.44 Spl. using RCBS 44-250-k bullet and these powders.

[slughammer]

.....100 years experience assumes that Bullsye is the exact same powder it is from what it was in the "old days"... it may not be the exact same thing ( It was made by Hercules back in those days, etc.)

You have peaked my interest. Why do you say that about titegroup? Is it known to burn so hot as to cause forcing cone erosion? Even in light loads? Do you not use titegroup at all?

I doubt that Bullseye is any different than it ever was. Loading data on the other hand is tested differently than it was in the past, so some of the numbers have gone down. As always start at the starting loads and work up because individual firearms vary.

Clays is a great powder and very clean in the 44spl. About 12 years ago I worked up to 4.0gr with a 240gr boolit for 600fps and accuracy as good as you can hold. (But how much does your 44-250-kt actually weight? The used mold I purchased 3 years ago drops at 260gr.)

As far as Titegeoup, I don't like it in my double action revolvers. I bought a lb and loaded up equivalent power/velocity to my favored 150gr loading of WST in 38spl. What I found when practicing with it was how hot my forcing cone and frame got compared to WST. (My fingers slip into that area when the gun shifts to my LH and I drop the empties with my lh thumb.) There is something going on there I think. Also multiple reports of issues with TiScan guns and erosion out there that I do believe after my experience. My 696 is too cool to me to risk experimenting with.

Currently I use unique or power pistol in the 44 spl. If I wanted a faster powder I would play with either Bullseye because of all the data/experience out there or I would work Clays up from starting loads because of how much cleaner it is than Bullseye.

Regards - Slughammer

[alamogunr]

To get back to the 44-250-K mold. What is the difference, practically speaking, between that mold and a 44-250-SWC?

I've got both molds that I've had for 15-20 years. I don't remember where I got them but both look unused. For some reason I've never used them. Just looking at the cavities, I can see they are different but describing the difference just looking at them would be difficult.

I just looked at the RCBS online catalog. The 44-250-SWC doesn't look anything like the 44-245-SWC shown.

[dahermit]

To get back to the 44-250-K mold. What is the difference, practically speaking, between that mold and a 44-250-SWC?

I've got both molds that I've had for 15-20 years. I don't remember where I got them but both look unused. For some reason I've never used them. Just looking at the cavities, I can see they are different but describing the difference just looking at them would be difficult.

If you do an internet search on "RCBS 44-250-K" you will find a lot of previous discussions on the boards that relate to the difference. Nevertheless, I will give a short summery of the difference. The RCBS 44-250-K is supposedly a design that is more faithful to Elmer Keith's (the designer of the "Keith type" bullet), design in that it utilized three bands of the major diameter of the same dimensions as well as a flat-bottomed (not rounded like the early Lyman 429421), lube groove. Note that the first (nearest the nose of the bullet), RCBS 44-250-SWC utilizes a front band that is not as wide (front to back), as the other two bands on the bullet. Elmer, opined that the front driving band had to be as wide as the other two because it took heavy force as it slammed into the forcing cone (remember Elmer was using some very heavy loadings), when firing.

Some of Elmer Keith's design requirements seem questionable if not excessive. For Instance, he wanted a larger, flat bottomed lube groove than was the norm in those days. As I remember it (he was still alive and writing for the gun rags when I started casting and shooting in 1963), he wanted the flat bottom lube groove to assure the lube would be held securely. However, the lube only needs to stay in the lube groove until it exits the barrel...and once past the forcing cone, it cannot come out of the groove no matter what the shape, round or square. Also, his idea that the square bottomed lube groove would hold more lube was questionable due to the fact that there was no evidence that a round bottom lube groove (as in my Lyman 429421, single cavity, hollow point mould), did not provide enough lube as it was.

Furthemore, ...I don't remember if it was his contention or some others, that the first band (from the nose), had to be wide to aid in cutting a sharp hole, not only in paper, but in flesh (hunting wound purposes), to allow rapid blood loss, was shown to be just not so inasmuch as test indicate that in flesh and other media other than paper targets, the semi-wadcutter shoulder did not actually contact the flesh. Test with grease-type lubes (NRA Alox 50-50), applied to the front on the band's shoulder, was undisturbed when recovered from flesh and some flesh-like media, most likely due to the meplate of the bullet's nose causing a temporary cavity when the bullet struck.

Another thing about Keith's design I am not too crazy about is its seemingly excessive crimp groove. If one looks at any store-bought .44 Magnum round, no matter how heavy the bullet or stout the load, they have a modest crimp. Therefore, I think that the very deep, pronounced crimping groove on the Keith bullets are un-needed (or factory rounds would be crimped heavier), and encourage bullet casters/handloaders to over-crimp their loads which results in over-working the mouth of the casings and shortening their useful lives. When I was younger, I was so influenced, and did over-crimp on the Keith-type bullets.

In all, I personally like Keith's design mostly for the fact that it (they, .44, .41, .357), is a heavy-for-it's caliber...something I like in a revolver bullet.

In short, I doubt if the difference between an RCBS 44-250-K and RCBS 44-250-SWC could actually be detected or measured in any shooting purpose whether target shooting, hunting, or self-defense. But, if Keith were still alive, I would not suggest that to him.

[dahermit]

I just looked at the RCBS online catalog. The 44-250-SWC doesn't look anything like the 44-245-SWC shown.

"SWC" is a broad term...not very descriptive other than it will have a sharp shoulder to cleanly cut paper. Also, I suspect that the "pictures" in the RCBS catalog are not photos, but very will-done artist's illustrations. Case in point, in previous years the RCBS catalog would show a 125 grain, plain base 9mm bullet that had a conical shaped nose that terminated at the front with a small round nose. However, when the mould was actually examined, it was a standard 2 ogive round-nose design. I think I remember the same situation with their gas check design (picture in the catalog not faithful to actual bullet).

[W.R.Buchanan]

My standard .44 Special Load for my 696 which I came up with out of a Brian Pearce Article in Handloader is 6.0 gr of W231. I started at 5.4 gr but ran into too much barrel displacement during recoil, IE: it shot too high, so I increased it to 6.0 and the gun then shot to the sights. Point being that load generated about 750-800 fps. It is more accurate than I am but I have hit a 200 Meter Ram 3/10 at a silhouette shoot off a rest. I held about 6-12" over the back of the ram for a dead center hit.

What you will find is the slower you go with that gun the higher it will shoot. And just the difference between 700 and 750-800 fps was about 12" at 25 yards.

Crimp Groove style has very little effect in my world as I Powder Coat all my cast boolits nowadays. I get no barrel leading whatsoever which is an important consideration with the 696 and the reason why I was able to buy a gun with less than 50 rounds thru it. 696 no dash! It took me nearly an hour to clean the lead out of it.

Most any load that generates 750-800 fps is going to shoot well in those guns. I use a Mihec .429421 mould and my Pent HP's are 240 gr and the solids are 260 gr. At these pressure levels, (<15,000 psi) minor changes in bullet design/weight and velocity are not going to develop destructive pressures.

If I were you I would consult your loading manuals and find data that generates 750 to 800 fps with the powders you want to burn up and have at it. Any of the 3 you mention will work fine.

With a 3" revolver if you can get inside about 4" at 25 yards I'd say you are doing pretty good.

A word of caution: What ever you do,, DO NOT fire a jacketed bullet thru that gun after firing lead boolits. It will crack the forcing cone and there are NO Replacement Barrels !!!!! You can fire jacketed bullets as long as the barrel starts out clean. No need to trash a $1000 gun!

This is the primary reason why S&W redesigned that gun into the Model 69, it has a much larger dia spigot on the exposed external area of the forcing cone.

Good Luck

Oh, and get some X Frame Grips for the gun,,, it makes all the difference in the world !

Randy

[alamogunr]

Thanks! dahermit. I had forgotten about Keith's specifications for lube grooves and drive bands. My use of either or both would be in a S&W696 as well as a Stroh conversion of a S&W Highway Patrolman. I probably wouldn't be exceeding the levels that Randy quotes. The 696 is only seldom a carry gun. Despite being very handy it is still noticeably heavy. Plus I still worry about the thin wall of the breech end of the barrel.

[dahermit]

I doubt that Bullseye is any different than it ever was.

It may not be. However, I know that there have been changes over the years to other Hercules/Alliant powders including 2400, Reloader 7, Blue Dot, Red Dot, etc. Some of the changes may have been minor and or cosmetic, but in the case of 2400 it was changed from a powder that was the archetype for unburned grains/dirtiness to a formula that is now clean burning

[dahermit]

Crimp Groove style has very little effect in my world as I Powder Coat all my cast boolits nowadays. I get no barrel leading whatsoever which is an important consideration with the 696 and the reason why I was able to buy a gun with less than 50 rounds thru it. 696 no dash! It took me nearly an hour to clean the lead out of it.

What has the crimp groove got to do with leading? I assume that you meant, "lube groove".

I also powder coat all my cast bullets now, albeit I still size them in my Lyman 450, without pressuring the lube. Although the process of powder coating is way more extensive (way more time and work involved) than lubing with my favorite grease lube (NRA 50/50 Alox), the sludge build-up and smoke of Alox 50/50 bullets is not missed.

[dahermit]

Oh, and get some X Frame Grips for the gun,,, it makes all the difference in the world !

I do not remember what grips came with the gun...I think they were a two piece hard rubber, but I cannot remember for sure. In any event, I replaced them with some fancy wood grips with a S&W medallion as in the picture.

[Three44s]

I went with Clays for plinkers in the 44 Mag. Clean!

As far as a magic load in a light weight 44 spl. revolver ......


I would figure out a starting point and work up watching for squibs and find a balance point that suited myself and always exited the barrel.

The same would apply to Bullseye powder.

The reason I believe that manufacturers were found to be drifting their dimensions on bullet molds away from Elmer Keith’s direction was likely that these mold makers were probably getting complaints from customers that the fresh castings were hanging up with the nice square cut grooves.

I like the 250k mold very much and appreciate that a number of 44 cal shooters talked RCBS into producing it. When I need to tap on the handle of that mold to lessen the grip on a slug that is stubborn to leave I send another thank you to Elmer!

Three44s