Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Handguns 44magnum

The Remingto was early 70’s loads

Clock some of the 2019 loads and see what they do. There are Winchester, Federal, Speer etc..
You are the one that made the statement and declaration that was declaring.

???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

No need to stress things...unless you are making just bear loads ...I shoot my 44 with cast bullets and and limit them to 1200.. They shoot fantastic accuracy and I never figured to need that much power to punch a hole in paper or soda cans.

Wasn't the .44 Magnum max pressure 44,000 CUP until the late 80s or sometime in the 90s? That would be the difference.

right now its 36000psi,

Or 40,000CUP if tested on a copper crusher pressure gun.

Still doing some more digging, but found this:



Brian Pearce claims the original SAAMI maximum was 43,500 CUP (down to 40,000 now). It makes sense. Here is a link to the issue containing the article:

https://www.riflemagazine.com/magazine/PDF/HL%20241%20Partial%20(LO)%202.pdf

It seems you are trying to make a point that wasn't questioned in the first place.
1. Where did Pearce get his info?
2. Did he talk with the ballisticians at Remington where the archives concerning their loading of the 44 Mag was recorded. I am sure they have some.
3. Who said the pressure hasn't been reduced?
4. If the MAP was 43500CUP that is only an 8 percent reduction.
5. An 8 percent reduction STILL would not account for the tremendous reduction in velocity as declared in some declarations made my some declaring individuals on here.
Maybe a 4 or 5 percent reduction at MOST.
6. MPSM is 43200CUP still. But MAP is still 40,000CUP.
7. 40,000CUP is still 36,000PSI depending on the pressure gun type as used by the ballistic lab.

Some like to do like a pigeon does as it releases it bowels as it does a fly over.

No, we spent a great deal of bandwidth "discussing" whether the .44 Magnum's SAAMI specifications changed over the years. This is one citation claiming it has. Nothing more, nothing less. As far as Brian Pearce's due diligence is concerned, I can't help you. I do know he is serious about what he does and careful about what he publishes. You might want to take it up with him.

Just sharing what I found...

Is he posting on this forum?
Just wondering where he got his information.
You as a known person in the shooting industry should have no problem solving this.
Did he list his sources?
It would have been a great informational thing if he did.
May be he will join the forum and expound on this subject.
Maybe he could explain the velocity losses people claim in just losing 8 percent pressure.

I am just wondering because I am curious.

Also from Brian’s article

“The original Remington factory load contained a 240-grain gas check
swaged lead bullet of semiwadcutter (SWC) de- sign. Advertised velocities were 1,570 fps from a 6-inch bar- rel, but real world velocities from production revolvers usually ran around 1,450 fps. The gas check prevented leading in most guns, but there were occasional revolvers that suffered from barrel leading. Within a few years, Win- chester began offering a factory load driving a 240-grain bullet over 1,600 fps from production revolvers (although advertised at 1,650 fps). As a result Remington increased the pressure of its load. Frankly, both were exces- sive for all .44s of that period, and pressures and velocities were soon reduced.”

Again where did he get his info?
Again who said it had not been reduced?

I have no idea about Pearce's info. Just guessing but I suspect the "velocity loss" can be accounted for by real world changes in pressure standards, combined with old velocities being partially inflated fantasies of the manufacturers along with pressure barrels utilized as opposed to real guns.

Brian bought a case of the vintage ammo some years ago along with an early M29 to demonstrate the infamous 600 yard Elmer Keith shot. The story appeared in Handloader.

No one doubts what the article says. It says what it says. It is in print. We can see that. BUT, where did he get his information? If he had a case of vintage ammo did he have any pressure tested?

No, Brian does not post on this forum. And threads like this make it painfully obvious why he has and continues to avoid such interaction.

But if you have any real questions for Brian, go ahead and post a letter here, along with an actual return address. I will print your letter to paper and drop it in the mail to Brian. He can decide if you are worthy of sending an answer to. But I will not divulge Brian's address.

I couldnt care less. He isnt interested in posting resources if he were he would have. If he had pressure tested some of the vintage ammo he would have posted it. It would have made the article more interesting plus more insightful.
Elmer Keith never hid direct access to himself. Even his phone number. Of course he wasnt as popular as some of the writers are today. That was a joke in case someone doesnt know.
Now what else is there to post about?
Oh yes, his information sources. Divulging those would not have put a strain on him and his privacy.

I really don't like trash being talked about brian pearce. He is a good one, and i trust what he writes completely. through the years a few times i have needed to contact him, and he responded.
I also know where one of the original moulds ended up for a magnum caliber, given to pearce by Dr Howell. He thought a lot of him too.

i wish i could delete this thread. I reread pearce's article and some of the other stuff, and i think 22grains of the new 2400 wouldn't blow up some of my guns like a super redhawk.
but on the other hand no sense in beating them to death, and 20grains does sound about right to me. also given that loading almost all the major handgun calibers rarely if ever have i pushed any of them to the max.