44Magnum The Most Versatile Handgun Caliber
- Thread starter Mr.RevolverGuy
- Start date
Winchester_73
New member
EDIT - Mavracer was quicker on the draw, but if you prefer the Charles Dickens version of what he said, read on!
What he was trying to say was simply "why should we load way up a vintage cartridge, to where many guns are no longer safe for the round, instead of introducing a new one (with a longer case)." In essence, if Ruger only loads are just that, Ruger only, then why not develop a new cartridge or in this specific case, chamber the 454 sooner than they did to allow for the need of high pressure 45 loads? Some of Ruger building their 45 colt revolvers super strong was not intented to allow for much higher pressure loads that many shoot through them, but rather to ensure the durability and longevity of their guns.
Of course, you can physically shoot 45 colt in a 454 and 38 special in the 357 magnum regardless. The point was that perhaps they could have (or should have) made 454s instead of over engineered 45 colt guns to begin with. I understand to some they're not over engineered, but when they can handle loads that most other 45 colt guns cannot, I think at that point they are over engineered. Its kind of like with older S&Ws, would you rather have a 38/44 Outdoorsman (N frame 38 special) or a 357 magnum? You can load either way up, but the 357 will most likely handle high pressure loads, for a longer period of time, because it was specifically made for high pressure rounds. The 45 Colt vs 454 is the same question or suggestion, if you will.
454s are heavier than most 45 colt revolvers. Some prefer that tradeoff and of course some do not. With 45 colt rounds, its kind of like there are two completely different loads, with the same exact outside dimensions. The "Ruger only" 45 colt loads are in essence +P+, or at the very least, +P. Some people like to do that, and that is how all of these rounds such as 357 mag, 44 mag and 454 casull were developed. I think Spacecoast was saying or rather, implying: "why not play with the rounds which were made to be higher pressure, and play with the guns designed to shoot them." I suppose then you have to figure platform issues would arise IE someone prefers a Ruger Blackhawk or Redhawk in 45 colt to SA 454 because perhaps the Ruger is smaller or lighter, or anything. Perhaps they like the Ruger 45 Colt DA over 454 DA revolvers. Maybe they cannot afford a 454 or 460, so they shoot higher pressure 45 colt rounds.
The big point is this: there is something for everyone, and to each, their own.
One of my shooting buddies had the practice of loading 38 special cases to Mag pressures, He had some of his ammo stolen out of his truck and it ended up blowing up the guys 38. believe it or not the guy had the nerve to sue my buddie for damages. The case ended up getting dismissed but still cost my buddie almost $2000 in lawyer fees.
spacecoast
New member
Exactly, by building the super-strong .45 Colts and contributing to the creation of +P+ ammo you put everything else not in the same class at risk (in this case many tens of thousands if not more) guns, many of them historic. And the risk isn't limited to old guns, the Judge and New Vaquero are also not strong enough to handle the "Ruger-only" loads as I understand.
If Ruger or someone else decided to do this with .38 specials or .44 specials (which can hold a LOT more powder than they are typically loaded to) then I'm sure there would be a lot more guns blown up and a public outcry. Yes, there are +P .38 special loads available, but they are only marginally stronger than standard pressure ammo and usually only increase wear on rather than blow up old guns. The difference is nowhere near the difference between "regular" and Ruger-only .45 Colt loads.
While I like ...and have a few S&W revolvers in .44 mag ( model 29's and 629's in 3", 4", 6" and 8 3/8" barrels .....its an "N Frame" caliber...and that alone hurts its versatility...
I think the .357 Mag is far more versatile....as evidenced by the number of S&W K, L and N frames made in .357 mag....and I find them a lot more versatile for Defense.....and just plinking....( and I have .357 mag caliber in a new Henry Big Boy lever action rifle as well as a Freedom Arms single action revolver...)...
I'm not a handgun hunter...so I don't need a handgun for big game / and while I might lean toward carrying a .44 mag when fly fishing in Alaska ...or Northwestern Montana in Grizzly country ..../ the rest of the time a .357 mag will do the job.
.357 mag offers much faster follow up shots ...especially with a 158gr bullet that is traditional in that caliber..../ much faster than the same gun with a 240gr bullet in .44 mag ( say in a pair of S&W N frames ...like a model 27 4" in .357 mag / and a model 29 4" in .44 mag )_.....
but just my opinion ..../ and I've been shooting and reloading for both the .357 Mag and .44 Mag off and on for almost 50yrs...( grandpa taught me to reload when I was about 10 yrs old ).../ these days I shoot about 500 rds a yr in .44 mag .....and about 500 a month in .357 Mag...
I think the .357 Mag is far more versatile....as evidenced by the number of S&W K, L and N frames made in .357 mag....and I find them a lot more versatile for Defense.....and just plinking....( and I have .357 mag caliber in a new Henry Big Boy lever action rifle as well as a Freedom Arms single action revolver...)...
I'm not a handgun hunter...so I don't need a handgun for big game / and while I might lean toward carrying a .44 mag when fly fishing in Alaska ...or Northwestern Montana in Grizzly country ..../ the rest of the time a .357 mag will do the job.
.357 mag offers much faster follow up shots ...especially with a 158gr bullet that is traditional in that caliber..../ much faster than the same gun with a 240gr bullet in .44 mag ( say in a pair of S&W N frames ...like a model 27 4" in .357 mag / and a model 29 4" in .44 mag )_.....
but just my opinion ..../ and I've been shooting and reloading for both the .357 Mag and .44 Mag off and on for almost 50yrs...( grandpa taught me to reload when I was about 10 yrs old ).../ these days I shoot about 500 rds a yr in .44 mag .....and about 500 a month in .357 Mag...
Winchester_73
New member
Sorry spacecoast that I apparently misunderstood your point. I thought about it in context of practicality more so than the safety of the pre existing guns.
My instinct is to rarely speak for someone else, I should stick to it.
My instinct is to rarely speak for someone else, I should stick to it.
Last edited:
Creek Henry
New member
The .44mag +p is a savage load anyway. Without moving up to the 500WE or 460SW, I don't see the gain of the bigger bores for 99.9% of our shooting.
I will qualify that statement by saying that I'm tired of seeing guys at the range trying to shoot 454s and 460s, etc and being overgunned. It's not about testosterone, it's about hitting what you are aiming at (every time!) Also, them HUGE guns are loud! I had to leave a range because my foam earplugs worn under my headphones were just not enough. That seems excessive somehow .
I will qualify that statement by saying that I'm tired of seeing guys at the range trying to shoot 454s and 460s, etc and being overgunned. It's not about testosterone, it's about hitting what you are aiming at (every time!) Also, them HUGE guns are loud! I had to leave a range because my foam earplugs worn under my headphones were just not enough. That seems excessive somehow .
newfrontier45
Moderator
You really need to educate yourself on this subject.
Ruger never intended for anyone to load their .45's heavier than standard and has NEVER endorsed or condoned such practices. When Ruger first introduced their large frame .45Colt, 42yrs ago, there were no other heavy framed .45's on the market and certainly no heavy loads. Those came after. While Dick Casull was experimenting with heavy .45Colt loads in custom built Colt SAA's in the 1950's, the .454 was not offered in a factory revolver until 1983. The very expensive Freedom Arms, which eventually became the model 83. It was a wildcat until 1998.
I should have to tell you that there is a HUGE difference between 32,000psi "Ruger only" loads and 65,000psi .454Casull loads. Since you seem to know so much and I'm the idiotic "self proclaimed expert who should entertain the possibility of being wrong", I shouldn't have to explain to you that in a Blackhawk platform the .454 requires a heavy five-shot cylinder, bank vault tight lockup, a blocked action and very precise tolerances. So Ruger basically would've had to build a new gun from the ground up and build it tighter than anything in their catalog to make your theoretical proposition a reality. The six-shot Super Redhawk was only possible by lowering the pressures of factory loads to 50-55,000psi, an exotic and highly elastic stainless steel alloy and the gun's robust lockup.
So no, Ruger couldn't have just offered the guns in .454Casull. It's nowhere near the realm of possibility but what do I know.
And surely you have evidence to support this silly theory? If Ruger has been building these guns for 42yrs, surely there is something to support your nonsense? I'm sorry, people really don't like this word but your argument is coming from ignorance.
The 44 magnum is a versatile caliber. To say it is the most versatile is subjective and not a claim I would make without reservations. I do believe an advantage it has is that it was designed to handle pretty high pressure loads from the outset. This means you have a wide range of loads that it will shoot safely. The .44 cartridge is large enough to handle most any large bore application but not so big that a normal cylinder can have 6 rounds and still an adequate amount of steel around each.
Since the .45 Colt was mentioned so many times in this thread, I will add this. When you put 6 rounds of .45 Colt in a standard cylinder, it leaves thinner walls than a .44 mag in the same platform. The .460 is a 5-shot at least in part to address the cylinder strength. I never owned a FA .454 but as I recall the one I looked at was a 5-shot as well. The standard load in a .45 Colt results in a pleasant, accurate shooting revolver that you don't have to worry about which gun it is being shot in. Heavy Colt loads are not as much fun. If I feel the need to go over 900 fps or so, I shoot the .460 as it is pleasant to shoot even above 2000 fps as it was designed to do just that. YMMV
Since the .45 Colt was mentioned so many times in this thread, I will add this. When you put 6 rounds of .45 Colt in a standard cylinder, it leaves thinner walls than a .44 mag in the same platform. The .460 is a 5-shot at least in part to address the cylinder strength. I never owned a FA .454 but as I recall the one I looked at was a 5-shot as well. The standard load in a .45 Colt results in a pleasant, accurate shooting revolver that you don't have to worry about which gun it is being shot in. Heavy Colt loads are not as much fun. If I feel the need to go over 900 fps or so, I shoot the .460 as it is pleasant to shoot even above 2000 fps as it was designed to do just that. YMMV
spacecoast
New member
Not at all, your summary of
is pretty much the same thing, probably stated even better.
I made (and make) no claim to know what Ruger's intentions were in doing what they did, only to comment on the situation as it now exists and the risks taken by those who make, use and inventory these loads were they to lose control of them by whatever means. There are a significant number of commercial and handmade 'Ruger-only" .45 Colt loads with the potential of blowing up lesser guns if misunderstood, mislabeled or misused. Not even all modern Rugers are capable of handling them, let alone the others.
Flyboy_451
New member
Another radically reduced load
That is a lot of fun, but for the .45 Colt: knock the primer out of fired cases, prime said case but do not size it, add two grains of bullseye and then seat a 335 grain LBT bullet backwards and simply press it in with your thumb until it stops.
I have no idea what the velocity is, but it recoils about like a 32 smith and Wesson, and only penetrates abou 2/10 of an inch into a pine 2X6 at a distance of 20 feet. Lots of fun, quiet and it has proven to be accurate at short range (50 feet and less) in all of the guns I have tried it in so far. We regularly shoot this load into a home made bullet trap when the weather is too unpleasant to be shooting outside. This, a few friends, add a couple of .22s and a pot of coffee and you have the makings of a great way to spend a blustery winter evening.
JW
That is a lot of fun, but for the .45 Colt: knock the primer out of fired cases, prime said case but do not size it, add two grains of bullseye and then seat a 335 grain LBT bullet backwards and simply press it in with your thumb until it stops.
I have no idea what the velocity is, but it recoils about like a 32 smith and Wesson, and only penetrates abou 2/10 of an inch into a pine 2X6 at a distance of 20 feet. Lots of fun, quiet and it has proven to be accurate at short range (50 feet and less) in all of the guns I have tried it in so far. We regularly shoot this load into a home made bullet trap when the weather is too unpleasant to be shooting outside. This, a few friends, add a couple of .22s and a pot of coffee and you have the makings of a great way to spend a blustery winter evening.
JW
I do not understand the logic behind this thread. It seems that versatility of a particular caliber would be a moot point to this population of people who almost all have handguns in multiple calibers, that they would use for different applications instead of adapting the .44 to that purpose. Someone please explain it to me...it strikes me as "how many angles can dance on the head of a pin", argument.
Had a "ringer" show up to our last bowling pin shoots. He was shooting a Model 29 with moderate loaded SWC's.
Took me out of that game right quick. I was shooting my 6 in Model 27, also with SWC's.
I went 5 for 5 only to look over to see him start loading for the next string. He wasn't even using speed loaders. Guess he didn't need fast reloads the way he shot.
Took me out of that game right quick. I was shooting my 6 in Model 27, also with SWC's.
I went 5 for 5 only to look over to see him start loading for the next string. He wasn't even using speed loaders. Guess he didn't need fast reloads the way he shot.
Winchester_73
New member
Its an interesting topic in today's world, where someone might be limited to 2 or 3 pistols, or perhaps even 1, where they need it to fill in for multiple roles. I don't find the 44 mag to be as versatile as a 357 mag, whether you handload or not. On the other hand, it can of course do more than a 45 acp semi, or a 9mm semi or say a 32 revolver.
Last edited:
newfrontier45
Moderator
How does that fit in a holster?
I'm sure you're aware that there are .38 Special loads that would be unwise to use in many older Airweight J frames or inexpensive/imported 38 Specials or pre heat treated S&W's and Colt's ... right?
38/44
Super Vel
+P+
for example..
I don't see that situation being any different than Heavy loaded 45 Colts.
Personally , I like the 44 Mag and 45 Colt for all arounders. A 4" N frame or 4 5/8" Blackhawk isn't much harder to carry/conceal than a 4" mid frame 357 IMO.
ChaperallCat
Moderator
versatility, well versatility means that an object can be used for more then one thing.........
well lets get dirty.
a 357 would seem to be the most versatile cartridge in this debate. ive seen online statistics that claim that 75 percent of the population can actually handle the recoil of this cartridge in a standard service revolver. while a whopping 30 percent can handle the 44 magnum in a standard service gun.
those cartridges were not the big post kieth 300 grain slugs, they were the standard original 240 grain jsp/jhp/swc in the 44 mag as loaded in winchester white box. and 158 grain jsp/jhp/swc in the same box label.
youtube has a lot of videos of small sized people shooting 357s up the butt. i think i stopped counting at 29 videos. i dont believe i found more then 3 videos of small sized people shooting a 44 magnum.. and the ones that were i believe were using 44 specials or specially loaded light 44 mags in it.
well lets get dirty.
a 357 would seem to be the most versatile cartridge in this debate. ive seen online statistics that claim that 75 percent of the population can actually handle the recoil of this cartridge in a standard service revolver. while a whopping 30 percent can handle the 44 magnum in a standard service gun.
those cartridges were not the big post kieth 300 grain slugs, they were the standard original 240 grain jsp/jhp/swc in the 44 mag as loaded in winchester white box. and 158 grain jsp/jhp/swc in the same box label.
youtube has a lot of videos of small sized people shooting 357s up the butt. i think i stopped counting at 29 videos. i dont believe i found more then 3 videos of small sized people shooting a 44 magnum.. and the ones that were i believe were using 44 specials or specially loaded light 44 mags in it.