jackmoser65
New member
Quoted again for proper context.
is the .44 still Special?
- Thread starter JERRYS.
- Start date
Driftwood Johnson
New member
Howdy
Here is a reprint of a United States Cartridge Company poster from 1881. I know, you can't see anything.
Still not terrifically legible, but perhaps you can read a bit of it. There is 45 Schofield, 5th from the right. So in 1881 anyway, U.S. Cartridge Company was making 45 Schofield rounds.
Yes, 45 Schofield is one of the 17 cartridges Supica and Nahas list as being chambered in the S&W New Model Number Three. A revolver that was cataloged up until 1912. I have no idea how many NM#3s were chambered for 45 Schofield, I suspect not very many. 44 Russian was the most popular chambering of that particular revolver.
Why did S&W specialize in 44 caliber revolvers rather than 45?
I have no idea. I have known for a long time that S&W did favor 44s over 45. All Neal and Jinks have to say on the subject is:
"Smith and Wesson's preference for bore size for large caliber handguns has always been the 44 caliber. They felt that it gave better balance between the combination of good accuracy and killing power than either larger or smaller calibers."
Not really much of an explanation is it? Clearly it was no problem boring the #3 size cylinder and barrel a little bit larger for the 45 Schofield round. Same story for chambering the 1917 revolver for 45ACP instead of the standard 44 Special.
You will note that the 44-40 round shown in one of the earlier illustrations is filled with 40 grains of powder, while the 44 Russian round only holds 23 grains of powder. From a power standpoint, forget how many boards the round would go through, 40 grains of powder will clearly be more powerful than 23 grains. With modern solid head cases, I can load about 19.5 grains of FFg into my BP 44 Russian rounds, about 27 grains of FFg into my 45 Schofield rounds, and about 33.5 grains of FFg into my 44-40 and 45 Colt rounds. Those numbers are a good indicator of the relative power of these various rounds.
Why was the 44 Special created in the first place? In History of Smith and Wesson, Roy Jinks states that work began on a large frame revolver with a side swinging cylinder in 1905. The revolver was created for a new cartridge, with a slightly larger charge of powder than the old 44 Russian. 26 grains instead of 23 grains (Don't forget, these were the old balloon head cases, which had more powder capacity than modern solid head cases.) With a 246 grain bullet it would penetrate 9 pine boards, each 7/8" thick.
Jinks goes on to state that the new revolver was designed for "maximum tightness and positive alignment of the cylinder."
That's why the third latch was added in the yoke area that gave the new revolver its nickname of Triple Lock.
I posted a photo of one above.
The Triple Lock was the only revolver S&W ever made with three latching points for the cylinder. Front of the ejector rod, rear of the ejector rod, and the third latch placed in the yoke. And what better reason to introduce a new cartridge than to showcase it in the newest, fanciest revolver to come out of Springfield?
Here are a few closeups of the third latch of a Triple Lock. When the cylinder was closed, the hardened insert attached to the yoke would engage the cone shaped plunger protruding from the bottom of the barrel shroud.
S&W only produced the Triple Lock from 1908 until 1915. When production of the 44 Hand Ejector 2nd Model commenced in 1915, the third latch was done away with, never to appear again. The price of the Triple Lock was $21 in 1908. When the 2nd Model came out, without the third latch, the price was $19.
Here is a reprint of a United States Cartridge Company poster from 1881. I know, you can't see anything.
Still not terrifically legible, but perhaps you can read a bit of it. There is 45 Schofield, 5th from the right. So in 1881 anyway, U.S. Cartridge Company was making 45 Schofield rounds.
Yes, 45 Schofield is one of the 17 cartridges Supica and Nahas list as being chambered in the S&W New Model Number Three. A revolver that was cataloged up until 1912. I have no idea how many NM#3s were chambered for 45 Schofield, I suspect not very many. 44 Russian was the most popular chambering of that particular revolver.
Why did S&W specialize in 44 caliber revolvers rather than 45?
I have no idea. I have known for a long time that S&W did favor 44s over 45. All Neal and Jinks have to say on the subject is:
"Smith and Wesson's preference for bore size for large caliber handguns has always been the 44 caliber. They felt that it gave better balance between the combination of good accuracy and killing power than either larger or smaller calibers."
Not really much of an explanation is it? Clearly it was no problem boring the #3 size cylinder and barrel a little bit larger for the 45 Schofield round. Same story for chambering the 1917 revolver for 45ACP instead of the standard 44 Special.
You will note that the 44-40 round shown in one of the earlier illustrations is filled with 40 grains of powder, while the 44 Russian round only holds 23 grains of powder. From a power standpoint, forget how many boards the round would go through, 40 grains of powder will clearly be more powerful than 23 grains. With modern solid head cases, I can load about 19.5 grains of FFg into my BP 44 Russian rounds, about 27 grains of FFg into my 45 Schofield rounds, and about 33.5 grains of FFg into my 44-40 and 45 Colt rounds. Those numbers are a good indicator of the relative power of these various rounds.
Why was the 44 Special created in the first place? In History of Smith and Wesson, Roy Jinks states that work began on a large frame revolver with a side swinging cylinder in 1905. The revolver was created for a new cartridge, with a slightly larger charge of powder than the old 44 Russian. 26 grains instead of 23 grains (Don't forget, these were the old balloon head cases, which had more powder capacity than modern solid head cases.) With a 246 grain bullet it would penetrate 9 pine boards, each 7/8" thick.
Jinks goes on to state that the new revolver was designed for "maximum tightness and positive alignment of the cylinder."
That's why the third latch was added in the yoke area that gave the new revolver its nickname of Triple Lock.
I posted a photo of one above.
The Triple Lock was the only revolver S&W ever made with three latching points for the cylinder. Front of the ejector rod, rear of the ejector rod, and the third latch placed in the yoke. And what better reason to introduce a new cartridge than to showcase it in the newest, fanciest revolver to come out of Springfield?
Here are a few closeups of the third latch of a Triple Lock. When the cylinder was closed, the hardened insert attached to the yoke would engage the cone shaped plunger protruding from the bottom of the barrel shroud.
S&W only produced the Triple Lock from 1908 until 1915. When production of the 44 Hand Ejector 2nd Model commenced in 1915, the third latch was done away with, never to appear again. The price of the Triple Lock was $21 in 1908. When the 2nd Model came out, without the third latch, the price was $19.
Model12Win
Moderator
All things equal, bigger bullets tend to work better.
.44 Special is better than even a .300 Winchester Magnum, because it's a bigger, heavier bullet.
Seriously, I like the .44 special, or the cuarenta y cuatro especial as the Spanish put it.
.44 Special is better than even a .300 Winchester Magnum, because it's a bigger, heavier bullet.
Seriously, I like the .44 special, or the cuarenta y cuatro especial as the Spanish put it.
Mike Irwin
Staff
"And yet the old "relic" 45 Colt retains it's popularity today."
That's because it's hardly the useless relic of a bygone age that some claim it to be.
That's because it's hardly the useless relic of a bygone age that some claim it to be.
Mike Irwin
Staff
Driftwood,
Thanks for confirming that USCC was manufacturing .45 Schofield. I was about 99.995% certain that they were.
Another thought on the number of boards penetration.
I've seen other companies use that standard, as well, penetration through dry pine boards.
It's likely the only "standard" way companies had of demonstrating the power and penetration abilities of their cartridges.
I believe that even Hatcher makes reference to the number of pine boards that a .30-06 bullet will penetrate, but I'm too lazy to dig through my Hatcher right now.
Thanks for confirming that USCC was manufacturing .45 Schofield. I was about 99.995% certain that they were.
Another thought on the number of boards penetration.
I've seen other companies use that standard, as well, penetration through dry pine boards.
It's likely the only "standard" way companies had of demonstrating the power and penetration abilities of their cartridges.
I believe that even Hatcher makes reference to the number of pine boards that a .30-06 bullet will penetrate, but I'm too lazy to dig through my Hatcher right now.
Well - I stand corrected for any past comments I made regarding the origin of the .44 S&W spl.
I'd always been under the impression that the cartridge and the Hand Ejector were both introduced as smokless.
It appears that I was wrong.
Learn something every day eh?
Thanks for that info!
Mike Irwin
Staff
Hal, the original hand ejector model, chambered for 32 long, came out in 1896. The 32 long was only loaded with black powder until about 1898 when it began to transition to smokeless powder.
This is truly a fascinating time an American Firearms development . No one really knew whether smokeless powder was going to stick around or not so everyone was hedging their bets.
Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk
This is truly a fascinating time an American Firearms development . No one really knew whether smokeless powder was going to stick around or not so everyone was hedging their bets.
Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk
Penetration through 1" (7/8 of an inch actually, same as today) thick pine boards, placed about an inch apart, was a standard test for the U.S. military as well as others (England, Germany that I know of for certain) of penetration. It was assumed or reasoned that penetration through one board represented a potential killing or severe wounding strike depending on location. It was as close to a standardized test as was available. Any manufacturer or Army could replicate it as well.
Hatcher does discuss this, as do others.
tipoc
Hatcher does discuss this, as do others.
tipoc
jackmoser65
New member
Who cares about popularity? People just like that big fat case, what it actually does is secondary. The fact that it's easily duplicated by the 44 russian, 45 S&W or 45 acp is irrelevant.
Don't be so dramatic. Nobody said it was a useless relic. If I thought it was useless I wouldn't own a bunch of them. Only that when operated at 14kpsi with smokeless powder it has a lot of wasted powder space. At that pressure range the 44 special is simply a better, more efficient cartridge with greater potential in modern colt sized guns. Which is 100% true.
By 1907 the US military was 15yrs deep into smokeless cartridges and the sporting world along with it. The 44 special might have been loaded with blackpowder to please the stalwarts but it was designed as a smokeless powder cartridge for the "New Century". Sorry but the universal switch to smokeless was already a forgone conclusion.
Don't be so dramatic. Nobody said it was a useless relic. If I thought it was useless I wouldn't own a bunch of them. Only that when operated at 14kpsi with smokeless powder it has a lot of wasted powder space. At that pressure range the 44 special is simply a better, more efficient cartridge with greater potential in modern colt sized guns. Which is 100% true.
By 1907 the US military was 15yrs deep into smokeless cartridges and the sporting world along with it. The 44 special might have been loaded with blackpowder to please the stalwarts but it was designed as a smokeless powder cartridge for the "New Century". Sorry but the universal switch to smokeless was already a forgone conclusion.
Mike Irwin
Staff
You do realize that the 44 special when it was designed, was held to the same pressure levels as the 44 Russian, right? Smith & Wesson didn't take any steps forward with a cartridge, so really it is in the exact same place as the 45 Colt. These supposed greater efficiency of the Special is, at best, a transitory condition depending on many factors. There is no universal constant that can be applied.
Once the move to smokeless was made the Colt round was held down buy companies due to the large numbers of black powder era guns.
The .44 didn't have that handicap, yet S$W chose to stay tightly in the confines of BP era ballistics.
I've never taken a hard look at volumetric capacity of the respective cases, but i suspect that the working volume, with the bullet seated, isn't all that different.
Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk
Once the move to smokeless was made the Colt round was held down buy companies due to the large numbers of black powder era guns.
The .44 didn't have that handicap, yet S$W chose to stay tightly in the confines of BP era ballistics.
I've never taken a hard look at volumetric capacity of the respective cases, but i suspect that the working volume, with the bullet seated, isn't all that different.
Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk
jackmoser65
New member
Yet you're arguing with those that have?
The 45 requires 20% more powder to do the same thing. You can't double charge the 44 special without knowing it but you can easily get a triple charge in the 45 case without spilling over the top. Not to mention that 44 special guns are a good 20% stronger due to thicker chamber walls and the 45 is forever plagued with oversized chambers and screwy throats. Even today Colt is shipping 45's with 457" throats. I get it, it's a big, impressive looking case but what it actually does is a lot less impressive until you get to 32kpsi.
But I also realize that some people just like to argue.
There seems to be some disconnect in thinking here.
Now in any discussion of the efficiency of the older blackpowder cartridge of the 45 Colt and the newer(blackpowder or not) cartridge for the 44 Spl. I, as others do, allow that the 44 Spl. is a more efficient use of space and likely, or arguably, a more efficient round.
But there is another thought that follows this: that the performance of the 45 Colt and the 44 Spl. are similar.
This conjecture has a problem in that it trips over it's own feet once it tries walking.
So there's the problem. For a several decades there have been "Ruger Only" loadings for the 45 Colt. These loadings are not nearly "double the pressure". They are safe loads in modern guns. We all know the 45 Colt can be hotrodded to 44 Mag like power and safely with the newer brass and modern guns. This is not the case with the 44 Spl.
So it's hard to say that the 44 Spl. and 45 Colt are so similar in performance as to reduce the one to relic status and the other elevate to modern, useful status and at the same time opt that the one is more powerful than the other in standard use. Maybe something other than a "big fat" case attracts some. It also doesn't impress me to deny that one sells more than the other as far as commercial ammo goes. Popularity means increased sales of guns, ammo and reloading equipment in 45 Colt over 44 Spl.
44 Spl. is an outstanding round in it's own right. It's a niche round. I like it because I like how it does what it does and not because of false arguments that it's better than some other round. It's often not better but that don't matter.
tipoc
Now in any discussion of the efficiency of the older blackpowder cartridge of the 45 Colt and the newer(blackpowder or not) cartridge for the 44 Spl. I, as others do, allow that the 44 Spl. is a more efficient use of space and likely, or arguably, a more efficient round.
But there is another thought that follows this: that the performance of the 45 Colt and the 44 Spl. are similar.
This conjecture has a problem in that it trips over it's own feet once it tries walking.
So there's the problem. For a several decades there have been "Ruger Only" loadings for the 45 Colt. These loadings are not nearly "double the pressure". They are safe loads in modern guns. We all know the 45 Colt can be hotrodded to 44 Mag like power and safely with the newer brass and modern guns. This is not the case with the 44 Spl.
So it's hard to say that the 44 Spl. and 45 Colt are so similar in performance as to reduce the one to relic status and the other elevate to modern, useful status and at the same time opt that the one is more powerful than the other in standard use. Maybe something other than a "big fat" case attracts some. It also doesn't impress me to deny that one sells more than the other as far as commercial ammo goes. Popularity means increased sales of guns, ammo and reloading equipment in 45 Colt over 44 Spl.
44 Spl. is an outstanding round in it's own right. It's a niche round. I like it because I like how it does what it does and not because of false arguments that it's better than some other round. It's often not better but that don't matter.
tipoc
jackmoser65
New member
It is and as I said, the 45 takes 20% more powder to do the same thing. No argument about it. This is true with standard loads and it's true with Ruger only loads. Basic laws of physics apply.
Ruger only loads run 32kpsi. The SAAMI standard pressure for the 45 colt is 14kpsi. That is more than double.
Straw argument. I never said it was. In fact, I said that the 45 colt only really starts using its powder capacity at 32kpsi. My God, Trail Boss powder was developed for this purpose, to take up more space in cavernous blackpowder cartridges.
Apparently you and others are reading more into the use of the term relic and taking it out of context. The 45 colt was developed as a blackpowder cartridge, no? The 45 colt has a huge case capacity intended for much bulkier blackpowder, no? The 45 colt has a lot of unused powder capacity when loaded with smokeless, no? If one were to develop a modern replacement for the 45 colt with no consideration for guns of the past, it would look a lot different, wouldn't it? It would have a lot less powder capacity and thus be a lot shorter, wouldn't it? It would probably also run at higher pressures, similar to Brian Pearce's 22kpsi data, wouldn't it? It would look a lot like a rimmed 45 acp, wouldn't it? In other words, it would more closely resemble the 44 special or russian, wouldn't it? That's the point.
If you want a 250gr bullet at 700 to 900ft-sec, the 44 special does it with less powder, less wasted case capacity, easier ejection and no issues with chamber dimensions. That's the point. Does that fact change my enjoyment of the 45 colt? Not in the least. Do people take that fact like a personal insult? Apparently.
You really think there are more guns, ammo and reloading equipment available for the 45 colt over the 44's? How is this even relevant?
Which part is false? The fact that it uses less powder to do the same thing? The fact that there are fewer issues with chamber dimensions? Or the fact that the guns are inherently stronger due to thicker chamber walls?
I also like it for what it does. I also like it for what it does not do. I like it because it is more efficient than the 45 colt and uses the same weight bullets at the same velocity with less powder. I like it because it is also a shorter case that ejects more easily from both single and double action revolvers. I like it because I don't have to worry about chamber dimensions or ordering .458" bullets to fit my ginormous throats. I like it because there is a broader safety margin that also allows it to be loaded to 26kpsi in some guns. These are all facts. You are entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts.
seeker_two
New member
Kinda sounds like the .45LC was the 10mm of it's day.....
Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk
Jack,
It seems you've calmed down a bit and have backed off the relic stuff some.
You've noted that the cases for the 45 Colt of today are not identical to those of a century ago.
You've realized that the guns of today that can safely handle the pressures of the 45 acp can also handle the 45 Colt round loaded to the same pressures (
You seem to see that the "thin chamber walls" of da and sa guns are not as much an issue these days as they were in Elmer Keith's time. New steels, alloys and heat treating, etc.
I think only that the 45 Colt is possibly more popular and used than the 44 Spl. given ammo sales, offerings, at least. The relevance is that many people, despite, or maybe because of it's peculiarities, find the "old relic" fun and useful for a variety of tasks from target shooting to self defense to hunting. That the 45 Colt can run with the 44 Spl. or with the 44 Mag. Or maybe just that it's a little lighter to carry than the 44 Spl. Folks seem to like that.
Reminds me of another "relic" the "obsolete" 1911.
You like the 44 Spl. and you like the 45 Colt. The latter you damn with faint praise and references to it's alleged and real issues.
I'm fine with knowing that.
tipoc
It seems you've calmed down a bit and have backed off the relic stuff some.
You've noted that the cases for the 45 Colt of today are not identical to those of a century ago.
You've realized that the guns of today that can safely handle the pressures of the 45 acp can also handle the 45 Colt round loaded to the same pressures (
).
You seem to see that the "thin chamber walls" of da and sa guns are not as much an issue these days as they were in Elmer Keith's time. New steels, alloys and heat treating, etc.
I think only that the 45 Colt is possibly more popular and used than the 44 Spl. given ammo sales, offerings, at least. The relevance is that many people, despite, or maybe because of it's peculiarities, find the "old relic" fun and useful for a variety of tasks from target shooting to self defense to hunting. That the 45 Colt can run with the 44 Spl. or with the 44 Mag. Or maybe just that it's a little lighter to carry than the 44 Spl. Folks seem to like that.
Reminds me of another "relic" the "obsolete" 1911.
You like the 44 Spl. and you like the 45 Colt. The latter you damn with faint praise and references to it's alleged and real issues.
I'm fine with knowing that.
tipoc
jackmoser65
New member
I don't have to look at something with rose-colored glasses to like it either. The truth is the truth, some like theirs sugar-coated. I don't.