44 Magnum for battle?

  • Thread starter Thread starter PreserveFreedom
  • Start date Start date
P

PreserveFreedom

Guest
What do y'all think of a semi-automatic 44 Magnum carbine length rifle for battle? Seems to me that it would have a good amount of energy dump at close range. I don't think it would penetrate armor, due to the large cross section, but it would sure ring the bell of someone wearing it. It might even snap a rib if you are lucky. The biggest problem that I can see is finding one that holds a fair amount of ammo. Thoughts?
 
I am a fan of the versatile 44, in both revolver and carbine, but I'm not sure of it's utility as a battle cartridge. Limited range and heavy. Pile up 200 rds of 44 mag, .223 rem and 308 win, which would you rather tote through the woods? 44 may be useful for some special applications though, tunnel rat work and maybe loaded with a heavy (400 gr) subsonic bullet and suppressed. Just my opinion of course.
 
I just recently bought a 1894P. I have had numerous people say "It only shoots a pistol caliber. You should have just got a handgun". This attitude does not make sense to me. Sure, I can see the argument against pistol caliber carbines in a 9mm or .40 caliber setup. A .44 mag is not your typical pistol caliber. It is a pistol caliber on steriods that really shines in a short barreled carbine. You gain several hundred feet
per second in a carbine and really get the cartridge to reach it's potential. Out to 75-100 yards, it performs better than a 30/30. It cycles faster. And it holds twice the capacity of the 30/30.

Could it be that some people just get used to repeating the "truisms" that they hear others say and never really think things through for themselves?
 
Thumper

LTC Jeff Cooper endorsed your very concept in "To Ride, Shoot Straight and Speak the Truth." He called such a 44 Mag Semiauto carbine "Thumper."

As usual, it was a tirade against the "poodleshooter," or AKA the Colt AR15.
 
Marlin 1894 Cowboy hold 10 in the magazine and one in the chamber. 11 rounds of 44 magnum is a formadible package although there are much more versitable "battel weapons".:)
 
Maybe the 223 has more oomph on paper, but the 44 would have way better penetration. It probably wouldnt penetrate armor (however, lyman does make a 200 gr pointed mould thats interesting), but it probably would penetrate the dumpster or mailbox the tyrant, er perp was hiding behind. Yep, it sure would ring thier bell.

The problem I see with the market, is there's no recoil operated carbine being made. The Ruger is gas, and low capacity. Even ten rounders would make it viable as a combat arm. And ya' just gotta be able to shoot lead out of it. In twenty years we may look back and laugh, or we may be casting bullets from Franklin Mint chess pieces.

I'm not overly fond of lever actions, and if I were to buy a lever action, which I have considered, it would have to be the 45/70 GOVT.

If they made one, I would buy it. Its a fantastic concept! It wouldnt be the "best" battle rifle, but you could use it like a ranch rifle or jackass scout and it would get you back to the M1A. Plus it'd be a nice secondary arm to supply a neighbor or friend with, in a pinch.
 
Ruger's new .44 mag autoloader would fit the bill. Unfortunately, Ruger will never make a 10 round mag because they don't want anyone to think that it should be used for anything but sport. After all, Ruger is the sportsman's company, and if it's not for duck or deer hunting, or law enforcement, they don't want anything to do with it.
 
I've shot through 1/4" angle iron with a .223. You aren't going to that with a .44Magnum. So much for penetration. A .44Mag may have a better chance of making a straight line through both sides of a dumpster, however. Never tried it.

Ammo cost would kill the idea for me. 7.62x51 and 5.56mm are both cheaper than .44Mag.
 
Fact: Nearly 500,000 American servicemen died from "fat & slow" bullets (approximating .44 Mag ballistics) in the '60s..... the 1860s. The Civil War - more battle dead than all our other wars combined. So you couldn't say a .44 Mag battle rifle would be wholly ineffective. -- Kernel
 
Kernel, the high number of KIA in the Civil war was really due to the tatics used during that period. Any time you march several thousand men in ranks over open terrain to assault a stronly defended position with good fields of fire, you're gonna have alot of casualties. Pickett's charge is the penultimate example of such folly.
 
You are'nt going to shoot through 1/4" angle iron with a 44 mag?

Oh contraire', Guns & Ammo had an article awhile back that said a 300 gr 44 Mag at 1250 fps would penetrate a lincoln towncar lengthwise at engine level. True enough, I've never tried this on a town car but I'd be willing to bet it aint far off. I got the 300 gr lead GC mould and push em' to 1401 fps in my 7.5" Redhawk, and Its got massive penetration.

Elmer Keith's reported to have hit deer at 600 yards with heavy 44 specials and have em' fully penetrate the deer at that range.

I've blown holes in old steel tire rims with warmish 245 gr lead bullets, no problem. Dont get me wrong, I like the 223 but momentum is momentum and the 44 Mag carbine fills the same tactical niche as the mini's and AR's, only better, IMO. This countrys next war will be in the streets, long shots will probably be few. Inside 100 yards? The Ruger carbine would out class that little 223 slug in a big way. The mini's will still be good for supressive fire though.

I load fierce 44's for about 4 or 5 bucks a box of 50, with cast lead bullets. Is that cheap enough?

They shoulda made it recoil operated though. Probably would've had to up size the receiver for a proper recoil spring. They could've made it like a Browning A5 shotgun, scaled down in 44 mag. Detachable 10 rnd mags. That would be one sweet rifle.
 
No sure if using a rimmed cartridge in a high capacity semiauto is such a good idea. Sure you can make it work, but it's just one extra problem to deal with. Stadardization of ammo seems very important to the millitary and having one more cartridge to deal with does not seem likely.

You also have to consider the philosophy of the millitary that the goal for small arms is to wound, not kill an enemy soldier as cheaply as possible. With this being the goal I'm not sure the "thumper" could out do an M-4.

Nothing against the idea for a civillian interested in such a contraption, but I think at best it's time has passed for millitary adoption, and at worst a need for it never really existed in the first place.
 
Well, SS109 style .223 AP military-style surplus ammo will outpenetrate any .44 Mag. loading you could ever lay your hands on. That's a simple matter of physics.

I'll do the angle iron one better.

3/4" inch of mild steel plate at 100 yards. Multiple through and through with SS109 surplus ammo.

A .44 Mag. will NOT penetrate through and through a car's engine block. I know of NO small-arms round that will.

I seriously doubt that a .44 Mag. would be able to penetrate through the trunk, back seat, front seat, and dashboard and get out of the car and into the engine compartment with anything even resembling oomph at all.

Moe Mentum (stunt man for Paramount) is a great player, but it is only worth so much when hitting solid objects that have inherent strength and ductility or density.
 
Along a similar line though, I occasionally look at my little M-1 Carbine and wonder if it would have been a bit more beloved by the troops in WWII if it were designed around modern 10mm cartridge.
 
Originaly posted by Mike Irwin
Given the choice, I'd rather have the .223.

Not only more more oomph at all ranges, there's less recoil and longer range.
Click to expand...


No, sir. You ae incorrect on the first count. Range and recoil are definately in the .223's favor, but power is in the .44's favor in the first 100 yards.

The .223 sends a 55 grain bullet at approxiamtely 3,250 fps for 1,290 ft/lbs of energy. Power Factor = 179

The .44 magnum (in a 16" barreled lever action) sends a 240 grain bullet at approxiamtely 1,700 fps for 1,535 ft/lbs of energy. Power Factor = 407


Would you care for me to put up te momentum comparisons as well? :D

FWIW Kilgor

BTW, I'd choose a 7.62x39 for an intermediate cartridge (123 grain, .30 cal bullet, with 1,650 ft/lbs of energy)

If I had to choose between the .223 semiauto with 20 and 30 rounds mags and a semiauto 10 round mag, 44 mag. for defense against people... The .223 would be the obvious choice.

The .44 is a great porker and deer gun though.
 
Edward,

Factory ammo at $17.00 a box of 50 and your reloads is apples and oranges. Same for velocity. I have .44Mag hunting loads that probably aproach the velocity you cite, $22.00 a box.

Hertenberger 7.62X51,$170.00 per thousand. Try that on your Lincoln Towncar.:p

At less than 100 yards .223 and .44Mag would both put a serious hurt on someone. But have you ever looked at wound ballistics graphics? The stretch cavity and resulting disconnected tissue caused by .223 appears to cause a lot more trauma than any pistol caliber round. I say "appears", because I have no real world experience at comparing bullet wounds, so I'll have to rely on other people's experience.

Kilgorll, your power factor info is interesting. Are you saying that .44Mag will stretch and tear tissue at a commensurate rate as well? I am always willing to learn.



If I were "street fighting" with a rifle, I wouldn't be using an oddball round like .44Magnum.
 
The main reason I was wonderring is because I feel the need to have a second battle rifle. I really want an M1 Garand, but they are so expensive. Plus, the 44 Magnum could make a darn nice deer rifle. ;)
 
Kilgore,

You're right.

I'll still take the .223, though.

As for Moe Mentum, he only comes into play when you're trying to knock over heavy objects such as bowling pins.

Moe isn't nearly as important factor when it comes to creating wounds. That's when velocity becomes increasingly important.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top