowboy Action Shooting?

The point I have been trying to make is that nothing is every 100% certain, even with SAAMI data. My old S&W 357 was destroyed with a load published by a major manufacturer, which had a then unknown anomoly. When you get into exceeding published data, you are reducing whatever safety factors the manufacturer placed into the data. In my case, there were sufficient safety factors that no eyes, fingers or property were lost other than a gun. The safety factors worked.

I already own a 44 Magnum and see no good reason to potientially risk life and limb trying to play Elmer Keith.

 

[Sonnytoo]

Is it not a fact that these new Ruger 44 Specials are built on a frame that is relatively close in strength to the Colt Single Action Army, originally designed for Cowboy Action Shooting?

If you would read the articles by Brian Pearce, you wouldn't ask these questions. Page 41 (again and again), HANDLOADER #260, June 2009.
Quote from Mr. Pearce: "They (the new Ruger .44 Specials) are constructed of modern chrome-moly 4140 steel, which usually has a Rockwell hardness of between 36 and 38."

I already own a 44 Magnum and see no good reason to potientially risk life and limb trying to play Elmer Keith.

Sir, if there weren't people out here willing to play Elmer Keith in a reasoned and careful manner, you wouldn't own a .44 Magnum.
Sonnytoo

 

[Dale53]

I have the NRA pressure tested data on the .44 Special (in the NRA Reloading Manual titled "The Handloader's Guide" of 1969). This includes Elmer's loads.

If anyone desires a copy, just Email me direct:
Rmcgee at zoomtown dot com and I'll send it by attachment. It is full of pressure tested loads that are safe in any modern full size .44 Special (S&W Model 24, 624, and the new Ruger .44 Flattop will fall right into that category).

I have a .44 Lipsey Special and mostly I will be shooting the Skeeter load (like I have been for fifty years or more) which is 7.5 grs of Unique behind a 250 gr Keith bullet. However, my Lipsey Special will handle the NRA tested loads without problems.

Dale53

 

[surveyor47]

Is it not a fact that these new Ruger 44 Specials are built on a frame that is relatively close in strength to the Colt Single Action Army, originally designed for Cowboy Action Shooting?

If you would read the articles by Brian Pearce, you wouldn't ask these questions. Page 41 (again and again), HANDLOADER #260, June 2009.
Quote from Mr. Pearce: "They (the new Ruger .44 Specials) are constructed of modern chrome-moly 4140 steel, which usually has a Rockwell hardness of between 36 and 38."

I already own a 44 Magnum and see no good reason to potientially risk life and limb trying to play Elmer Keith.

Sir, if there weren't people out here willing to play Elmer Keith in a reasoned and careful manner, you wouldn't own a .44 Magnum.
Sonnytoo

When you play Elmer Keith, you really need to make sure that you have adequate Health Insurance, Disability Insurance, Life Insurance and Liability Insurance, with premimums paid in full.

 

[Sonnytoo]

Is it not a fact that these new Ruger 44 Specials are built on a frame that is relatively close in strength to the Colt Single Action Army, originally designed for Cowboy Action Shooting?

The Cowboy Action Shooting you really refer to may have had a whole bunch of angry Indians, wild range steers and buffalo associated with it also... Just where do you find your reference material???
Just to address this at 3:00 a.m. shows that I am interested in the subject, or... I just can't sleep too well anymore. Please note that I have a letter in my possession from a good friend and gunmaker, one of two or three premier old-time gunmakers in the U.S. In that letter is also contained a pressure-tested recipe that he has used with literally "hundreds" of Colt Single Action Army New Frontier revolvers to safely propel a 260 gr hard-cast bullet @ 1200 fps. And this is with a .45 Colt, which hasn't quite the cylinder's mechanical integrity and strength of the .44 Special, which has smaller holes and more metal. And of course it is the New Frontier model, which offers a top strap for added strength. Even with "old steels," it could be done. And I shoot the same load, safely, in my Colt SAA New Frontier .45 Colt.
And note, the steels in these older Colts do not approach the strength of the more modern chrome-moly 4140 steels used in the newly-released Ruger Blackhawk .44 Special.
Sonny

 

[gunsbrad]

Gents
I am a fan of the 44spl at 600fps, 1000fps, and 1200fps. This data is tested by major ballistics labs. It has proven safe for 80 yrs. It was first used in colt saa and smith and wesson pre WWII.

The ruger 44spl is not a .357 frame. Its' dimensions are modeled after the colt saa. that makes it a 45 frame. Since the midframe ruger is beefier than the colt, I guess it it probably a 46 or 47 frame.

Brad Hurt

 

[CraigC]

Are we really talking about placing faith in a magazine article...

No, we're talking about thinking for ourselves. We're talking about placing faith not in a magazine article but in a man's life's work. Thankfully, folks like John Taffin and Brian Pearce have followed in Keith's footsteps and kept us current.

...rather than a SAAMI recognized reloading manufacturer such as Hodgdon, Alliant, Accurate, Hodgdon, Alliant, Sierra, Speer, Lyman? The problem is that these manfucaturers have not as yet published data on +P44 Special loadings- at least none that I have seen.

Just like with the big Ruger .45's, we're talking about guns that are stronger than those SAAMI set pressures standards for. Remember, SAAMI has to set pressure standards for the weakest guns on the market. In the case of the .45Colt, that means 140yr old blackpowder frame Colt SAA's. In the case of the .44Spl, it's the 100yr old S&W New Century, better known as the Triple-Lock. Today we have much stronger guns in these old chamberings that allow handloaders to extract their full potential. Let us not forget that Elmer's famous #5 .44Spl is built on a 1st generation Colt.

Is it not a fact that these new Ruger 44 Specials are built on a frame that is relatively close in strength to the Colt Single Action Army, originally designed for Cowboy Action Shooting?

Designed for cowboy action shooting??? This, more than anything, shows your ignorance on this subject. Yes, the new Ruger is indeed in the same strength class as the Colt SAA. If you knew anything of which you speak, you would know that this is not a problem. Luckily, those of us who paid the high tariff to have our Old Model Ruger .357's converted to .44Spl, know that the guns can handle it, as can any post-war Colt SAA or New Frontier.

My old S&W 357 was destroyed with a load published by a major manufacturer, which had a then unknown anomoly.

Again, this has nothing to do with your .357 but I can see that it has forever affected your judgement.

When you get into exceeding published data, you are reducing whatever safety factors the manufacturer placed into the data.

Again, data for much older, much weaker sixguns. Unfortunately, SAAMI is bound to history and cannot raise pressure standards for newer guns without a new cartridge. The old cartridges work, we just have to put them in the proper platform.

I already own a 44 Magnum and see no good reason to potientially risk life and limb trying to play Elmer Keith.

The good news is, you don't have to. Nor do we have to "play Elmer Keith". Elmer Keith did a fine job of that so we don't have to. The work has been done, the trail has already been blazed. All we have to do is reap the rewards. That being a sixgun/cartridge combination that is as near perfect as possible. Relatively light in weight and packable, with enough power to handle near any situation. Lighter, handier and more portable than a .44Mag. That is what the .44Spl is all about and I pity anyone who cannot appreciate it for all it offers.

 

[Sonnytoo]

Gunsbrad: Take note of this.Your quote: The ruger 44spl is not a .357 frame.

Again from Brian Pearce. In 2005 Ruger introduced its "50th Year Blackhawk in .357 Magnum. This was the first time since 1973, when the NMBH was introduced, that the medium-frame .357 has been offered.
"Since 1973, all .357 magnums were built on the larger .44 frame. It featured a flattop-style frame with a Micro rear sight and was similar in size to the original 1955 revolver."
In 2005, Brian Pearce spoke with a Lipsey's distributor about the prospect of a Ruger Blackhawk flattop .357-frame revolver, but chambered in .44 Special, and may have helped light the fire of the new offering.
As of Pearce's writing in June of 2009, the .44 Special was still, until recently, a Lipsey's exclusive, and built on the medium-sized .357 frame with a flattop and Micro adjustable rear sight. (The factory today now offers it as a catalogued item.) These are the first .44 Special revolvers ever offered by Ruger and are built on the medium-sized .357 frame with a flattop and Micro adjustable rear sight."The one-piece steel grip frame is shaped similarly to the aluminum XR3 frame used on early Blackhawks manufactured from 1955 through 1962, and it resembles the perfectly balanced and shaped Colt Single Action Army revolver but is noticeably heavier."
My thanks to Brian Pearce. I have drawn heavily from his article in hopes of setting the facts straight.
Catalogued items:
NVB-444 5232 .44 Special 4.63" 10.50" 45.00 oz. 1:20" RH 6 $557.00
NVB-445 5233 .44 Special 5.50" 12.00" 45.00 oz. 1:20" RH 6 $557.00

Sonnytoo

 

[surveyor47]

If the new gun is as strong as claimed by some, then why is it not being chambered in 41 magnum? As I understand it, this gun is limited to 357 Magnum, 44 Special & 45 Colt. Why would Ruger limit themselves if the gun is really strong enough (including safety factors) to handle the sort of loads being discussed?

 

[CraigC]

My thanks to Brian Pearce. I have drawn heavily from his article in hopes of setting the facts straight.

That's good because it seems most folks these days get their education from the internet so if it ain't posted here, lots will never read those words. So far everything negative we've heard in this thread has come from pure ignorance. :roll:

If the new gun is as strong as claimed by some, then why is it not being chambered in 41 magnum? As I understand it, this gun is limited to 357 Magnum, 44 Special & 45 Colt. Why would Ruger limit themselves if the gun is really strong enough (including safety factors) to handle the sort of loads being discussed?

If you really want a .41Mag, send your 50th .357 to one of our highly esteemed sixgunsmiths. Any one of them will be happy to accommodate with a new barrel and rechambering. The guns are certainly strong enough or they would not do them. They are also strong enough for Bowen to do custom five-shot .44Mag's and .45Colt's.

 

[Anonymous]

OK boys, here is my opinion.

I do not think you will distroy this new flat top Ruger 44 Sp. with a 1200 fps load....unless of course yoi use red dot or bullseye to do it....we all pretty much understand that.

On the other hand, my question is why? If you really want to shoot 44 Mg. loads, there are a great variety of 44 Mg. revolvers out there to choose from.

Now on the third hand, ;-) I can see where anyone might want to inprove the ballistice of the 44 Sp a little and I have NO DOUBT that this flat top gun will digest all the 1000 fps loads you want to put through it, so why not just traet it like what it is?

And what it is is a very nice single action 44 Sp that is stronger than most of the guns of the past and besides, if you can't kill it with a hard cast 240 grainer at 1000 fps, then you are probably screwed anyway.

 

[CraigC]

On the other hand, my question is why?

Why not???

 

[surveyor47]

Now on the third hand, ;-) I can see where anyone might want to inprove the ballistice of the 44 Sp a little and I have NO DOUBT that this flat top gun will digest all the 1000 fps loads you want to put through it, so why not just traet it like what it is?

And what it is is a very nice single action 44 Sp that is stronger than most of the guns of the past and besides, if you can't kill it with a hard cast 240 grainer at 1000 fps, then you are probably screwed anyway.

Agreed! This is a beautiful revolver that should be capable of withstanding any reasonable 44 Special loading. It is not a 44 Magnum and I see no reason to try making it into one.

I dont see a dimes worth of difference between a 44 Special at 1200 fps and a 41 Magnum. So, if the gun is capable of handling that sort of loading without eating into safety factors, then it is a natural for the 41 Magnum. OK, so why not a 6 shot 41 Magnum on this frame?