Charter Arms 44 special Bulldog a waste of money?

[Forrest r]

Here are the Pearce findings:

http://www.goodrichfamilyassoc.org/4...%20Special.pdf

In 2018 pearce re-did the 44spl loads. On page #47 of the feb-mar 2018 of the #312 handloader magazine he has in the 22,000psi/classII unique/429421 load data as 7.5gr unique 8.0gr of unique & a MAX load of 8.5gr of unique

2 different pearce articles, 13 years apart, same "unique" data.

The 2018 article is a lot better than the 2005 article. The 2018 article has 19 different bullets listed (180gr to 307gr) and uses 13 different powders in the tests.

[CJR]

Forrest r quote:

FWIW:
Pearce never said that the "skeeter" 7.5gr load was a 22,000psi load. If you'd bother to look at the pearce article everyone keep quoting you will clearly see pearce has 8.5gr of unique/429421 listed as a MAX/22,000psi load.

IMHO:
A lot of the older data is all over the place. How the lyman 44th deemed the 17.7gr of 2400 load safe/below max saami specs is beyond me. Just like I'm not going to believe the nra 7.5gr unique loads being 10,000psi+ either.

Just be safe and look at data from a couple sources.

Forrest r,

I did bother to look at the Pearce article. Specifically, Table II, Pg 40. entitled ".44 S&W Special, Category Two, 22,000 psi or less" and son-of-a- gun there was the 7.5gr Unique load behind the Lyman 429421 cast bullet. Likewise, for the loads listed in Table II, which ones do the term "less" apply to?

I appreciate and share your concerns for "recommended" loads being all over the spectrum. Your suggestion; "Just be safe and look at data from a couple sources", just doesn't cut it with me. More sources to look at does not improve credibility or accuracy. In other words, how do we know the other sources' load data is accurate? In my view, what improves credibility is accurate test data derived from proper ballistic testing performed by qualified companies, like H.P. White Laboratory Inc.

In my view, it is unacceptable to allow companies, like the magazine Handloader", to publish articles like Pearce's article on the 44 S&W Special with unsubstantiated/unverified pressure data. Any person or company, who publishes scientific pressure data, has a legal and ethical responsibility to cite/reference how those pressure levels were scientifically obtained. When that is done, the data is either verified /trusted or re-tested by other people to check the published data.

Apparently, this thread has generated many personally expressed subjective reasons why the data may be in error. Or speculated reasons on how H.P. White Laboratory Inc. so badly botched the data it gave to the NRA. I truly do appreciate someone attempting to help me think with their convoluted logic. But the bottom line is simply this; there appears to be no testing available or referenced that shows the 7.5 gr. of Unique/Lyman 429421 cast bullet generated the 22,000 psi pressure cited in the Pearce article. If there is pressure testing available on this load; please present it to verify the 22,000 psi cited. So far all we have is the H.P White Laboratory pressure testing of the 7.5 gr./Lyman 429421 load that was submitted to the NRA.

Best regards,

CJR

[rking22]

http://castboolits.gunloads.com/show...-Unique-powder

Post “5 on the referenced thread, by Larry Gibson”

“In a closed breach Contender test barrel "Skeeter's load" of 7.5 gr Unique under the 429421 (255 gr) in WW cases with a Fed 150 primer give excellent internal ballistics with a peak average psi(M43) of 22,500.“

I agree, any pressure data given as numbers should include method and reference. Also the inclusion of 7.5,8,8.5 he in the under 22,000 group bothers me due to the long established “general opinion” that 7.5 is +p. I personally doubt the Pearce data is actually pressure tested, more likly estimated from other sources. But I also am Certain that the NRA data is too old (technology wise) to trust without current validation. Above is current data with method included.YMMV

[35remington]

CJR, please present why you think 11,000 psi for the referenced load is remotely plausible. Because someone printed it somewhere is not reason enough.

The convoluted logic is in believing the numbers are credible. Look at the numbers first and foremost.

Note the data above supports Pearce.

You asked for data supporting Pearce. You got it.

The NRA figures generate enormous doubt. The data is so inaccurate that it is not credible no matter who did it.

Rather like the SAE certifying a factory Prius is 2000 horsepower. If they said that I would not believe it either.

I do not accept unyielding homage to a source and regard their figures as unimpeachable if they are clearly wrong. The NRA figures are clearly wrong.

When validity is assessed, it is the numbers that are to be verified. We do not give bad numbers a free pass because we are overly impressed by the source of the bad numbers.

[35remington]

At this point is is reasonable to ask yourself that if the load did in fact only generate only 70 percent of currently specc’d SAAMI limits in terms of pressure for the 44 Special, why does no current loading source not only not equal it, but not even come anywhere near it?

That cannot be answered without conceding that the pressure figure is in error.

As I said, no source is unimpeachable if the data they generate is not accurate.

The bad NRA numbers require explaining more so than anything else discussed here as they are the most obviously wrong.

[CJR]

36 Remington,

In my view, a statement saying a certain load gave a certain pressure means absolutely nothing. If I gave you a statement on some load making some pressure-would you believe that? 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? 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? If I presented a technical paper and stated someone told me the pressure was such and such, without test results; I'd be laughed out of the room and most likely banned from future technical paper presentations. 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!

Best regards,

CJR

[35remington]

A ballistic test report documenting 22,000 psi? Larry Gibson. See above post 103.. Been mentioned numerous times....seems odd that you keep asking for what has been already given.

Again, reposting the link to where this testing was done under post 5:

http://castboolits.gunloads.com/show...-Unique-powder

The real determinant is.....is the data accurate?

The problem is your acceptance of bad test accuracy as a standard to judge other information when it is not a valid yardstick to make such a judgement. Using bad data as a benchmark is your undoing.

You are so impressed by the pedigree of the testing lab that you have no interest in the accuracy of the data.

I know the data is so flawed I do not care who did the testing.

I note that you do not answer whether you thought the lab given figure of 11K psi was accurate. That is the primary point of disagreement. I’d kindly ask you to answer that question and give your reasoning.

[OnHoPr]

How did a CA Bull Dog thread turn into bickering about load data from different eras and data origins and writings for the last three pages. How about getting back on subject about the ole CA Bull Dog.

[35remington]

Thread drift happens here all the time.

[35remington]

It is about time I signed off anyway.

I have come to the conclusion that if someone wants to make something an unsolvable puzzle, that is on them. One can make use of information available to them to solve the problem or one can ignore it completely and remain puzzled.

It has been demanded that someone come up with specific pressure testing for the load in question and present results supporting Pearce’s findings. That has been done repeatedly, with links to the test and a specific suggestion to contact the author of the corroborating evidence. Yet that didn’t even draw a comment. Just a repeated insistence after the source was mentioned that there was no data supporting Pearce, when in fact there was.

That is enough of the rabbit hole for me.

The fact that multiple sources of current load data also suggest the NRA numbers are very inaccurate has been pointed out. That got ignored, and then it was back to demanding pressure test results and then ignoring those when they were pointed out for the third time.

I am of the opinion that any experienced handloader of 44 Special ammunition would not struggle with the discrepancies noted here to this degree and would understand which data source was the greatest source of said discrepancy.

The answers will not change. How long it takes for someone to arrive at the proper conclusion is the only variable, and that will only occur if they look into it as suggested.

[CJR]

35 Remington,

Before you sign off, please extend to me the courtesy of responding to your statements:

1. As I mentioned before, you have presented an unverified statement as "test data/evidence" of the 22,000 psi pressure for the 7.5 gr./Lyman 429421 cast bullet by not documenting how/where and who conducted the pressure testing. Statements and test data are not the same. Please verify your statement by identifying who actually did the pressure testing on this load and where the test report can be found.
2. For your enlightenment, may I refer you to the article, "A Limited Comparison of the Crusher and Piezo Systems", pp. 116-131, W.T. McDonald , H.C.Horwarth, Lyman Reloading Manual 46th Edition.

Typically, ballistic pressure testing is done in Universal Pressure Test barrels specially fabricated from large diameter barrels with lateral holes drilled into the chamber area. Special powder-filled cartridges are prepared with a hole in the case wall that lines up precisely with the lateral hole in the Universal Pressure Test barrel. The lateral hole, in the Universal Pressure Test barrel either uses short certified copper crusher cylinders or a calibrated piezoelectric crystal to measure the ballistic pressure. IIRC, all pressure testing is done with specially fabricated Universal Pressure Test barrels that can simulate either revolver gas leakage through the barrel-cylinder gap or no gas leakage from long rifle barrels or long barreled single-shot pistols. Likewise, since the H.P White Laboratory Inc work, for the NRA, specified a 6.5" barrel length for the 44 S&W Special tests, I assume the specially made Universal Pressure Test barrels are made to specific lengths as well. From the above reference; "These Universal Pressure Test barrels must conform to the Sporting Arms and Ammunition Manufacturers Institute (SAMMI) specifications for the determination of pressures by the copper crusher method". Also, I believe special modifications are made for the piezoelectric crystals. The above referenced article, also shows schematics of the equipment used to conduct ballistic pressure tests. Finally, the authors referenced above are internal/external ballistic consultants and speak very highly of the H.P. White Laboratory Inc. work and I believe Lyman stated it worked very closely with the H.P. White Laboratory Inc. So, I would suspect that Lyman load data should be pretty close to H.P. White Laboratory/NRA load data and that their load data met all the stringent SAMMI requirements for pressure testing.

Best regards,

CJR

PS: The truth shall set you free!

[dogdoc]

Make some up and send them to lab and have them pressure tested if it bothers you that much. Report the results back

[CJR]

dogdoc,

What "bothers" me is the promoting of a story that states the 7.5gr Unique/Lyman 429421 cast bullet 44 S&W Special load is above the SAAMI allowed pressure of either 14,000 psi or 15,500 psi without producing test evidence. This infers the H.P White Laboratory/NRA tests as well as other Lyman loads (i.e. 8 grs. Unique load) had much higher pressures than SAAMI allowed for the 44 S&W Special. In other words, these companies knowingly published unsafe high pressure loads for people to use. Therefore, it follows that since I used this load in my 44 S&W Special and it blew-up; either H.P WHite Laboratory Inc. or the NRA or Lyman or the gun manufacturer or all of them combined "owes" me a replacement gun and damages. Good luck with that argument in a court of law when all the scientific evidence is produced showing the load was actually under SAMMI allowed pressure.

Best regards,

CJR

[35remington]

CJR, since your most recent response was the same pattern of denial and demands as before, I leave you to your confusion. You have been told who to contact about the referenced testing and you may verify the setup with him.

H P White would have killed to have that pressure measuring setup available to them when they did measurements back in the day.

I am very familiar how old fashioned and current pressure testing is conducted.

You may enlighten yourself or remain in the dark. Your choice. At some point repeating yourself over and over in text is not in your best interest.

[megasupermagnum]

Whatever the original purpose of this thread was, is long lost. The 7.5 grains Unique with 240 grain SWC is safe in any modern gun, so what does it matter?

[Duster340]

I like my 44 Bulldog.

[CJR]

I concur that the 7.5 gr.Unique/Lyman 429421 cast bullet load is a safe load meeting SAMMI allowed pressure standards. Likewise, I agree with OnHoPr that it's time to get back talking about Charter Arms Bulldogs.

Best regards,

CJR

[OnHoPr]

I always wanted one from back in the late 70s. Back then revolvers were more of the fad compared to the semi autos of today. But, from what I have on off tangents on youtube and the forums it seems that the autos have become more reliable. Still, they need to be practiced with to become efficient. I ended up just going with the Ruger SAs for hunting and didn't get into any CC wants really. Today's era is a little different from a half century ago, though. I did shoot a box of Rem 246 gr LRN out of my SBH and it was almost as light as shooting 1000 fps 158 gr SWCs out of my BH 357.

A couple of criteria really draws me to the CA BD is that I have Sciatica on both sides, so the BD is only suppose to weigh 21 oz and it is still big bore. Also, even though it may be painstakingly difficult to get a really accurate load with one (less than 2" @ 25 yds benched) I though I would still like the accuracy of the BD in SA mode if need be. I also thought if accurate enough that filling it with 296 and a 240 gr hunk of lead to that 900 to 1000 fps occasionally might be able to do a number on a broadside double lunger deer @ less than 50 yds.

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.

[Boogieman]

Thread drift happens here all the time.

Thread drift?? this one took a hard left turn a long way back

[35remington]

Puzzled people with questions they can’t resolve about peripherally related issues do that sometimes. We were lucky it had any relationship at all. At least it was about the 44 caliber.