View Single Post
 
Old 08-28-2010, 01:11 AM
Gun 4 Fun Gun 4 Fun is offline
SWCA Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Michigan
Posts: 6,027
Likes: 1,061
Liked 774 Times in 375 Posts
Default

I understand all the arguments both for, and against heavyweight bullets in the .44, and at one point or another have, or do agree with all of them.

For deer you don't need anything more than Keith's original design for clean kills, BUT........ depending on where you live or hunt, you may have to take hard quartering angles, either to or away from you, to puncture the boiler room, and maybe break a shoulder joint on the way through before reaching the vitals. That's when a bit more weight comes in handy. We don't all have private land to hunt on and sometimes we have to take less than textbook ideal broadside shots if we want meat in the freezer for the winter. (Not unethical shots, but not ideal either)

For bigger animals, or those about the size of a big deer but much more stoutly built like bear and hogs, a heavier buller makes a lot of sense to ensure good penetration regardless of what bone or muscles are hit.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sonny
Had a fella, does car-racing in nice weather, won't be back on here 'til winter, talking about those heavy bullets. Used 405gr hard cast in Redhawks. The idea was, for SD bear load at short range (not hunting), to develop a 1000 fps load, no faster, such that you could get in a second shot. For protection when hiking in Alaska or...
The guy is FlatTop. He and friends got up a load with 2400 that suited them. Penetrated 13 gallon water bottles lined up in a row and never found the bullet. At 1000fps, I don't think I'll stress the gun at all. FlatTop's load put 5 in one inch @ 25 yds.
The bullets come from BearTooth for you guys that like to experiment. I have some loaded with several slow-burning powders, but some recent surgery has kept me off the range. Will let you guys know, although I won't reco these loads for anything less than a RedHawk.
Sonny
Correct sonny, and keep us posted

As for Flat Top and his buddies at Beartooth- what they were looking for wasn't just the biggest and baddest round, they were actually after something in particular. One of the guys hangs out in big bear country for at least part of the year, and wanted a bullet that would penetrate like gangbusters on a charging bear whether it was a brain shot, or one that hit the big shoulder joint on an incoming bear, but have very controllable recoil, and that is just what they got. They didn't want to use maximum loads, even with 240-250 grain cast bullets because of slower follow-up shots due to the heavier recoil. They were looking for a bullet that would penetrate as well as, or better than anything they had tried, but do it at a rather mild velocity of about 1,000 fps and have easily controllable recoil, which would allow faster, aimed follow-up shots. They've reported very good success with their attempts so far in their Redhawks.

Those 400 grain bullets will only work in Redhawks, and maybe Dan Wesson cylinders (at least to achieve their goal of decent velocity and safe pressures). They are long for sure (1.089"), but they have two crimp grooves so that you can seat them out as far as possible in the Redhawk. The lower crimp groove places .575" of the bullet inside the case, which is only.09" more than a 305 grain Rim Rock WFN GC,(very similar to a CPBC WFN GC) and .0975" more than the SSK 320 truncated cone bullet that was so popular for so long with guys going after large or dangerous game. That's not a big difference when you consider that those bullets are regularly fired with maximum loads, and the load those guys were/are using are running well below max-closer to somewhere between 1/2 and 3/4 throttle. Seated in the lower crimp groove the loaded round measures 1.785" COAL, and when chambered in a Redhawk will be .025" below flush with the end of the cylinder. That length is too long to use in a Smith, though you can seat them to the top crimp groove which is .065" father forward and they will fit. I have tried each way in both my Redhawk's and my 29's. (for fit only at this point)

I talked to Marshal Stanton who owns Beartooth, and he doesn't recommend their use in a S&W 29, not because of strength issues (especially in this case where max loads are not the goal), but because they have to be seated so deeply to work in a Smith that it leaves less than a desirable amount of room in the case for the powder to still be able to reach sufficient velocity without undue pressure.

Just a little background, and info on the 400 grainers for anyone who is interested. If you aren't, that's cool with me too. It's fun though to experiment with something out of the ordinary, and lets face it, if ol' Elmer Keith hadn't of felt that way, we might not have the .44 in the first place.

Last edited by Gun 4 Fun; 08-28-2010 at 02:29 AM.
Reply With Quote