How much power?

[txbirdman]

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

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

[waksupi]

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

[Ricochet]

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

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

[NickSS]

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

[Shiloh]

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

Geez Waksupi,

Touche' !!

Great insight sir!!

Shiloh

[oldhickory]

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

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

[fecmech]

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

[txbirdman]

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

[beagle]

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

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

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

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


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

[fatnhappy]

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



I think Ric pretty well sums up my opinion.

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

[targetshootr]

Here's some more Keith articles.

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

[Bret4207]

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

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

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

[Dale53]

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

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

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

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

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

FWIW
Dale53

[sliverpicker]

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

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

FWIW
Dale53 Very well put, Dale. For me to write more would be superfluous.

[missionary5155]

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

[Lloyd Smale]

if all your ever going to hunt is animals under 500 lbs youll do fine with a 240-250 at 900-1000 fps. Pushing one any faster is gaining you much if anything. Ive shot lenghtwise through 150 lb deer with loads like that in the 45 colt and 44s. They would probably sufice for elk too but id probably go with a little more bullet when a big elk was on the table.
I was reading a 1929 article written by Elmer Keith in which he described his famous Keith #5 and the .44 bullet (429421) he used in it. He was using Dupont #80 powder and was achieving 1100 fps or so he thought. While it doesn't appear that Mr. Keith was necessarily what we would call a "handgun hunter" today he did use it to take big game animals of opportunity and seemed to think this combination acceptable for deer. In this article he expressed that he would like to have a better powder to achieve better velocity. From what I've read he was looking for about 1200 fps. I also remember reading somewhere that John Linbaugh said his wife used a .44 Special loaded to about 900 fps to take a cow elk.

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

[44man]

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

[Whitworth]

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


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

[targetshootr]

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

[44man]

We've come a long way technologically since Elmer Keith's day and if you can recall, he was a big proponent of heavy-for-caliber bullets. I think that if Elmer Keith were alive today, he would be packin' a .500 Linebaugh, pushing a big, fat, heavy bullet at real moderately velocities and the .429 mag would be collecting dust in the safe........:mrgreen:
How very true! Elmer liked big guns but no revolver maker ever dreamed of what we have now. They thought the .357 was pushing things and it took some convincing to bring out the .44 mag.
He would have jumped with glee over a .475 Linebaugh that has half the drop at 200 yards that the .44 does and can do it with a 420 gr boolit.
A big .500 would have him really chewing the end of his cigars! [smilie=1:
But it takes nothing away from the .44 or .45, still great calibers, we just need to expand the list and choice of even more fun guns.

[44man]

By the way, it was a LOOOONG time before anyone thought the .44 could actually shoot heavy boolits because recoil (not pressure) would beat a S&W.
And then of course, some guys still can't take the recoil of a .44 either. Too many want .44 special loads in a great gun that would make Elmer cringe! :violin:

[Piedmont]

Elmer did NOT like big handguns. I dare say he would have laughed or cussed at .44 man's huge revolvers with condom grips and optical sights. What does one of those monstosities weigh? Elmer preferred carryable handguns that could be worn all day on the belt and rifles for hunting.

The handgun was a weapon of opportunity for when he was fishing or something.

[S.R.Custom]

Now I'm wonder if we really need the big handguns with 300+ grain bullets for taking deer or not...

No... Three years ago I did a little experiment where I took a mulie with the .223 and a 55 grain soft point. Granted, I was a little more deliberate with shot placement, but that mulie dropped just as quickly as the ones I'd shot previously with the .44 magnum. Which proved --to me anyway-- that the 240 gr. bullet is about 5x as much bullet as you really need.




Elmer liked big guns but no revolver maker ever dreamed of what we have now... He would have jumped with glee over a .475 Linebaugh that has half the drop at 200 yards that the .44 does and can do it with a 420 gr boolit.
A big .500 would have him really chewing the end of his cigars!

Eh, I'm not so sure. The .454 had been out since '57 (or '59, depending on who you ask), and I don't recall reading any Elmer rapture on the matter. Like Piedmont says, Elmer was far more interested in the practical utility of handguns.

[Whitworth]

Elmer did NOT like big handguns. I dare say he would have laughed or cussed at .44 man's huge revolvers with condom grips and optical sights. What does one of those monstosities weigh? Elmer preferred carryable handguns that could be worn all day on the belt and rifles for hunting.

The handgun was a weapon of opportunity for when he was fishing or something.

Yeah, he didn't like big handguns that is why he was so involved in the development of the .44 mag. I have a .500 Linebaugh that fits quite comfortably on my hip and is no more a chore to carry than any of my Model 29s.

Optical sights? That's a red dot and doesn't magnify at all, and I don't think that Elmer would have shunned technological inovations or "condom" grips. He himself was an inovator. Those "monstrosities" don't weigh that much, but they need some heft because they kick pretty damn hard. Try shooting a .475 that's light some time for more than a few rounds.

[Piedmont]

Elmer did mention in his writings he didn't think scopes had any place on a handgun. But a red dot? Oh yeah he would have liked that (rolls eyes). Elmer did review the .454 and thought the pressures were too high.

[Whitworth]

Elmer did mention in his writings he didn't think scopes had any place on a handgun. But a red dot? Oh yeah he would have liked that (rolls eyes). Elmer did review the .454 and thought the pressures were too high.

So, you knew Elmer, huh? You know what he would have "approved of" and not? I too dislike scopes on handguns, but its a personal preference for me. The red dot, has a place in hunting, particulaly with those who don't see very well. They don't magnify at all, and they are very good in low-light conditions -- thereby extending hunt time. Do you handgun hunt, if I may be so bold as to ask?

[HollandNut]

My 44 mags , and the 480 , just seem to work better with heavy boolits ..

Elmer preferred a heavier boolit at more moderate velocities , and tho' I am no Elmer , so do I , in wheelies and rifles ..

Of course , remember the times .. Elmer was pushing the envelope in his day , just as the Linebaughs and their like are today ..

If the 45's of his day had been stronger , we'd probably have a 45 magnum of some variety from him , instead of the 44 ..

In fifty years , if we still have guns , will the gurus of the mid 21st century , be looking back at the likes of Linebaugh and the then puny 475 and 500 hotrods we have today with a wistful eye , while hefting the .75 cal six shooter throwing two ounces of lead at 2500 fps ??

[Bucks Owin]

How very true! Elmer liked big guns but no revolver maker ever dreamed of what we have now. They thought the .357 was pushing things and it took some convincing to bring out the .44 mag.
He would have jumped with glee over a .475 Linebaugh that has half the drop at 200 yards that the .44 does and can do it with a 420 gr boolit.
A big .500 would have him really chewing the end of his cigars! [smilie=1:
But it takes nothing away from the .44 or .45, still great calibers, we just need to expand the list and choice of even more fun guns.
I agree. Imagine the scores of big angry critters that have fallen to the .44/40 and .45 Colt back in "the day". Big bullets are great no matter if fast or slow. Don't know if Elmer would have packed a Linebaugh though. What if he'd used an old corroded black powder .45/70 "weak case" resized for it? :wink: Kidding aside, the list of handgun calibers has bloomed in the last decade or so and I know Elmer, Skeeter and the rest would be just as delighted and eager to try them all as the rest of us pistoleros. Me, I'm dreaming of a .500 WE to play with one day.......Dennis

[44man]

Elmer did NOT like big handguns. I dare say he would have laughed or cussed at .44 man's huge revolvers with condom grips and optical sights. What does one of those monstosities weigh? Elmer preferred carryable handguns that could be worn all day on the belt and rifles for hunting.

The handgun was a weapon of opportunity for when he was fishing or something.
That might be true but my .475 is not that heavy. But you need to be fair and realize my revolvers are my primary hunting guns, not a sidearm. I carry no rifle and that makes a big revolver very easy to carry.
I do not use optical sights, there is no magnification. I can't see the open sights anymore in the field. So the red dot works. It can't be compared to a big scope on a rifle.

[Piedmont]

44man, I do realize that about your guns and was kinda' jerkin your chain. If you and Whitworth want to use red dots or scopes, more power to you. Heck use a bow and arrow if you want!! But I do think it is wrong to say Elmer would have gone for this.

I ccw and live in a more dangerous place than Salmon, Idaho (been there, nice little town). Yet here was Elmer strapping on 43 ounces (empty) of .44 mag to carry on his belt each and every day, sun up to sun down. It seems crazy to me. He wasn't doing any shooting in town so if an expedition was planned he could easily grab his gun then, but he wore it all the time.

Part of the reason I think he wouldn't have gone with another chambering, and you have to wonder how he would have liked the 4" .45 Colt Redhawk, is he wasn't the "father" of them. The .44 mag was his baby and that is what he carried.

Whitworth, I didn't know Elmer but hung on his every word for quite a while and own most of his books, so yeah, I do have a pretty good idea what he would have gone for because he left such an extensive written record. I am now going through the two volume set Gun Notes to find exactly what he said about the .454 because I know that is where it is and want to refresh my memory. The thing is--Elmer wasn't a handgun hunter. He killed a lot of game because he was a rancher and guide for a lot of years, liked to shoot, and always packed a revolver. So what you find best for your hunting (stuff like red dots) he just didn't want any part of.

[Whitworth]

Pure conjecture that he wouldn't want any part of it. He wasn't a "handgun hunter," but he did hunt with a handgun. Do you hunt with a handgun, Piedmont? Just curious.

The fact of the matter is that we don't have one iota of a clue what Elmer Keith would have liked, approved of, disapproved of, hated, or been tickled pink by. He is unfortunately no longer with us. But, if you look back at his writings, you will note that he leaned towards heavy for caliber bullets. Did he like the Casull? Don't know. I know I don't really care that much for it in that it is normally loaded to high pressures with an emphasis on velocity, hereas I found that it performed pretty well on game with heavy bullets at moderate velocity. But, that is neither here nor there.

[stubshaft]

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


The 454 wasn't developed until after Keith died. When he was still living Dick Casull was still developing duplex and triplex loads in Colt revolvers with custom cylinders. For that matter 296 powder wasn't developed yet.

[targetshootr]

The 454 wasn't developed until after Keith died. When he was still living Dick Casull was still developing duplex and triplex loads in Colt revolvers with custom cylinders. For that matter 296 powder wasn't developed yet.

It sounds like a couple of people above would disagree.

[jh45gun]

Well as far as whitetails go my standard load of 8 grains of Unique for around 850 FPS with a 250/255 grain cast bullet which is pretty much a classic load in a 45 Colt, I figure will kill any whitetail with ease.

[stubshaft]

It sounds like a couple of people above would disagree.

I stand corrected targetshooter with respect to the 454's inception. BUT, it was still in the developement stage utilizing duplex and triplex charges.

[Piedmont]

Got a big heaping of crow for some of you boys.

March, 1973 Gunnotes.
This is a long column and i won't copy any near all of it.
"More recently, a group in Salt Lake City brought out a .454 Magnum on the old Colt single action with a specially made heat treated five shot cylinder to give more strength in the chambers.

They brought this gun out a year or more ago for a test. Three of our local police and I went out with them. The Keith 250 gr. bullet they claimed as loaded to 2,000 fps and I believe them. A sized down 300 gr. slug was loaded to 1,600 feet in the .45 Colt case. .......We shot it quite a bit but in my opinion it was far overloaded for any kind of accuracy. It spit lead or powder badly....Recoil and muzzle blast even from the 7.5" barrel was very, very heavy. I shot it quite a lot and recoil was so heavy even with a hard firm grip on the gun, that the front of the trigger guard came back and cut the skin across the back of my trigger finger.

Accuracy was mediocre. ...Unless the big load, whose pressure I would estimate at 50,000 psi, was put in a 4.5-5 pound gun, same as those .45-70 recievers, then it is to my notion and impractical weapon and one damn few men woudl even master and do accurate shooting."

Well that's the gist of it.

[Piedmont]

Whitworth, If you want to get some Keith books you can find them off bookfinder.com. Sixguns and Rifles for Large Game are two that absolutely are in a class of their own. These two Gunnotes volumes are good, too (they are just his columns from Guns & Ammo with the addition of some confidential letters that are no longer so!). Sixguns is still the best handgun book ever and it was written more than a half century ago.

You asked if I handgun hunt. Not anymore. What difference does that make concerning Keith's preferences? You also said we know Keith liked heavy bullets. Well, maybe. If you consider 220 gr. .41 and 250 gr. .44 heavy, then you are right. If not, you're wrong.

[Whitworth]

Whitworth, If you want to get some Keith books you can find them off bookfinder.com. Sixguns and Rifles for Large Game are two that absolutely are in a class of their own. These two Gunnotes volumes are good, too (they are just his columns from Guns & Ammo with the addition of some confidential letters that are no longer so!). Sixguns is still the best handgun book ever and it was written more than a half century ago.

You asked if I handgun hunt. Not anymore. What difference does that make concerning Keith's preferences? You also said we know Keith liked heavy bullets. Well, maybe. If you consider 220 gr. .41 and 250 gr. .44 heavy, then you are right. If not, you're wrong.


My question about whether or not you handgun was not for the sake of the Keith argument but rather as a result of your mocking 44man's choices in handguns and equipment. Surely anyone who hunts with handguns as primary weapons wll understand why he has chosen what he has chosen.

[Bret4207]

To get out of the "My dad can lick your dad" contest, I agree that the work done on the monster guns is the logical step forward, but it still doesn't answer the OP question. So no, you don't need a 999 magnum to cleanly take WT deer, antelope, Elk, black bear, etc, much less coyote, woodchucks and other vermin. Thing is some folks LIKE to use the big guns, just like some folks like loud Harleys and oversized pickup trucks. Makes no sense to me, but to each their own.

[BruceB]

There are two major "schools" involved here.

The first is the use of cast bullets, meaning conventional, all-one-alloy bullets like the ones most of on this Board use and love. With such bullets, penetration is pretty much a given, long narrow wound channels are a given, and placement is as important as always. Having personally used such bullets on moose and bison, I can state that a normal-weight (250 grains or so) .44 Magnum cast bullet will usually completely penetrate a bison or moose on broadside shots, and no more weight or speed is needed. By comparison, such bullets ' performance on deer is a foregone conclusion. Simple.

The second school involves the use of jacketed bullets, designed for expansion. Here, we encounter the same balancing act that's needed in rifle use of jacketed hunting bullets. More expansion equals less penetration. Stiffer construction equals less expansion equals more penetration. Bullet construction and selection become the critical factors. Using jacketed bullets in the .44 to achieve the same depth of penetration as a cast bullet requires careful thought. Some makers create stiff-jacketed softpoints or hollowpoints intended for slow expansion, while others are available which are supposed to open easily on lighter targets.

Having zero experience with jacketed bullets on game, it's my *understanding* that Hornady XTPs are stiff, while most other makes are somewhat softer. So, if I was handgun-hunting BIG game, my .44 would probably be loaded with 300-plus grains of XTPs, and I might even consider a larger cartridge.

Since cast .44 loads have worked consistently for me, I'm not going to worry about it.

[StrawHat]

But, if you look back at his writings, you will note that he leaned towards heavy for caliber bullets.

True, but he liked them because the bullet technology of the day was dismal. Nothing held together very well but the heavier ones did the best. I believe had he access to controlled expansion bullets when he was starting out he might have liked them but with the poor buulets he had, he had no choice but to use the heavy ones.

Personally, I still like heavy boolits and moderate velocity.

[44man]

To get out of the "My dad can lick your dad" contest, I agree that the work done on the monster guns is the logical step forward, but it still doesn't answer the OP question. So no, you don't need a 999 magnum to cleanly take WT deer, antelope, Elk, black bear, etc, much less coyote, woodchucks and other vermin. Thing is some folks LIKE to use the big guns, just like some folks like loud Harleys and oversized pickup trucks. Makes no sense to me, but to each their own.
Yep, don't need all the power for hunting. But the heavier the boolit the better the penetration even if shot slower. Even the .475 if loaded with HS-6 will be pleasant to shoot, have reduced recoil and is very accurate.
But let me give you the reason I like the big guns. I shoot far all year, mostly 100 yards and when I go to the club I shoot to 500 meters, the .44 drops too much, even at 200 yards it can drop 35" and if a lighter boolit is shot, it bleeds velocity too fast.
Now I have no problem shooting deer to 100 yards so a heavy boolit just works better. If I hunted with a 50 yard limit then a 250 gr would be fine.
The 420 gr .475 boolit only drops around 18" at 200 and at 400 yards it only drops a little more then a .44 does at 200, never measured it but I don't have to aim that high, kind of amazing the way it carries.
Anyway, I have different uses then most hunters, I even shoot a round ball from my Hawken at 200 meters, hit 4 chickens in a row one day off hand. :-)
Now results on deer with what I shoot is spectacular to say the least and there is almost no lost meat but I will never say the .44 is not as good, it just plain works.
I have to agree with Elmer about the .454, all that pressure, velocity and recoil is counter productive and not needed, my .475 does not kick near that hard. If you have kept track of my posts about poor performance with boolits shot too fast, you know what I mean---I don't like the .454 at all. Even the SR primer with the slow powders is wrong.
Even the recoil from the light, little Freedom .475 is not that hard to take, it is more of a heavy push then the sharp snap of the .454 so yes, I think Elmer would have loved it.
Why argue, it only depends on what you have and what you use it for and I will never pick on anyone for that.

[targetshootr]

From his '73 gun notes it sounds like his objection was that it was overloaded, same as today. He probably would've loved the 475 with a 400 gr boolit at 1200 fps for big game.

[odis]

Digging through my memory bank from years past I believe Mr. Keith started his experiment originally with the .45 colt. He switched to .44 because of the dimensions of the pistols and brass of the day. He felt that the 3006 was no better than an eagle gun. Ross Seyfreid who knew Mr. Keith felt that his Linebaugh re engineered Seville with 350 gr. 45 colt brass made by federal was what Elmer Keith was looking for back in the day. The first real hand gun hunter that was a writer that I remember was J.D. Jones and he liked the loads that he developed. I think there has been a lot of professional jealousy between writers and developers over the years and as long as a person keeps an open mind you can make your choices based on need. I really like my .357s .44s and .45s but I think that I'd like a .475 and a good .32 in single action form, maybe a .221 and 3030 barrels for my TC Hmm the list can get endless.

[EDK]

Elmer Keith carried every day because he could AND he had carried for most of his life. While he used rifles and shotguns for scheduled hunting, the holstered revolver was "the weapon of opportunity" on his belt. His early years at Durkee Oregon and other locations were life long lessons. He made his living as a rancher, trapper as well as some farming before becoming a guide and author. You don't do those things in rough country 50 or 100 miles from town, doctors, anyone except your own "ranch family" without a degree of self sufficiency beyond most people's comprehension. AND when you shoot something, you want it on the ground NOW. Being dragged by a semi wild horse or facing a range cow "on the prod" is a memory you won't forget...or heal up from soon!

He also commented about factory 44 magnum at 1400+ fps with a 240 grain bullet was a little too much of a good thing and developed his famous 22 grains of 2400 with 429421 load. There were also comments about one of the first 45/70 revolvers that he tested 'way back when.

There is a little bit of difference between a specialized hunting pistol and a carry gun. Elmer Keith and Skeeter Skelton carried their magnum revolvers...I'll follow their lead.

:cbpour::redneck::Fire:

[GLynn41]

personally from reading his stuff I wonder -- if he would be all that into the big bores- -- never will know -

[Lloyd Smale]

personaly i think elmer woud have been excited about the big bores if he was alive today but i think hed be more excited about how far the art of bullet casting has come. All the work with lubes and alloys and molds that he didnt have available to him and all the technical knowlege thats available on places like this.

[Whitworth]

personaly i think elmer woud have been excited about the big bores if he was alive today but i think hed be more excited about how far the art of bullet casting has come. All the work with lubes and alloys and molds that he didnt have available to him and all the technical knowlege thats available on places like this.

I couldn't agree with you more, Lloyd.

[machinisttx]

Personally, I don't think anything over a 250 or so grain bullet at 1000-1200 fps is necessary.....and more to the point, a 158 at around 1300-1400 will do just fine if a competent marksman is using it.

If the heart/lungs or CNS are hit, and there are holes in both sides of the animal, there just isn't much more you can do...and it doesn't really matter if it's a .458 lott or a .177 pellet gun if you know how to use it.

[waco]

wow!
i had to go get my big boy pants on to read all of that!
lots of good points though.......

[Whitworth]

Personally, I don't think anything over a 250 or so grain bullet at 1000-1200 fps is necessary.....and more to the point, a 158 at around 1300-1400 will do just fine if a competent marksman is using it.



On deer, I agree that nothing more than a 250 grainer between 1,000 and 1,200 fps is all you "need," but when you move up to game that's a bit tougher.......go big, or go home.......:grin:

[HollandNut]

Another "Elmer" quote :

If big is good , bigger is better , eh Marko ??:drinks:

[Whitworth]

Another "Elmer" quote :

If big is good , bigger is better , eh Marko ??:drinks:

Exactly!

[sixshot]

Took this Montana whitetail doe this weekend with my Lipsey's 44 special flattop, my load was the old Skeeter Skelton load, 7.5 grs of Unique (old) & the grand old 250 Keith, this load out of my 4 5/8's shortie runs about 925 fps.
I was wading in some shallow water so I could approach quietly, she jumped up at about 25 yds & started blasting through the tall grass, I was hunting some river bottom land with lots of old cottonwoods & plenty of scattered water to make walking very tough. I already had my 44 in my hand when I approached where she was hiding, I went to work on her with 2 fast shots as she blew past hme broadside, she took a couple of jumps up a little dirt bank & I triggered another shot just as she disappeared over the top.
Hurrying over where I last spotted her she was gone! I couldn't believe it, I started searching around in the tall grass & almost stepped on her, she had ran maybe 25 yds (3-4 seconds) and was down. One shot had hit her thorugh the front of the front shoulders, the other hit was centered behind the shoulder in the lungs, both shots exited, I think the last shot as she faced directly away was a miss. This is a mild, easy shooting load, very accurate & deadly on deer, if it exits do I need more power?
The Lispey's are very well made guns, Ruger done good with this one!

http://i84.photobucket.com/albums/k3/6shot_01/100_2221.jpg

Don't know if I'm saying Boise State is #1 or if I'm saying this is my first whitetail with the 44 special flattop.

http://i84.photobucket.com/albums/k3/6shot_01/100_2220.jpg

I took 2 whitetail doe's in this same area last year using a 230 gr Keith out of my 41 Bisley, both shots passed clear through as always. Placement is pretty important.

Dick

[waksupi]

Good going, Dick. Nice to see you posting again.

[waco]

should i just say......GO DUCKS!!!!
ps
very nice doe sixshot

[9.3X62AL]

Dick, Ruger did a good job on the revolver--and you did a good job WITH IT. Excellent work, sir!

I'm not about to second-guess Mr. Keith, it's not my place to extrapolate upon his writings. I don't believe I would intentionally HUNT an animal larger than deer with a handgun--I want a rifle along if I'm fortunate enough to hunt elk or larger game. It's nice having the 44 Redhawk along on berry-picking expeditions, and I actually deployed it once when a bear got froggy with us. No hostilities were joined, but had the bear pushed the issue--that rollerpistol would have sounded belt-fed, what with its cylinder contents and 2 HKS speedloaders at the ready. 240 grain soft points @ 1400 FPS for Mr. Shaggy Freebooter (thanks to John Muir for that sobriquet).

95% of my Magnum revolver shooting these days is far more sedate, with "standard weight" SWCs running 850-1000 FPS. Every so often I'll re-visit the follies of youth and light off some #358156s at 1600 FPS from the BisHawk, or empty out some of the 240 soft-points listed above to make brass for saner projects. There might be 200 of those Fire & Brimstone loads laying around now, and that might be a lifetime supply at the present rate of consumption & lack of refill to such characteristics.

[TDC]

+1 to everyone posting to this thread.....

It has had one of the most interesting debates and thoughtful exchanges I've seen to date on this website. Great collection of opinions...

I believe I can add a tab bit of experience to some of this discussion from the perspective of a long time handgun hunter. In my 66 years I've had the good fortune to kill 5 large bull elk and 4 black bear with an 8 3/8 Mod 29 44 mag.. I have also killed more deer than I'd care to count, but with a 6" Mod. 57 41 mag. I can assure the OP that a .44 mag, in the hands of a competent shooter and at reasonable range, is more than adequate for clean and quick kills on any deer, whether it be Whitetail, Mule, or Blacktail, and I believe any well designed boolit over 200 gr. will do the job. I've always used the 429431 HP'ed. for elk..

Much has been discussed about bullet placement and that's the key to any hunting success. I believe it's important to note that every animal I've put down has reacted differently when shot using the same boolit and load. Certainly with enough inconsistency to not be able to say..."this is what this caliber - with this bullet - with this load - will do and what you can expect..." There are too many factors that will blow any hypothesis like that away and I believe most experienced hunters will agree. Non-hunting shooters can theorize, but the field can be a whole different ball game....

I also found the debate about caliber interesting... For the first time, I packed a S&W 500 with a 6 1/2" bbl this year. I cast and reload and I love the gun!! However, I didn't score an elk this season to compare any result. Why did I select a larger caliber pistol when I was having success with a .44? Because I truly believe the added power of the .50 will get the job done just that much better.

As another poster mentioned, and at my age, the sight picture is getting more difficult to see clearly and new technology helps in that regard, The canyons where we have to occasionally chase fatally wounded bulls are getting ... uh ... much deeper and more remote and my knees are getting weaker. When a decision is made to shoot I want that animal to be as dead in his tracks as I can make him be. Dead is dead .... but dead in his tracks can be very difficult to achieve with elk sometimes...

JMHO.....:-)

[Edubya]

"The canyons where we have to occasionally chase fatally wounded bulls are getting ... uh ... much deeper and more remote"; TDC
I've noticed similarities and have a theory that explains some of the mystery: Gravitational pull has been increasing at a very low percentage over the years. Your canyons are giving in to gravity and those elk are getting heavier.
EW

[Whitworth]

Dick, Ruger did a good job on the revolver--and you did a good job WITH IT. Excellent work, sir!

I'm not about to second-guess Mr. Keith, it's not my place to extrapolate upon his writings. I don't believe I would intentionally HUNT an animal larger than deer with a handgun--I want a rifle along if I'm fortunate enough to hunt elk or larger game.


I have taken game with my .338 win mag, .458 win mag, .416 Remmie, .458 Lott, etc., and I don't feel I am giving up anything with my .475 Linebaugh -- save for maybe range, but that is it.

[aaalaska]

I use 300 gr hard cast in my redhawk most of the time, but if I only had to contend with moose and black bears I would probably drop tp the 240 to 265 weights.
Alex

[sixshot]

aaalaska, have you ever had to contend with anything else? Just wondering.

Dick

[Angus]

I cant imagine 19grs of 2400 under a 215gr SWC out of my Blackhawk will have any problem dispatching anything that lives here in the northeast. We have some sizable black bear, but I'm sure they'll get perforated just as effectively as the local whitetail.

[machinisttx]

On deer, I agree that nothing more than a 250 grainer between 1,000 and 1,200 fps is all you "need," but when you move up to game that's a bit tougher.......go big, or go home.......:grin:

The original blackpowder load for .45 Colt was said to fully penetrate a large black bear on a broadside shot...

It is my opinion that if you "need" more power than what I've previously stated, you really should have brought a rifle. You'll either generate excessive recoil, or a gun that is so large or heavy that it negates the entire purpose of a handgun---an extreme example is the .500 S&W. The gun weighs over four pounds IIRC...some rifles weigh only slightly more and have more power, not to mention range.

[StrawHat]

The original blackpowder load for .45 Colt was said to fully penetrate a large black bear on a broadside shot...

I know a 454424 over a case full of fffG will penetrate a whitetail from stem to stern. I would imagine the old RN would do the same.

[Dale53]

When the U.S. Army adopted the .45 Colt, the original black powder load was said to penetrate a horse at 100 yards. That is NOT urban myth.

The Keith bullet will give considerably more "stopping power" but, no doubt, less penetration due to the wide meplat compared with the "pointy" bullet in the original load. However, I can testify that a 250 gr .44 Keith will penetrate a whitetail from front to rear, and I would expect a similar bullet out of a .45 Colt to do the same.

I have considerable experience with the black powder .45 Colt. However, my experience with it on game is nil. It just so happens that all of my deer have been taken with a .44 magnum. On the other hand, I wouldn't hesitate a "new York Minute" to use one of my .45 Colts (black or smokeless) on deer if the opportunity presented itself.

FWIW
Dale53

[txbirdman]

I want to thank everyone for their participation and insites provided in this thread. The concensus seems to be that the combination of a 250 Keith SWC at 1100 fps is more than adequate to take a whitetail at 70 yds or less. Certainly accuracy is most important and for me it's easier to shoot a moderate load accurately than a max load in the 44. Also it was correctly stated that the LBT design bullets required the extra velocity/power to perform as they should. It's been my experience that the Keith SWC performs quite well at all velocities and the extra powder space provided by the LBT designs is not needed in this moderate loading. If we were talking elk or other larger game then I too would want the additional power (I've taken a couple of elk with rifles and am fully aware that it sometimes takes a lot to put them on the ground). Here in Texas where I hunt whitetails or feral hogs are the only "big game" animals so I'll be packin' the Blackhawk flattop on opening day, tomorrow. Hopefully I'll get to see first hand how it works.

[Dale53]

txbirdman;
We will be with you on opening day in spirit, if not in the flesh.

Good shooting!

Dale53

[Slow Elk 45/70]

If you do your part......21gr of 2400 and the 429421 will dispatch most of the game we normally shoot. When around the big bears, I do load 300 gr boolits, for better penetration.
JMHO

[jh45gun]

I want to thank everyone for their participation and insites provided in this thread. The concensus seems to be that the combination of a 250 Keith SWC at 1100 fps is more than adequate to take a whitetail at 70 yds or less.

I don't figure you need that much velocity the loads that mimic black powder loads will get the job done with a nice flat nose bullet. My Unique load of 8 grains with a 250/255 grain bullet in a 45 colt that is supposed to be 850 to 900 fps will work just fine to kill a whitetail.

[Thumbcocker]

This thread illustrates why I make castboolits by cyber home. A well thought out discussion by experienced people on a topic that they feel strongly about with everyone being civil to each other. In short the folks involved demonstrated CLASS. After recent experiences on other boards I really appreciate you all a LOT.

I though about adding some of my hunting expereices and recallections of Elmer's writings to this thread; but there is no reason to do so. Others who posted have done more than I have for longer than I have. It has been a pleasure to follow this thread.