Has anyone done it?

From what I've read, the big problem with the 444 when it was first introduced, was that there were little to no bullets of proper weight and construction, and something to do with too slow of a twist rate (I believe) in the original guns. Once people found this out it pretty much ruined the reputation for the cartridge, at least for a while, and still with a lot of folks. My initial thought for my cartridge was a short range brush cartridge in a short and easy to handle rifle (I have an affection for brush guns anyway). My original idea was to blow the case out, more or less straight, and use a 44 or 45 caliber bullet. But then I thouthought, if I do that, why not just do 450 marlin? At this point, I sent a couple pics to a buddy of mine and told him what I did, and his response was, "when are we buildin it?" That should help keep costs down on tooling and dies. At least until this revolutionizes the mosin/hunting world and we get orders by the bushel. :rolleyes: No I really don't see that happening at all, but it's nice to dream. :)
 
Good luck. I hope it works out well.

--

Yea, the introduction of .444 Marlin was a multi-pronged failure.

1. Wrong twist rate. 1:38" is fine for .44 Mag, but you need a faster twist rate for bullets over about 290 gr, even when pushing them to 2,200+ fps. With standard rifling, it might have worked; but not with the Micro-Groove rifling. There were .44 caliber rifles on the market, at that time, already using 1:24", 1:26", or 1:30" twist rates. Why Marlin opted for a handgun twist rate is beyond me...
2. Wrong bore dimensions. Marlin, in an attempt to get a bit more velocity out of the cartridge, decided that the barrel specifications for .444 Marlin would be a 0.428" bore diameter and 0.432" groove diameter. That creates a notable issue when combined with problem #3.
3. Wrong bullets. .429" bullets tend to "skid" over the lands that are only engaging it by 0.0005". This, of course, leads to erratic performance.
4. Wrong bullets. Initial testing, especially by gun writes with pre-production rifles and pre-production or early production ammunition, used handgun bullets. Accuracy wasn't great. Terminal performance was less than ideal.
5. Wrong marketing. Well, the marketing wasn't really a failure. It's just that the marketers were selling a rifle and ammunition combination that didn't exist at the time. Advertised velocities were not being seen in testing, and the ammunition did not yet have appropriate bullets for the advertised hunting uses.

Remington eventually created tougher hollow point and a soft point bullets specifically for the .444, but it came too late to curtail the bad press. And, even today, those 240 gr Remington bullets are STILL the wrong diameter - .429". ....Though, I wouldn't disagree with them if Remington argued that the .444 Marlin barrels are the wrong diameter. ;)

Not long after the .444's introduction, Speer and Hornady both introduced bullets designed specifically for the .444, but capable of working in .44 Mag as well. Speer went with .429", but Hornady was just a bit smarter and opted for .430". Those Hornady bullets are generally the best performers (in 1:38" and 1:20" twist barrels). That choice of .430" diameter, by Hornady, eventually got carried over to almost all of their .44 caliber bullets and remains with us to this day.

Marlin eventually stopped trying to convince the world that their Micro-Groove rifling was the greatest thing ever, and that if you had issues, it must be YOUR problem. In 1998, they went to "ballard rifling" and a 1:20" twist for .444 Marlin (though the bore and groove dimensions remained the same).
The 1:20" twist barrels can handle bullets in excess of 500 gr, and at ridiculously low velocities ...if you can find a way to chamber such a cartridge (or have a single-shot).

Even the die-hard .444 fans that only want early production rifles ('65-'70) will admit that the 1:20" ballard barrels are superior, especially with cast bullets. And, even though the Micro-Groove barrels are adequate for bullets up to 290 gr, so long as they're of proper diameter and pushed to top velocities, I went to great lengths to obtain a 1:20" twist barrel for my second .444 (a Marlin 336 .30-30 converted to .444 Marlin). (There is a third 444 [another 336 conversion] that wears a 1:38" micro groove barrel, but it got traded, partially-finished, for an heirloom shotgun.)
I'd rather have to wonder about "over-stabilized" bullets, rather than bullets that are right on the ragged edge and barely stabilized.
 
Thanks, I hope so too.

I hadn't heard all of that before, sounds like the problems compounded for the 444 in the beginning. Thanks for all the info, it's greatly appreciated!
 
attachment.php


I got a 1962 Ruger 44 carbine in 2000 for $180.
While shooting cast bullets and then jacketed bullets, the muzzle split and peeled back like a banana.

I spoke with a 44 mag collector who told me it was very common and there were no replacement barrels left anywhere.

I got the late Randy Ketchum to weld on some barrel extension for $60. That did not stabilize bullets.

I got Randy Ketchum to cut off the rear of the chamber [which leaves a 44 mag chamber, I figured out], drill a gas hole, TIG weld on a gas block for another $60. It all works perfectly, but the stock does not like the fat barrel, and modification to the barrel band was required.

Now I have the world's heaviest and most accurate Ruger 44 mag carbine.

---------------------------------------------------------

In other experiments, I have put 7.62x54R brass in the lathe and got it to fit in a .410 shotgun barrel, used a 405 gr cast bullet with lube bands, and enough H110 to make 80kpsi, and exceeded anything a load book 444 Marlin will ever do.
 
Clark, that was a great idea for your rifle! I'm glad it worked so well.
That would be one mean 410! Too bad they probably don't make 54r brass without headstamps, a guy could stamp it 410 and use it in shotgun only states.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top