Charter Arms 44 special Bulldog a waste of money?

[megasupermagnum]

Now that this 327 Fed came out I am on the fence with both with a compact DA Semi floating around in the noodle. The 44 might be good enough medicine for deer, but the 327 should be pretty decent for squirrels and both should be comfortable for just plinking paper. The 327 though with twist might have difficulties with some of the heavier hunks of lead like a 135 gr if I wanted to try a neck shot on a close (25 yd) doe. Just basically yabber if I ever get around to one of them.

The twist rate is not a problem in 327, the heavy bullets are what work well. Even 150 grain shot subsonic is stable with a 1:16" twist.

[OnHoPr]

The twist rate is not a problem in 327, the heavy bullets are what work well. Even 150 grain shot subsonic is stable with a 1:16" twist.

Do you think with a 4" S&W or Ruger DA it would be accurate enough for a CBA Postal Match? or in that 2" range @ 50 yds?

[megasupermagnum]

Do you think with a 4" S&W or Ruger DA it would be accurate enough for a CBA Postal Match? or in that 2" range @ 50 yds?

Absolutely. I've managed plenty of 3" groups at 50 yards myself, and only shoot open sights. With a scope, 2" should be no problem. Both my 5" GP100 and 4.2" SP101 are capable of this accuracy.

[OnHoPr]

Absolutely. I've managed plenty of 3" groups at 50 yards myself, and only shoot open sights. With a scope, 2" should be no problem. Both my 5" GP100 and 4.2" SP101 are capable of this accuracy.

Interesting. A bit of info gathering if I ever get around to scratching the itch is the mode I am in now. I also have thoughts on the Ruger 7. Being able to shoot the 32 maggie in the 327 is a plus, too. Now, that I am getting older I am thinking about recoil. I hear stout loads in the CA can be somewhat jolting. A lot different from the natural roll of the SBH. I can still put a couple squirrels in the game bag, but draggin a deer 1/2 mile is starting to get out of the question. For the CBA Postal shoots I thought of One Ragged Hole products witch is a leaf type aperture blade that fits in the rear sight. The ole eyes are needing reading, intermediate, and long range specs to see all the different distances. That sight with a modified point post front sight instead of the flat blade front sight might be easier to get a finer sight picture with, seemingly better for squirrels and bulls eyes. It may be a detriment to SD shooting, but hitting a man silhouette target at 10 to 50 ft should still be doable. Where a squirrel on a limb 25 yds away would be more helpful.

[winelover]

At 21 ounces the CA Bulldog in 44 Special is not for the recoil shy. Mostly shoot Pierce's "Category One" loads and mix in a couple cylinders full of "Category Two". I'm almost 68 and have significant arthritis.............what bothers me is not so much the recoil but the irritation/rapping of the first joint of of my trigger finger. I have slightly re-contoured/broke the edge of the trigger guard and that seems to help. Even wearing a lightweight glove is a vast improvement.

Since I have my own backyard range, when hang my targets for rifle/carbine practice, I shoot a couple of speedloaders full and then switch over to the long range work. When I change targets or quit for the day, I'll do another couple of cylinders full. Keeps the fatigue down to a minimum.

Light weight handguns are meant to be carried a lot and shot a little.

Winelover

[Larry Gibson]

CJR

“What's important is who did the actual testing and obtained the 22,000 psi pressure? “How was the ballistic test conducted? What instrumentation was used; i.e. piezoelectric crystal, certified copper bars, etc.? Was the instrumentation calibrated to National Standards? “

I did the actual pressure testing which was the basis for my statement. The test was done using a Contender 44 Magnum barrel (8.4”) with a strain gauge attached at the specified SAAMI location over the chamber. The strain gauge was attached to an Oehler M43 PBL which was attached to a Toshiba Laptop with the Oehler M43 software on it. This particular barrel was “calibrated” using Hornady Factory ammunition of known pressure when it was set up for pressure testing some years ago. I used the same factory ammunition to double check the “calibration”. It read within 100 psi of the factory pressure for that lot of Hornady 240 XTP ammunition. The Oehler M43 also does a self test of the gauge prior to each test and tells if all is well to proceed. The test barrels are periodically tested with “reference” ammunition of a known pressure level and an “offset” is used just as SAAMI and the ammunition factories use.

As to myself I have been using the Oehler M43 PBL for over 12 years now. I have conducted 2731 tests, most of which were 10 shot tests, on 34 different cartridges in 28 test firearms. I have had lengthy conversations with Dr. Oehler, other actual ballisticians and factory testing technicians. I follow SAAMI procedures as close as practical when loading and conducting tests. I follow SAAMI location for pressure measurement over the chambers.

As to “national standards” I’m not sure what you mean. SAAMI basically sets the industry standards for commercial ammunition in the U.S. C.I.P. sets the standards for Europe and most of the rest of the world. They are not that far apart. The strain gauges used with the Oehler M43 PBL are certified and calibrated on manufacture. Each comes with a “gauge factor” which is entered into the software program. I have already explained the use of “reference” ammunition which is used as an industry “standard”. If you read the information on the SAAMI site you will also see an alternate method which is acceptable. In the National Bureau of Weights and Measures they no doubt have something that is 1” long. They have something that weighs 1 pound but tell me (I already know the answer) do you think they have a pound per square inch of pressure sitting there?

“What were the variations in the pressure samples, i.e. average, low & high? Was the company ,that performed the ballistic testing, a qualified and reputable and experienced ballistic testing company? “

I don’t work for a “company”, I conduct my own testing. As to my “qualifications” I will reference 10+ years of experience and 27,300+/- successfully tested rounds …… and will ask; is anyone here “qualified” to reload ammunition? Is anyone here “qualified” to operate a chronograph? Is anyone here “qualified” to ascertain the validity of the data in that article?

“Please show me a ballistic test report that specifically shows the laboratory test data that documents the 22,000 psi pressures obtained for the 7.5 gr/Lyman 429421 cast bullet 44 S&W Special load. I do NOT agree with your assessment. You have NO data that supports Pearce. All you have is a statement. Now if you can back that statement up with a ballistic test report that documents that 22, 000 psi statement-you're golden!"

Guess I’m “golden” because two days ago I tested four different 44 SPL “Skeeter” loads with 240 to 255 gr cast SWC bullets loaded in Starline 44 SPL cases and WLP primers. The previous test results I based my earlier statement on were in Winchester cases and gave 22,500 psi. Here is the Oehler Data for the RCBS 44-250-K cast bullet as tested two days ago. Note the average psi is 23,000 in the thicker Starline cases.

Attachment 237016

Here is a summation (statement if you will) of the other three tests Same load just different bullet, 10 shots each test) conducted two days ago;

Commercial cast “Keith 429421”; 21,000 psi Aver/1,200 psi SD/3,900 psi ES/1022 fps

Lee TL430-240-SWC; 24,700 psi Aver/1,000 psi SD/3,100 psi ES/1070 fps

Lyman 429360; 22,500 psi Aver/1,000 psi SD/ 3,700 psi ES/1079 fps

Note; the average psi for all four of the same “Skeeter” 44 SPL 7.5 gr Unique load with different bullets (240 to 255 gr) is 22,800 fps.

FYI; I had six rounds of old REM-UMC 44 SPL factory 246 LRN left so I tested them two days ago also; the results are 12,000 psi Aver/400 psi SD/900 psi ES/794 fps.

I’ve got to confess I don’t get paid to run these tests. As a matter of fact it costs me money to run them. However, I am not a lab rat as I don’t wear a white coat, I don’t have a wad of tape around the middle of my glasses, I don’t have a pocket protector with a slide rule in it and I don’t claim to be an expert………What I do claim is proficiency at operating the Oehler M43 and attaining meaningful results.

What I do find interesting is that the psi reported (18,860 psi) in that article with the “Keith load” of 16 gr 2400 with a 429421 was very close to the results I measured two days ago using a 44-250-K over 16 gr of Hercules 2400 in the Starline cases. Given that H.P. White probably used a C.U.P. pressure device and I used a strain gauge their results were actually very close to mine which was 19,300 psi. The article listed 1138 fps and I measured 1198 fps out of a slightly longer barrel. Given the closeness of those measurements compared to the discrepancies in the 7.5 gr Unique data leads me to believe there was some serious “typo’s” in the other data in that article. If you want to believe an old article that has been proven incorrect then that’s your choice but I would behoove you to reconsider.

[FergusonTO35]

[rking22]

Thank you Larry Gibson for the update, that is data I have confidence in. As I stated, I shoot the Skeeter load, it has proven safe over decades of use, but standard pressure it ain’t. No big deal but good to have data from current technology. I had wondered about the 2400 loads with current sampling rates.
I do have a question, relative to the pressure as the bullet base clears the face of the cylinder entering the forcing cone. Does the M43 give a pressure time plot? Interested in the pressure which the barrel extension/forcing cone is exposed to. Slow (2400) powder vs fast(unique) powders. Would be useful info for those of us with 696,gp100,and bulldogs.

[Forrest r]

Thank you larry, you bring back memories of what I call the hay days of reloading. Back in the late 80's/early 90's before Hercules powder co was sold to alliant (1994?). You could send samples of bullets in with questions about different powders/loads. They would test the bullets/powders/loads in question and mail you back the info.

[Loudenboomer]

Thanks for Solid data to provide focus. This thread was turning into "watch how high I can pee"!

[dogdoc]

Great info!

[Larry Gibson]

......... I do have a question, relative to the pressure as the bullet base clears the face of the cylinder entering the forcing cone. Does the M43 give a pressure time plot? Interested in the pressure which the barrel extension/forcing cone is exposed to. .......

The time pressure curves on the printout are to scale for length of barrel (it shows muzzle exit) and for psi rise. If the measurements are know to the barrel/cylinder gap, gas port along with the muzzle it can be scaled out and measured to give pressure at those locations.

[OnHoPr]

Very interesting. IMO it seems as if the 44 special is a handloader’s cartridge. But, it seems as if it has certain issues with its variety of scenarios. For instance, if it was reloaded for the pressures that a SBH, Moss 464, Ruger bolt, or even one of the S&W or Ruger DAs it could be loaded quite a bit hotter. More than likely to where primer damage, case damage, or sticking becomes an issue would signs or too high of pressure. Then loaded it for the CA and with its 15K psi limits most all the standard pressure signs are not really an issue as the action would most likely fail before most of these other high pressure ailments arose. So, it seems like you should watch or calculate you Ps and Qs loading the CA carefully.

LG made a good thought provoking post just above. At least we got out of that 3 page dispute. I don’t want to contradict what LG posted, but rather make thought provoking imprints for my ole noodle. I noticed that the test barrel was chambered in 44 mag. This would leave a longer lead so to speak before the boolit hit lands, thus dropping the pressure a bit. The fully enclosed action longer barrel instead of a short gapped cylinder/barrel combo would drop peak pressures as well I am assuming. Would boolit hardness also drop pressures? Assuming that the 44 special at its lower velocities and pressures would be able to shoot something in the 70/30 Pb/WW alloy dimension might lower pressures as well. Other criteria might be lube. Would something like a LLA tumble lube boolit having lube on all the bearing surfaces be a little more forgiving than a lube grooved boolit?

I checked out Handloads.com for some load data. Most loads were with the faster pistol and shotgun powders like Red Dot and Bullseye. Most of those loads were in the standard 700s and 800s fps range. But, I did see one load in there that was with 296 something like 16 or 17 gr for high 900s fps stating it was a low pressure load safe enough for any handgun. The 44 special case has a little bit more volume than 3.7 gr of Red Dot. I was wondering why I did not see any loading with something like 800X, 4756, Longshot, or Steel which are slower burning and can be high volume fluffy powders regardless if they don’t meter well. I am fine with a 700 fps plinker paper load which may still be enough for SD. But, for a possible hunting load or more efficient SD load I can see that maybe something in between the 900 and 1000 fps range might be more effective if it can be loaded in that 15 K spectrum with a 4” barrel. I don’t know, it just seems like they would be a little safer to utilize in the CA instead of the powders like Red Dot and Bullseye. It also seems like you would get a little more performance out of them too. I am not sure if you would get the slower powder slower/lower recoil perceived syndrome possibilities from them as well.

IIRC the 296 load mentioned above was with Lil Gun, but I can't remember the grs or OAL.

Also, must of had a brain or typing finger fart on the enclosed barrel statement. The enclosed barrel should produce higher pressures.

[rking22]

Thanks, seems the peak is 25% of barrel length, or c2 inches of bullet travel. Forcing cone has to support full peak pressure, disregarding the venting pressure loss. Just consider that a safety factor

[Larry Gibson]

Thanks, seems the peak is 25% of barrel length, or c2 inches of bullet travel. Forcing cone has to support full peak pressure, disregarding the venting pressure loss. Just consider that a safety factor

That is pretty close. I have found with most of the faster pistol powders peak pressure is reached just before to just after the barrel/cylinder gap on most revolvers. That is why the barrel/cylinder gap can have such a dramatic effect on velocity.

[Larry Gibson]

OnHoPr

"I noticed that the test barrel was chambered in 44 mag. This would leave a longer lead so to speak before the boolit hit lands, thus dropping the pressure a bit."

That is correct, the test was conducted in a 44 Magnum chambered barrel. Most all 44 SPL pressures are measured in 44 Magnum chambered test barrels, even the "big boys" do so because test barrels are expensive. The expense and the fact the difference in the longer chamber ["leade" not being really correct as "leade" is where the rifling begins] chamber difference between 44 SPL and 44 Magnum is a lot shorter than the throat length of revolver cylinders, probably by about a half. Also seating a bullet to the same depth in a 44 magnum case as it would be seated in a 44 SPL case has proven to show an insignificant difference in pressure, in effect there just isn't much difference.

"The fully enclosed action longer barrel instead of a short gapped cylinder/barrel combo would drop peak pressures as well I am assuming. "

No, actually the converse is true. The fully enclosed system does not vent pressure as does the barrel/cylinder gap of a revolver. Ergo the psi is slightly higher in the closed system if the peak pressure is reached after the barrel/cylinder gap. If reached before the barrel/cylinder gap then the psi would be close to the same.

"Would boolit hardness also drop pressures? Assuming that the 44 special at its lower velocities and pressures would be able to shoot something in the 70/30 Pb/WW alloy dimension might lower pressures as well."

That has been a difficult question to answer so far. The problem is using the same mould/bullet dimensions gets you different weights with different alloys. Such subtle differences also seem to fall with in the shot to shot ES of the pressure. Of course using different bullets of the same weight but different alloy also adds in variables between the two bullets. The 4 bullets I tested all had BHNs in the 14 - 17 range. My experience is leading me to believe seating depth may be more of a cause for psi differences than subtle dimensional and weight differences. Note in the test the lightest weight bullet (Lee TL240 gr) which is also seated the deepest had the highest psi.

"Other criteria might be lube. Would something like a LLA tumble lube boolit having lube on all the bearing surfaces be a little more forgiving than a lube grooved boolit?"

Again, the Lee 240 gr bullet is a TL bullet and gave the highest psi. I have not found a significant difference between TL bullets (I use several different ones) lubed with LLA or with BAC or NRA 50/50 lube.

[CJR]

Larry,

Sorry for being late to this party. However, thanks for responding to my questions on the testing of the 7.5gr. Unique/Lyman 429421 load. First off, I'm sure you were very careful and methodical in running the Ken Oehler strain measurement tests. Using strain-gages on the outside diameter of a barrel is an "indirect pressure measuring technique" that is used to estimate the internal ballistic pressure. The crusher(CUP or LUP) and piezoelectric(actual psi) techniques are known as the "direct pressure measuring technique" because lateral holes are drilled into barrels/cases and either crusher cylinders or piezoelectric transducers are inserted in the holes to directly measure the pressure. Piezoelectrics have been known since 1880. The strain gage principle was discovered by Lord Kelvin in 1856 and common usage of strain gages began in about 1936. So it is reasonable to say that the capabilities of using strain- gages to "estimate" the internal ballistic pressure is pretty well known today. We know today that NATO/CIP/ANSI-SAMMI use piezoelectric transducers to measure the actual internal ballistic pressures. They apparently are not using any outer surface mounted strain-gages to indirectly estimate the internal ballistic pressures. That prompts the question; "Why?". Answer, the strain-gage indirect technique is not a reliable technique to estimate the internal ballistic pressure. Reason being that the normal stresses,shear stresses, and straims in the typical barrel (thick walled-cylinder & not a thin walled cylinder) are very complex, non-linear and vary across the wall thickness. Therefore, strains measured on the outer barrel surface are not proportional to internal pressure. A reference; "Some Strain-Gage Applications to Ballistic Problems", Experimental Mechanics 10(7):297-314, July 1970, with the following quote; "It was found that surface strains were not a reliable measure of the internal pressure because significant thermal strains were produced by hot gases flowing through the tube".

Best regards,

CJR

[Larry Gibson]

CJR

That’s just about what I figured you’d come up with.

That is incorrect, neither system is a "direct" technique. There is no known method of putting anything inside a cartridge to measure the actual pressure. Both the crusher and piezoelectric methods are indirect. With the crusher you measure the compression on the copper pellet, that is an indirect measurement. With the piezoelectric transducer you are measuring the "strain" put on the transducer. With a strain gauge you are measuring the "strain" put on the barrel. All are "indirect" methods. But don't take my word for it......call Dr. Oehler and ask him.

While I appreciate you telling us about the systems from Wikipedia you might just pay attention to not only my factual results which are in agreement with all other data on this load except that the data in that one article. Do you have the actual test results H.P. White conducted on those loads? Thought not but you accept them as gospel and no one elses……

The Oehler M83 (a strain gauge measurement) is used industry wide for many applications not only in the development of loads but also checking production ammunition in commercial firearms. BTW; Dr. Oehler conducted an extensive test where he used six (6) separate pressure measuring devices on the same UR (Universal Receiver) with Bill Wiseman a barrel (he makes almost all the pressure test barrels to SAAMI spec) including a M83 and M43 strain gauge measuring units. The other four (4) pressure measuring devises were; two conformal transducers (PCB Model 117B31), a case mouth transducer (Model PCB M165A01) and, of course, the standard C.U.P. system that is integral to the UR. That means there was six (6) pressure measurements via a different unit for each shot fired. Conformal transducers were used because no hole is drilled in the case and thus testing is easier and quicker with less error because of hole/transducer misalignment. The conformal transducers have pretty much replaced the drilled case gas transducers industry wide. No drilled case gas transducer was used because high pressure causes gas leakage into the space between the case and chamber wall. That would degrade the calibration and response of the conformal transducers.

Dr. Oehler’s test report is 20 pages long so I’ll just post here the graph of the results showing quite clearly the strain gauge used with both the M83 and the M43 are consistently accurate as the conformal transducers, even more so than the case mouth gas transducer used by Lake City Army Ammunition Plant and NATO.

The evidence on the actual pressure of Skeeter's 44 SPL load is there, you can take it or leave.

Attachment 237166

[W.R.Buchanan]

You know,,, I maintain that it is pointless to load handgun rounds like the .44 Special to anything above Midrange loads. The reason being my friend Brian Pearce (yes, I actually know him, if you recall he wrote the article on my Hand Press for Handloader #306) told me that a Keith Boolit at 900 fps will go clean thru a Bull Elk in any direction. That's alot of power!

I just happen to have a BH Bisley in .44 Special which will take hotter loads, but since I don't have any use for them it gets the same 6.0 gr of W231 that my 696 gets. I have knocked down a few 200 Meter Rams with those guns and that load.

I tend to take his word for that as he has only shot about 50 Elk with .44 Caliber Handguns,and I haven't.(Owns Cattle Ranch in Idaho) It is pointless to push a bullet any faster as it is only going to go into the ground or whatever else is behind the target. My .44 Magnum Rifle pushes those same boolits to 1600+ fps and they really go deep into the ground.

My point once again, is that if you don't seek out the hottest loads, you won't have problems. You really don't need them anyway. I realize the current argument is about conflicting Load Data but that's what multiple sources are all about. Also what a specific powder did 40 years ago may not be relevant today. So maybe some newer books are in order?

That article also said a Bulldog would live thru 22,000 psi loads for a while, just not a steady diet of them, but it would be unpleasant to shoot. Brian has Big Hands too..

And then there's the guy who has to only shoot heavy loads because it makes him a man. Sooner or later he'll get bit, and we'll have to talk about him..

Incidentally, Brian has access to every Ballistics Lab in the business. He already knows every one who does this because he writes alot of articles for Handloader Magazine using everyone's products, and they are considered to be the Premier Publication for Ammunition Loading.

I also consider Larry to be fairly knowledgeable,,, ,,, as he has been contributing to this forum for a long time and has the equipment and knowledge to run it, he also has the experience to keep the rest of us from blowing ourselves up!

I tend to listen to people who actually know what they are talking about.

Figuring out who actually does,,, can be a problem for some.

Randy

[winelover]

AMEN

Winelover