Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Handguns The .44 Special Ain't So Special?

Yes.

My S&W 24's and 624s will be the last handguns I get rid of, to my mind they are not the least or the most but just right........with Mackay Sagebrush warm loads for the 44 Special it will do anything I need done with a handgun.

Yep, that's the predictable result of such policies, i.e., more guns in criminal hands. As usual, unintended consequences of leftist policies.

This was a crappy way for Mike and Taffin to have a "fight" in the pages of a magazine. Pure b.s.

Guess Mike never read Sixguns by Keith ? Own both a 329 44 Mag and Colt New Service in 44 Special, find that 44 Russian level loads are nice to shoot in both. Doubt anything shot with a "Keith" 44 Special load in either would be any less dead than with a 44 Magnum.

Often wondered how much real difference there is between a late production New Service and an Anaconda ?

Just an old time gun rag fake controversy article dreamed up by the magazine editor. They've been doing that since before I was born and I'm 60 years old.

I like my 44 special. I bought this 44 in deference to a 45 Colt on purpose.

I don't know. Seems like he's making a legitimate point. The notion that .44 Special ammo was particularly accurate has been around forever. He's making the point that, like any other caliber, it depends on factors having to do with the particular gun much more than the characteristics of the round itself.

My handgun shooting has included a Ruger flat-top Bisley 44 Special (5" bbl, blued) , and a S&W 629-3 44 mag (4" bbl) , among others.

I loaded them both with NOE 432-265 cast bullets (265 grain. WFN design) to ~1000+ fps. Very pleasant to shoot. Accurate enough for my needs (~ 2" at 25 yards, but did not try to work up a "best accuracy" load for either).

In the end, I sold the Ruger Bisley flat-top 44 special, and kept the S&W 629-3 , 44 mag. My justification was "soft", but I figured I'd keep the one that would be easier to feed (easier get brass) and sell at a layer time (figure more than a few people wouldn't know what a 44 special was, or something like that. As I wrote, my logic was "soft"). I could load up the 44 mag faster, if desired.

My reloads made them the "same" cartridge (265 grain cast at ~1000 fps). It either proves the 44 special can be loaded UP, or that the 44 mag is useful loaded DOWN. I just wanted one "big bore" revolver, so I sold the Ruger flat-top 44 special. Good gun. Good cartridge. Just simplifying things, not making any statements.

I have sold off my 357 mags, and most of my 38 specials, for the same reason: simplifying , having less in number but shooting the keepers more.. A moderately-loaded 44 mag (or bumped up 44 special) -IMHO- is a more effective hunting /defense round than a 357 mag. My article might've had the title, " The 38 special, 357 mag, 44 special and 45 Colt aren't so special or "magnumy". ". (might even include the 22 long rifle too in that title). I had a stainless Ruger Redhawk (5" bbl) in 45 Colt. That's gone too. Wasn't any more special than a moderate 44 mag load. Poof, it is gone. Simplify.

As one poster wrote, "...he has to write about something.". I'm ok with his title, premise and results.

I've been paring down my guns the past 10+ yards, and keeping only the ones I will shoot-and shooting them more. The keepers have to earn their spot. The S&W 629-3 with a 265 grain cast (or 240 grain jacketed) at 1000-1100++ fps meets my needs and is very versatile. It (the load, and the handgun) has been the reason I have sold many of my other handguns as it covers a lot of bases. Nothing is too special to me. Use it, or loose it.

I've always thought a good 44 special made an ideal home defense revolver. A .429 bullet at medium velocity does damage without a ton of muzzle blast compared to most magnums.

Gotta stir the pot once in a while. I recall Ross Seyfried writing one denigrating the .458 Win Mag.

They are special to me!

What is special about them?

I read this a lot and I don't understand why people feel the writers are stirring the pot.

Everything Venturino points out in that article is true. It might not mesh with people's preconceived notions but it's all fact.

If a shooter doesn't understand why he's using a certain type of equipment or technique, he's probably not worth listening to.

Spot on.

Mike's kind of a one size fits all handgun reloader. Not that there's anything wrong with it, but he uses standardized fare for handguns that he obviously doesn't for BPCR or what most of us do in our centerfire rifles.

It's not difficult to explain why so many shot mediocre, but it doesn't make much sense to go to the trouble of measuring a revolver throat and not fit it, whatever it measures. Even more so to expect obturation cure the ills where the pressures aren't real great to begin with. And Mike knows this.

I'm not in the "inherent accuracy" camp either, but like Mike am in the fit, dimension and platform camp. That doesn't mean I'm not stirring the pot, because there's plenty who disagree (with evidence).

I had a 3" S&W 624 Lew Horton 44 Special was nothing special in the accuracy department with a lot of loads.

One important potential variable overlooked (or at least not commented on) in Mike V's article ( "44 special not so special ") is the possible presence of "thread choke" in his 44 special revolvers ( first 1/2" or so of barrel being constricted down due to tight fit of threaded barrel cranked into the frame) . It's great to take throat measurements, but to fully get useful data for best accuracy is to push a soft lead slug from the muzzle into the barrel 1-2" ,them push out measure bore/groove diameter ahead of frame threads. Then push another soft lead slug all the way through the barrel (and feeling if there is any more resistance in passing through the barrel/frame section), and measuring bore/groove of that slug-then compare bore/groove diameters of both slugs ( " 1"-2" deep" slug vs " fully through the barrel" slug).

If there is thread choke constriction, it will offset any "benefit" of matching bullet diameter to throat size, as the bullet gets squeezed down going through the frame area, then is "too small) to seal gases going down the barrel-likely resulting in reduced (" inherit "?) accuracy.

The solution to "thread choke" is to either fire-lap the barrel to lap open the constricted area to true bore/groove diameter, or have a gunsmith do a "Taylor throat" job which reams out the constriction. In my view, taking only throat measurement , without analysis of potential thread choke, is wasted time (and money in ammo).

Mike V's follow up article could be: "Those not-so-special 44 specials get thread choke measurements, treatment, and re-tested for accuracy. Was it the cartridge itself, or the manufacturing process the basis of my complaint about my 44 special's mediocre accuracy?"

My guess is that there was was an issue with "thread choke" in a couple of those revolvers he owned. If you don't measure for thread choke, all you can do is test unknowingly-and leave a lot of potential accuracy on the table.

Don't blame the cartridge itself, blame the dimensions of the cylinder throats, bore/groove diameter (consistency of ALL areas of the barrel as well as relationship to cylinder throat dimension, degree of throat/bore mis-alignment, degree cylinder carry up/ " cocked" rotational movement, then there is finding a reloaded round for best accuracy. They all work together.

Not knocking the author, but maybe his evaluation criteria was incomplete by not including thread choke impact on accuracy. What if each of his revolvers shot <1" groups at 25 yards after thread choke treatment? Would that make them "special"? I enjoyed the article, but he isn't the only gun writer that omits possible thread choke issues when reporting on revolver accuracy.

I don’t think I’ve shot a full box of Specials. Now 44 mags loaded a little bit faster (1000-1100) oh yes.

I've had two Smith 624s, sold them both. The 29s and 629s do the same plus more. Still shoot 44 special in them as I use up the reloads. Probably best in the future to just use 44mag brass.

JWP,
The reason for my statement is this:
I own three Ruger RedHawks in 44 Magnum and two Smith & Wesson 44 Magnums, a 629 and a 29. I shoot all of those revolvers but not as much as I used to due to the fact that I’ve reached the age of 78. I’m really beginning to feel the effect of those years. I still like to ride out into the woods and look for varmints and other targets of opportunity. I like shooting the larger calibers and still cast my own bullets. On those trips I usually take along my 24, my 624, or my 5.5” Blackhawk (a 44 special) maybe even my GP 100 with a 3” barrel because they are lighter to carry, accurate for the distances I’m going to shoot, and they are fun to shoot. And I like them. That makes them special to me.