Why no 45 Special???

[BCB]

I was just reloading some 45-270-SAA boolits into some 45 LC cases and I have some 38 Special and 44 Special cases sitting on the same bench. It dawned on me that there isn’t a 45 Special!!! Never a need for one? Or is there something like that but a different name?
Don’t beat me up too badly for asking such a question. Thanks…BCB

[ktw]

45 ACP, 45 Auto Rim and 45 Cowboy Special (http://www.cowboy45special.com/) all can be thought of as candidates for filling that niche.

-ktw

[BCB]

So, there actually is a 45 Special?...BCB

[Ricochet]

Historically it wasn't needed.

The .44 Special came about because the .44 Russian couldn't be loaded to equal black powder ballistics with the available smokeless powders of the day. The case was lengthened to accommodate a charge of smokeless that would give BP .44 Russian velocity. The .45 Colt was big enough to load to satisfactory velocity, although the original BP load gave significantly higher velocity than the 850 FPS of the smokeless loads.

Modern smokeless powders don't have the same issues.

I think one could argue that the .45 Colt actually does represent the ".45 Special," and that there wasn't a ".45 Magnum" until the .454 Casull came along. Certainly the factory .45 Colt has never been any sort of "Magnum." Many nowadays load the .45 Colt like a Magnum, but so did Elmer Keith do that with the .44 Special for many years before the .44 Magnum was officially introduced.

[KYCaster]

45 Scofield

[Bret4207]

The 45 Schofield would be the closest to a 45 Special.

I hate to be a stickler, but Ricochet I think you got it backwards. The 44 Special has way more room than needed for the smokeless even at the turn of the century to equal BP velocity. There was just an article about this in the past couple years- maybe Gun Digest or Handloader. There is no good explanation why the 44 was made longer, marketing is a distinct possibility and the chance that the weaker older guns wouldn't chamber it, ala 38 Special/357 Mag.

[Ricochet]

Here's one reference to the history of the .44 Russian, .44 Special and why the latter was lengthened: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.44_Special

Here's another: http://www.gmdr.com/lever/44rutext.htm

It's been in Barnes' Cartridges of the World from the 1964 first edition that "With the coming of the bulkier smokeless powders the 44 Russian cartridge case proved not quite large enough to permit efficient use of full charges of the new propellant. Though originally a blackpowder cartridge, the 44 Special which is about .2-inch longer than the Russian, eliminated this problem and provided more power as well, while using the same bullets as the older 44 Russian. The cartridge was introduced about 1907." (I just transcribed that straight out of an 8th Edition copy.)

As for the .45 Colt, I've always thought of it (in smokeless factory form) as a bigger equivalent of the .38 Special. :-D

[shooting on a shoestring]

Yep I have a .45 Colt BH and I see it as the "Special", and I really don't think I need the 454 Casull "Magnum" version, or the .460 S&W ridiculous magnum. The old .45 Colt is special enough.

Good question though.

Now I'm wondering when the super magnum .357 that will be 0.100" longer than the .357 will come out. Opps, I just remembered the .357 Max.

Ok, so where's the super magnum .44 (or .429) going to come out? That's the missing caliber. A 240 gr .429 bullet at say 1700 fps with about 50k psi. Yep, who's going to do that one?

There's the .32 trio of .32 Long, .32 H&R Magnum, and .327 Federal. The trio .38 spl, .357 Magnum and .357 Max. .45 Colt, 454 Casull and .460 S&W Magnum. We're missing the .44 Somebody Magnum.

[S.R.Custom]

As for the .45 Colt, I've always thought of it (in smokeless factory form) as a bigger equivalent of the .38 Special. :-D

And the Casull is it's 'magnum' counterpart. Indeed, it's interesting to note that the developments of the .44 Magnum and the .454 Casull were almost concurrent. (The Casull was unleashed on the public in 1959.)


Now what I want to know is why there was never a .44 ACP? Seems to me if you were to take a .45 ACP case, taper it a bit like a 9mm Luger, and stick a .44 caliber bullet in the end, you'd have the perfect pistol cartridge... [smilie=1:

[targetshootr]

I thought there already was a magnum 44 magnum. Must have been something I read recently but I can't place it.

[S.R.Custom]

Ok, so where's the super magnum .44 (or .429) going to come out?

It's been out for quite a while. It's called the .445 SuperMag...

http://www.handloads.com/images/cartridge/445Supermag.jpg

http://www.handloads.org/loaddata/default.asp?Caliber=445%20Supermag&Weight=All&type=Handgun&Order=Powder&Source

[Ricochet]

Ok, so where's the super magnum .44 (or .429) going to come out? That's the missing caliber. A 240 gr .429 bullet at say 1700 fps with about 50k psi. Yep, who's going to do that one?

There's the .32 trio of .32 Long, .32 H&R Magnum, and .327 Federal. The trio .38 spl, .357 Magnum and .357 Max. .45 Colt, 454 Casull and .460 S&W Magnum. We're missing the .44 Somebody Magnum.
Trim back some .444 cases to a suitable length, get somebody to chamber you a stout revolver for them, and it could be the ".44 Shoestring SuperMag."

Well, after posting this I saw it's been done.

I haven't really paid much attention to stuff that's come out since the .44 Magnum.

[454PB]

Now what I want to know is why there was never a .44 ACP? Seems to me if you were to take a .45 ACP case, taper it a bit like a 9mm Luger, and stick a .44 caliber bullet in the end, you'd have the perfect pistol cartridge...

Actually, there was. Many years ago I read an article on how to use .45 ACP cases in .44's. I had to try it, since I was quite poor and had a lot of .45 ACP brass.

The .45 brass is forced into a .44 sizing die in your press, but no shell holder. You push it completely to the "rim", then drive it out of the sizing die with a punch and hammer. Fortunately, this only has to be done once. From then on, the brass is sized normally using the shell holder for .45 ACP (RCBS #3). I made up about 150 of these, and they worked OK. The biggest problem is crimping, you need to shorten a .44 seating die for that.

[S.R.Custom]

Huh... Ya learn smething new every day. Sounds like just the trick for those bloody expensive .44 Russian cases.

[shooting on a shoestring]

Oh yeah, the ah...Shoestring Magnum...It was developed on the .38 spl case...the result of shooting the same batch of 1950s military.38 brass that Dad thought he wore out. I find that over the years, trimming now and then, the case length gets short enough to start raising the pressure on that 3 to 3.5 gr Bullseye charge, and the velocity gets up to almost 900 fps!

[Bret4207]

Here's one reference to the history of the .44 Russian, .44 Special and why the latter was lengthened: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.44_Special

Here's another: http://www.gmdr.com/lever/44rutext.htm

It's been in Barnes' Cartridges of the World from the 1964 first edition that "With the coming of the bulkier smokeless powders the 44 Russian cartridge case proved not quite large enough to permit efficient use of full charges of the new propellant. Though originally a blackpowder cartridge, the 44 Special which is about .2-inch longer than the Russian, eliminated this problem and provided more power as well, while using the same bullets as the older 44 Russian. The cartridge was introduced about 1907." (I just transcribed that straight out of an 8th Edition copy.)

As for the .45 Colt, I've always thought of it (in smokeless factory form) as a bigger equivalent of the .38 Special. :-D

I'll see if I can find the article I spoke of. That quote goes opposite of everything I'd read till now.

[Ricochet]

All I know is what I read, and it does seem counterintuitive all right.

What we need is a report from somebody who was around when the Specials were introduced.

Felix?

Molly?

[felix]

I guess it all boils down to what has been documented as such. In case capacity, I am sure the 44 special has been invented and never reported. Just the odds. ... felix

[S.R.Custom]

I was under the impression that the "specials" --and I include the .45 LC in that group-- were contrived as a means to improve cartridge performance in the just developed improved handguns of the late 19th century. Prior to that, the the dink cartridges then in common use, namely the Russians, Schofields, and Americans, were being chambered in the dink S&W 3rd model, the only real "big bore" then in existance (circa 1870)? And that they all were developed as black powder cartridges, with the exception of the .44 Spl?


Due to the lower energy density of the early semi-smokeless powders, prior efforts to convert the .44 Russian to smokeless had produced less than stellar ballistic performance. Smith & Wesson addressed this issue by lengthening the .44 Russian cartridge case design by 0.200 inch, increasing the powder capacity by 6 grains.[6] The resulting design, which S&W called the .44 Special, had a case length of 1.16 inch.[5]


Sources: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.44_Special

[Bret4207]

The problem with Wikipedia is that it's not a real solid source of info. Convienent yes, well researched- no. I have my 1926 copy of JR Matterns "Handloading Ammunition" and will relay his information, which is the oldest I have, later.

[Bret4207]

First off, last night I looked through my Henry Stebbins book "Pistols- A Modern Encyclopedia". Although printed in the early 60's the authors had experience cating back into the 'teens at least. There was no specific reference to the 44 Special being underpowered because of the 1907 powders, but there was reference to the 44 being underloaded by the factories. Stebbins claims the Specials gain over the Russin with black was 3 grains, using a compressed load, not the 6 Barnes claims. (FWIW- I've found other information in Barnes books that has been proven wrong before, I don't take his stuff as gospel) Stebbins also shows the Russian giving around 790 FPS in the top black powder loading and about 850 with smokeless. The Special goes about 850 with black, well over 1000 with smokelss.

Mr Mattern doesn't discuss why the Special was created. His comparision of the Russian and Special with black and a 246 gr bullet shows a 10 grain difference!!! Where that number came from I don't know, but it's possible it's a typo-23 vs 33 gr. :confused: Either way it's far more than the others report. Black gave the Russian 750 fps and the Special 957. The max velocity for the Russian is listed as 1011 fps with 12.0 gr #80 powder. The Special and 15.0 gr #80 gave the same 246 gr bullet 1075 fps. #5 powder gave the Russian 825 fps with 6.9 gr and the Special 950 fps with 7.5 gr. Our still current Bullseye gave the 246 Russian 680 with 4.2 gr and 857 with 6.2 in the Special.

Those are the best comparative loads listed. That data *seems to*support my recollection of that recent article that stated the Special was basically a marketing design for the new Triple Lock Smiths. IIRC the article (probably Handloaders Gil Sengel's "Cartridge Board"- my copies were packed away when I moved the shop.) stated the S+W compnay wanted a new cartridge to go with their new gun. I disticntly recall the article stating the long held belief the 44 Russian case was too small to achive good velocity with smokless made no sense. 750 fps with a 246 gr bullet and black powder was the hallmark to reach with the Russin and smokeless. Both #80 and #5 could reach and surpass those speeds. What powders were avaialble in 1905-07 I don't know, but it just doesn't make sense to me that an aditional .19 inch would make a huge difference and the factory ballistics of the Russiana nd Special were the same.

If someone else has info on this I'd love to hear it. It wouldn't be the first time a "fact" was proven wrong. The "32 Win Special was for black powder" fable was recently debunked and the "303 Savages always had .308 barrels and bullets" tale was disproven by Mattern's and others wirtings. I'm all ears!:-D

[Swagerman]

454PB, there was once a true .44 apc cartridge, made by yours truly...

Ed, there is a .44 acp of sorts...only I named it .44 APC which means .44 Auto Pistol Cartridge.

I invented and patend this cartridge back in the late 1988 or 89, have to look it up as can't remember for sure.

The cartridge brass was made from .308 rifle brass cut down, sized, and reamed to contain the .44 caliber bullets. I still have the proto-type barrel that fits the Colt .45 acp pistol or its clones...but it requires double recoil springs like the .45 Super as it shoots in the magnum velocities.

The brass cases were cut to .937 OAL and reamed to accept the bullets. Special reloading dies were made by RCBS.

Have recorded chrono data on it performance, but it is quite lengthly. It shot up to 1,500 fps with 145 grain cast bullet.

220 grain bullets were about the top out mark in bullet weight. The 175 grain bullets were about ideal to shoot as to accuracy.

Tried to interest some firearm company's but seemed like anyone who got wind of it tried to steal it from me...only the patent saved it from being copied.

However, it never went anywhere as a wonderment .44 apc break through, there are too damn many magnum cartridges out there to compete with...what was the use.

One thing I should have done was to bring it out of the magnum velocity and check it for accuracy. Guess I could still do that...but gave my Randall .45 acp pistol to my oldest son in Virginia.


Jim

[Ricochet]

Wikipedia wasn't the only reference I cited. If there's an error there, go log on and fix it, with the appropriate references they expect.

Thanks for the additional reference info!

It's funny that people nowadays tend to think of the "Specials" as shorter, less powerful alternatives to the "Magnum" cartridges. Back in the day, they were bigger versions, and smoking fast express trains and race cars were named "Specials."

[Bret4207]

Wikipedia wasn't the only reference I cited. If there's an error there, go log on and fix it, with the appropriate references they expect.

Thanks for the additional reference info!

It's funny that people nowadays tend to think of the "Specials" as shorter, less powerful alternatives to the "Magnum" cartridges. Back in the day, they were bigger versions, and smoking fast express trains and race cars were named "Specials."

I looked at the sources cited. Both you and Wikipedia go back to the same source, which looks to be a repeat of Barnes information. I'm not saying either is gospel, but until we find some contemporary info that establishes the "why?" of the Special I'm going to keep looking.

Yes, the "Special" moniker, along with "Express", have sort of morphed since the introduction of the "Magnum". I always liked cartridges with names like the "33 Poachers Pet". Much more colorfull than adding "Magnum" on the end of the name.

[Ricochet]

Like I said, thanks for looking up the "new" references!

I was just kidding about Felix and Molly being there when the Specials were brought out. (I think.)

[454PB]

Very interesting, Swagerman. I bet a 145 grain boolit at 1500 fps. would be hard on a 1911, but A Ruger P-90 might make a good platform.

I've been considering making up some more of the reduced .45 ACP brass just to do some experimenting. What stopped their use for me was the lead build up and erosion caused by shooting the shorter cases in a .44 magnum chamber. Maybe my Taurus 441 .44 special would be a test vehicle.....

[Ricochet]

Very interesting, Swagerman. I bet a 145 grain boolit at 1500 fps. would be hard on a 1911...
Not that much more momentum than a .38 Super with a 130 grain bullet going close to 1300 FPS. A bit heavier recoil spring and maybe a buffer should handle that, if the barrel lock can hold the pressure.

[willwork4ww]

I'll have to dig up the specific issue, but as I recall, Handloader lists turn of the century ballistics for the .44 Russian and Special to be all but Identical. If we apply the slightest amount of logic to the situtation, we will see that .45 ACP loads of that era were able to duplicate .45 Colt loads for velocity with alot less case capacity than the Russian/Special difference. True, there was an increase in pressure of some 4k psi, but I don't see case capacity with the new smokeless powders as being incentive enough to develop the special. I think that was entirely a marketing ploy, much as the .300WM aka .300WSM. I refer, of course to the more common 30 gr BP military loading of the Colt and not the 40 grain "heavy" Remington loading.
On the original subject, I often load the 270-SAA in .45 AR cases and occasionally .45 ACP cases. Power Pistol makes a wonderfully hard hitter with these boolits and they easily acheive "special" + velocities.

[BCB]

Always good replies to my questions. So, I guess depending on what I compare my 45LC to, it could be a 45LC Special or maybe even a 45LC Magnum. Oh well, I am sure pleased with the way it shoots the RCBS 45-270-SAA round. And what is more amazing is the fact that after 50 rounds, a quick dry patch through the barrel and the barrel is shiny--zero leading. Thanks for all the replies...BCB

[9.3X62AL]

I've always kinda scratched my head over Barnes' assertion about the 44 Special/44 Russian and the "bulkier smokeless powder" bit. "Counter-intuitive" is right.

One thing for sure--owning a Ruger BisHawk in 45 Colt makes a 44 Magnum handgun all but superfluous. I was never deeply infected with "Magnumitis", and have long believed that the 45 Colt in blackpowder trim (255 grain lead boolit @ 1000 FPS) was pretty much state of the art until the 357 Magnum came along, and remains a right fine handgun round for general field and defensive use. The only "knock" on the 45 Colt case is its rather small rim radius (compared to 44 Special/44 Magnum)--the 44s are potentially more reliably extracted by the double-action ejector stars in double-action revolvers, where the 45 Colt rims can slip past ejector stars more readily--potentially, at least. In fairness, the 45 Colt was developed as a SAA-specific chambering, to be extracted by the rod that positively engages the case at its internal base. The 44 Russian/Special/Magnum all started life as ejector star-specific cases.

Tangent concluded.

I would submit that as factory-loaded today, the 45 Colt is really a "45 Special" by another name. The blackpowder loads were "+P", while the Ruger-capable handloads are every inch and ounce a "Magnum".

[Ricochet]

I'm quite sure that Unique and Bullseye were both readily available and popular when the .44 Special came out.

[Tom Herman]

I was just reloading some 45-270-SAA boolits into some 45 LC cases and I have some 38 Special and 44 Special cases sitting on the same bench. It dawned on me that there isn’t a 45 Special!!! Never a need for one? Or is there something like that but a different name?
Don’t beat me up too badly for asking such a question. Thanks…BCB

I instantly thought of the .45 Schofield, which someone else mentioned as well.
Aside from that, the .455 Webley could be considered a ".45 Special"!
The case is shorter than the .45 LC, and it's not healthy to push it with more than 4.3 grains Unique (I run something like 5-6 grains in the .45 ACP). I rush the .45 LC with a full 8 grains of Unique.
I've been loading 255 gr. SWC's at .451" diameter through the Mark VI Webley. I finally got the RCBS 265 gr. RNHB mould in, now I'm waiting for the RCBS top punch to turn out the real thing in .455 caliber.

[Bret4207]

Not to drag up old posts, but the April 2002 Handloader ahs the article we need. Can't find mine. Anyone have access?

IIRC Gil Sengel determined the 44 Special was brought out as a companion cartridge for the New Century revolver and THAT is the reason the 44 Special came about. Ken Waters more or less backs that up.

[fatnhappy]

I'll see if I can find the article I spoke of. That quote goes opposite of everything I'd read till now.

Brian Pearce addressed it in the June issue of Handloader in his article about the Lipsey .44 special.

It's been in Barnes' Cartridges of the World from the 1964 first edition that "With the coming of the bulkier smokeless powders the 44 Russian cartridge case proved not quite large enough to permit efficient use of full charges of the new propellant. Though originally a blackpowder cartridge, the 44 Special which is about .2-inch longer than the Russian, eliminated this problem and provided more power as well, while using the same bullets as the older 44 Russian. The cartridge was introduced about 1907." (I just transcribed that straight out of an 8th Edition copy.)


Which flies in the face of reason. The .44 russian and .44 special were loaded to the same velocity with the same boolit. Smokeless propellants then and now are less bulky than black so the increase in volume is speciously required. There isn't any debate about the potential for increased performance though.

To chime in on the original question: .45 schofield. If I'm not mistaken though the long colt preceded the schofield which based on the .44's chronology would be bassackwards.

[Bret4207]

Brian, as much as I like him, just repeated the same old line that makes ZERO sense. Ken Waters does note that black powder loadings of the Special continued on till about 1926. But I need that article from Gil. I'm almost sure he had the research that showed the Special was a development for the New Century and had nothing at all to do with "smokeless not having enough room in the Russian".

Yes, I know-"Bret, it's been a year and a half. You're still thinking about this?!?!?!" I'm nothing if not persistent.

[ddixie884]

I read somewhere, just the other day that all the special cartridges were designed to be factory loaded with smokless and reloaded with black. This article, I don't remember where, said smokless was not available to the public in the early days of its use. This article said all the specials, including rifle cartridges fell into this category. I'm not saying this is true, I just read it.

[Dale53]

Bullseye was available when the .44 Special first hit the scene. So, the "extra" capacity had NOTHING to do with needed "smokeless capacity". It allowed a few more grains of black but did not materially increase the velocity of the bullet used in both.

I have always wondered why they didn't give it a couple hundred more feet of velocity with the original smokeless loadings - they had a solid frame revolver and the new cartridge. You would think that they would have jumped all over the extra capacity and velocity for marketing reasons.

Dale53

[StarMetal]

The number one cartridge when the 44 Special was developed was the 45 Colt. Smith built the 44 Special with intentions of eclipsing the 45 Colt, but got cold feet and loaded basically to 44 Russian standards.

Joe

[NickSS]

The 45 colt round came first and the first loads delivered to the army were loaded with 40 gr of BP. Field reports showed that this load was too powerful for the average Calvary man so the charge was dropped to 35 gr in the army arsenal. This remained the load for several years. The original colts were bought for the Calvary. Several years later the Army bought a batch of S&W No 3 Revolvers with the Schofield latch modification to the original design. This gun was in 45 cal but the cartridge cases were shorter and the rim bigger in diameter. This cartridge is known as the 45 Schofield today. It was shorter due to cylinder length reasons and the rim bigger to accommodate the S&W star extractor of the brake open revolver. The S&W revolvers were bought for field artillery units. The army loaded both rounds for a few years but then ran into trouble with 45 Colt rounds being sent to field artillery units and vice versa. So in typical military manor the quite making both cartridges and came out with their own design which was the length of the Schofield round with a slightly smaller rim. The load settled on was 28 gr of BP and a 230 gr bullet. This remained the Army loading for both pistols for the rest of their service life. You could say that the Schofield is the special version of the 45 Colt or the 45 colt is the Magnum version of the 45 Schofield. Take your pick.

[9.3X62AL]

Bret et al--

Insomnia in full effect here, I have the Gil Sengel article you mention, pp. 18-21 of the April 2002 "Handloader". The article deals with the 44 Russian's history, obliquely referencing the 44 Special from time to time.

Quotes to follow, germane to the subject under discussion--

pp.20--"Winchester's 1918 issue [catalog] shows its first published muzzle velocities for revolver cartridges. Only smokeless loads are listed. The 44 Russian with a 246 grain bullet records 679.6 fps from a 6-inch barrel. Entry for the 44 Special with the same bullet 755.1 fps from a 5-inch barrel."

pp. 21--"Loading of the 44 Russian round continued until at least 1954 when the only carridge listed by Winchester pushed a 246-grain lead roundnose at a published 755 fps from a 6-1/2-inch test barrel. This is exactly the same bullet and muzzle velocity shown for the 44 Special."

pp.21--"There is no particular reason why the 44 Russian was lengthened some 0.2 inch in 1908 to produce the 44 Special. If one wanted more power, the 45 S&W (Schofield) already existed. So did the 45 Colt. It was, perhaps, that new, longer rounds were wanted for smokeless loading that could not accidently be chambered in old, mild steel and iron revolvers. Nevertheless, during the black-powder era, if one wanted power, accuracy, ease pf loading/reloading and rapidity of fire, nothing could remotely compare with the Smith & Wesson Model No. 3 44 Russian."

What Mr. Sengel left unsaid--after stating that the 45 S&W was more powerful than the 44 Russian--was that the S&W Schofield top-break also had a stronger latching system than the No. 3. Perhaps accuracy was an issue, but I think the Schofield would make a better and more powerful and reliable combat arm.

I tend to agree with Mr. Sengel's conclusions, and to disagree wholly with Frank Barnes' bit concerning "bulkier smokeless powders". I would also submit that handgun shooters 100 years ago were a lot more prone to increase a revolver's caliber to increase its striking energy than they were to increase its velocity, since many of them were still ingrained with the idea of the limits imposed by black powder, and that 1000 FPS was about as good as could get with most revolver calibers. Having "hit a wall" on velocity potential, and knowing that increasing bullet weight was another law of diminishing returns in black powder revolvers after sectional density of about .200-.210 was achieved........all that was left was to increase diameter. Not a bad thing at all, since this third element (frontal area) is the only factor of the ballistic equation (velocity/projectile weight/frontal area) that squares itself objectively as it increases on a linear scale. Yeah, I'm a great fan of Hatcher--for that last observation, mostly. His theory squares the factor that the real world squares--and the real world results track pretty closely with it, too.

[oldhickory]

Shhhh!...Don't give the nuts at the ammo factories any ideas or they'll be peddling yet another wonder cartridge, doing their best to convince us that it's just what we need.

[Bret4207]

Thanks Al. Does he mention the New Century (Triple Lock) and something about designing a new cartridge for the new gun at the turn of the new century? If not I have to try and remember where I read it.

[StarMetal]

Bret et al--

Insomnia in full effect here, I have the Gil Sengel article you mention, pp. 18-21 of the April 2002 "Handloader". The article deals with the 44 Russian's history, obliquely referencing the 44 Special from time to time.

Quotes to follow, germane to the subject under discussion--

pp.20--"Winchester's 1918 issue [catalog] shows its first published muzzle velocities for revolver cartridges. Only smokeless loads are listed. The 44 Russian with a 246 grain bullet records 679.6 fps from a 6-inch barrel. Entry for the 44 Special with the same bullet 755.1 fps from a 5-inch barrel."

pp. 21--"Loading of the 44 Russian round continued until at least 1954 when the only carridge listed by Winchester pushed a 246-grain lead roundnose at a published 755 fps from a 6-1/2-inch test barrel. This is exactly the same bullet and muzzle velocity shown for the 44 Special."

pp.21--"There is no particular reason why the 44 Russian was lengthened some 0.2 inch in 1908 to produce the 44 Special. If one wanted more power, the 45 S&W (Schofield) already existed. So did the 45 Colt. It was, perhaps, that new, longer rounds were wanted for smokeless loading that could not accidently be chambered in old, mild steel and iron revolvers. Nevertheless, during the black-powder era, if one wanted power, accuracy, ease pf loading/reloading and rapidity of fire, nothing could remotely compare with the Smith & Wesson Model No. 3 44 Russian."

What Mr. Sengel left unsaid--after stating that the 45 S&W was more powerful than the 44 Russian--was that the S&W Schofield top-break also had a stronger latching system than the No. 3. Perhaps accuracy was an issue, but I think the Schofield would make a better and more powerful and reliable combat arm.

I tend to agree with Mr. Sengel's conclusions, and to disagree wholly with Frank Barnes' bit concerning "bulkier smokeless powders". I would also submit that handgun shooters 100 years ago were a lot more prone to increase a revolver's caliber to increase its striking energy than they were to increase its velocity, since many of them were still ingrained with the idea of the limits imposed by black powder, and that 1000 FPS was about as good as could get with most revolver calibers. Having "hit a wall" on velocity potential, and knowing that increasing bullet weight was another law of diminishing returns in black powder revolvers after sectional density of about .200-.210 was achieved........all that was left was to increase diameter. Not a bad thing at all, since this third element (frontal area) is the only factor of the ballistic equation (velocity/projectile weight/frontal area) that squares itself objectively as it increases on a linear scale. Yeah, I'm a great fan of Hatcher--for that last observation, mostly. His theory squares the factor that the real world squares--and the real world results track pretty closely with it, too.


Dunno Al, You know S&W was never happy chambering a Colt cartridge in their revolvers, so thus the reason to get more power out of a longer 44 case. I don't agree with not wanting a more powerful cartridge being used in an incorrect weaker revolver, because frankly I don't think they thought about safety all that much back then. Look at how many years it took to rid of the pump rifles and shotguns of being able to fire steady by holding the trigger back and pumping the action. Also how long it took for revolvers to have something like the transfer bar come along.

I feel S&W was going after Colt's big bad 45 and then chickened out.

Joe

[S.R.Custom]

Word up.

[Whitworth]

Historically it wasn't needed.

The .44 Special came about because the .44 Russian couldn't be loaded to equal black powder ballistics with the available smokeless powders of the day. The case was lengthened to accommodate a charge of smokeless that would give BP .44 Russian velocity. The .45 Colt was big enough to load to satisfactory velocity, although the original BP load gave significantly higher velocity than the 850 FPS of the smokeless loads.

Modern smokeless powders don't have the same issues.

I think one could argue that the .45 Colt actually does represent the ".45 Special," and that there wasn't a ".45 Magnum" until the .454 Casull came along. Certainly the factory .45 Colt has never been any sort of "Magnum." Many nowadays load the .45 Colt like a Magnum, but so did Elmer Keith do that with the .44 Special for many years before the .44 Magnum was officially introduced.


Good answer!

[BCall]

The 44 russian to 44 special delimma was covered in the August 2009 issue of Handloader by Dave Scovill in the Reloaders Press section. In it he states that the 44 lengthening the Russian to special for bulky smokeless powder has no proof, and possibly was referring to lengthening the 44 American, which had an outside lubricated bullet, to encluse the lubrication and still provide enough powder capacity. That is speculation. Some 44 Russian rounds were also outside lubricated, so lengthening may have eliminated that. He tested some powder charges in some old ammo and found no proof for the claim of lengthening for smokeless loads.

As an aside, he also mentions that the 1905 Winchester catalog states in no uncertain terms that the 32 Win Special was loaded by the factory with smokeless powder but was designed to be HANDLOADED with black powder.

If anybody would like a copy of the article, I would be happy to e-mail a scan to you. I don't want to post it, and I darn sure ain't gonna type the whole thing. HTH, Billy

[StarMetal]

The 44 russian to 44 special delimma was covered in the August 2009 issue of Handloader by Dave Scovill in the Reloaders Press section. In it he states that the 44 lengthening the Russian to special for bulky smokeless powder has no proof, and possibly was referring to lengthening the 44 American, which had an outside lubricated bullet, to encluse the lubrication and still provide enough powder capacity. That is speculation. Some 44 Russian rounds were also outside lubricated, so lengthening may have eliminated that. He tested some powder charges in some old ammo and found no proof for the claim of lengthening for smokeless loads.

As an aside, he also mentions that the 1905 Winchester catalog states in no uncertain terms that the 32 Win Special was loaded by the factory with smokeless powder but was designed to be HANDLOADED with black powder.

If anybody would like a copy of the article, I would be happy to e-mail a scan to you. I don't want to post it, and I darn sure ain't gonna type the whole thing. HTH, Billy

The 32 Special was designed that you could use BP to reload it, not that it had to be reloaded with it. You could load it both ways.

Joe

[9.3X62AL]

Yes, Bret--Mr. Sengel made direct reference in this article to the development of the Triple Lock by 1908 and the simultaneous birthing of the 44 Special chambering for that new N-frame platform. Your recollection is quite accurate.

Joe, you may be right as to S&W "chickening out" from the chase to meet the 45 Colt's blackpowder performance. That is as good an explanantion as any for keeping the 44 Special such a milque-toast loading for so stinkin' long. They DEFINITELY changed direction in 1935 with the first 357 Magnum--running some rather intrepid pressures to get the 158 grain bullets to 1400 FPS+. I'm willing to believe that metallurgy advanced between 1908 and 1935, but there is still absolutely zero reason that a Triple Lock or other N-frame S&W/New Service Colt/Single Action Army after WWI couldn't have been run with 240 grain bullets to 1100 FPS, a thing done quite safely and regularly by gunwriters like Elmer Keith and his ilk. Maybe even a little harder. The 38 Outdoorsman series N-frame S&Ws (predecessors to the 357 Magnums) had STIFF factory loads available to feed them--why not the 44 Special?

It might be as simple as this--corporate wonks thought that recoil of gassed-up 44 Specials was just too much for most customers, that the 357 Magnum or 45 Colt or 45 Auto Rim was as much as most buyers wanted. There is a grain of validity to that--the Magnum 41 and 44 revolvers by S&W didn't sell really well until after Clint Eastwood's "Dirty Harry" took the calibers "mainstream" and out of the realm of Cranks Like Us who have a more esoteric turn of mind, firearms-wise. Think how many Model 29/629 revos you've seen that were fired between 6 and 50 rounds, then sold a bit later after their buyers got a taste of 44 Magnum recoil with those target stocks in place. Even Elmer Keith said, "1200 FPS is all you need." Tell ya what--in a 4" M-29, it's about all I want, too.

Just random thoughts from one of The Cranks.

[StarMetal]

Yes, Bret--Mr. Sengel made direct reference in this article to the development of the Triple Lock by 1908 and the simultaneous birthing of the 44 Special chambering for that new N-frame platform. Your recollection is quite accurate.

Joe, you may be right as to S&W "chickening out" from the chase to meet the 45 Colt's blackpowder performance. That is as good an explanantion as any for keeping the 44 Special such a milque-toast loading for so stinkin' long. They DEFINITELY changed direction in 1935 with the first 357 Magnum--running some rather intrepid pressures to get the 158 grain bullets to 1400 FPS+. I'm willing to believe that metallurgy advanced between 1908 and 1935, but there is still absolutely zero reason that a Triple Lock or other N-frame S&W/New Service Colt/Single Action Army after WWI couldn't have been run with 240 grain bullets to 1100 FPS, a thing done quite safely and regularly by gunwriters like Elmer Keith and his ilk. Maybe even a little harder. The 38 Outdoorsman series N-frame S&Ws (predecessors to the 357 Magnums) had STIFF factory loads available to feed them--why not the 44 Special?

It might be as simple as this--corporate wonks thought that recoil of gassed-up 44 Specials was just too much for most customers, that the 357 Magnum or 45 Colt or 45 Auto Rim was as much as most buyers wanted. There is a grain of validity to that--the Magnum 41 and 44 revolvers by S&W didn't sell really well until after Clint Eastwood's "Dirty Harry" took the calibers "mainstream" and out of the realm of Cranks Like Us who have a more esoteric turn of mind, firearms-wise. Think how many Model 29/629 revos you've seen that were fired between 6 and 50 rounds, then sold a bit later after their buyers got a taste of 44 Magnum recoil with those target stocks in place. Even Elmer Keith said, "1200 FPS is all you need." Tell ya what--in a 4" M-29, it's about all I want, too.

Just random thoughts from one of The Cranks.


You're right Al, I've see many of my friend sell a 4 inch Model 29 real fast. Those were light revolvers for such a recoiling round. The longer barrels were much nicer shooting. My Model 25 45 Colt with the 8 3/8 barrel is such a putty cat to shoot.

Joe

[oldhickory]

You're right Al, I've see many of my friend sell a 4 inch Model 29 real fast. Those were light revolvers for such a recoiling round. The longer barrels were much nicer shooting. My Model 25 45 Colt with the 8 3/8 barrel is such a putty cat to shoot.

Joe

Most folks who buy/bought 4" .44 magnums didn't figure on hand loading, much less casting for them.

When I was looking for a powerful 4" revolver to carry around the old place, the first to come to mind was a S&W M25, 4" .45 Colt. Seemed like the perfect balance of carryability and power to me, I just wanted something with more "Oooomph!" than a .45 Auto, yet not going overboard in the size-weight factor either. I wanted something that would throw a 250gr boolit about 900-1000fps, and do it in a compact package. Only trouble was, a 4" Smith M25 wasn't to be found at the time.

Then a dealer friend of mine said, "Why not a 4" S&W 629? I can get you one of those tomorrow for $325.00...Tax included." (this was 1991)

I reluctantly agreed and sure enough, the next day he had the stainless 4" .44 mag. sitting on the counter waiting on me, along with a set of dies, 2lbs. of 2400, and an RCBS 429250K mold! Larry was a great guy, but I had to run to the bank for more money!:grin:

I load my .44 like I would if it were a .45 Colt, 250gr. boolit at around 1000fps. It'll take care of anything I happen upon on the ridge with very managable recoil.

[Bret4207]

Yes, Bret--Mr. Sengel made direct reference in this article to the development of the Triple Lock by 1908 and the simultaneous birthing of the 44 Special chambering for that new N-frame platform. Your recollection is quite accurate.

.

Thanks very much Al. I knew I'd seen that someplace. So the 44 Special was a marketing ploy to go with the Triple Lock. That makes a lot more sense than the oft repeated line about the Russian not having enough room for smokeless.