Ruger 44 special Flat top Blackhawk

[44MAG#1]

In the same vein as the post by 35Whelan what would be the SAFE max pressure for that gun and what do the readers base that on?
This is more a curiosity question.
Remember what is everyone basing that on? Not just a "shot in the dark" answer.
Can it be loaded close to the same pressure as the 45 Colt in a Blackhawk? Not the same but approaching the same pressure?
Why if so and why if not.

[376Steyr]

IIRC, Bill Ruger made a original .357 Flat Top Blackhawk into a then-new .44 Magnum, and it proceded to blow up on him, and thus the bigger New Model Blackhawk was born. So the answer starts at "less pressure than a .44 Magnum". The "Ruger Only" .45 Colt loads are meant for the bigger Blackhawks and Vaqueros, not the recent New Vaqueros and Flat Tops.

[44MAG#1]

"Keep in mind that the cylinders are not designed to handle more pressure than the standard pressure 44 special. "

I will admit this is an interesting concept. How would one go about detemining that the cylinders aren't designed to take more than standard pressure for the 44 Special?

[larryp]

The cylinder on the Flat Top .44 Special is about the same diameter and chamber wall thickness as a Colt SAA so most people I've seen are recommending loads be kept to the same level as for a 2nd or 3rd generation Colt. Even at that you can go a fair amount above the factory .44 special loads. For instance the Skeeter Skelton load of 7.5 grs of Unique behind a 240-250gr swc gives 950 fps making for a good field load that performs much better than the factory loads. Buffalo Bore has a 250gr swc at 1000fps that is supposed to be safe in all guns except the Charter Arms Bulldog.
I use the above mentioned Unique load in my Colt SAA without problem. I also use 12gr of 2400 behind an Oregon Trail 240 gr. swc for a milder shooting load that's still hotter than factory. Another I just loaded up and am waiting for a day off to try is 6 gr of W231 behind a Hornady swaged 240 gr swchp. According to Brian Pierce this will do 850 fps, about 100 fps faster than the factory 245gr round nose at 750 fps.

[44MAG#1]

"The cylinder on the Flat Top .44 Special is about the same diameter and chamber wall thickness as a Colt SAA so most people I've seen are recommending loads be kept to the same level as for a 2nd or 3rd generation Colt."

Interesting to say the least. Now where did that information come from? As I am naturally inquisitive I would love to know where the source is on that information? Is it from actual experience or is from something that was read on the internet or some article?

[Nobade]

OK, if you insist you can see if you can get Ruger to tell you what the cylinder is made of and what its level of heat treat is. Then draw it up in a solid modeling program and start pressuring it up to see what happens. Once you have a failure point predicted then start some destructive testing on a sample of revolvers to see if reality coincides with theory. Then you'll know.

Or you can just follow the instructions that come with the gun, load it with SAAMI spec ammo, and go out and enjoy it with the knowledge that if it doesn't kick hard enough you can always go buy a 44 mag and get the experience there.

Personally I load mine with black powder which gives me better ballistics than any smokeless load that is within SAAMI spec pressure levels, and is very accurate and doesn't kick too hard. This way I don't worry about what it'll take and I have plenty of power to do anything one could want a 44 spl. to do. And yeah, I have a 44 mag if I feel the need (very seldom) for more power.

[44MAG#1]

"Or you can just follow the instructions that come with the gun, load it with SAAMI spec ammo, and go out and enjoy it with the knowledge that if it doesn't kick hard enough you can always go buy a 44 mag and get the experience there."

So you are saying that all the gun can take is SAAMI spec ammo to be safe?
So if a person can hotrod a 45 Colt Blackhawk to 32000 CUP one cannot hotrod a 44 Special FT to a certain point?
With the availability of the 454 Casull why would anyone want to hot rod a 45 Colt.
That would be in the same vein and not hotrodding the 44 Special because the 44 Mag is available.
So what is the purpose of going over SAAMI specs in the 45 Colt then?

[rintinglen]

Intrigued by the question, I pulled out my 44 Spl Flattop and my Ruger SBH Hunter, and pulled the cylinders. The one on the flattop is noticeably smaller, perhaps as much as a 16th of an inch (calipers are in the shed, I'm in my under wear, temps in the low 40's--I ain't going out there til I get dressed and the sun comes up). The Flattop cylinder is almost exactly the same diameter as the one from my Uberti Clone, again, noticeably smaller than that of the SBH. Elmer casually mentioned blowing up several Colt 45's in his quest for more powerful handgun loads. Ruger 45 LC's are built on the larger, SBH frame. If somebody wants to drop a "Ruger or Contender only" load in a smaller New Model Vaquero frame, well,That's a place I ain't going, dressed or undressed.

That said, My flattop is easily the most acurate 44 Special I've ever owned. It is Likely the most accurate production revolver I have. I wish I could get one in stainless steel. But Blued is good enough, if it shoots like this. SAAMI Specs for the 44 Special are notoriously low, in deference to the pre-WWI S&W's and their Spanish Clones, but 38 +P Special pressures (20,000psi max) are emminently safe, at least in all modern US Revolvers, saving perhaps the Charter Arms Bulldogs.
Skeeter's Unique load is plenty for me, but I have been shooting NOE 230 grain WC boolits over 5.0 of Red Dot and getting great results. If I need more than that, the SBH OR the REDHAWK get the nod.

[44MAG#1]

"I pulled out my 44 Spl Flattop and my Ruger SBH Hunter, and pulled the cylinders. The one on the flattop is noticeably smaller, perhaps as much as a 16th of an inch."
Are you sure?
" Elmer casually mentioned blowing up several Colt 45's in his quest for more powerful handgun loads. That's a place I ain't going, dressed or undressed."
I have been a huge Keith fan since 1970. I have never read where he said he destroyed several. I have his book "Sixguns" and can remember 2. One being the 45 Colt that had the loading gate that blew off and the other something else happened.
Now the Colt he used for the 44 Special Keith load had to be made in the late '20's no later than the early '30's and it is still around.
How do we explain that?

[rintinglen]

Re the cylinder diameter, yes I am sure. Next time call me a liar to my face.
Re the Keith info, In his explanation as to why he went to the 44 Special Colt when developing his hot hunting loads, he stated he did so because the cylinder walls were thicker than the ones on the 45 Colts, which I is where I recall the reference to the ruined revolvers. A 44 special that he used in the 1920's is still around, but one wonders how many others that he had aren't.

[44MAG#1]

"Re the cylinder diameter, yes I am sure. Next time call me a liar to my face."

No one called you a liar? I am positively sure you have never asked anyone in your entire life the same question concerning something that was told to you. You are a completely trusting person that believes no one makes any errors. So no need to ask that kind of question.
Actually I was questioning the 1/16th of an inch and still do. I know they are smaller.
Sorry.
"he stated he did so because the cylinder walls were thicker than the ones on the 45 Colts,"
Okay how do YOU take that statement? Does the 44 special have and added safety feature due to the thicker cylinder walls? Or does it not?

[rintinglen]

4140 steel at 25 Rockwell has a yield strength approximately 65,000 psi. Tempered and normalized, that yield strength can be tripled, but with a significant loss in ductility.I have read, but do not KNOW, that Ruger uses a similar steel tempered to approximately 38-42 Rockwell. As near as I can determine from the chart I just looked at, that should increase the yield strength to something like 85,000 psi, but I am not certain. It could be off by 5000 either way. SAAMI specs for the 44 Special chamber indicate a maximum diameter of .4590. The same specification for the 45 Colt is .4862. All other things being equal, the 44 cylinder will have thicker cylinder walls by the factor of 1/2 (.4862 - .4590). That increase may be sufficient to allow encapsulation of higher explosive forces but .0136 inches does not seems to be as significant as the reduction in cylinder diameter .053, which is 4 times that. 1.677 vs. 1.730 inches, according to specs obtained from the Web--I still ain't going out in my undies.
How I take Elmer's statement? When dealing with unknown metallurgy, in guns, thicker is better. However. the original topic, from whence we have significantly deviated, concerned the Ruger .44 Special Flattop, which has a visually smaller New Model Vaquero cylinder than the Larger framed 45 Colt Blackhawk. Assuming Identical steel, the 44 will not be as strong as the 45, because the cylinder wall is thinner.

Now, if you have the money to spend, you could buy an Oehler 43, a couple or six Rugers in each caliber, and perform some destructive testing. If you do so, please publish the results. I for one would be very interested to see them.

[44MAG#1]

"I measured my 3rd generation COLT SAA 44 special cylinder and it is 1.649" to 1.650" .

That is smaller than the 44 Ruget Flat Top
What other diminsions of the cylinder do you have?

[30calflash]

"I pulled out my 44 Spl Flattop and my Ruger SBH Hunter, and pulled the cylinders. The one on the flattop is noticeably smaller, perhaps as much as a 16th of an inch."
Are you sure?
" Elmer casually mentioned blowing up several Colt 45's in his quest for more powerful handgun loads. That's a place I ain't going, dressed or undressed."
I have been a huge Keith fan since 1970. I have never read where he said he destroyed several. I have his book "Sixguns" and can remember 2. One being the 45 Colt that had the loading gate that blew off and the other something else happened.
Now the Colt he used for the 44 Special Keith load had to be made in the late '20's no later than the early '30's and it is still around.
How do we explain that?

IIRC the loads that Elmer started with were lower in performance (pressure and velocity) in the Colt SA's than in later S&W revolvers. Also used a now defunct powder to enhance the 44 special's power. I think the loads he used were in the 1000-1100 fps category and did what he needed to be done at that time. From his book sixguns. As said before from memory, it's been a while since I read it.

He also probably? used some standard 44 special loads for other reasons. And we don't know how many turned into parts guns during his trials. Attrition goes with the experimentation part of it, doesn't it? Probably a low number as Mr. Keith appeared to be a careful student and experimenter.

[44MAG#1]

"IIRC the loads that Elmer started with were lower in performance (pressure and velocity) in the Colt SA's than in later S&W revolvers. Also used a now defunct powder to enhance the 44 special's power. I think the loads he used were in the 1000-1100 fps category and did what he needed to be done at that time. From his book sixguns. As said before from memory, it's been a while since I read it."

Probably not as much a student as some but Keith 44 Special load after he settled on 2400 and the solid head cases became commonplace he use 17.5 gr Hercules 2400 and his 250 Keith bullet till the 44 Mag came out.

[larryp]

"The cylinder on the Flat Top .44 Special is about the same diameter and chamber wall thickness as a Colt SAA so most people I've seen are recommending loads be kept to the same level as for a 2nd or 3rd generation Colt."

Interesting to say the least. Now where did that information come from? As I am naturally inquisitive I would love to know where the source is on that information? Is it from actual experience or is from something that was read on the internet or some article?

It's from several differant articles I've read. As to which ones I don't remember but I think one was by Brian Pierce. Anyway Bill's measurements seem to reaffirm it.

[44MAG#1]

larryp wrote:

"Anyway Bill's measurements seem to reaffirm it. "

And what do Bill's measurements seem to reaffirm? Just the outside diameter? Just the cylinder length?

[44MAG#1]

Now we are getting somewhere. I read that article some time ago and already knew about it.
I also have both the Blackhawk full size in 45 colt and a Ruger FT in 44 special.
Here are the cylinder stats:

45 Colt:

Outside Dia. 1.730"
Outside wall .076
inside web .064

44 Special
Outside dia. 1.675"
outside wall .088"
inside web .063"

Now what would one think about the amount of steel around the chambers in both?
Why wouldn't the 44 Special FT take the same loads ad the 45 Colt Blackhawk?
Since Ruger a even made cylinders in 45 ACP for the New Vaquero and did not specifie against +P loads that have a SAAMI spec of 23000 what does that tell us?
USAF made cylinders for their SAA clones in 45 ACP.

I just hope my 44 Special FT doesn't know that it only suppose to have standard 44 Special loads put in it. :):)

[salvadore]

I get 1.677 for my FT. 1.54 for a .45 Colt cylinder. 1.52 for a .44 spec. Colt. 1.677 for an Uberti .45 Colt cylinder and just to compare, I get 1.717 for my M-21 classic S&W 44 spec.

[salvadore]

I have shot Keith's load of 17.5gr of 2400 and a Keith bullet weighing 260grs out of the FT, more than once. Pretty brutal, and probably won't put that one together again...well maybe for the Smith, shooter didn't explode, cases weren't sticky and primers weren't particularly flattened. First cylinder full was pretty accurate, had my standard flinch for the second cylinder, groups sucked. Was not as bad as my 3 screw SBH with the bird finger square trigger guard smacker back in the late sixties.

[John Van Gelder]

An interesting thread. I have a flat top .44, and have done extensive research into .44 spl loads. SAMMI specs are low they are aimed at the "weakest link in the chain", there are still a lot of the old black powder guns out there, and the pressures listed for modern .44 spl., ammunition should be safe in those guns.

The rule of thumb with the Blackhawk .45s (large frame guns) is 80% of the pressure (SAMMI listed) for the .44 magnum guns on the same frame. My latest Lyman cast bullet manual does not have any .44 mag., loads above 40,000 (cup), most are in the 38-39K range.
Do the math and that is around 31K.

There was some pressure testing done with the old Keith load and those were below 30K.

Someone said earlier on in the thread, if you want .44 mag ballistics then you should have bought .44 mag., that is the truth.

The .44 spl. is one of the all time accurate handgun rounds, it is an efficient round, you get good performance with relatively small amounts of powder. What your expectations are with your .44 is truly a subjective thing. The flat top Ruger is safe at quite a bit more pressure than the SAMMI specs., for that cartridge.

The standard .44 spl loading is pretty mild, and right at the bottom of what is considered to be an adequate field load, at least in places where one may have to deal with bears.

I live in an area where thare are lots of bears, and have had to shoot on the average about one a year, because the were endangering me or my livestock. In my experience the standard .45 Colt loading of a 255 gr. bullet at 900 fps. is very effective. This is in dealing with Black bears of 400# or less. That loading is easily duplicated in the .44 spl., without getting into areas of excessive pressure.

A note: I have also taken a number of black bears with .38-44 loads, utilizing the 358429 bullet at around 1100 fps in a 4" .357.

The .44 spl., is a exceptionally good shooter, and even with nothing more than standard factory loadings is pretty effective if you do your part. A long time friend of mine killed his first Alaska moose with a revolver and factory .44 spl., loads.

There are loads for the .44 spl., that reach the 1200 fps mark, these are probably best saved for special occasions. I have a link to that data if anyone is interested enough to send me a PM.

Today we have powders, that our friend Elmer did not have, that give better velocity at lower pressures than the powders of days gone by.

What works? For me a 250-260 gr, bullet at 900-950 fps. This is pretty much Skeeter Skeltons favorite load with 7.5 gr., Unique, easily achived with the flat top Ruger with out "pushing the envelope"..

[Rifle 57]

Very good post John.

[44 Special]

Excellent post.

[monge]

Good thread great info! I own both 44sp and 44mags and prefer the 44sp skeeter load accurate and pleasant to shoot!

[DougGuy]

Some comparisons are perfectly good logical reasoning. I don't need to break out the calipers, that's already been done on page one in this thread, and it illustrates perfectly how to go about reckoning the pressure ceiling one could expect to be working with, since Ruger certainly isn't going to publish it.

Medium framed SA revolvers in .45 caliber, convertibles especially, are safe to 23,000psi which is SAAMI .45 ACP +P pressure. That said, the .44 caliber cylinders are somewhat thicker on the outside wall thickness, and pretty much the same in the inner walls, like .001" is REALLY going to make a difference. That would mean the .44 Special cylinder would be perfectly safe with the same 23,000psi pressure ceiling as the .45 which has thinner cylinders. THIS MUCH, we can reliably state, IS SAFE.

As far as exploring how much more pressure would be safe in the .44 cylinder and still have the same degree of safety as the .45, well, at this point it is time to journey over to the .44 magnum and completely abandon any thought as to taking the .44 Special above 23,000psi.

Could you go to 25,000psi? 28,000? Of course, but I ask how much will velocity improve with 2,000psi more pressure over 23,000psi? 50f/s maybe? 75 at the most? Again, too close to the .44 magnum to even waste time with. Could you use the .44 Special case and cylinder to develop a dedicated 23,000psi platform to launch 220gr to 240gr boolits at 1100 ~ 1200f/s and fine tune the loads for group size and have an economical yet still potent .44 Special? This would be a neat project, and a viable one at that.

I am currently doing a similar projject with a medium frame Vaquero or Flattop in .45 Schofield caliber, something that will use less case capacity than the .45 Colt, and should lend itself perfectly to a mid range medium/heavy boolit sixgun. This warmed over .44 Special would be almost the same effort, in a .432" version. I say go for it. There are plenty of good reasons to use a shorter case than the .44 magnum to develop that ground between factory .44 Special loads and the 23,000psi pressure ceiling.

[ejcrist]

For what it's worth, I load the 250 grain Keith boolit over 15.0 grains of 2400 in the 44 Special flat top and get in the low 1,100's. It's a little on the warm side but there's no signs of excessive pressure or anything. This load has been the most accurate so far.

[John Van Gelder]

I am at most a conservative reloader, I mentioned in my post if you think you need to streach the .44 Spl, then it's time to geat a .44 mag. But having said that. I have old loading manuals, with loads for the Colt SAA, that are upper 1100 fps with a 250 gr. bullet. The FT Ruger is stronger than the old Colt's were. Some one, and unfortunately I cannot give a direct reference, pressure tested some of the old Keith 2400 .44 spl., loads and they were right in the 27K range.

Probably safe in the .357 frame .44 Ruger, but I am not going to encourage anyone to go there. Some of the new data for the special is a bit of the "undiscovered country", since I have not been able to find any reliable pressure data for those loads. Any time you step out and exceed what is recommended in the manuals, you are on your own.

My upper limit for my .44 spl. 850-950fps, and acording to the Hogdon data, some interpolation here, that range in pressire is 20K or less.

I am sure that everyone here is familiar with the proof testing standards. Which are someplace around 3x what SAMMI lists as operating limits. Again let me say I can only say "Abandon all hope ye who enter here".

A standard that I feel is more representative of a hand gun's effectiveness is the Taylor formula. All of the big game in North America has been taken with the .357 magnum. With these paramaters in mind. The .357 utilizing the original 1935 loading (158 gr, bullet at 1500fps), rates a 12 utilizing the Taylor formula, the .44 spl., rates a 12 using a 250 gr., bullet at 800 fps.

At the end of the day, no amount of "horse power" will comepensate for poor shot placement.

[MakeMineA10mm]

While the original discussion on page 1 is a couple years old, I note no one ever cited sources. I'll give it a try.

Brian Pearce wrote a very well thought-out and researched article in Handloader 236 (Aug. 2005) with pressure-tested loads broken into 3 categories of pressure, corresponding to the strength of various 44 Specials. It can be found here: http://www.goodrichfamilyassoc.org/44_Special_Articles/Brian%20Pearce%20on%20the%2044%20Special.pdf

The categories were 15,500psi (SAAMI max), 22,000psi, and 25,000psi. Pearce places (real, not clones with unknown heat-treat) Colt SAAs in the middle category (22k). The 25k category is either large-frame guns or 5-shot medium-frames, with thicker cylinders and off-set bolt notches. Neither of these apply to the medium-frame, 6-shot Ruger 44 Specials, so even though they are Rugers, I'd be rather hesitant to go above 22,000 psi.

Interestingly, Ross Seyfried, in an article here: http://www.goodrichfamilyassoc.org/44_Special_Articles/Ross%20Seyfried%20%96%20Lipseys%20Ruger%20Flattop% 20.44%20Special%20Bisley%20Revolvers.pdf says "30,000 PSI is the limit set by Hodgdon for the .45 Colt in Ruger revolvers, so it is a most reasonable number for the .44 Special." He does not espouse on why he believes this. Is chamber wall thickness of a 6-shot 45 Colt on a large-frame Super Blackhawk the same or less than the chamber wall thickness of a 44 Special on the medium-frame? Ironically, in another part of the same article, Seyfried says, "if you want a 44 Magnum, get one. They make them every day." Lastly, he seems rather casual about the topic, and makes a technical error, saying the SAAMI limit is 14,000. So, since I like my fingers and eyeballs, I'm going more with Pearce's recommendations than Seyfried's in this case.

For me, I'm using 15,500 psi loads or less 95% of the time.

The remainder of the time, for my "heavy" load, I'll be loading my 267gr heavy Keith SWC with: 15.5grs 2400, 15.0grs AA#9, or 17.5grs 4227. These will give about 1050-1100fps which provides all the power I'll ever need without exceeding 22,000psi.

[John Van Gelder]

MakeMineA10mm (http://castboolits.gunloads.com/member.php?3097-MakeMineA10mm)

A very good article, the catagory two loads are adequate for anything I need to shoot with a handgun. Again my preference is for the 250-255 gr bullet, in the 850-950 fps range.

Just a point here.. The flat top Ruger is also available, in the .45Colt/.45ACP convertable. The SAMMI specs for .45ACP +P is 23,000 psi.

I have an old large frame Blackhawk .45Colt/ACP, and just put my calipers on the cylinder throat, not a dial caliper so it was just a go /no go test, at the setting the caliper would not fit over the throat in my .44spl.

By no means a difinative test and it is probably time to querry Ruger, because untill then we are just p------ into the wind.

[MakeMineA10mm]

Yes, it is interesting that 45 ACP +P loads are up to 23,000 psi, and are presumably safe in the 45 convertible flattop. However, lots of people are commenting here: http://rugerforum.net/ruger-single-action/38709-blackhawk-flattop-45lc-45acp.html that 20,000 psi is the limit on the 45s. I find that a curious discrepancy, as I'm sure you do too. (Post #s 2, 7, & 9 are particularly interesting on that thread.)

I think it is obvious Ruger is pretty confident in their heat-treat to even make 44s and 45s on their medium frame, but at the same time, I get a feeling that "20,000 psi limit" on the 45s came from somewhere official (as well as the caution against using "Ruger Only" loads in the medium frames).

Combining that with the history of Ruger blowing up a medium frame 44 Magnum during original development back in 1956, plus Elmer Keith's Colt SAA stories, and I'm sticking with Pearce's Category II loads. I figure the extra "meat" of the 44 cylinder & chamber walls vs. the 45 Convertible's would account for up to 2000 more psi, but probably little to no more. I'm not comfortable going to the 25,000 psi because that's a full 25% over what Ruger says is acceptable on their 45 convertible, and that sounds like a big amount over recommended max (even given the thicker walls).

I'm guessing Ruger won't have an answer if you call them. First, they probably haven't done any testing on the 44 specials and second, there's no "Ruger only" loads published in loading manuals for the 44 Specials for Ruger to have concerns about.

[John Van Gelder]

MakeMineA10mm (http://castboolits.gunloads.com/member.php?3097-MakeMineA10mm)

I believe that you are absolutely correct. I did some other measurements, and my flat top cylinder is the same diameter as my SAA Colt (clone) , I have some old load data, loads that were published by Paco Kelly, using one of the clones. He was getting 1200 fps using the 225 gr. gr. Keith bullet. He had those loads pressure tested and they were at 20.5K. (Using WW296). This is a bit of apples and oranges, but I think that it is pretty close to your recommendation of not going over 22,000 psi. Many years ago Colt chanbered the SAA in .45ACP, and the upper limit for that round back then was 21,000.

We are plowing the same ground here, but I heartily agree that there is no need to exceed 22K. The velocity increase between the 22k loads and the 25K loads is pretty small. So why subject your gun to the extra wear.

Another note here: I checked my Hogdons Ruger only .45 Colt load data and their limit is 30K. Again for heavy frame guns. The reminder here is that you can get better velocity in the larger bores with less pressure.

I bought the .44 spl with the thought that I would duplicate Skeeter Skeltons old .44 spl load. 250 gr bullet over 7.5 gr. of Unique. Well with in catagory two loads.

Again thanks for the article very good reference material. If you are curious, there are some articles archived at Handloads.com, about heavy .44 spl. loads, the caveat there is that they were shot in a Mod 29.

Thanks again .. J

[John Van Gelder]

Not to beat this to death, but! In this day and age of the super magnums, the .44 spl., is really a breath of fresh air. A very easy shooting round, the flat top Rugers come with the steel grip frame, so the gun has plenty of weight with standard .44 spl loads, the gun is as easy to shoot as the .38 spl., the larger bore guns tend to have less muzzle blast, and if you carry a few of the upper end loads the gun is capable of taking about anything you will encounter this side of the Canadian border. The Ruger .44 spl., has been a long time coming, and I for one am glad the folks at Ruger started making them. Mine is the 5.5" barrel, a favorite length of folks like Skeeter Skelton, still good portability, a bit longer sight radius, and almost as much velocity as the 6.5". Back in another era, the .44 spl was the paramount target round. There are a lot of bullets available in that diameter, there are backyard varmit loads using a round ball, and there are some 300+ gr. bullets that would work well for big game.

.44Spl., if you do not have one you are missing out.. :)

[35 Whelen]

Yes, the .44 Special is wonderful. Since this post originated I have run some of Elmer's load consisting of a home cast 260 gr. SWC over 17.5 grs. of 2400 which netted 1218 fps and grouped in the 6" range at 100 yds. when I did my part. Buy a .44 Magnum if you want .44 Magnum velocities you say? Not a chance. In fact I've never understood the logic in buying a heavy, brutish revolver and loading it down. Makes infinitely more sense to me to buy one of these Flat Top's and only loading it up when "required". My every day load runs the aforementioned bullet 850 fps and my deer hunting load bumps it up to right at 1000 fps. Should the day come where I've killed enough elk with a rifle, I may some day load the Keith load for elk, but not likely.


Elmer casually mentioned blowing up several Colt 45's in his quest for more powerful handgun loads.

I read statements such as this on a regular basis on internet forums. I just finished reading "Sixguns" and I'll admit it took me a while to get through the entire book, I only remember a single instance in which he "blew up" a revolver. It was a Colt SA loaded with #80 powder. He wasn't developing or testing loads when it occurred, rather was participating in some revelry on the 4th of July by firing his revolver in the air. He attributed the incident to a 45 Colt case that was weakened by repeated use with black powder. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong.

35W

[MakeMineA10mm]

Funny you should mention that, John.

I was thumbing through a couple older magazines and a newer one while waiting for the brass to run through the tumbler to clean up this morning. As I was reading through "loads with such-and-so powder" or maybe "new powders in this old cartridge" type articles, I noticed that a majority of the time, the authors are exclusively commenting on the max loads. Little to no attention to the blander "plinking," "target," or "comfortable" loads. Seems like when a magazine author is reviewing a new powder or maybe a new brand of powders, they HAVE to publish the hottest loads to show that this powder (or brand) is better (or "raises the bar," or "opens new vistas," or whatever) than all the rest. Suspiciously similar to how every time a new powder is released by a company, loads with that powder almost always seem to develop more velocity than any of that brand's older powders...

Seems to me, folks who gravitate toward the 44 Special are not the super-powerful-loads type people. Just as you pointed out, we may like having the option of an authoritative load on tap, but it is a "sufficiently authoritative" load, not something that we hope will dislocate our arm when it goes off. For most of our shooting, let's say our "enjoyment shooting," we like the low muzzle pressure of the big-bore with the low recoil of a moderate load in a somewhat weighty handgun. These Ruger FTs in 44 Spl. are perfect.

At work, we carry semi-autos, and about 2/3 of our officers carry 40s. The muzzle pressure and recoil (especially the muzzle flip) of the heavy loads in a small-frame gun make qualifying challenging. I've been having the officers with difficulty, try out my 45ACP. Large frame distributes the recoil over a larger area. The slight weight increase is almost exclusively in the slide, partially lessening muzzle flip. The lower muzzle pressure from both the bigger bore and the lower max pressure of the loads, and suddenly mediocre shooters become pretty good shots... I've converted over one officer and have another thinking hard about it. The ironic thing with officers is, they think the harder the gun kicks, the more lethal it is, so they want the hard-to-shoot guns from a misplaced psychological thought... It's a huge irony when I think back 25 years ago when I started and everyone thought the 45 was an arm-ripper because we were all carrying 38s back then...

[DougGuy]

I don't know where those guys are getting 20,000psi max from. 23,000psi is SAAMI for .45 ACP +P which the flattop .45 is rated for as well as the New Vaquero (on the medium frame).

According to this thread: http://www.rugerforum.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=159225&start=15. "Brian Pearce has written more recently that Ruger approves the .45 acp cylinder in the New Vaquero/Flattop to plus P pressure of 23,000 psi. He wrote that Ruger verified that pressure rating with him and yet, officially, Ruger says nothing and the internet continues to abound with people arguing pressure limits ranging from not more than 14,000, to 20,000, to 21,000, to (grudgingly) 22,000 and even a few hardy souls who say 23,000 is OK. Since most everyone seems to agree that the edge of safe pressure is somewhere north of 20,000, but not too far north, it would seem that someone would want to actually verify where that edge is. It makes the most sense that Ruger would want to do so, at least to me. I'm sure they have and just keep quiet."

[MakeMineA10mm]

Thanks for that link, Doug. Yeah, it's a little frustrating not knowing where you're at. One thing we could do is fall back on the good old tried-and-true method of looking for pressure signs and measuring expansion rings on the base of the case to look for signs.

Interestingly, I went back and re-read the Brian Pearce article from 2006 that I linked above, and he mentions that the Ruger 357-frame 3-screw guns converted to 44 Specials by custom gunsmiths would fall into the 25,000psi Category III. I missed that when I posted above. That is an interesting statement, considering this whole question of safe max pressure levels...

I just loaded today some of my 267gr Heavy Keith SWCs to test. I loaded a dozen or so with 15.0grs of AA#9, which should be right below the 22,000psi limit, and I loaded 6-7 with 15.5grs of Alliant 2400, which is slightly warmer pressure-wise than the old Hercules 2400, so I'm guessing it is around 23,000psi. When the snow quits flying and I can get to the range, I'll get some velocities, which will also clue us in on pressures somewhat.

[DougGuy]

Interesting about the converted .357 guns. I wasn't trying to steer this thread to the .45 pressures, the original topic was about the .44 special and how much pressure the flattop can handle, so I used the .45 ACP +P rating of 23,000psi and because the .44 cylinder is thicker, it should be perfectly safe to that figure, and likely to 25,000psi as well but as stated several times already, by the time you get to that pressure, might as well be shooting the .44 magnum.

[Boogieman]

Elmer told of blowing up a 45 colt SAA with a 300gr 45-90 bullet over 35gr. of 3f Black.

[Dale53]

If you want the "real" story, read Brian Pearce's article on the .44 Lipsey Special in the June/July 2009 issue of the Handloader.

I have been a student of the .44 Special for better than 60 years. Elmer Keith's load with solid head cases is 17.0 grs. of 2400 (in Single Action Colts and S&W Model 24's, etc.) is at the 25,000 psi level and is given in the NRA article (I have a pdf of that article). The Ruger is good with that load (as a safe maximum).

Me, my hunting days are behind me and I am quite happy with the Skeeter load (7.5 grs. of Unique behind a 250 gr Keith). However, if I were to be backpacking in bear country like the old days, I would NOT hesitate to run the Keith load (or equivalent with H110) in my Lipsey Special or Talo Special. I have been awakened on more than one occasion in the middle of the night by a black bear in the mountains. A good handgun has always been a comfort.

I have also learned by experience, that a good .44 Special works well on something as small as a cottontail or grouse, too, without excessive meat damage. And-d-d, you do NOT have to shoot them twice:smile:. It is extremely good as a general field pistol for most anything needed.

http://i269.photobucket.com/albums/jj80/Dale53/Texas%20Ranger%20and%20Ruger%20Flattop%20Selects-5_1600x1067.jpg (http://s269.photobucket.com/user/Dale53/media/Texas%20Ranger%20and%20Ruger%20Flattop%20Selects-5_1600x1067.jpg.html)

FWIW
Dale53

[John Van Gelder]

I read years ago about Elmer Keith blowing up a Colt SAA, and as I recal that section from his book the case failed and blew the loading gate off. The old folded head cases, were not as strong as the solid head design. When I started off a s a policeman in Alska we were carrying mod. 19 S&Ws, loaded with the old plated Super X 158 gr. bullets, those loads were in the upper 40K range. The chamber walls are pretty thin on the 19.

The flat top Ruger .44 will probably take a lot more than 22,000, but why go there. I have taken a lot of small game using the 246 gr. round nose bullet and there is very little tissue destruction, and the old factory loading is very pleasant to shoot. With a heavy bullet in the 950 fps range the spl. is a good big game load.

Using the taylor formula, the old factory .44 mag load 240 gr/1400 fps rates a 20 the Spl. with 255 gr. bullet at 1150, ( I think that we all agree a safe load) gives a 17.

I guess the point here is how much do you need. A 700 fps .44 spl load surgicaly placed behind the ear of big game animal will produce a more satisfying result than the same animal hit below the diaphram with a .500 S&W.

[Larry in MT]

[QUOTE=44MAG#1;1974677]In the same vein as the post by 35Whelan what would be the SAFE max pressure for that gun and what do the readers base that on?
This is more a curiosity question.
Remember what is everyone basing that on? Not just a "shot in the dark" answer.
Can it be loaded close to the same pressure as the 45 Colt in a Blackhawk? Not the same but approaching the same pressure?
Why if so and why if not.[/QUOTE

Brian Pearce answers this question pretty well in issue #260 of Handloader Magazine (July, 2009). When I bought my TALO Flattop I bought it from Handloader's back issue inventory. Brian gets more velocity with his 2400 loadings than I'm seeing, but the loads are all listed there for you to try and Handloader was confident enough of their accuracy and safety to publish them.

[Piedmont]

I'm no engineer or anything but the way I look at this is these Ruger .44 spls are strong guns. Elmer Keith and many of the .44 Associates back in the 30s, 40s and 50s were hot loading the .44 special Colt single actions and S&W DAs. I just read tonight in old magazine Elmer stating he carried a Colt SAA for 30 years. Probably the last 20 or so of that was a .44 Special with warm loads. A standard hot load with Hercules 2400 produced around 1200 fps with the 250 grain Keith bullet. Enthusiasts fired these for years. When the .44 Mag came around many decided to just use the larger cylindered (compared to a Colt SAA) guns for the warmer loads.


These medium frame Ruger single actions are a tad stronger than a Colt SAA. They are very similar in dimensions but just a bit more metal in the cylinder.

[Piedmont]

An interesting thread. I have a flat top .44, and have done extensive research into .44 spl loads. SAMMI specs are low they are aimed at the "weakest link in the chain", there are still a lot of the old black powder guns out there, and the pressures listed for modern .44 spl., ammunition should be safe in those guns.

Today we have powders, that our friend Elmer did not have, that give better velocity at lower pressures than the powders of days gone by.

There are NO weak black powder .44 specials out there. The cartridge was introduced in 1907 or 1908 for the S&W New Century (triple lock) revolver. There were a few early black powder loads but it has been a smokeless cartridge all along. Now offerings like a Charter Bulldog aren't strong but they are not black powder guns. That gun appeared in the 1970s.

Our friend Elmer had Hercules 2400 from the mid 1930s on. What wonder powder will do anything markedly better than that if you wanted to push .44 Special loads?

[Piedmont]

I am currently doing a similar projject with a medium frame Vaquero or Flattop in .45 Schofield caliber, something that will use less case capacity than the .45 Colt, and should lend itself perfectly to a mid range medium/heavy boolit sixgun. This warmed over .44 Special would be almost the same effort, in a .432" version. I say go for it. There are plenty of good reasons to use a shorter case than the .44 magnum to develop that ground between factory .44 Special loads and the 23,000psi pressure ceiling.

Very cool project Doug. I have thought of doing the same thing. Decided a wadcutter mold for use in the .45 Colt case was cheaper, but who knows what the future might hold? The Schofield case is actually shorter than the .44 special. I built a Russian so you can see I like the shorter cases a lot, too.

If you aren't pushing velocities, the shorter cases have so much to offer with respect to ballistic uniformity with smaller charges of fast and medium burning powders. I no longer hunt and all my shooting is at short range, so a .45 ACP or AR or .44 Russian or Special, or a Schofield, or heck, even a .38 Special do what I need.

[Piedmont]

Combining that with the history of Ruger blowing up a medium frame 44 Magnum during original development back in 1956, plus Elmer Keith's Colt SAA stories, and I'm sticking with Pearce's Category II loads. I figure the extra "meat" of the 44 cylinder & chamber walls vs. the 45 Convertible's would account for up to 2000 more psi, but probably little to no more. I'm not comfortable going to the 25,000 psi because that's a full 25% over what Ruger says is acceptable on their 45 convertible, and that sounds like a big amount over recommended max (even given the thicker walls).



It is never dumb to err on the side of caution, however, the mid frame that blew up was likely fired with .44 magnum PROOF loads, which would be way hotter than the standard 35,000 psi .44 mag loads. That is how they test the strength--proof loads. If the mid frame flattop will handle 23,000 psi and I believe that assertion is true or Ruger wouldn't have offered it with a .45 ACP cylinder without stating "no Plus P loads", loading the .44 special to 25,000 psi wouldn't bother me in the slightest.


You lost me on the reference to Elmer Keith's SAA stories. He blew up a .45 Colt or two, decided they were too weak, went to the .44 Special cartridge for the extra metal in the cylinder because of smaller holes, and loaded it hot for the next 20 or more years until the .44 magnum came out. So he certainly wasn't scared off.

[Piedmont]

I read statements such as this on a regular basis on internet forums. I just finished reading "Sixguns" and I'll admit it took me a while to get through the entire book, I only remember a single instance in which he "blew up" a revolver. It was a Colt SA loaded with #80 powder. He wasn't developing or testing loads when it occurred, rather was participating in some revelry on the 4th of July by firing his revolver in the air. He attributed the incident to a 45 Colt case that was weakened by repeated use with black powder. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong.

35W

His 4th of July story he was using a .45 Colt SAA with black powder loads. He did use #80 in .44 Special until Hercules 2400 came out in the mid 1930s.

[Ballard]

To answer the original post's question.... I'm not sure what the MAX would be. But I can tell you this. I would bet my life that Ross Seyfried and Brian Pearce's loads are not above that max.

[John Van Gelder]

H110, 296 and Lil'Gun will prodice better velocity with less pressure. There were black powder loads for the .44 Special, an original box from 1907 http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/5/51/Gunbox2.JPG

[Piedmont]

I said there were black powder loads but no black powder guns. It was invented as a smokeless cartridge. H110 and WW296 need very high pressures to even burn right, probably over 30,000psi which takes them out of the range we are discussing here (25,000 ish psi). I don't know about Lil Gun as I have never used it.

[doc1876]

most likely the Elmer stories are somewhat exaggerated, and may be the books are under quoted for whatever reason the publisher need to sell them. What I know is my conversations with several people who knew him personally, and they all say "he blew up a lot of guns". now what does that really translates into, I do not know, what I do know is that he made it better for all of us to easily compare notes, and get it right the first time. I know that the loads that I am using in my first .44 sp, are derived from those conversations, and from others who knew him and wrote down their experiences in what loads to use. I will never get to meet him, but I am glad he is there for me each time I pull a trigger on my .45 Colt or my .44 Ruger. (and my Sharps)

[MakeMineA10mm]

It is never dumb to err on the side of caution, however, the mid frame that blew up was likely fired with .44 magnum PROOF loads, which would be way hotter than the standard 35,000 psi .44 mag loads. That is how they test the strength--proof loads. If the mid frame flattop will handle 23,000 psi and I believe that assertion is true or Ruger wouldn't have offered it with a .45 ACP cylinder without stating "no Plus P loads", loading the .44 special to 25,000 psi wouldn't bother me in the slightest.
I disagree. If one believes the lore that Ruger was given some cases from the trash heap, and decided he should try to match or beat S&W to market, most (much, all?) of his development was by gosh and by golly... The earliest factory loads were a 240gr LSWC at 1400+fps. Probably developed over 40,000psi. I myself am dubious of this story, but Ruger continues to stick with it.

Proof loads are a very particular animal. It's not just throwing an extra 10% powder in the case. They are very carefully loaded and constantly spot checked by the lab, as each and every round is expected to develop an exact, specified pressure. Again, if one believes the Ruger lore, they wouldn't have easily been able to gain access to them. Remington would be the only manufacturer, and I'm guessing they would have said something to S&W had Ruger called and asked for a few thousand proof loads. Your argument is plausible, but Ruger somewhat denies it, due to their story...



You lost me on the reference to Elmer Keith's SAA stories. He blew up a .45 Colt or two, decided they were too weak, went to the .44 Special cartridge for the extra metal in the cylinder because of smaller holes, and loaded it hot for the next 20 or more years until the .44 magnum came out. So he certainly wasn't scared off.
The reference is that this was a 45 Colt SAA on a frame roughly equivalent to the medium-sized Ruger frame, so if Ruger is OK with 45ACP (23,000psi) loads, it would be an acceptable inference to switch that over to the 44 Special with thicker chamber walls. However, the example from EK, also shows it's not too hard to go beyond safe and prudent loads, so it pays to be careful.


I said there were black powder loads but no black powder guns. It was invented as a smokeless cartridge.
While your statement is 100% true and correct, it leaves out a little historical detail. The reason for the low pressure standard in the 44 Special are the triple locks under serial number 16,600 (IIRC). Their heat-treat was not as strong, and even old timers before WWII showed a distinction about this. This is a similar situation to "low-numbered" Springfield '03s. 1890 to 1915 smokeless powder guns should really be classified carefully. Many, if not most, should be thought of as "black powder guns" in terms of strength to handle warm-hot smokeless loads.

[Zouave 58]

I had a Lipsy's flat top Bisley that would handle a Keith 250 and a load of 8grns of Unique without excess pressure signs. The handgun would probably have handled more but that was enough. I have a spring time nuisance black bear problem and that was the only large bore revolver I owned at the time. (I've since replaced it with a 44 mag.)

[MakeMineA10mm]

Thanks to Dale53 and Larry for the tip about the article in Handloader 260. I get the yearly DVDs and went to the shelf and broke out the 2009 one and pulled up the article. It is an interesting quote from Brian Pearce:

"They (Ruger New Model Blackhawk 44 Specials) are constructed of modern chrome-moly 4140 steel, which usually has a Rockwell Hardness of between 36 and 38. In carefully measuring chamber wall thickness and in having some knowledge of the breaking point of this frame and cylinder, it will safely digest a steady diet of handloads that generate up to 25,000 psi, or what I termed Category Three handloads as presented in previous editions of Handloader Magazine."

That's pretty definitive. I also like that Pearce has some advanced knowledge of "the breaking point of this frame and cylinder." If he says that, I will take that to the bank.