44 Mag Loadings-255 or 305 Keith Styles?

M

MelodiousFulmination

Inactive
I've ordered myself a S&W 629 5" and a Diamond D Chest Holster. After a situation with a moose I had while x-country skiing in winter, and another experience a friend had with a moose while doing some winter scouting, I've decided it was time to get at least something to have with me when I don't have a long gun (which is usually just when I'm hunting.)
Found some good loadings by Underwood. 255 grain Keith styles at 1350fps and some 305 grain Keith style at 1325 fps. Obviously the latter load is the winner when it comes to performance, but I also know that the 629 in this barrel length doesn't compare in size to something such as a Super Redhawk. Are such loads suited to S&Ws? Would the additional recoil of the heavier load be reasonable in this size gun, or might it be argued the more manageable 255 is worth the less power for the same of quicker follow up shots? Whatever I get, I'll have to practice with it.
I have to confess a general lack of experience and knowledge with big bore handguns. But I'm not a noob when it comes to firearms and, being able to competently beat the crap out of myself with various magnum rifles and 45/70 bear loads, have never found myself to be recoil adverse, which is a different fish but I think I'll be fine.
 
If it has a full length lug under the barrel, weight should be around 48 ounces. S&W has improved it's lockup, so it will be fine with SAAMI loads. Recoil with the 305s will be a handful, but sounds like you're recoil seasoned. I would definitely use the 305 for the penetration in large animals.
 
Will the 305gr load fit in the cylinder???

is the velocity of 1325 from your 5" or from their (possibly longer) test barrel??

Personally, I'm in the other camp. I see no point to bullets heavier than 240/250gr in .44 Mag. Bullet construction is the key. JHPs are probably not the best choice for moose, even if they shoot clean through a deer.

Just don't confuse "not the best choice" with "won't work", because they aren't the same thing.

I'd say get one box of each load you are considering, and shoot them. See which one your gun prefers (if either) and which one YOU prefer.

Worst pounding of my hands that I can remember was when a fellow let me shoot a cyliunder of 300gr loads from a 5" ported Redhawk. I would not choose that ammo for love or money. But, that's just me.

I shoot a M29 6.5", a 7.5" Ruger Super Blackhawk, a 10" Contender and a 6" Desert Eagle all in .44 Mag. No 300gr bullets for me, thank you.
 
44 Amp, those velocities are from Underwoods own tests. Not sure what barrel length they measured it from but either way I figure it'll be hot enough. I've consistently heard that 300s are a force to behold as for as recoil goes. I know they'll do a better job of messing up an angry piece of muscle and fur but am leaning towards the 255s.
 
Elmer Keith's classic .44 Mag load, his 250gr slug over 22 gr of 2400 (and standard, not magnum primers) cracks 1300fps +/- from a 6" barrel. Individual guns will, of course show a few fps higher or lower than the average.

Most of the time, Keith carried a 4" S&W, and it seems he was happy with that.

A lot of large game has been taken with 240/250gr slugs, including very large (12'+) polar bear.

None of the older loading manuals lists 300gr slugs for the .44 Mag. They are a fairly recent innovation, developed for smacking steel rams as hard as practical, and giving deepest penetration for those people who think going after buffalo (including cape buffalo) with a .44 pistol is a sane idea.

Some loads don't fit in all guns, due to their length. Remington didn't even put a 300gr slug in the .444 when it came out. It was a 265gr, designed for that caliber.

Am not saying don't use a 300gr load, if that's what you want. AM saying I don't see the need, or use, even for moose.

Consider 250 vs 300, is an extra 20% bullet mass needed?? It will produce deeper penetration, but it also produces more recoil. Up to you to decide if that is acceptable, or not.

My personal "line" is 240/250 or 260gr (.45) is the heavy limit for handgun rounds, 300 and up is for rifle rounds.

I shoot 300gr as the "light" bullet from my .45-70s, and a 400/405 as standard, even in my Contender pistol. Won't go that heavy in .44/.45 revolvers and of course no cast bullets of any kind in my Desert Eagle.

The uber heavy for caliber bullets have been the rage on the Internet for some time now, and some people give the impression that if you aren't using a 300 (or heavier) in .44 or a 180 in .357 that the rounds are next to useless. This is hardly the truth, but it's on the internet....:rolleyes:

Get some of each, test them yourself, if one suits you (and your gun) better than the other, there's your answer.

Good Luck.

and, just FYI, people have put down moose with .357s, so the .44 (with a suitable bullet) is plenty for that, too.
 
This post rings a bell with me as its near to what I carry when back country skiing, snow machine riding, moose hunting, boating and berry picking. I have a S&W .44 Mt. Gun I carry in a chest holster by D. Johnston. I reload so I tailor my loads with power, a lite magnum, and shootability. I can put a cylinder full on target without stopping, instead of shooting a couple of rounds and stopping to see what happened, like with commercial bear loads.

I use Cast Performance 260 gr. gas check, Keith style, hard cast with 20.5 gr. of H4227, almost pleasant, pleasant is a .44 Special. I was targeting up river on a sloped clay bank and looked behind the target where the bullets went into the bank. I dug ten feet into the bank and never found the bullet, good penatration.

Its berry picking season now, a banner raspberry season and blue berries. I'm carrying my 44 and my two teenaged sons are packing my 1911 and Glock 36 .45's, no worries on the lower Yukon R.:)
 
I use Cast Performance 260 gr. gas check, Keith style, hard cast with 20.5 gr. of H4227, almost pleasant, pleasant is a .44 Special
Click to expand...
Hodgdon dropped H4227 & replaced it with a reformulated IMR 4227.

Hodgdon now lists 20.5 grains of IMR 4227 - under a 270 grain GDSP as a max load.

Pity - - it sounds like you had the perfect load for what you wanted. :(
 
Dang, when I use up my 1 lb I'll have to start all over again, oh well, more rounds down range.:D

I was making my case to the poster about less may be more.
 
A 300gr cast bullet at 1000- 1100fps is all you need.
A 240-260gr cast bullet at 1400fps will also do the job, but on a 12-1800lb animal, I prefer the heavier bullet. Your Smith will digest both with no problem. Buffalo Bore makes some hot loaded ammo if you feel the need to go nuclear.
Note: there is a difference between need and want.
Happy shootin'.
 
A bit late to the party - sorry. Here are some actual chronographed velocities with Buffalo Bore and Underwood 305gr Loads - 2 3/4" M69, 4" M69 and 7 1/2" Super Redhawk:

Buffalo Bore, 305 LBT LFN HC rated 1,325 fps
Underwood, 305 LFNGC Plated (HiTech?) rated 1,325 fps
LabRadar muzzle velocity at 33 deg F Buffalo

S&W M69 2.75" ===> BB 1,195 fps ===> Under 1,147fps
S&W M69 4.25" ===> BB 1,276 fps ===> Under 1,248 fps
Ruger SRH 7.5" ===> BB 1,395 fps ===> Under 1,315 fps

FWIW,

Paul
 
Another way to look at this is how much energy does each round supply?

The 255gr bullet at 1350fps = 1,032 ft-lb of energy. The 305gr at 1325 =1189 ft-lb. Is the 157 ft-lb difference important?

Is the bullet construction any different? E.g, do they both have flat meplats?
 
Using the same analysis for rays44 post, the 300gr bullet at 1100 fps = 806 ft-lb. The 240 at 1400= 1045 ft-lb and the 260 = 1132 ft-lb.

Does the slower 300gr get deeper penetration than the faster bullets with more energy?
 
cdoc42 said:
Using the same analysis for rays44 post, the 300gr bullet at 1100 fps = 806 ft-lb. The 240 at 1400= 1045 ft-lb and the 260 = 1132 ft-lb.

Does the slower 300gr get deeper penetration than the faster bullets with more energy?
Click to expand...
It probably does. I haven't done the calculations, but I think the 300 has more momentum. It will also retain more of its initial energy downrange because it won't decelerate as much.
 
"It probably does. I haven't done the calculations, but I think the 300 has more momentum. It will also retain more of its initial energy downrange because it won't decelerate as much."

But what is the comparative energy at, say, 50 or 100 yards if one starts at 806 ft-lb while another is 1045. At what point in the curve has the 1045 dropped to 806?
 
You asked about penetration, not energy. :) The lighter bullet will shed energy faster, so at some distance the 300 will win there too.

But I was wrong about the 300 having more momentum than the 240, at least at the muzzle. It has slightly less. 330000 (I'm not sure what the units are) vs 336000. Converting to lb∙ft/s to get something maybe useful, it's 48 vs 47.1
 
For me, .44mag loads are a compromise between terminal performance, shootability, and wear on the gun. (629-1)

My high-end sweet spot is around 240-250gr full power magnums. Can shoot it one-handed, off-handed, and can shoot en entire cyl two-handed right quick and keep it on target. If I go to ~300gr, I lose some of that shootability.

A hard cast ~240gr .44mag pill at .44mag velocities penetrates like crazy. Will it penetrate an entire moose/brown bear lengthwise, making a Texas Heart SHot viable? I don;t know. If I am carrying for protection, probably worried on frontal shots, so minimum penetration is from front of moose/bear back toward the vitals.

Good luck.UW & BB produce good ammo, though I would avoid the UW ammo with the Leheigh loads.
 
What about barrel twist. I know many 44 mag rifles won't shoot the 300's accurately because of the twist.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top