How much power?

[txbirdman]

I was reading a 1929 article written by Elmer Keith in which he described his famous Keith #5 and the .44 bullet (429421) he used in it. He was using Dupont #80 powder and was achieving 1100 fps or so he thought. While it doesn't appear that Mr. Keith was necessarily what we would call a "handgun hunter" today he did use it to take big game animals of opportunity and seemed to think this combination acceptable for deer. In this article he expressed that he would like to have a better powder to achieve better velocity. From what I've read he was looking for about 1200 fps. I also remember reading somewhere that John Linbaugh said his wife used a .44 Special loaded to about 900 fps to take a cow elk.

Now I'm wonder if we really need the big handguns with 300+ grain bullets for taking deer or not. I'm not a very good shot by the standards of many on this board so about 75 yards is the maximum distance I'd shoot at a deer with my .44 Mag Blackhawk. My everyday load is 10 gr. of Unique with the 429421 bullet which is doing about 1125 fps. Do I really need more that this combination to cleanly take a whitetail?

[waksupi]

It is my opinion, that if anything heavier than a 240 gr. boolit would have been needed for the .44 Mag, Elmer would have been using it.

[Ricochet]

As I've said before, my Uncle Don bagged a whole lot of deer with #429244HP from his S&W .44 Magnum.

The biggest .44 boolits I load are from a 6 hole Lee mould I got from Lee's closeout page labeled 429-255-SWC. Look just like their 240 grain SWC, with another band on the base. When I cast them out of soft scrap, they weigh 273 grains.

[NickSS]

It depends upon bullet placement. If you shoot the critter through the lungs, brain, hart, or neck bone you got a dead deer. If you hit it anywhere else you have a wounded deer that you probably will not find and might die much later.

[Shiloh]

It is my opinion, that if anything heavier than a 240 gr. boolit would have been needed for the .44 Mag, Elmer would have been using it.

Geez Waksupi,

Touche' !!

Great insight sir!!

Shiloh

[oldhickory]

It is my opinion, that if anything heavier than a 240 gr. boolit would have been needed for the .44 Mag, Elmer would have been using it.

Yep, can't put it any better than that!

[fecmech]

There is "Need" and there is "want". The answer to the first IMO is no, only you can answer the second.

[txbirdman]

I have no problem if someone "wants" the additional speed and/or heavier bullets but in my case that detracts from my ability to shoot the revolver accurately due to additional recoil (yes I'm a wuse). If a .44 bullet with a good meplat shoots all the way through a deer's vitals what more do you need? Of course if your skill allows you to take shots great distances then the additional speed means flatter trajectory. There's probably not many who benefit from the trajectory I suspect.
Glen Fryxell wrote an article awhile back about the .44 Mag being overweight. I need to find it and re-read it.

[beagle]

Rick.... Elmer did design heavier bullets for the .44 Magnum. This was when he was irked at Lyman for modifying the 429421 and instead, he went to Hensley and Gibbs. The numbers are #326 and #328 respectively.....275 grains and 320 grains.

I have moulds for both and although they shoot like traditionally designed Keith bullets, they're too much of a good thing for normal hunting.

The 275 grainer is not bad but the 320 grainer requires too high of a trajectory in my opion to make a really good deer load. Both are just too heavy and IMO, shooters would be better off using the 429421. Now, if I was in an area where bears abounded, I'd be carrying a 4" Model 29 loaded with the #326 320 grainer and a LOT of WW296. But for regular hunting, IMO, the 429421 is a better, flatter shooting bullet.

For deer, a load of 9.2 grains of Unique has been one of my favorite using loads for years in the .44 Mag./beagle

It is my opinion, that if anything heavier than a 240 gr. boolit would have been needed for the .44 Mag, Elmer would have been using it.

[fatnhappy]

It is my opinion, that if anything heavier than a 240 gr. boolit would have been needed for the .44 Mag, Elmer would have been using it.

I think Ric pretty well sums up my opinion.

It doesn't mean I won't experiment with other boolits but the 429421 has killed everything I ever pointed it at. These days I tinker around with HP's and soft boolits more than the heavyweights. I will say this though, the 429650 is a bell ringer in my redhawk.

[targetshootr]

Here's some more Keith articles.

http://www.darkcanyon.net/elmer_keith.htm

[Bret4207]

I was reading a 1929 article written by Elmer Keith in which he described his famous Keith #5 and the .44 bullet (429421) he used in it. He was using Dupont #80 powder and was achieving 1100 fps or so he thought. While it doesn't appear that Mr. Keith was necessarily what we would call a "handgun hunter" today he did use it to take big game animals of opportunity and seemed to think this combination acceptable for deer. In this article he expressed that he would like to have a better powder to achieve better velocity. From what I've read he was looking for about 1200 fps. I also remember reading somewhere that John Linbaugh said his wife used a .44 Special loaded to about 900 fps to take a cow elk.

Now I'm wonder if we really need the big handguns with 300+ grain bullets for taking deer or not. I'm not a very good shot by the standards of many on this board so about 75 yards is the maximum distance I'd shoot at a deer with my .44 Mag Blackhawk. My everyday load is 10 gr. of Unique with the 429421 bullet which is doing about 1125 fps. Do I really need more that this combination to cleanly take a whitetail?

Of course not! It's a fad just like when people were using extremely light calibers for deer, 17 and even 14 caliber wildcats. These days people believe they have to have a cannon to down a 150 lbs deer at 50 yards. IMO it's hogwash, pure and simple.

[Dale53]

My standard load for deer was a Keith 240-250 gr bullet and 24.0 grs of H110.

It would shoot clear through a deer end for end (my farthest shot was 85 yards). That load was chronographed in my Smith at 1300 fps. I also had occasion to shoot one deer with my practice load (23.0 grs of H110 which gave 1200 fps in my load). The deer couldn't tell the difference...

I suspect that a Keith bullet at 1000 fps would work well in either .44 or .45 Caliber on deer. I certainly wouldn't have any fear of it being "inadequate".

The MOST important thing is to hit well. If you run a heavy caliber handgun so heavy that you tend to flinch, you either need more practice or a more comfortable load. Shooting any game animal "around the edges" is NOT sporting nor is it conducive to filling the freezer.

Most would be better served by learning to cast bullets and reload so that they could afford to shoot year round and improve their marksmanship rather than trying to use the latest whiz-bang revolver that they couldn't handle. No reasonable amount of power will eliminate bad shooting. Shooting a deer point blank around the edges with a .375 H&H Magnum rifle will NOT do the job.

FWIW
Dale53

[sliverpicker]

.....
The MOST important thing is to hit well. If you run a heavy caliber handgun so heavy that you tend to flinch, you either need more practice or a more comfortable load. Shooting any game animal "around the edges" is NOT sporting nor is it conducive to filling the freezer.

Most would be better served by learning to cast bullets and reload so that they could afford to shoot year round and improve their marksmanship rather than trying to use the latest whiz-bang revolver that they couldn't handle. No reasonable amount of power will eliminate bad shooting. Shooting a deer point blank around the edges with a .375 H&H Magnum rifle will NOT do the job.

FWIW
Dale53

Very well put, Dale. For me to write more would be superfluous.

[missionary5155]

Good morning
Accuracy FIRST.... but
If whitetails were all there were out then there would have been no NEED to advance past the 44 Colt 1861. But the CARTRIDGE was a nice invention and a SSA 1873 in 45 Colt was a nice advancement. Sure took care of alot of whitetails and other no account critters. And the 44 Russian sure can wack a whitetail with enough power to keep me eating but the 44 Special again was a nice advancement.
Now if I am reading some of the previous replys correctly we do not NEED more power... so why did the 44 Mag NEED to be?
I live here in calm, easy going Illinois. Nothing bigger than a 275 lb whitetail buck is ever gonna march through my swamp (I stuck him with an arrow from my 52# recurve at 12 yards) where I hunt unless a wandering blackbear gets lost (like over near Decatur). Now there are some rather huge elk over at Camp Attleberry, Indiana (100 miles) that could eventually increase in numbers enough that one might get my way.
So why develope bigger bores, more power, heavier hitters? Because we are free men with the intelegence and desire to do so. Experimenters have always been willing to push the envelope and go beyond the masses who are content with what is easily available. Have I developed any new SMASHER Caliber... NO. Will I ever NEED a revolver that will thump a whitetail reliably with sufficient power and accuracy at 200 yards+? Probably not (but I am building a 41 Supermag on my 375 SM frame). But also that does not mean there is not someone who does NEED or just want it..
If Elmer Kieth was walking about today do you really think he would snub his nose at any of the Supermags, .454's, .475's, .500's .. ? What I am reading in some of the previous REPLY's is what some writters were writting about Elmer Kieth 70 years ago. " We do not NEED these heavy loads and high velocities".
So I trust the Experimenters will continue to push the envelope. Better revolvers will come along. New ideas in boolit designs will happen. Better lubes, powders, primers, cases.... After all many of us willing gave years of our lives so all this could happen. I am proud to be around to see this experimenting happening and going forward.

[Lloyd Smale]

if all your ever going to hunt is animals under 500 lbs youll do fine with a 240-250 at 900-1000 fps. Pushing one any faster is gaining you much if anything. Ive shot lenghtwise through 150 lb deer with loads like that in the 45 colt and 44s. They would probably sufice for elk too but id probably go with a little more bullet when a big elk was on the table.

I was reading a 1929 article written by Elmer Keith in which he described his famous Keith #5 and the .44 bullet (429421) he used in it. He was using Dupont #80 powder and was achieving 1100 fps or so he thought. While it doesn't appear that Mr. Keith was necessarily what we would call a "handgun hunter" today he did use it to take big game animals of opportunity and seemed to think this combination acceptable for deer. In this article he expressed that he would like to have a better powder to achieve better velocity. From what I've read he was looking for about 1200 fps. I also remember reading somewhere that John Linbaugh said his wife used a .44 Special loaded to about 900 fps to take a cow elk.

Now I'm wonder if we really need the big handguns with 300+ grain bullets for taking deer or not. I'm not a very good shot by the standards of many on this board so about 75 yards is the maximum distance I'd shoot at a deer with my .44 Mag Blackhawk. My everyday load is 10 gr. of Unique with the 429421 bullet which is doing about 1125 fps. Do I really need more that this combination to cleanly take a whitetail?

[44man]

All very well said and I agree.
I only started using the heavy boolits because the design of them is better for the accuracy I like. Then look at the fantastic RD 265 gr.
Now if you want to be amazed with killing power and penetration, my Ruger old Army with a 143 gr round ball at 1100 fps using Swiss FFFG, 41 gr, has never had a ball stop in any deer and they just go down so fast it baffles me, one went straight up and straight down, hardly a wiggle.
Neither the .44 or .45 will shoot flat but both will do anything you want them to do as long as you have decent accuracy.

[Whitworth]

It is my opinion, that if anything heavier than a 240 gr. boolit would have been needed for the .44 Mag, Elmer would have been using it.

We've come a long way technologically since Elmer Keith's day and if you can recall, he was a big proponent of heavy-for-caliber bullets. I think that if Elmer Keith were alive today, he would be packin' a .500 Linebaugh, pushing a big, fat, heavy bullet at real moderately velocities and the .429 mag would be collecting dust in the safe........

[targetshootr]

Wonder if Keith ever wrote about the 454. The google hasn't turned up anything.

[44man]

We've come a long way technologically since Elmer Keith's day and if you can recall, he was a big proponent of heavy-for-caliber bullets. I think that if Elmer Keith were alive today, he would be packin' a .500 Linebaugh, pushing a big, fat, heavy bullet at real moderately velocities and the .429 mag would be collecting dust in the safe........

How very true! Elmer liked big guns but no revolver maker ever dreamed of what we have now. They thought the .357 was pushing things and it took some convincing to bring out the .44 mag.
He would have jumped with glee over a .475 Linebaugh that has half the drop at 200 yards that the .44 does and can do it with a 420 gr boolit.
A big .500 would have him really chewing the end of his cigars!
But it takes nothing away from the .44 or .45, still great calibers, we just need to expand the list and choice of even more fun guns.