Using Bullseye in 44 Special?

[MikeS]

Hi All.

I'm reloading some 44 Specials for my daughter. She has a Rossi 720 revolver in 44 Special with a 2" (or maybe 2.5") barrel. I've been looking at various loads for it using the H&G #503 boolit (the MP clone), and it seems like Bullseye isn't shown much with that boolit in the 44 Special. I did find a max load of 4.9gr of BE in an old Ideal Handbook #40, and as that's a MAX load I will be starting at 4.4gr (roughly 10% less).

Am I correct that for a revolver with such a short barrel that BE would be a good powder to use? My thinking is that rather than having the powder still burning as it's coming out of the barrel, or shooting out a bunch of unburned powder doesn't really do anything for the round, other than make a big display. Would I be better off using Unique? I've seen loads listed for Blue Dot, and 2400, both powders that I have, but I was thinking that with such a short barrel that using them wouldn't be the best choice.

[ku4hx]

Alliant's latest online data shows this:
http://www.alliantpowder.com/reloaders/recipedetail.aspx?gtypeid=1&weight=240&shellid=32&bulletid=46

Not your boolit obviously, but it's in the ballpark as far as cast boolits are concerned.

Generally, the slower powders need a longer runway to reach their full potential, and given the short barrel you're dealing with I too would opt for the faster powders. In your case, I'd start with Unique, but that's a personal choice.

[MikeS]

Thanks for that link! As I said before I was going to start with 4.4gr, but I'm loading them with 4.5gr of BE as that's what my powder measure (a Lyman Accumeasure) throws. I don't think the extra .1gr will make a difference. I always load as close as I can get to the load I want, and it's usually not a problem as I rarely load max loads.

[ku4hx]

Thanks for that link! As I said before I was going to start with 4.4gr, but I'm loading them with 4.5gr of BE as that's what my powder measure (a Lyman Accumeasure) throws. I don't think the extra .1gr will make a difference. I always load as close as I can get to the load I want, and it's usually not a problem as I rarely load max loads.

When I first got into loading, everything was a max load ... .357 Magnum and .44 Magnum. If it had "Magnum" on the barrel, it had to have magnum level loads. Somewhere I read the phrase "Eargesplittin Loudenboomen", or similar, and that applied in spades to all of my loads. I'm with you now, I shoot and load for pleasure only and that means less than max loads.

But I tell you what, after couple of decades where every trigger pull was a magnum event causes me to just smile and chuckle a bit when I hear certain cartridges referred to as "snappy".

[MikeS]

I know what you mean. I used to have a Desert Eagle in 50AE and I didn't find the recoil from it all that bad, nothing like I'd been told it would be. I had a Smith model 296 in 44 Special that had titanium frame, or maybe it was their scandium alloy, I forget, but it was a very light 44 snub nose, and it had a heavier recoil then the DE did, at least for me it did. I got both the model 296 & the Rossi 720 from my father, both were about the same size, but the Rossi was considerably heavier as it's all stainless steel. When I got them they were both nice and tight, after shooting about 500 rounds thru each, the Rossi loosened up slightly, but the Smith was so loose that I would consider it worn out. Luckily the person I sold it to thought it was just fine! When my daughter moved out of the house, and got her own place I wanted to give her a shotgun to keep there for self protection, but she prefers the Rossi, so I gave it to her. When I gave it to her I hadn't measured the throats, and I loaded up some cartridges with the Mihec H&G 503 clone that I sized to .429, and they leaded the barrel to the point that after shooting 50 rounds there was lead stings hanging in the bore! Soon after I got a set of gauges, and found that the throats in the gun were .432! I measured the boolits, and as cast they were .432 as well, so I got a .4315 sizing die from Lathesmith, more to use simply to lube the boolits than to actually size, and that's where I'm at right now. I'm loading up 50 rounds sized .4315 and I'll see if they do better than the .429 sized ones did!

[PbHurler]

Somewhere I read the phrase "Eargesplittin Loudenboomen", or similar, .

Steppenwolf album? 1969~1970? (Sorry, I'm just a bit of an audiofile.)
My apologies about the hijack. Back on topic.....

[ChuckS1]

I use Bullseye in my .44 Special and it works great. Now sit back and wait for the howls about Bullseyes magically causing double (or triple or quadruple) charges! ;)

[Rocky Raab]

Mike, you must have somehow missed the 947 earlier posts in which that "powder burning out the end of the barrel" myth has been busted. It doesn't. Most fast to medium handgun powders have stopped burning by the time the bullet clears the case mouth.

I have no idea what the weight of the bullet you quote is, but 4.5 Bullseye will be just fine up to a 250-gr cast. Lots of people use 5.0 even though it's a squidge above max in current books.

[theperfessor]

Got both a Rossi 720 and a 296 (see my avatar). The 720 has throats that run from .432 to almost .435! I like the gun, but I haven't been able to get it to perform well with cast. One of these days I'll make a hollow base mold for it. The 296 is snappy with full house .44 Special loads , especially with heavier bullets. Can't imagine what a 329 would be like.

I like both guns, but they are different than a full 6 shot steel frame gun.

Use BE and 231 in .44 Special loads with no problems, other powders work fine also. I do not use a progressive and I'm very careful not to double charge a case.

[RevGeo]

Bullseye is probably the best all around pistol powder out there, IMO.

[Larry Gibson]

Bullseye is probably the best all around pistol powder out there, IMO.

+1, followed closely by Unique and then 2400.....

MikeS

Back to the topic though; Bulleye will be an excellent powder for use in the .44 Special, particularly for my daughter. She has a Rossi 720 revolver in 44 Special with a 2" (or maybe 2.5") barrel. Bullseye will give excellent ballistics equal to any other powder in that short barreled revovler at standard .44 SPL psi. It will also have a lot less muzzle flash and blast than all of the slower burning powders. Blue Dot and 2400 will not work nearly as well, particularly at standard .44 SPL psi's and muzzle flash will be very bright with both out of that short barrel.

I have shot lots of .44 SPL loads and pressure tested a lot of them with various weights of cast bullets in the .44 SPL. What is the weight of your cast bullets?

Larry Gibson

[williamwaco]

Bullseye is probably the best all around pistol powder out there, IMO.


DITTO.

I have been using is since 1956 and I have never found anything that does a better job for light loads in ANY handgun.


And despite what "everyone knows..." I do not find it to be a "dirty" powder. I find that ALL powders are dirty, and Bullseye - in my loads - is no more or less dirty than anything else.


.

[Rocky Raab]

While there's nothing whatever wrong with those 75 to 100 year-old powders, it would be the height of arrogance to suggest that there haven't been equally good or better choices developed since then. We have learned SOME things since 1897...

I wrote a piece last year for Handloader called ".44 Special - a New Diet" in which I used more than a dozen powders introduced in the past few decades. All of them worked superbly, and one or two are my new favorites. (The piece hasn't been published yet, but I have hopes for the summer issue...)

I'll still have Bullseye, Unique and 2400 on my shelf, but I suspect that they won't get much use in handgun loading.

[bobthenailer]

over the last 40 years, ive used alot of BE and for the last 10 years Tightgroup for loads from 750 to 1,100 fps with cast bullets in just about every popular handgun chambering with excellent to good accuracy from 32 acp, to 454 casull

[paul edward]

Most of my 44 Special loads are for a Charter Arms Bulldog that my daughter likes to shoot.

I have had good luck with 4 grains of Bullseye or 5 grains of Winchester 231 with 180, 200 and 218 grain cast bullets.

[MikeS]

Rocky: yes, I must have missed those few messages! :) And I'm just getting used to the powders not filling the room with smoke, and you say the new powders I'm now used to using are old fashioned? geez, when is this going to end! :)
Professor: I guess I got lucky that the 720 only has .432 throats!
Larry: I forget their exact weight, somewhere around 250gr, they're the H&G 503 as made by Mihec.
Chuck: a double load? Don't you only do that when you want more power? :)

[Rocky Raab]

Trust me Mike, a half-century or so can sure sneak up on ya! I'd calculate how fast, but I can't find my slide rule.

[C1PNR]

Trust me Mike, a half-century or so can sure sneak up on ya! I'd calculate how fast, but I can't find my slide rule.
Hey Rocky, I'll send you my spare. I bought 2 of them in an attempt to double my grade in Calculus. Didn't work then, probably wont now either.

I'm loading for a Charter too, and use 6.5 Unique for the 220 grain 429 215 and 7 HS-6 (a gift from a "friend") for the 250 grain 429 421.

I tried slightly heavier loads, but settled on these as being easy on both me and the 19 oz empty Charter.:wink:

[HangFireW8]

While there's nothing whatever wrong with those 75 to 100 year-old powders, it would be the height of arrogance to suggest that there haven't been equally good or better choices developed since then. We have learned SOME things since 1897...

Bullseye was reformulated a few years back to be cleaner. Personally I never had a problem with it before (or after). It meters well and is hugely versatile.

Like the original poster, I was looking for something to use in a 357 snubby that generated less muzzle flash and bang but still developed magnum performance. Surprisingly I found it in Bullseye. Lots of people warned that it's not a magnum powder, not suitable, double charges, bullseye surprise, etc, etc. Of course the pinnacle of magnum performance can be found in slower powders, but I was just going for "standard" 357 magnum loads.

I found it reduced muzzle flash, was reasonably pleasant to shoot (as much as is possible for a 357 snubby), velocities were solid magnum territory, all with listed loads. In all, I found my magnum practice load with Bullseye.

I'd say it is a very ideal powder for 44 Special. Give it a try.

HF

[HangFireW8]

Mike, you must have somehow missed the 947 earlier posts in which that "powder burning out the end of the barrel" myth has been busted. It doesn't. Most fast to medium handgun powders have stopped burning by the time the bullet clears the case mouth.


You're right, even if fast powders are more "efficient", slower powders are usually higher performance in short barrels. Like drag racing, inefficiency is tolerated for the sake of higher velocity.

BTW powders do burn out of the end of the barrel, that's why the military adds flash suppresant chemicals to their loads. However none of that powder would have helped much, if it wasn't already burned. :)

Besides burn, another issue is muzzle pressure. While not much can be done about the cylinder gap, different speed powders present different pressures at the muzzle, and that can make faster powders more pleasant to shoot in short barrels.

Each gun/bullet/powder combination is different in this regard, and so is user perceptions about what recoil profile and muzzle blast (sound pressure) is tolerable. The only thing I can say is avoid H110 and try different powders, and see what you like the most.

HF

[Rocky Raab]

If there are 150,000,000 shooters in the US, sooner or later, 149,999,999 of them are going to post that "powder still burning" myth.

Don't believe me if you choose, but read THIS (http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-090.htm) from the US Navy Technical Board before you decide.

Flash suppressants in powder work to prevent ignition of the secondary flash noted in the article.

[ku4hx]

Steppenwolf album? 1969~1970? (Sorry, I'm just a bit of an audiofile.)
My apologies about the hijack. Back on topic.....

Steppenwolf maybe, but the term was applied to heavy 357 and 44 Magnum loads back in the late '60s and '70s by national gun rag writers of the day. It referred to the loud report of top magnum loads: ear splitting, loud and booming. Obviously there may be louder handguns now days, but back in the day of Harry Callahan, the 44 Magnum was "Top Gun".

[HangFireW8]

If there are 150,000,000 shooters in the US, sooner or later, 149,999,999 of them are going to post that "powder still burning" myth.

Don't believe me if you choose, but read THIS (http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-090.htm) from the US Navy Technical Board before you decide.

Flash suppressants in powder work to prevent ignition of the secondary flash noted in the article.

Is this in reply to me? I was agreeing with you.

[Rocky Raab]

You said "powders DO burn out the end of the barrel" did you not? That's not correct, and I posted a link for the convenience of anyone who wants proof.

[HangFireW8]

You said "powders DO burn out the end of the barrel" did you not? That's not correct, and I posted a link for the convenience of anyone who wants proof.

OK I see...

"This is a result of the ignition of the combustible mixture of propellant gases and atmospheric oxygen caused by the turbulent mixing occurring at the boundary of the gas jet as it leaves the muzzle."

It is combustible gasses... made up of partially consumed propellant byproduct, so it's no longer in the form of powder...

I can accept that, the barrel environment is, chemically, greatly reduced, and incomplete combustion of carbon propellant components catch fire once they hit oxygen. I have no beef with that... except when it's not the only thing. :)

There are also... get this... "incandescent particles." Uh-huh.

When I worked at BRL, we took pictures of flying burning propellant coming out of barrels. Certainly not the ideal... but it happened....

This is another case of myth-busting becoming the new indefensible myth. Are all burns ideal? No one here has ever found unburned powder in the chamber, barrel or muzzle? What happens in really cold weather?

Slow powders are more likely to have unoxidized gasses and particulates (but not POWDER! Can't call it POWDER!) coming out of the muzzle. But if you want to live in an ideal world where all powder always burns, more power to ya!

Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to load some loads and try to avoid incandescent particles.:;-)

HF
PS Good scientists leave the "proofs" to the mathematicians.

[Rocky Raab]

Not to be argumentative, but if I look in a campfire, I can see incandescent particles. But I certainly wouldn't call them "wood." We get nitrocellulose from (drum roll here) ...wood. The glowing things in muzzle ejecta are glowing ash: the solid remains of burned powder. As the report mentioned, such particles can serve as ignition points for the unburned gases present after they mix with atmospheric oxygen.

There are many reasons why not all the powder in some loads burns. Some stays behind in the gun and some is ejected from the muzzle either unburned or scorched. It is more likely with powders that are slow for that application, but it can happen with faster powders, also.

[W.R.Buchanan]

Since I don't get up until 9 AM PDT I got here late.

I have one can of Bullseye, I bought it 30+ years ago to load .44 specs for my M29 Smith.

The problem I ran into with the powder was that it was very dirty. So much so that it fouled the cylinder so bad after 15-20 rounds that it was difficult to turn.

I went to W231.

Mind you, this was old Bullseye. I don't know how the newer formulas work. Incidentially Bullseye is 40% nitro!

When I started loading for my .45 Glock I got out the old can (which is still just fine, and started loading rounds. At 5.0 gr you get 1400 rounds out of a pound! Pretty economical stuff.

When I shot the gun it was very dirty after only 25-30 rounds. I just shot 50 rounds thru it a week ago as I am getting rid of alll my Bullseye loaded .45 ACP rounds, and the gun was filthy.

Once again I went to W231.

I was told by the alliant guy at the SHOT Show last year that the reason why it burns dirty is because in a .45 it never gets to the needed pressure to burn clean.

Randy

[catmandu]

I wrote a piece last year for Handloader called ".44 Special - a New Diet" in which I used more than a dozen powders introduced in the past few decades. All of them worked superbly, and one or two are my new favorites. (The piece hasn't been published yet, but I have hopes for the summer issue...)

Do you know where this article may be found to read? I would gladly read it.

Paul in WNY

[/QUOTE]

[gnostic]

I'm about to load a bunch of 44 specials, and I'm changing from BE, to Tightgroup. BE is too dirty and Tightgroup seems available at Walmart for 18 bucks a pound.

[Texas by God]

Steppenwolf maybe, but the term was applied to heavy 357 and 44 Magnum loads back in the late '60s and '70s by national gun rag writers of the day. It referred to the loud report of top magnum loads: ear splitting, loud and booming. Obviously there may be louder handguns now days, but back in the day of Harry Callahan, the 44 Magnum was "Top Gun".
There was a wildcat cartridge developed by gunwriters back in the day called the 22-378 Earschplitten Loudenboomer. 55gr bullet @7000 fps until the barrel burned out.
AND Bullseye Rocks in the .44 special every damn day IMO. Best, Thomas.