The Dying 44?

I only have a few 44s and I love shooting them. I am on restriction now due to surgery, so I'm staying smaller than a 38, but I really miss shooting my Dan Wesson 44 with the different barrels. And the other 44s I have as well.

Jack Ryan said:

IF a 44 mag is "only mediocre", what does that make a 9mm? 380?

Click to expand...

Next to a 357sig pretty much the same. Perfectly adequate within their limitations. Kinda like a 460 Rowland vs the 113 year old 45acp. Next to the new S&W's the 44 is absolutely mediocre in comparison.

SteveSt said:

I only have a few 44s and I love shooting them. I am on restriction now due to surgery, so I'm staying smaller than a 38, but I really miss shooting my Dan Wesson 44 with the different barrels. And the other 44s I have as well.


View attachment 45311

Click to expand...

Awesome set. This is my only 44. Dan Wesson was made for Mad Scientists!!! Stock rifling not cutting it with your creations??? A call to Douglas or Pac Nor and you can have custom twist rates and rifling cuts for anything you can hurl!!!

sixmranch said:

Wish I had seen that earlier, I just bought a couple more last week. Didn't realize they were dead!

Click to expand...

Listen, I feel your pain, and going through the process of dealing with dead guns is very hard on a person. I have years of experience helping people get through the process, so I offer my services, gratis. Just package them all up, send them to me, and I will take care of the rest. Your guns will be treated with utmost respect and dignity through the entire process.

Hvymax said:

Next to a 357sig pretty much the same. Perfectly adequate within their limitations. Kinda like a 460 Rowland vs the 113 year old 45acp. Next to the new S&W's the 44 is absolutely mediocre in comparison.

Click to expand...

Do you walk through the produce aisle and compare apples to watermelons so you can justify buying a box of blue berries?

Jack Ryan said:

Do you walk through the produce aisle and compare apples to watermelons so you can justify buying a box of blue berries?

Click to expand...

Thanks a lot, now I'm hungry. But I do see your point.

I love my .44s. I shoot them a lot more than my 9mm. They are a lot more interesting to cast bullets for, load and shoot.

vlavalle said:

I see you mentioned 'pushing 454 Casull power', but that is probably not possible. You may have achieved a bit more power than what you thought was the max .44 Mag power, but not much. The .44 Mag max's out at a power level of 1,544 Ft. lbs., so if you are reloading, you may have never achieved that power level. But even if you did, the .454 Casull max's out at 2,200 ft. lbs., which is 45% more powerful. In other words, there is a hug difference.

Click to expand...

The .454 is certainly a big step above the .44 Mag.

Handloader had a piece about "Redhawk-only" .44 +P loads. I made up a few with H110 and 300 grain SWC-GC bullets that chronoed an average of 1410 FPS. Extraction was slightly sticky, but if I had a real "need" for this sort of thing, I would be willing to make and shoot more of these in small quantities. I labeled the package of ammo ".434 Casull" as a joke.

I'm not interested in foot-pounds. Chasing foot-pounds favors light, fast bullets. I prefer mid- to slightly heavy-for-caliber bullets. Better to calculate Power Factor if you require a number (which is really just another term for momentum). I believe that it is a better proxy for recoil since momentum is conserved on both sides of the primer, if I'm not mistaken. So, a standard .44 load with a 240 grain bullet at the same velocity (reasonable?) would be PF 338, and my +P reload would be 423. Pulling a max load for the .454 from Hodgdon's load data: 325 grain at 1545 FPS gives 502 PF so still quite a bit above the .44 +P. The Redhawk-only loads basically close half of the gap to the Casull.

Based on shooting those +Ps, I could see shooting a Casull (or maybe even a .480 Ruger) for really big animals, but the S&W super-magnums seem quite insane to me!

Jack Ryan said:

Do you walk through the produce aisle and compare apples to watermelons so you can justify buying a box of blue berries?

Click to expand...

It's like comparing the 44 magnum to the newer, hotter 460 or 500S&W. The 357sig similarly eclipses the 9mm in performance from a similar package.

gundog5 said:

I love my .44s. I shoot them a lot more than my 9mm. They are a lot more interesting to cast bullets for, load and shoot.

Click to expand...

Agreed! I Don't own a 9 mm so I don't have to load for it, but I do have a 380 and that is the single most irritating round to reload I have ever dealt with.

IMO the 44 magnum is like a 426 hemi. In it's day the most powerful thing around. It's been blown, injected, ported, polished and relieved. Not much is being published about it either because everyone wants a Hellcat Engine for their lawnmower now and they haven't made 426's in about 50 years.

"They" (gunwriters) said that about the .44 Magnum around 1970, then Dirty Harry came about.....

The .44 is my favorite caliber, I own 8 of them

Ruger Super Redhawk 7.5"
Ruger Super Blackhawk 10.5" blued
Dan Wesson M44 stainless 6"
S&W model 29-3 6"
S&W model 629 Classic Hunter 6"
Marlin 1894 20"
Winchester M 94 16" saddle ring carbine
Ruger 44 Carbine

BuckRimfire said:

The .454 is certainly a big step above the .44 Mag.

Handloader had a piece about "Redhawk-only" .44 +P loads. I made up a few with H110 and 300 grain SWC-GC bullets that chronoed an average of 1410 FPS. Extraction was slightly sticky, but if I had a real "need" for this sort of thing, I would be willing to make and shoot more of these in small quantities. I labeled the package of ammo ".434 Casull" as a joke.

I'm not interested in foot-pounds. Chasing foot-pounds favors light, fast bullets. I prefer mid- to slightly heavy-for-caliber bullets. Better to calculate Power Factor if you require a number (which is really just another term for momentum). I believe that it is a better proxy for recoil since momentum is conserved on both sides of the primer, if I'm not mistaken. So, a standard .44 load with a 240 grain bullet at the same velocity (reasonable?) would be PF 338, and my +P reload would be 423. Pulling a max load for the .454 from Hodgdon's load data: 325 grain at 1545 FPS gives 502 PF so still quite a bit above the .44 +P. The Redhawk-only loads basically close half of the gap to the Casull.

Based on shooting those +Ps, I could see shooting a Casull (or maybe even a .480 Ruger) for really big animals, but the S&W super-magnums seem quite insane to me!

Click to expand...

I have been involved with guns and ammo for over 55 years, and I never heard of the Power Factor you mentioned, nor how it is derived. Ft. lbs. IS a momentum calculation, and it is based on the mass times the speed squared. So, obviously, speed has a bigger factor in the power rating than the size of the bullet. In general, in handgun and rifle ammo, the most powerful rounds are not the biggest bullet, but a combination between the bullet's size (weight) and its speed. There are a few exception, especially with the smaller calibers, where they have an extremely small bullet at very high speed, and get a high calculated power (in ft. lbs.), which I think is rather misleading, and not realistic for hunting nor for self defense, so I tend to disregard these in general.

Here are some examples of these: (1) .357 Sig with 90 gr at 1,700 fps, delivering 577 ft. lbs (High power).(Underwood), (2) .357 MAG 50 gr at 2,100 fps delivering 575 ft. lbs. (medium power)(Liberty Ammunition), (3) 10mm with a bullet of 60 gr traveling at 2,400 fps (high power)(Liberty Civil Defense), (4) 9mm with a bullet of 65 gr at 1,700 fps, delivering 427 ft. lbs. (med High power)(Underwood).

Also, the industry standard of measuring power, and not just for ammo, IS ft. lbs. In case you or others are not aware, a ft. lbs. (foot pound) is the amount of energy needed to move an object of 1 lb. one foot., not accounting for any friction, which of course would change any calculation if friction was to be part of the power equation needed to move an object. But shooting into the air reduces the friction to a very low factor until you get into very high speeds, like the SR-71 which travels faster than just about any bullet. Also, friction is not a factor at all when measuring the Muzzle Energy (ME) of any gun, because the bullet has not yet traveled anywhere since this measure is right at the point of launch - at the muzzle of the barrel, with its Muzzle Velocity (MV).

So, how is this Power Factor calculated? And is it used anywhere else outside of guns?

BuckRimfire said:

The .454 is certainly a big step above the .44 Mag.

Handloader had a piece about "Redhawk-only" .44 +P loads. I made up a few with H110 and 300 grain SWC-GC bullets that chronoed an average of 1410 FPS. Extraction was slightly sticky, but if I had a real "need" for this sort of thing, I would be willing to make and shoot more of these in small quantities. I labeled the package of ammo ".434 Casull" as a joke.

I'm not interested in foot-pounds. Chasing foot-pounds favors light, fast bullets. I prefer mid- to slightly heavy-for-caliber bullets. Better to calculate Power Factor if you require a number (which is really just another term for momentum). I believe that it is a better proxy for recoil since momentum is conserved on both sides of the primer, if I'm not mistaken. So, a standard .44 load with a 240 grain bullet at the same velocity (reasonable?) would be PF 338, and my +P reload would be 423. Pulling a max load for the .454 from Hodgdon's load data: 325 grain at 1545 FPS gives 502 PF so still quite a bit above the .44 +P. The Redhawk-only loads basically close half of the gap to the Casull.

Based on shooting those +Ps, I could see shooting a Casull (or maybe even a .480 Ruger) for really big animals, but the S&W super-magnums seem quite insane to me!

Click to expand...

Back again - I did a few calculations from your table, and turned them into ft. lbs. (1) The 270 bullet traveling at 1,511 produces 1,368 ft. lbs., which is about the max of the .45 Colt ammo (Buffalo Bore). (2) The 300 .44 Mag bullet traveling at 1,390 produces only 1,269 ft. lbs. of ME. (3) The 310 gr bullet traveling at 1,495 produces 1,538 ft. lbs., which is equivalent to the highest powered already-manufactured .44 Mag round made (Buffalo Bore).

IHMSA is about energy transfer. A fast bullet that vaporizes on impact doesn't transfer a lot of energy to heavy steel targets.

vlavalle said:

I have been involved with guns and ammo for over 55 years, and I never heard of the Power Factor you mentioned, nor how it is derived. Ft. lbs. IS a momentum calculation, and it is based on the mass times the speed squared.

Click to expand...

Momentum and kinetic energy are NOT the same thing. This is basic physics. Consult any physics textbook.

I don't hunt because I'm too lazy, but I like shooting magnum revolvers for the thump. One advantage of slower, heavier loads is that they contain less powder, so a max load has a bit less muzzle blast with a heavy bullet. The first box of .44 Magnum ammo I bought was Remington 185 gr JHP because that's all that was available when I got my Redhawk. Loud! I like recoil more than I like noise.

People who do hunt large animals with handguns tend to favor heavier and slower bullets which look worse from a kinetic energy standpoint than light fast bullets, but supposedly penetrate much better and do more damage as a result.

So, how is this Power Factor calculated? And is it used anywhere else outside of guns?

Click to expand...

PF is mass times velocity, which is the same as momentum. When using grains of bullet weight and feet per second, the result is divided by 1000 to give a more convenient three digit number (or four digit for a big rifle cartridge). PF is used in gun games (e.g. IDPA or USPSA) as a proxy for recoil, so competitors have to shoot samples of their ammo to be sure they're not using excessively light ammo to gain an advantage in split times.

PF isn't a perfect proxy for recoil because the "rocket" effect of the powder gases coming out has a contribution, and that is probably perceptible but not a huge variable, so people ignore it for convenience.

Hvymax said:

IHMSA is about energy transfer. A fast bullet that vaporizes on impact doesn't transfer a lot of energy to heavy steel targets.

Click to expand...

Also this.

vlavalle said:

I have been involved with guns and ammo for over 55 years, and I never heard of the Power Factor you mentioned, nor how it is derived.

Click to expand...

Hopefully you're not so old that you can't learn something new.

BuckRimfire said:

Hopefully you're not so old that you can't learn something new.

Click to expand...

Ouch. Let's turn down the snarky just a bit. A lot of information and camaraderie on this forum. No need to throw gasoline on it.

BuckRimfire said:

Hopefully you're not so old that you can't learn something new.

Click to expand...

Of course not, and that is why I asked what a Power Factor is and how it is calculated. So, now I see it is simply mass times velocity, whereas real power is mass times velocity squared. And it appears to be used only in games? If this is the case, then no wonder I have never heard of it before. I do not play any computer games. Is it used in the real world as well? PF is not mentioned on any ammo or gun manufacturer's web sites. But of course, ft. lbs. is referenced almost everywhere.