[Jim Bridger]

This is the first S&W, First Mdl DA 4" .44 Russian revolver. This revolver came from the "Hole In The Wall" on the Middle Fork of the Powder River. An old Wrangler sold his spurs and this revolver before he passed away.

H110 is a good example. In many places their load data indicates a minimum charge to prevent it from detonating. Below that minimum charge it tends to detonate instead of burn. W296 should be similar.

H110 and Win 296 are the "Same" powder. Win 296 was developed in 1943 expressly for the then new M-1 Carbine. My question was, will you provide examples of the Squib loads blowing up .44 Mag treated steel chambers? "Minimum Charges prevent it from detonating"? If powder does not detonate then it is innate? It is then likely that the primer will push a bullet partially into the barrel.
I have searched for proven examples of the this reverse pressure damage. I can not find one. Please share your data. Thanks.

 

[ozarkpugs]

This is the first S&W, First Mdl DA 4" .44 Russian revolver. This revolver came from the "Hole In The Wall" on the Middle Fork of the Powder River. An old Wrangler sold his spurs and this revolver before he passed away.


H110 and Win 296 are the "Same" powder. Win 296 was developed in 1943 expressly for the then new M-1 Carbine. My question was, will you provide examples of the Squib loads blowing up .44 Mag treated steel chambers? "Minimum Charges prevent it from detonating"? If powder does not detonate then it is innate? It is then likely that the primer will push a bullet partially into the barrel.
I have searched for proven examples of the this reverse pressure damage. I can not find one. Please share your data. Thanks.

I never said it blew the guns up ,I said the loads were lower charge than listed minimum and caused a very unstable load which cracked cases and ripped the head off one . My statement was not based on data from anyone but myself and my experiences. As far as blowing up a modern 44 I don't know if it would but I have been told 2 or 3 grains over max will not blow one up and I'm not going to try that either . ( I do acknowledge some older manuals showed 1 + more grains of some powders than newer manuals) Any load that acts like a small explosive and destroys cases is not safe and is damaging to the gun ,blown cylinder or not . The reason I commented was to warn people that if they are going to load to light 44 special loads to be sure the load is not below the minimum for the case used . A minimum spc load in a mag case may not be good . I believe the problem is mostly with the slower powders but don't take the chance .

Sent from my Moto E (4) using Tapatalk

 

[Jim Bridger]

That is incredible. IMR 4227 was discontinued in 2000. These surplus powders had expired. H4227 is actually AR2205 made in Australia. It is a fast burning powder used for reduced leading when shooting cast bullets.
With all of these handguns" imploding" from squib loads where are the test results proving this?

 

[ozarkpugs]

I never said it blew the guns up ,I said the loads were lower charge than listed minimum and caused a very unstable load which cracked cases and ripped the head off one . My statement was not based on data from anyone but myself and my experiences. As far as blowing up a modern 44 I don't know if it would but I have been told 2 or 3 grains over max will not blow one up and I'm not going to try that either . ( I do acknowledge some older manuals showed 1 + more grains of some powders than newer manuals) Any load that acts like a small explosive and destroys cases is not safe and is damaging to the gun ,blown cylinder or not . The reason I commented was to warn people that if they are going to load to light 44 special loads to be sure the load is not below the minimum for the case used . A minimum spc load in a mag case may not be good . I believe the problem is mostly with the slower powders but don't take the chance .
Also you say minimum powder charge keeps it from detonating . I'm not sure if detonation is the proper word but the below min charge is what we are discussing not minimum charge . If the flash from the primer shoots across the top of the powder column in the case lighting the whole charge almost instantly you have a dangerous situation and high pressure spike where as under normal conditions the powder will burn at a much slower rate and you will have lower pressure and a longer pressure curve .
Sent from my Moto E (4) using Tapatalk

Sent from my Moto E (4) using Tapatalk

 

[Ten Man]

Warning , if you use 44 mag cases use the 44 load data not 44 special data . A light powder load for a special may be below minimum for the Magnum . Too little of a charge of slow powder ( squib load ) can be explosive .

I have found that a very comfortable load to shoot from .44 Magnums can be made by adding an extra grain of powder to the MAX .44 Special loads of some Hodgdon powders, in a .44 Magnum case. This was confirmed in one of my reloading books, as well.

Not all pistol powders will become explosive below MINIMUM .44 Magnum loads in .44 Magnum cases, but some of them may. It DEFINITELY behooves an individual to verify the data before loading below minimum loads recommended for .44 Magnum cases.

If I had my reloading stuff here, I could look up my recipe, and share it. It sucks being stuck between two homes 3,000 miles apart.

 

[ozarkpugs]

That is incredible. IMR 4227 was discontinued in 2000. These surplus powders had expired. H4227 is actually AR2205 made in Australia. It is a fast burning powder used for reduced leading when shooting cast bullets.
With all of these handguns" imploding" from squib loads where are the test results proving this?

#1 I stated it was back in the '80s not 2008 # 2 the old IMR 4227 and old H 4227 and new IMR4227 by Hodgon powders have always been and Still are slower pistol powders as matter of fact slower than 2400 or H110 . #3 someone needs To tell gun stores they don't make IMR 4227 anymore because they are still selling it , as matter of fact Midway had it on sale recently . #4 I was not warning about just a particular powder, or cartridge for that matter I was making a statement about squib loads can be dangerous ,H4227 is still available and is very close to the old 4227s burn rates but even if it was not available The warning would still be valid . if you don't believe what I said why don't you load a bunch of 44 mag cases up with 15 and 16 grains of H4227 and try it , maybe 14 or 15 grains of H110 . Is it going to be dangerous? I don't know . Did the temperature have anything to do with it? I don't know.D does the new powder have different properties to stop it from being dangerous? I don't know. What I do know is I will not be shooting less than minimum loads in my 44 mag . and have advised others not to . Anyone can heed the warning or not , that is on them .

Sent from my Moto E (4) using Tapatalk

 

[ozarkpugs]

#1 I stated it was back in the '80s not 2008 # 2 the old IMR 4227 and old H 4227 and new IMR4227 by Hodgon powders have always been and Still are slower pistol powders as matter of fact slower than 2400 or H110 . #3 someone needs To tell gun stores they don't make IMR 4227 anymore because they are still selling it , as matter of fact Midway had it on sale recently . #4 I was not warning about just a particular powder, or cartridge for that matter I was making a statement about squib loads can be dangerous . 4227 is still available and is very close to the old 4227s burn rates but even if it was not available The warning would still be valid . if you don't believe what I said why don't you load a bunch of 44 mag cases up with 15 and 16 grains of H4227 and try it , maybe 14 or 15 grains of H110 . Is it going to be dangerous? I don't know . Did the temperature have anything to do with it? I don't know.D does the new powder have different properties to stop it from being dangerous? I don't know. What I do know is I will not be shooting less than minimum loads in my 44 mag . and have advised others not to . Anyone can heed the warning or not , that is on them .

Sent from my Moto E (4) using Tapatalk

Sent from my Moto E (4) using Tapatalk

 

[Outpost75]

A firearm does not need to be operated at “full power” any more than any other machine. It is true that some people still believe that if you own a .44 Magnum and reload for it, you must be able to feel the heat on your face every time you pull the trigger, as your hand stings and your ears ring. But this is nonsense, of course. Lower power loads are fine for recreation and most field shooting and indeed have their place. My friends and I probably shoot 100 rounds of “medium velocity” loads for every dinosaur killer. Few reloading manuals list loads for the .44 Magnum other than hand busters. Experienced reloaders successfully improvise, but less intrepid, practical shooters are frustrated.

The so-called “medium velocity” load is subsonic when fired in from a typical revolver. It approximates .44-40 black powder velocity and will not cause leading when its soft, plain-based bullet is fired from a rifle. Remington offered marketed exactly such a .44 Magnum load during the early to mid 1980s. It was intended for the police market, as a counterpart in .44 Magnum, to the similar lead bullet .41 Magnum police load, which has also, unfortunately been discontinued.

Remington’s .44 Magnum Medium Velocity load used a flat-nosed, 240-grain, plain-based, swaged lead bullet with two knurled grease cannelures, resembling an elongated .44-40 slug. Its shape mimicked today’s “Cowboy Loads” having a catalog velocity of 1000 f.p.s. from a 4-inch vented test barrel, simulating realistic revolver conditions.

This is hardly today’s “mouse-fart” cowboy load, but stout stuff like they used in the Old West to kill buffalo and shoot Indians. For today’s handloader the greatest economy is realized by being able to exploit plain-based cast bullets, using inexpensive, soft scrap alloy, such as wheel weights or backstop scrap, with faster-burning pistol or shotgun powders which provide twice as many rounds per pound, as the slow-burners normally used for full power .44 Magnum loads.

Lyman’s Cast Bullet Handbook, 4th Edition lists .44 Magnum charges with fast-burning powders, but the starting loads, while useful in revolvers, often exceed the leading threshold for plain based bullets, when fired in a rifle. Newer powders such as Titegroup or Trail Boss are listed, but my favorite, Bullseye was not. Be careful in reducing slower burners, such as #2400, H110 or 4227 because their ballistic uniformity is impaired and you will get erratic velocity and pressure if you go below published data, about 16 grains is minimum in a .44 Magnum case using Alliant #2400 with 240-gr. bullet.

What follows is my listing of loads which “work” and are well proven. I hope this shortens your learning curve and that they work as well for you as they do for my friends and I.

Medium Velocity .44 Mag Loads, 265-gr. Saeco #441, BHN11, unsized .433”, Lee Liquid Alox lube

Case, Primer and________Velocity_______Velocity_____Avg. 5x5-shot Groups fired from sandbag rest @ 50 yds. from H&R Handi-Rifle

Chg. Wt. ________ 5-1/2” RBH___H&R 22”___Max.__Min.__Avg.

Starline .44 Spl. WLP
5.2BE, RCBS LD #10___782, 10Sd___940, 9 Sd___3.0___1.9___2.46

Remington .44 Mag. WLP
6.0 Bullseye, LD#11___774, 36Sd___983, 49Sd___2.5___1.9___2.24
6.6 Bullseye, LD#12___948, 13Sd__1141, 9Sd____2.5___1.4___1.94
7.8 Bullseye, LD#14__1017, 11Sd__1233, 10Sd___2.5___1.2___1.88
16.2 #2400, LD#20__1080, 39Sd__1411, 44Sd___2.5___1.3___1.97

Remington .44 Mag. WLP, Remington 240-gr. Semi-Jacketed HP
8.4 Bullseye, LD#15___1033, 11Sd__1197, 15Sd___2.2___1.2___1.76

 

[ozarkpugs]

I agree , the 16 grain 2400 load was used to knock a Minya steel silhouette over and is what I was trying to duplicate when I found out about the dangers of light loading 4227 . If memory serves me correctly 18 grains was minimum recommended in my manual .

A firearm does not need to be operated at “full power” any more than any other machine. It is true that some people still believe that if you own a .44 Magnum and reload for it, you must be able to feel the heat on your face every time you pull the trigger, as your hand stings and your ears ring. But this is nonsense, of course. Lower power loads are fine for recreation and most field shooting and indeed have their place. My friends and I probably shoot 100 rounds of “medium velocity” loads for every dinosaur killer. Few reloading manuals list loads for the .44 Magnum other than hand busters. Experienced reloaders successfully improvise, but less intrepid, practical shooters are frustrated.

The so-called “medium velocity” load is subsonic when fired in from a typical revolver. It approximates .44-40 black powder velocity and will not cause leading when its soft, plain-based bullet is fired from a rifle. Remington offered marketed exactly such a .44 Magnum load during the early to mid 1980s. It was intended for the police market, as a counterpart in .44 Magnum, to the similar lead bullet .41 Magnum police load, which has also, unfortunately been discontinued.

Remington’s .44 Magnum Medium Velocity load used a flat-nosed, 240-grain, plain-based, swaged lead bullet with two knurled grease cannelures, resembling an elongated .44-40 slug. Its shape mimicked today’s “Cowboy Loads” having a catalog velocity of 1000 f.p.s. from a 4-inch vented test barrel, simulating realistic revolver conditions.

This is hardly today’s “mouse-fart” cowboy load, but stout stuff like they used in the Old West to kill buffalo and shoot Indians. For today’s handloader the greatest economy is realized by being able to exploit plain-based cast bullets, using inexpensive, soft scrap alloy, such as wheel weights or backstop scrap, with faster-burning pistol or shotgun powders which provide twice as many rounds per pound, as the slow-burners normally used for full power .44 Magnum loads.

Lyman’s Cast Bullet Handbook, 4th Edition lists .44 Magnum charges with fast-burning powders, but the starting loads, while useful in revolvers, often exceed the leading threshold for plain based bullets, when fired in a rifle. Newer powders such as Titegroup or Trail Boss are listed, but my favorite, Bullseye was not. Be careful in reducing slower burners, such as #2400, H110 or 4227 because their ballistic uniformity is impaired and you will get erratic velocity and pressure if you go below published data, about 16 grains is minimum in a .44 Magnum case using Alliant #2400 with 240-gr. bullet.

What follows is my listing of loads which “work” and are well proven. I hope this shortens your learning curve and that they work as well for you as they do for my friends and I.

Medium Velocity .44 Mag Loads, 265-gr. Saeco #441, BHN11, unsized .433”, Lee Liquid Alox lube

Case, Primer and________Velocity_______Velocity_____Avg. 5x5-shot Groups fired from sandbag rest @ 50 yds. from H&R Handi-Rifle

Chg. Wt. 5-1/2” RBH H&R 22”* Max. Min. Avg.

Starline .44 Spl. WLP
5.2BE, RCBS LD #10 782, 10Sd 940, 9 Sd 3.0 1.9 2.46

Remington .44 Mag. WLP
6.0 Bullseye, LD#11 774, 36Sd 983, 49Sd 2.5 1.9 2.24
6.6 Bullseye, LD#12 948, 13Sd 1141, 9Sd 2.5 1.4 1.94
7.8 Bullseye, LD#14 1017, 11Sd 1233, 10Sd 2.5 1.2 1.88
16.2 #2400, LD#20 1080, 39Sd 1411, 44Sd 2.5 1.3 1.97

Remington .44 Mag. WLP, Remington 240-gr. Semi-Jacketed HP
8.4 Bullseye, LD#15 1033, 11Sd 1197, 15Sd 2.2 1.2 1.76

Sent from my Moto E (4) using Tapatalk

 

[Outpost75]

Equivalents of the Remington "Medium Velocity" load with other powders loading a 240-250 grain lead bullet are 8 grains of TiteGroup or WSL, 9 grains of W231, 452AA, WST or HP38, or 10 grains of WSF, AutoComp, Universal, Unique, or Herco.

 

[noelekal]

8.5 grains of Unique will launch a 245-250 grain lead semi-wadcutter bullet (Lyman 429421) to 949 fps from the long-snouted .44 Magnum kept on hand here. This well satisfies just about all reasonable requirements one may ask of standard handguns ... and a few unreasonable ones as well.

I'm another who just never shoots shorter cases in the Magnums, treating the Magnum revolvers as completely different animals than the .38 Specials and .44 Specials. Nothing wrong with using the shorter cases in the Magnum cylinders, especially if one normally cleans the handgun between each use, but it's too easy to keep things segregated.

 

[Jim Bridger]

Where are the test published that explain the phenomenon of Squib loads "Imploding" and wrecking the high carbon steel .44 Chambers. I have searched the Web with negative results. It seems that neither Ruger or S&W had no test results of this in their ballistic Labs.

 

[ozarkpugs]

I don't recall anyone on here making that claim , maybe it was deleted but reading back you are the only one who has brought it up . Only an idiot would suggest there was not a problem with cases bursting / cracking or blowing primers as long as it doesn't blow the "high carbon cylinder" so I'm sure that is not what you are suggesting . I have searched the web looking for research showing the differences between injuries obtained by having a volleyball dropped on feet from 3' versus a bowling ball but I am going to take the word of the people who have accidentally done it and not drop a bowling ball on my foot .

Where are the test published that explain the phenomenon of Squib loads "Imploding" and wrecking the high carbon steel .44 Chambers. I have searched the Web with negative results. It seems that neither Ruger or S&W had no test results of this in their ballistic Labs.

Sent from my Moto E (4) using Tapatalk

 

[Jim Bridger]

I don't recall anyone on here making that claim , maybe it was deleted but reading back you are the only one who has brought it up . Only an idiot would suggest there was not a problem with cases bursting / cracking or blowing primers as long as it doesn't blow the "high carbon cylinder" so I'm sure that is not what you are suggesting . I have searched the web looking for research showing the differences between injuries obtained by having a volleyball dropped on feet from 3' versus a bowling ball but I am going to take the word of the people who have accidentally done it and not drop a bowling ball on my foot .

Sent from my Moto E (4) using Tapatalk

Alas after years of being a Certified Police, Military and Civilian Inst. I have attained the title of "Idiot". I have worked diligently for that distinguished title. Thanks for bestowing that on me.:usa2:

 

[cjleete]

There is one salient reason not to underload revolver cartridges; your cases may not expand to cylinder wall, resulting in powder residue blowing back through your chambers, making them awfully filthy, plus, your bullet doesn't achieve obturation, resulting in less than optimal accuracy.
Well ok that's two reasons. Sue me.

 

[ozarkpugs]

If you are suggesting it's ok to load rounds that causes cases to burst / crack as long as cylinder don't blow then you bestowed that name upon yourself . It is hard to believe you have not been able to research " how can loading too little powder in a cartridge cause too much pressure " and not come up with plenty of examples . It also bothers me that the military and police would let someone be an instructor who argued that as long as a round didn't blow the cylinder it was safe . Fact is a fellow shooter asked a question and myself and others gave constructive advice where as you chose show your a$$ by claiming you know more than the people that have witnessed something because you haven't . You will find plenty of people who will give explanations of why it can't happen and those that Give explanations to why it does happen . I warned of something that not only can but did happen to me and you said it didn't !!! And you are offended by what I said ? I'm sorry but your military and civilian instructor certification doesn't give you the right to question my honesty or experiences .

Alas after years of being a Certified Police, Military and Civilian Inst. I have attained the title of "Idiot". I have worked diligently for that distinguished title. Thanks for bestowing that on me.:usa2:

Sent from my Moto E (4) using Tapatalk

 

[runfiverun]

Ozark your stepping over the line.
actually you have been pretty much throughout this whole thread, and much of what you believe about reloading is,,, umm, well wrong.


It's just my opinion.

 

[ozarkpugs]

I stated fact ,you state opinion . In your opinion which fact that I stated was wrong? Was it to be sure not to use load data for one cartridge in another ? Was it that myself and others have reported using too little of slow pistol powders could be dangerous? Was it that I stated that the old IMR 4227 new IMR 4227 and old H4227 are considered slow in pistol calibers ? Was it that only an idiot would advise loading a round that burst cases and blew primers as long as it didn't blow carbon cylinders ? I agree ,you have a right to your opinion but I would appreciate it if you would tell me what your opinion of my statements is based on and exactly what statement I've made indicated my knowledge of reloading is lacking . I have been reloading and shooting 44mag for only 45 years but in that time I have rabbit hunted with .433 round balls deer hunted with everything from Sierra 180 hp to 300 grn .cast .I have put more cast bullets down range at silhouettes than I can remember , almost all loaded by me with the only "oh crap" incident and that was the undercharged incident I mentioned . I have previously owned about 5 44s I no longer have and at this time have a 6" model 29 a 6"model 629 a 10 5/8 model 29 and a 5 screw 5" model 29 from 1958 . A Marlin from '72 a pre '86 Ruger carbine and a TC with a 14" target barrel . I haven't blown one up yet . When I give advice it is from experience and factual information and loading data not opinion . How is advising someone to be careful with load data crossing the line ?

Ozark your stepping over the line.
actually you have been pretty much throughout this whole thread, and much of what you believe about reloading is,,, umm, well wrong.


It's just my opinion.

Sent from my Moto E (4) using Tapatalk

 

[aht_six]

I'm down to only two .44s right now. My first and favorite handgun, it's a model 29 with a 8-3/8 inch barrel. I also have a 4 inch 629 that see's a lot of use in the field. For decades my favorite target and plinking load has been 5.5 grains of 231 under a 240 grain LSWC bullet in a .44 magnum case.

For the last few years I've been playing with plated and powder coated bullets, they are much cleaner to shoot and don't cost much more then standard lead bullets. Because there is no wax lube, I don't get the soot that's left behind with traditional lead bullets. Recently, I've been using a lot of 215 grain SWC Hi-Tek coated Bayou bullets. I like them very much.

 

[Junction15]

All this talk of blowing up guns reminds me of a coworker that got a Hornady reloading kit on a trade and decided to load up some 270 Win. He didn't have a scale but he did have some kind of scoop that a friend of his used to load his 270. But he had no idea what the charge weight was. So he loaded up one round and tried it in his back yard. It went off but he figured it should have a "little more kick". So he loaded a scoop and a half. That one blew out his extractor and jammed his bolt closed (bolt action) He had to work to get the action opened and remove the case. Then he had to find a new extractor. That's how he told me about his incident when he asked me if I knew where he could get a new extractor. I asked if he had gotten a book with his Hornady kit. "Yes." "Did you read it?" "Ain't got the time." "Oh...well! Good luck with it (you're gonna need it" under my breath)

But anyway, I don't own any 44 Specials so I just buy 44 mag ammo or cases. Seems simple that way. And I just make sure my loads are in the range given in the 4 manuals I have. Usually I end up about mid range for whatever is listed. That generally gives the best accuracy and is a lot more pleasant to shoot. Not that I don't have some hot loads that I work up to. I even have some loaded with a near maximum charge of WW296 just because it's fun to let some folks try it out.
And I do love the accuracy of the 44 mag shooting offhand at 100 yards. That's just too much fun.