Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'General Handgun' started by BattleRifleG3, Oct 18, 2020.
LOL!!! It's not that bad. Compared to the 340PD in .357 Mag. The 329PD is a pussycat.
Funny enough, the 2" K frame in .357 is a lot sharper than the .44 too, but the cylinder on the .357 is heavily cut for weight. I think they should have left the weight! lol
Yes! At 12 ounces, unloaded, the 340PD has very little mass to tame the recoil of a .357 Magnum. The 329PD weighs 28 ounces, empty. When it's loaded with 6 rounds of 240 grain ammo, it is a very nice weight to carry in a hip holster, all day, and isn't too bad to shoot.
Now I think I should shoot one.
Some ports and a trigger job, it might be a good EDC!
Shoot which one?
I do not think either of them are good candidates for porting, because the barrels are stainless steel, encased in Scandium. I think porting would cause issues with the metal around the holes.
I had a brain fart earlier, the 44, was of course the N fram, not K frame I I was a bit short on the barrel. It was 2 and 5/8 inch. Looked much shorter at the time.
This was the exact model.
And the same thing 357
I remember a fluted cylinder and it being much lighter than the 44, but the spec sheet shows both at 37oz.
I can't imagine a 44 at 28oz, but at 37 oz it was snappy, but very fun, not painful.
I have fired and air weight 357 at 12 oz. Standard pressure 38 spl loads were plenty for me, thanks, lol.
I would like to shoot the 329 PD. I think to port it, I would want to mill down a flat in the stainless barrel and drill that with a center drill for nice jets. Either that or hold the barrel so the center drill comes in dead center of the arc on the barrel. That would be more challenging to hold. I haven't worked with scandium before so there could certainly be something for me to learn first.
I’ve been wanting a S&W 69 Combat Magnum for a while... It would fit my model 19 holsters nicely.
I started my 44M experience with a 4 inch model 29 in 1981, 44 ounces, back then it seemed like pretty devastating recoil. If you fired a box of 50 in one trip the range, it was a workout. I later went to a Ruger Redhawk 5.5 inch, seems like it weighs about 49 ounces and it is not too bad at all.
But my favorite of all is the one short run of Rossi Tracker, 5 shot K frame size gun with a 2.5 inch barrel. It weighs 31 ounces, smaller than the 329 smith in size but 3 ounces heavier. It is a hoot to shoot and I finally came to trust it as much as my as my SW or Ruger. It fits the same holster as my 2.5 inch K frame guns and the weight is about the same as the 6 shot model 19 or 66. It shoots the 44 mag 240 grain Win white box about 1,200 fps about the same as my 4 inch, and is not bad at all. I have no clue why the velocity is about the same as the longer barrel, I assume variations in barrel, cylinder gap and maybe cylinder size.
That being said, the recoil is not bad at all. I would never port any gun designed for self defense. I came out of law enforcement and military jobs. When anything goes off in the dark just one time, you are at risk of not being able to see anything for a minute or two. Porting just makes the blast 10 times worse in the dark. Porting in any gun fight in the dark can get your dead, I will pass.
Porting is great for getting the recoil down where kids and people who cannot learn to handle recoil can still shoot full power rifles. Just not what I would ever buy for any gun I would carry, just too much risk. It it is just a range or target gun then porting is probably OK< just never on a gun that might be used for defense.
The little Rossi and I suppose any 2.5 inch barrel 44 mag still gets over 1,000 foot pounds with the Buffalo Bore loads. The same short barrel other guns is as follows:
10 mm 220 grain 650 foot pounds 190 grain 550 foot pounds----both with 4.5 inch barrel
357mag 180 grain 680 foot pounds 3 inch J frame
41 mag 230 grain 960 foot pounds 4 inch SW
44 mag 240 grain 1,100 4 inch SW
These are all pulled off the Buffalo Bore site. Just saying, I can get over 1000 fps with a small 44 mag that weighs 31 ounces, recoil is not bad and it is easy to carry. SW is now making the model 69 in a 3 inch and I would assume it to be better that a Rossi, at least the customer service should be better.
Tim Sundles at Buffalo Bore says any hard cast 9mm will kill a bear, just shoot for the brain. Personally I want a short fast gun with with at leas 1,000 foot pounds. Never killed a bear with a pistol, so it is all just speculation from me..
I'm not totally opposed to carrying a ported gun, but I do think it restricts you to low flash ammo. Lucky for me, my favorite loads arw buffalo bore, and those are all super low flash.
I have the shorter barreled version and like it quite a bit. The sights are good, but are not that usable under low light/night which -- other than capacity -- is the only drawback. I got it as a 'shoot it alot' revolver (which I do) but I shoot mostly hot .44 specials through it (because I like to shoot it alot)--8.2 grains universal under a 245 grain MBC Keith -- in fact the grain of the powder is identical to my 45 LC loading under a 255 grain Keith (but lower pressure due to the larger case).
It's a decent revolver--one of the better 'new smiths' which have a decent trigger but it kinda 'rings' (can't describe it in words) compared to the butter-slick triggers of the older Smith 64s. It's pretty accurate with the load I shoot in it and it has enough ooph for anything I'd need to oomph. The size is just about right but it IS a 5-shot gun.
It serves as a trail gun when I'm not carrying the G20 (it's in PA so there are not Uber-bear threats).
The pachmyrs are a little more 'snaggy' when carrying under a garment but boy do they make it fun to shoot.
Nice gun, if I did not already have the 2.5 inch Rossi 44 Mag and SW model 60 in 357 with the 3 inch and the Model 66 with the 2.5 inch barrels I would buy that one in a heartbeat.
I might suggest 10 grains of Unique or Universal with the 240 grain bullet loaded in the mag cases. Recoil is light but still you are getting about 1,050 fps and about 588 foot pounds. They are even lighter in my bigger 44 mags. The normal 44 special loads I have tested, like the Blazers are only about 750 fps or about 300 foot pounds.
Kind of like the 9mm vs 45 discussions. I like the idea of the Glock 20, 15 rounds in a gun that is EZ and fast to shoot. On the flip side, if you look at testing by Buffalo Bore, the 4.6 inch barrel gets about 1,140 fps with the 22o grain bullet, or about 640 foot pounds, about the same as a 4 inch barrel 357. Buffalo bore claims their 357 loads with a 180 grain actually has better penetration, 1,300 fps and 675 foot pounds out of my J frame snub nose with a 3 inch barrel. Of course it only has 5 rounds.https://www.buffalobore.com/index.php?l=product_detail&p=100
On the other flip side, by comparison of energy a 4 inch 357 gets 750 foot pounds, a 41 mag gets over 1,000 foot pounds in a 4 inch SW, and a 44 mag gets over 1,100 foot pounds. https://www.buffalobore.com/index.php?l=product_detail&p=561
My Ruger Bisley 45 Colt will actually get about 1,200 foot pounds with bigger 300 grain bullet. That is why I often carry it in the Rockies. Only problem, with the 5.5 inch barrel it is big and heavy, 51 ounces. https://www.buffalobore.com/index.php?l=product_detail&p=554
So, to me, the most important round is the first one that hits the bear or whatever you are trying to stop. If it is a herd of hogs or a 250 pound back bear, then the Glock 10mm would be my choice. I am not a Glock fanatic, I only have 4. I have lots of big bores. But the reality of getting more that 5 shots at a charging animal seems pretty remote to me. Everybody has different comfort levels. The 357, 41 and 44 are far more powerful than the hottest 10mm if you believe Buffalo Bore and I do. The 10mm is so close to the 357 that that is a no-brainer to me, go with the 10mm. But if I get charged by a bear in the dark, I would much prefer one of my 44s in case I only get one or two shots off.
The 454 and larger cannons are surely more potent, just too much for my old and fragile wrists. So, I will just carry my little 44 and if I go back to those trailheads with the grizzly signs, I will just add some bear spray. Most of the trailheads in the forest around Yellowstone have those grizzly warning signs. Everybody I know that goes up those trails carry bear spray in addition to guns.
Not sure you'll find a 40 cal bullet that weighs 300gr. They do sell 220gr bullets but I prefer the 200gr. in 10mm. They seem to hit harder and penetration is just has good. If I were to be in Alaska around the big Browns or Grizzly bears I am not sure if I would be packing my Glock 40 or my 4-5/8" Blackhawk in 45 Colt with the Lee 300gr(315gr in my alloy). The Colt is going to hit harder and penetrate better but the 10mm theoretically gives me more rounds. The chances of getting off more than a couple well placed shots on a charging bear is slim though so I think i'd stick with the blackhawk in a chest holster.
I'm open to the possibility of custom moulding the bullets. Someone did share an image of a 300gr mould and bullet earlier in this thread. I do have to wonder if it has practical advantages over the alternatives, ie a.) same diameter, lower weight, lower sectional density, higher velocity, or b.) larger diameter, same weight, lower sectional density, same velocity or higher. This is assuming we conjure up a 300gr 40cal 1000fps round to begin with.
I keep looking at the 40 Super and feeling like it could be close, if not just right. Obviously there's no data for a 300gr bullet. But if it had a higher than average sectional density, a weight closer to 300gr than 200, and some velocity to spare over 1000fps, it seems like it should be equivalent to a minimum 4-3-1 round. And the ability to work in a beefed up 1911 is attractive.
I understand what you are trying to accomplish, but I think the 1911 platform is inadequate for such a round. The full power 10MM round caused some real problems with 1911 pistols. Adding a hundred grains of lead to the bullet, and expecting it to perform at 1,000 fps, is just physically out of the 1911's design capability, unless some really exotic metals are used for making it.
There are revolvers that can do what you are seeking, power wise, but as you already know, they are big and heavy. MANY firearms engineers have come up with just about every practical/safe notion in a handgun that can be done within physical limitations, and still be manufactured at a reasonable cost.
From what I think I know about firearms, ammunition, and physics, it seems to me that you are on a quest for a unicorn.
If you want an autoloader, you can get a DE in .50AE (which is a boat anchor holding 7 rounds). I've shot one of these and it falls into the 'not worth it' category (for me at least). In a revolver you can have a .454 Casull or perhaps some form of .44 Magnum (holding 5 or 6 rounds). Some of the .44 Magnums (like the Smith 69) are right carryable and comfortable.
But when you start tampering with weights or lengths above spec in an autoloader (not originally built for what you're trying to do with the cartridge) you start to get into reliability issues. Which might be a huge deal.
And at some point (like the case in the DE) you reach a point of diminishing returns where the dang thing is so heavy and bulky I might as well be carrying a slung rifle (which can have better performance in every aspect--including optics or ghost rings with a much better way to aim and employ the gun). Or a shorter barrel slung shotgun with slugs (and some sort of aiming device; whether that's a scope, RDS, or ghost rings).
I'm often carrying a Sig 365 in AIWB or pocket carry. While a decent shorter barrel 9 (and accurate) it IS a compact 9 with all the limitations of a compact 9 (but perhaps one of the better choices FOR a compact 9). Why would I do that when I could be carrying a G20 or even G23 ?
Well, because the other gun is bigger and more bulky. I'm going around town and stopping the car to get out and go in somewhere for a quick stop, am not dressed where the other gun is easily concealable, or need something REALLY small-ish because perhaps I'm carrying somewhere where carry isn't permitted (for whatever reason). So the 'have a gun' becomes important even if that gun isn't the one I REALLY might want on the day. For me, the weight and bulk of the gun affects how much trouble I go to strap it on and if it's prohibitive I might wind up leaving it behind which is definitely not something I want to do.
So, whatever I carry is going to be SOME type of trade off. And I need to be able to carry it perhaps for long times and distances. Having a boat anchor which is cumbersome makes that less likely. If I'm gritting my teeth and flinching every time I set off my hand cannon, it's not likely I'm going to get a burst of brilliance when engaging a threat and shoot it well on THAT day. The pleasant carrying (and shooting) .44 Mags might fill the bill, but are capacity limited. The G20 has alot of capacity (and a decent sighting system for a handgun), weighs about as much as a 1911 full up loaded (albeit somewhat more bulky), and is reliable with the cartridges it's designed for. The other thing is as power goes up shoot ability might be affected (I may well not shoot the hand cannons nearly as well as I shoot the G20; but shoot a rifle with more power than the hand cannons really well).
If I'm in a situation where I might need or want something with more power than my G20 or Smith 69 (realizing the capacity limitations), I'm probably looking at short-long gun territory.
The current American Hunter has a short story about a guy in Colorado who had a 250 pound black bear crash into their cabin at 3:00 am. He was armed with a 45 Colt Yellowboy carbine and confronted the bear in the living room. It took 8 rounds to stop the bear at only feet away. Compare that to the bear guide at Raton, NM 2 years ago, who was attacked when his dogs cornered the bear. It took about 8 rounds also with the 10mm, poor hits and self defense bullets (critical defense) in the gun. Point is in both cases, the first 7 rounds DID NOT stop the bear.
I am with TXPLT. Any 44 will work and easy to carry. Or 41 Mag or step up to the hot 45 Colt or 5 shot 454 is the way to go. And a revolver is the only practical tool for carry. My bud has the Desert Eagle in both the 44 Mag and 50 AE. Recoil is pretty mild, no big deal, but there is no easy way to carry it. Maybe mount a bracket on your 4 x 4 if checking fence or trap lines or just touring.
My uncle was a brown bear guide in Alaska. He killed 13 bears in his lifetime, 2 were charging bears a client had wounded, both at less than 30 feet. He killed both with a 270 one shot, 130 grain bullets. He told me many times that he knew of bears killed with a 44 mag handgun, but only a shot to the head or neck would do it, otherwise your only option was to outrun the wounded bear because you would die long before the bear did. Most people cannot outrun a wounded bear, so the options are pretty limited after one or two shots. He refused to carry a handgun, too much extra weight he said.
Only people who have actually shot bears with pistols or others present can give an account of what works. I know a guide whose client shot one in camp while bow hunting, it took 2 44 mag rounds and 5 from a 357 before the bear ran off and died, all center of mass hits. They do not work very fast.
I also agree with TenMan, the 1911 will not do what you want with heavy bullets. I built one in 400 Corbon and get nearly 700 foot pounds out of it, a tiny bit more than a 10 mm. But recoil is harsh and the 44 Mag is easier to control with much more power.
I have 3 44 mags and use the 4 inch model 29 more than any. At 44 ounces is not light, but it is a 44 and if I need it, I really need it. If buying today, I would go with the SW model 69 mentioned by TXPLT, unless I were in bear country every day, then I would move up to the 454.
My 2 cents.
I'll reiterate what I have said many times that is half way supported by what Ranger said.
The gnarliest 44 mag loads out there now, in 8" scoped super redhawks are being used as the primary weapon for the HUNTER o guided bison hunts, and doing the job very well with a guide getting the shooter broadside to a 2k lb bison. The power is there, and the newbie shooters can put it where it needs to be.
I would trust the same loads/revolver minus the scope on a charging grizzly, as a minimum to stop him with a good shot.
The 454 is another level well above the .44, however, and fits very well into the same super redhawk. Of course Ditto the .480. I really like the 460 and the 500s but much less the platforms and pricetags that come with them.
Given my druthers, a 12 guage with Black Magics would really make me feel comfy in brown bear country, but might be slightly more cumbersome to bring to target in the way outs and back woods.
It really is the 9mm vs 45 vs 5.56 argument scaled up. I would dang sure rather have the 9mm than a .22 in a dark alley, but if I KNEW I was facing down a man, I want 30 rounds and a RIFLE. I can't carry a rifle to the grocery store so I carry the biggest handgun I can manage absolutely everywhere I go. Glock 41 in 45 ACP. A little more certainty than the 9mm in a WHOLE lot smaller platform than my AR/AK.
I don't travel brown bear country, but if I did I would probably settle into the same logic on a bear scale. I would rather have the 44 than a 45, but the 12g would really be my first pick. However, I am not backpacking with a 12 guage in my hands, so a 454 would probably be my go to as the biggest thing I would actually carry in that situation and it would give me a little more certainty than the 44.
Wouldn't it be easier just to get a phased plasma rifle in the 40-watt range?