The S&W Model 24 .44 Special Revolvers...

[shouldazagged]

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.

 

[Hook686]

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.

 

[jaymoore]

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!

 

[PALADIN85020]

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."

 

[k22fan]

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.

 

[jaymoore]

.... Prior to that the S&W revolvers that honestly deserved the "intrinsically accurate" label were .38 Specials....


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!

 

[Grayfox]

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.

 

[Muley Gil]

"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?

 

[jaymoore]

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.

 

[S&W ucla]

A very early "non-triple lock", possibly within the first 100 made.

2nd model? Curious about this one!

 

[jaymoore]

2nd model? Curious about this one!

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.

 

[LAWMAN662]

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

 

[Hondo44]

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.

 

[k22fan]

I am not disagreeing with the rest of your post but this looks wrong.

[...] 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.

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.

 

[PALADIN85020]

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

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

John

 

[PALADIN85020]

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.

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

 

[nyeti]

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.

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.

 

[PALADIN85020]

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.

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

 

[GB]

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!

 

[les.b]

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

John

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