As usual, this is a draft of a future article that I'd like to run by you. Comments welcome.

John

The S&W Model 24 .44 Special Revolvers



For those who know me, it’s no secret that I’m a great fan of the .44 Special cartridge, and for many of the revolvers that have chambered it over the years. The .44 Special is intrinsically accurate, easy to reload to virtually any power level, and with factory ammunition, way easier on the hand than its .44 Magnum offspring. It allows lighter handguns than are needed for the Magnum. Since 1955, .44 Magnum revolvers have become popular not only for their power, but also because they can also handle the older and milder .44 Special. For guys and gals in my age bracket, it’s not unusual for us to shoot more Specials than Magnums in those guns to protect aging wrists and elbows. But one then has to put up with guns made more robust and heavier than are really needed. And so, the lighter guns for the .44 Special have become rarer – and more sought after!

Some history is in order here. The .44 Smith & Wesson Special cartridge came into being in September, 1907. It was simply a slightly elongated version of the older .44 Russian, designed to hold more powder. But inexplicably, the ammunition companies kept the newer cartridge loaded to the same specifications as the older one – a disappointment for many who saw the potential of the Special. Reloaders, on the other hand, found that the Special could be souped-up to impressive power levels, and still fired with relative safety. It was discovered that a 250-grain cast semiwadcutter bullet could be propelled at maximum velocities hovering around 1200 feet per second. In the middle 1930s, the new .357 Magnum was heralded as the most powerful handgun cartridge. Not true by quite a margin for reloaders, who showed that a specially-loaded .44 Special could have not only higher energy, but an edge in accuracy as well. A group of .44 Special reloaders called themselves the “.44 associates” in the 1930s, swapping loading data and routinely referring to the vaunted .357 Magnum in derogatory terms!

When the .44 Magnum cartridge was introduced in 1955, it turned out that it had only a slightly-lengthened .44 Special case. The purpose of that was not to allow greater powder capacity, but simply to keep .44 Magnums from being inserted into older .44 Special chambers. For most folks, the factory-loaded .44 Magnum has way more power and recoil than is needed, and the revolvers chambered for it are unnecessarily bulky and heavy. Like Goldilocks, they will often find that .44 Special guns are “just right.”

The first Smith & Wesson revolver chambered for the .44 Special came out in 1907 as the New Century Triple Lock. Today it’s a prime collector’s item – hard to find and very expensive. Elmer Keith, legendary gun writer, worked up some heavy .44 Special loads for use in this handgun, but damaged it doing so. He later warned not to use his loads in the early guns that lacked proper cylinder heat treating. The Triple Lock’s successor was the Second Model Hand Ejector. It lacked an ejector rod shroud and the third cylinder lock. It’s also nearly extinct and practically unobtainable today. A 1926 model with an ejector rod shroud was made from that year up until World War II, and manufacture of it then resumed from 1946 to 1948. In 1950, the “1950 Target Model .44” was offered. It was considered the finest of all the .44 Special S&W revolvers up to that time. It had a newer short-cocking action, and sported a tapered 6.5” barrel with a target-style Patridge front sight to go with the great post-war micrometer rear sight. A few were made with 4” barrels that were equipped with ramped (Baughman) front sights. A few specially-made 5” barreled guns have been noticed. All of these guns had ejector rod shrouds.

When S&W assigned model numbers to all of their handguns in 1957, these revolvers became the Model 24. There was a Model 21 with fixed sights and shrouded ejector rod, previously known as the Model of 1950 .44 Military. These were offered from 1950 to 1966 with about 1,200 made.

Unfortunately, with the dominance of the Model 29 .44 Magnum and the need for large N-frames to produce the .357 Magnum Models 27 and 28, the Model 24 got short shrift in both demand and production. It was discontinued in 1966, to the dismay of those who prized it. In that year, this fine revolver’s final price was $95. In 1982, collectors and shooters were paying in the range of $600 to $800 when they occasionally found one or more in excellent condition. Gunsmiths were converting .357 Magnum Model 27s and Model 28s to .44 Specials to meet demand. A number of gun writers, including Skeeter Skelton (whose writings I treasure), were pressuring S&W to re-introduce the Model 24. And then Smith and Wesson responded!

In 1983, S&W began to manufacture the “Model 24-3 1950 Target” revolvers. These were nearly identical to the original Model 24, but incorporated a non-pinned barrel, a 3-screw sideplate and eliminated the screw in front of the trigger guard. In 1983 and 1984, 2,625 were manufactured with 4” barrels and 4,875 with 6.5” barrels. Front sights on each were the same as the originals. The introductory price was $391. The revolvers pictured here show these two main variations. The top one with the 6.5” barrel was shipped in April 1984, and the lower one with the 4” barrel left the factory in March of the same year. Smith & Wesson also included original parts sheets for the Model 1950 Target in the boxes with each of these guns. Interestingly, some of the first guns made were crafted with available Model 29 frames and older Model 24 barrels. The first 100 of the new “dash 3” handguns made were factory engraved and had smooth walnut stocks. Twenty-five of these were nickel finished and engraved.

A 3”-barreled variation of the 24-3 was made for Lew Horton Distributors in 1984 and 1985. These had round butts, smooth “combat” stocks, red-ramp front sights and white outline rear sights. It’s been reported that 5,000 of these were made, 1,000 of which were provided with black holsters. Some commemorative .44 Special revolvers were made as the “Through the line” variation of the “Twelve Revolvers” series. These were designated as the 24-4 models. In 2001, a 4-screw-frame Performance Center Heritage Series model became the Model 24-5. In 2006, 250 3”-barreled guns were made in blue and the same number in nickel for Lew Horton Distributors. These Model 24-6s had square butts with diamond-checkered regular magna rosewood stocks.

A “Thunder Ranch” Model 21 with a 4” barrel also appeared in 2006. Stainless steel revolvers designated as the Model 624 were produced from 1985 to 1988 as the “Model of 1985 Target Stainless.” Both 4” and 6.5”-barreled variations were made. Five thousand 3”-barreled stainless round-butt 624s were specially manufactured for Lew Horton Distributors.

Alas, no current .44 Specials are being made at Smith & Wesson. While many consider the .44 Special to be obsolete, a dedicated cadre of aficionados still hunger for and occasionally find long-sought-after revolvers that chamber this round. As before in the early 1980s, asking prices are continuing to rise for these quality revolvers, and are usually, if grudgingly, paid.

Today, all of the wonderful S&W .44 Specials continue to be in high demand with shooters and collectors. Pre-owned Model 24s, in particular, continue to be snapped up at gun shows and dealers whenever they come on the market. They have been proved to be a highly desirable combination of accuracy, comfortable weight and extensive range of power. Classics all.

(c) 2016 JLM

__________________
- Cogito, ergo armatus sum -

As I have said before, John your articles are as fine of gun writing as I have ever read.

__________________
Possum—The other white meat!

Nice article! In the 1950 targets, they also made a few 5" bbls. There is a picture of Ted Keith shooting one in sixguns.

__________________
PTLAPTA!

Have you ever considered writing for a hobby? That was an excellent write up of the 44 spl history. Makes me wanna go buy another one. There were 250 each blued and nickel 24-6 models made in 2006 for Lew Horton Dist. I'm lucky enough to own one of the blued models.

__________________
Don't You Ever Wash That Thing

Thanks for that info, which I incorporated in the OP.

John

__________________
- Cogito, ergo armatus sum -

Thanks for the info and the pictures! You evidently have a pretty rare gun there, and in great shape, too. I put that info in the OP.

John

__________________
- Cogito, ergo armatus sum -

Never enough of these threads on this model.Always seem to be over shadowed by the 29 series.For me a four inch is the perfect defensive revolver.I should have never parted with mine.

John:

As usual, a great article!! I only have one 44 special, a second model, without the ejector rod shroud, and believe it or not, was my first Smith and Wesson!! A gift from my then wife back in about 1972. It's kind of rough, but she had seen me admiring it at my favorite gun store. She managed to squirrel away the necessary $80.00 and I found it under the Christmas tree. One of the few times I've really been surprised. Someone had modified the front sight, and it has a little bore pitting, and some surface rust, but is really a sweet shooting gun.

Best Regards, Les

__________________
SWCA 3084, SWHF 495, PGCA 3064

This one came from an estate sale.

Attached Images

	DSC05369.jpg (92.7 KB, 180 views)
	DSC05371.jpg (200.5 KB, 210 views)
	DSC05372.jpg (201.2 KB, 200 views)

Les.b, how about a few pictures, please?

I purchased the last S&W m24 6 1/2" barrel, in the nickel finish, with the loc my dealer had. Why I purchased a 44 special revolver I don't have a clue. I was volnerable at the moment and the nickel blinded me, I lost control at this m24 being the last brand new one. But my quest for nickel S&W n frame revolvers continues. Missing a few. The n frames in nickel with a 6" barrel and 6 1/2" barrel gets my juices flowing.

I know from your prior article previews "Comments welcome." means you welcome nit picking, so here goes. While Elmer did some energetic load development in a Tripple Lock he damaged the revolver doing so. He wrote his loads should not be used in early N frames that do not have heat treated cylinders. Remember, the first heat treating of S&W cylinders was done to 1917s at the insistence of the army. Even modern heat treated cylinders are the weak link in the chain. S&W cylinders permanently distort at lower pressure than any other part.

Near the end it begs for briefly mentioning that four .44 Special L frame models were made but did not last long. In their enthusiastic .44 Special articles gun writers rarely if ever mentioned that S&Ws chambered for the cartridge NEVER did sell well. I own 4 so you can't blame me for it but the fact is the total number of .44 Specials S&W made is minute compared to the number of .38s and .357s they've sold. Their relative scarcity is a big part of their appeal to collectors and reloaders.

Nit picking aside, over all it's a great article!

Good info here on Keith's experimenting with heavy loads in the early triple locks. I'm mentioning that in the OP. As for the L-frames, my space limitations preclude that side info - I'll have to stick to the Model 24-related N-frames. The overwhelming numbers of .38 and .357 sales are well known, and probably go without saying - also would drive me over my space limitations.

I appreciate the info - nit-picking is just fine!

John

__________________
- Cogito, ergo armatus sum -

John, Excellent article. I have a Thunder Ranch 44 Spl. and love it. Might want to mention that particular choice for Thunder Ranch. They sure respected that cartridge and that is not distant history. Be well.

Found the pic in sixguns. Caption reads "Ted Keith, age 19, shooting long range with his 5" 1950 Target S&W .44 Special and Keith heavy loads. This is the best long range position."

Attached Images

DroidX11-15 800.jpg (88.2 KB, 236 views)

__________________
PTLAPTA!

Thanks! I forgot that one, and squeezed it in there!

John

__________________
- Cogito, ergo armatus sum -

Since you've squeezed in the Thunder Ranch Model 21 you may as well mention its predecessor, the Model 1950 Military and Police .44 Special. The SCSW writes approximately 1,200 were made with possibly fewer than 20 model number marked revolvers manufactured 1958-1963! Apparently M&P .44 Specials lingered in S&W's vault. Model 21s were not dropped from the catalog until 1966. Obviously the big city PDs were not buyers. They are expensive collector revolvers.

Thanks for the reminder. That was actually the the Model 1950 .44 Military, which became the Model 21 in 1957. I crammed that item into the text, which will probably make my editor upset that I blew the word count so badly on this one!

John

__________________
- Cogito, ergo armatus sum -

Very nice article, as a matter of fact I did some horse trading yesterday and I am the proud owner of a mint 6 1/2" barrel model 24. Now to find some brass......

Nice article! There's something about the Model 24 that's "just right." I have a 3", 4" and a 6 1/2" The 3" is the result of a Guns and Ammo article which spurred me into buying one. I just had to have it! I bought the 4" and 6 1/2" since I liked the 3" so well. I remember thinking the 4" and 6 1/2" should be kept unfired. I figured they'd be collectors' items one day. The heck with my heirs; I wasted no time is shooting them! I've had over 30 years of enjoyment from them. So what if they're "used." I'll not sell them. Ever.

Good stuff as usual, John.

I would mortgage the messy remnants of my immortal soul for a Model 24.

I'd have to, since I have no money.

__________________
Oh well, what the hell.

My favorite '.44 Special' is my S&W 329 PD ... a light weight .44 magnum that is truly no fun to shoot with magnum loads. Commercial loads in .44 Special I use include Buffalo Bore 185 grain Heavy .44 Special that have velocity of 1150 fps. I reload 200 grain Gold Dots to 1100 fps that shoot just as nicely as the Buffalo Bore loads in my 329 PD. I like the 329 because the light weight makes it easier to carry and the .44 Special loads makes it easier to shoot. A combination I like. I have never had a true .44 Special hand gun, or carbine. I have only had the .44 magnum versions, and except for the Desert Eagle, all have shot nicely with the .44 Special loads. I'm happy. Different strokes for different folks was an expression from back in the day.

__________________
Hook686

My only exception to a very fine article are the words "intrinsically accurate". At least to pretty much any .44 made before the mid 1990's.
Those SAAMI spec 0.432" throats combined with the usual 0.429" bullets weren't a great match. Factory .44 Spl. ammo usually compensated by having hollow based bullets. Handloaders could often load better fitting bullets.

Finally S&W sorted the issue starting with the .44M 29/629 DX revolvers and finally incorporated the 0.429-0.430" throat across the board. Late .90's maybe?

But it has been a nice platform from which to start!

In reply, I can only refer you to this excerpt from an article written by Skeeter Skelton in the March, 1983 issue of Shooting Times magazine. He goes on to say "...the .44 Special as factory loaded is probably our most accurate center-fire revolver cartridge..." Handloads consisting of the Lyman 429215 cast gas check bullet weighing 210 grains over a suitable charge of Unique, made 2-inch groups at an average of 1105 fps.

So for now, I'll stick with "intrinsically accurate."

__________________
- Cogito, ergo armatus sum -

Shortly after buying S&W Thompkins PLC reduced .44 and .45 cylinder throat diameters to the dimensions of modern bullets. Prior to that the S&W revolvers that honestly deserved the "intrinsically accurate" label were .38 Specials, .357 Magnums and .41 Magnums. .32 S&W Longs might deserve to be included with those three but I can not say so from experience. .44s and .45s required experimenting with various bullets in their reloads to get better groups. Admittedly I never did fire a factory .44 Special cartridge in a .44 Special revolver. The 24-4 Through the Line commemorative was probably the first Model 24 made with smaller throats. Subsequent L frame .44 Specials and modern Model 24 Classics all have smaller throats.

On the topic of word count, it appears to be a choice between including the authors' style, personality, flair (or what ever you call it) and efficiently using words to make room for more technical details.

Speaking of writers with flair, Elmer designed his molds with a wide full diameter front driving band out in front of the crimping groove. It was to pilot the bullet into the throat. He often wrote that Saeco and Hensly & Gibbs made molds correctly to his design but Lyman did not. When RCBS introduced molds their SWC molds were better than Lyman's in that regard.

I've a reference somewhere that states as of the late '70's/early '80's that the factory handgun round held to the tightest factory accuracy requirements was the .38 Spl. IIRC, it was an American Rifleman article about WW231 and the .38 Special in their monthly handloading column. Will try and find it directly.

The "intrinsically accurate" statement probably goes way back to the early 1900s and was repeated ad nausium ever after. And it's possible the .44 Spl. was just so at it's introduction. I've seen some old drawings that indicate the .44 Spl did indeed originally have 0.432" bullets. but by the 1950's bullets had shrunk to the new norm of 0.429". It's possible that since what few folk were seriously shooting the .44 were primarily handloaders, the dimensional shift went largely unnoticed, along with the cessation of manufacture of the host revolvers for quite some time!

Another fine article John. Once again you've hit on a subject near and dear to my heart. I'm also a lover of the .44 Special and the guns that shoot 'em.

"Elmer Keith, legendary gun writer, worked up some heavy .44 Special loads for use in this handgun, but damaged it doing so. He later warned not to use his loads in the early guns that lacked proper cylinder heat treating."

Can someone point me toward a reference in Elmer's writings about this?

__________________
John 3:16
WAR EAGLE!

Follow up to Post #26:
A fantastic article by Edward A. Matunas entitled Making The .38 Spl. Perform in the American Rifleman magazine's From The Loading Bench monthly column. Dated June 198(3?, possibly 4).

At the time you had three basic US mfg's: Winchester, Remington and Federal. .38 Spl accuracy requirements at the time were between 2.5" and 4.5" at 50 yards. The only other rounds at the time that were in the same league were the .357 Mag (4.0"@50yds) and the .45 ACP (3.0"@ 50yds)

He lists some other factory minimum accuracy standards:
9x19: 3.0" @ 25yds
.38 Super: 3.0" @ 25yds
.380 ACP: 4.5" @ 25yds
.44 Mag: 6.0" @ 50yds

These are averages of five consecutive five shot groups.

Unfortunately, no mention of .44 Spl. which doesn't bode well!
I reckon these across the board standards have long since lapsed, but it surely would be a coup for the dedicated researcher to unearth some more!

ETA and BTW: I read most all of the EK and SS articles in the late '70's through to their respective ends as well as some of Keith's books, most importantly Sixguns. So jumped on the .44 Spl. bandwagon just as soon as I could. 3" 24-3 straight from Lew Horton, then a 4" 1950's revolver. A bit later a couple of six inchers, one a five screw, the other a NIB 24-3. A very early "non-triple lock", possibly within the first 100 made. And some others. And still have yet to be satisfied with accuracy! My .44 Mag lead bullet tricks have yet to translate to the shorter cartridge altogether successfully. Oddly, the .45 Colt 25-5s (and later versions) have been much easier to make shoot well out to 50/100 yards.

2nd model? Curious about this one!

__________________
PTLAPTA!

Nice shape except an old ding on the outside edge of the muzzle. Didn't hurt the bore at all. 6" regular old S&W. Not sure what else there is to tell. As a curious trigger puller, I got it years back after stupidly passing on a target model triple lock for a whole US$2400. (circa 2000(?))

Not trying to bash the .44 Spl., but just oft repeated hype. Aside from the .41 Colt, there aren't too many "inherently INaccurate" (relatively speaking) revolver/pistol cartridges introduced since the 1880's. It's really more a matter of quality in both revolver and cartridge manufacture! And more revolver than cartridge....Usually. The .44s seem to have suffered more from lack of interest by the ammo makers as time progressed.

Quite frankly, if the .44 Spl. truly had some "magic" accuracy built in, the Bullseye shooters would have flocked to it en mass, esp. following WWII. "Win on Sunday...", and all that. Instead, dead duck by the 1960's.

Great article. A spelling error: Distributors, not ers; last word third paragraph from end.

John,

I too have always been a 44 Spl fan and therefore appreciate your article.

A comment you might be able to squeeze in:

"The “Outnumbered” 24-4 is 'thee' best, strongest, and rarest Mod 24 because it has no lock, has the strength package of the late 29-4, and only 234 were made!"

BACKGROUND:

As you mentioned, the 24-4s are known as the “Through The Line” version of the '12 Revolvers' Ltd Edition from 1990: 6.5” with standard hammer & trigger, Baughman ramp front sight, the endurance package with larger cyl notches & new bolt block, and stocks with speed loader cut-outs on both sides so the engraving on the side plate wasn't covered up.

HOWEVER the original "12 Revolver" sets were produced in a much lesser quantity than the planned 500. The remaining 234 of the 24-4s with the same features as above but w/o engraving were sold and are known as "Outnumbered" guns. The box labels of these 234 'over run' guns were stamped "Outnumbered", per Roy. I believe there are "Outnumbered" versions of the other 11 versions as well.

A very desirable 44 Spl. to be sure.

__________________
Jim
S&WCA #819

I am not disagreeing with the rest of your post but this looks wrong.
While some Bullseye shooters shot their .45 ACP in both portions most used a .38 Special for center fire. The specialty cartridge for center fire was .32 S&W Long for less recoil. I can't imagine a competitor buying a revolver specifically for center fire choosing the .44 Special's recoil.

There is also the question of how early automatics superseded revolvers in Bullseye. That was well before 1974 when I first shot Bullseye.

Yesterday's "dead ducks" are today's S&Wforum holy grails. Maybe that should be added to the banner head.

??? - "Distributors" was the way I spelled it. Old eyes??

John

__________________
- Cogito, ergo armatus sum -

Good info, but I'm already in so deep over my desired word count that I cannot include it. So much info, so little space, so I have to choose. Thanks, though!

John

__________________
- Cogito, ergo armatus sum -

I have an original one of the blue Lew Horton snub barrels from the 80's and looking for the right "donor" gun (hopefully a beaten 6" 24) to build a no lock version of your gun with the short barrel and square butt. Great looking gun, and even though I have more .44 Mag snubs than you should be allowed, I also have the hand damage to go with that obsession in my youth. I square butt snub N frame with some sane .44 Spl loads should be a joy.

As far as the OP. As another hobby gun writer, I should would love to be able to get my stuff reviewed by some of the experts out there ahead of time. It is hard to always "get it all in". One of the reasons I liked writing for the Surefire Combat Tactics magazine when it was still around was I was never given a restriction on length.....how else do you get a 20 page article on the HK P7...;-). I think you did a great job, and the posters here have also provided some excellent additions. Good stuff and I enjoyed it.

When I was actively shooting Bullseye in the 1960s, it was practically universal to shoot accurized 1911s in .45 ACP for centerfire, for several reasons:

1. No need to cock a .38 revolver for each successive shot. More time to breathe and aim. Forget double action!

2. The custom .38 autoloaders and the S&W Model 52 wadcutter-shooter were hard to find and expensive.

3. The .45 had an edge for a borderline "ring line" shot because it was wider, with a better chance of cutting the ring and getting a better score count on close shots.

In view of the fact that the .44 special factory loads and mild handloads are actually pretty soft on the hand, a .44 special might have been a good centerfire choice, with a diameter second only to the .45. No one really complained about the .45's recoil. Only problem would been that then, as now, the .44s were hard to find. If I had had one then, I might have chosen that option.

John

__________________
- Cogito, ergo armatus sum -

Well written Sir!

I am fortunate to own a 24-3/6.5. Bought new in the mid80s. I also own, what I believe to be a pre-war N-frame that has been converted (by the use of a S series barrel and cylinder) to 44 special. My first special and a good shooter. As many of us, in our age bracket believe, SKEETER RULES!

Actually, John, you still have both bases covered: in paragraph 8, it is spelled distributors and distributers, and in paragraph 9, distributors.

But it is a great article. I know that you wanted us to proof read it, or I wouldn't have brought it up!!

Best Regards, Les

__________________
SWCA 3084, SWHF 495, PGCA 3064

Right you are, Les. Must be my aging eyes....

John

__________________
- Cogito, ergo armatus sum -

So much to learn on this forum!

Thanks to ALL...!

Great article! I’ve always liked the .44 Special, it was the first revolver I ever shot, must have been about 12. Special memories with my dad.

__________________
Pine_Worker
Ex-LEO, NRA Life

I bought my 44 specials in about a years time.First the 624 6.5 bbl shows up.Then it was followed by a 24-3 in blued finish and last but not least the 4' bbl and about 6 boxes of WW 210 silvertips.
624---$700
24-3 3" bbl 750
24-3 4"BBL 700
ok FOR APPROXIMATELY i SPENT $2200 for these 3 revolvers. And I get the pleasure of shooting 3 revolvers in 44 special which S&W don't make anymore and enjoying the heck out of myself. Frank And the only one I don't think I have a holster for is the 3" barreled one. Frank I still think I got my money's worth. The wife unfornsturally doesn't think so. Long ago I adopted the saying "Its better to ask for forgiveness than ask for permission"Fortunately for me we are still living together. Frank

Great write-up. It’s good to see some of the later production .44 Specials getting some love and recognition. Love my 6.5” 24-3

__________________
Some Might Say.

I prefer my Pre War and Model 1950 .44s but like my 624 3" and 296 as well.

__________________
Jim
S&WCA #819

Nice write up......

personally never had the need for a .44 magnum here in Penn's Woods.....the .44 special seemed like a great woods carry option..... but finding ammo was almost impossible and I never had the time to get into reloading.

Another very informative write-up! Thank you, John...
I always enjoy your articles, as well as the follow-up comments.

I also learn a lot from you more experienced (than me) folks. Thank you, all.

I hope to get into handloading, one of these days, since that seems to be the key to getting the most from this highly-regarded yet, overlooked cartridge.

I'd also like to learn more about the pre-24.
(Did I read elsewhere on this forum only 5,050 made?!... Wow!)

-Bill

My Only .44 Spcl. is This 5" bbl'd 2nd Model.

__________________
Veteran Paratrooper, '86-'90

I bought a mint M24 4" in about 2003 for $419. I sold it in 2008 for $750 to a friend and in 2018 I ran into that friend and he said it had set in his safe the whole time and he never fired it. He asked if I wanted to buy it back and I did for $750. A few years later I sold it for $1,050. I liked the gun but ammo was expensive and I really liked .357s and .38s better.

This post contains a serious and often repeated misconception about .44 cal revolvers and bullet diameters.
.429"-.430" is NOT the original and/or historically correct bullet diameter.
If you measure original .44 Special bullet diameters as found in original factory ammo from Wnchester, Peters, Remington, etc. it ia ALL in the range of .431"-.4325". I have these cartridges in my collection. But, if you doubt me, just check Phil Sharpe's book "Complete Guide to Handloading". He gives you the same numbers!
Measure, too, the cavities of original Ideal-Lyman molds and bullets cast from accepted standard alloys like 1-16 Lead Tin, or even softer, and they drop from the molds at .433"-.434".

The "faux standard" of .429"-.430" was simply a gimmick to allow early JSP style bullets to be driven at the higher velocities needed to sell the .44 Magnum to the public while keeping pressure within acceptable limits.

S&W always knew what they were doing when they developed their original "Special" cartridges (ie: the .32, .38, and .44 Spl) and were very careful in how they cut their cylinder throats and leades, not to mention bore and groove diameters.

With that in mind, the best decision I ever made concerning handloading was to stop buying awful commercial cast bullets and to just cast my own.