Charter Arms 44 special Bulldog a waste of money?

[CJR]

Larry,

Thank you for responding to my reply. It is appreciated. First off, the ANSI-SAMMI organizations ONLY recognize two (2) pressure testing techniques to test ballistic pressures of cartridges. Either piezoelectric tranducers or crusher cylinders are used in special test barrels that have lateral holes bored into them to accept the crusher cylinders or piezoelectric transducers, to test ballistic pressures for cartridges. ANSI-SAMMI does NOT recognize any type of " outer barrel surface strain-gage measurement" in order to predict internal ballistic cartridge pressure. That is a documented fact. Furthermore, the hot propellant gas thermal effects in the barrel bore cause the Young's Modulus of Elasticity to decrease locally in value so that the Modulus of Elasticity now varies across the wall-thickness and affects the outer surface strain-gage measurement. Whether you believe the facts I have stated or not is irrelevant to me. Anyone, you or Dr. Oehler or both, can propose a new "outer barrel surface strain-gage testing technique", to ANSI-SAAMI , to estimate the ballistic pressure of cartridges. When that is done, ANSI-SAMMI can then recognize three(3) pressure testing techniques for cartridges.

So once again, Larry we will have to agree to disagree on the validity of the "outer barrel surface strain-gage technique" to predict cartridge allowed pressures.

Best regards,

CJR

[Larry Gibson]

CJR

Given past arguments of yours and my guess of how this would go I’d think it would be pertinent to note in any closing commentary that no modern pressure tested data supports the absurdly low reading of 11,000 psi as posted in that article.

If someone is not asking themselves why they support a single source of old data that is clearly in conflict with multiple sources of new data for the same loading, I would certainly suggest to them to think about whether this appears to be a sound thought process.

The conundrum is yours. No one else is troubled by any discrepancies because multiple recent sources clearly indicate none exist between the different methods of pressure measurement. You also have made your bed on that old article's data while all other evidence contradicting that data has actually been tested including my own. Unless you have some test data of your own to present you're just pounding away on the keyboard.

If you are is still troubled by an issue that any objective viewer sees as settled, you just might want to actually inquire of H P White and ask them if that published data is correct and to try testing the same loads again. In the meantime the rest of us will put this in the case closed file.

As I've told you before the use of strain gauge measurement (most often via the Oehler M83) is used in the industry to validate production ammunition in commercial firearms......that is a fact. The C.U.P. and peizo-transducers methods are used during load development as recommended by SAAMI. Understand also that SAAMI is a voluntary organization and no manufacturer is bound by SAAMI methods or pressure levels. Numerous ammunition manufacturers do not have sophisticated "labs" and have neither C.U.P equipment nor peizo-transducer pressure measuring equipment. They rely on the use of the Oehler M83 most often. That is a fact. Additionally SAAMI suggests the use of the C.U.P. and the conformal peizo-transducer, not the transducer you mentioned in the quoted article.

I'm done with you on this matter.

[Elkins45]

I’m the OP checking back in to discover the thread has run far, far away from where it started.

I finally got a chance to shoot my S&W 69 on Friday. Unfortunately it shoots about 5” high at 25 yards even with the rear sight cranked all the way down. I’m going to call S&W and see if they will send me new sights to adjust.

[Larry Gibson]

With what load?

[FergusonTO35]

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!

That's the thinking I apply to all my loading. I don't use hollowpoint or expanding bullets in any of my handguns, so extra velocity is just going to amount to more recoil, noise, powder burned, and shorter brass life. My .40 S&W load is the Lee 401-175-TC over 4.3 grains Bullseye, clocks a bit more than 900 fps out of my Glock 22 and is more accurate than my shaky hands can take advantage of. It's basically a 15 shot .38-40!

[35remington]

Larry, thanks for taking the time to describe your testing results and how they are obtained and validated.

The close correlation between your findings, that of recent industry pressure testing and the other recent data source mentioned earlier give confidence in the validity of the modern pressure testing results.

It is certainly persuasive when multiple sources of information to include industry and private individuals and labs are in agreement. It lends validity to the individual testing and to the combined bodies of work.

[Elkins45]

With what load?

All of them. Bullets ranging from 214 to 310 grains, from 44 special equivalent to full power.

[Larry Gibson]

All of them. Bullets ranging from 214 to 310 grains, from 44 special equivalent to full power.

Wow, guess you do need a higher front sight......

[35remington]

Dang. I’ve had bad luck before, but I’ve never been so unlucky as to have a revolver that shot way high with pretty much every possible usable bullet weight. Kinda makes you wonder if a mistake has indeed been made and something got in there that shouldn’t have.

[Elkins45]

I don’t even remember how many S&W revolvers I have owned and this is the first one where the point of impact was beyond the adjustment range of the sights.

[JeffG]

I guess its too late to say I have a Bulldog and like it. DAO model and a handfull with 246 gr wadcutters. My buddy just says ‘This thing is no joke!’, and he’s right.

[Larry Gibson]

As to the CA 44 Bulldog I have helped load for several of them over the years. Found a 200 - 205 gr soft cast over 5 to 5.5 gr Bullseye to be and excellent combination in the 44 Bulldog at 800 +/- fps. The best factory round of PD I believe to be the Federal LSWCHP (225 gr) which gives 850 +/- fps out of a couple 44 Bulldogs I chronographed it out of.

[Abert Rim]

JeffG, thanks for your elegantly simple, on-point reply. After reading this string, I am still interested in a 21-ounce Bulldog pushing a 200-grain FN in the neighborhood of 800.

[Uncle Grinch]

I bought a new on for my wife and am very satisfied with what I got for the money I spent.

Been a while now, but I have picked up some 185 grain full wadcutter bullets from Stateline Bullets. Figured these would help hold down some of the recoil. In addition, I picked up a box of CCI #9 shotshell rounds. Hoping to get to the range soon.

[luvtn]

I have had 2 Charter Arms Bulldogs. The second one I bought a couple of years ago with a 2.5 inch barrel, and on the paperwork it states that it was rated for +P ammo. My goto ammo is 240gr LSWC over 14.5 grs 2400 for best accuracy. I bought it for the woods, but find I carry it to town also, stoked with Silvertips. Good luck!
luvtn

[Abert Rim]

Luvtn, that sure sounds like a stout load. What kind of velocity are you getting?