The .44 Special ain't so special?

[Evil One]

Anyone see this? Venturino must have run out of things to write about.
July 09 edition of American Handgunner.
http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-37820586_ITM

The .44 S&W Special ain't so special. That may be heresy to some, most notably some gun'riters who almost genuflect at the name. But it just ain't so great. In regards to the criterion by which revolvers and their cartridges are judged, the .44 Special can't do a single thing many others do just as well--or better. Or better?

Not only will I say the .44 Special ain't so special I will even say it was never needed. Because--for most of their concurrent production periods the .44 S&W Russian was loaded to the same ballistics as the longer .44 Special. That was with identical 246 grain, lead, roundnose .429" diameter bullets at 755 fps. The only difference between the .44 Special and the .44 Russian is that the former's case length is 1.16" and the latter's is .9".

So why did the .44 Special develop such a strong mystique? Because of gun'riters like Elmer Keith and Skeeter Skelton. Elmer used that extra case capacity so he could load it HOT; as in hot enough to lift the topstrap off of some test revolvers. Skeeter liked to load it much milder; as in about 900 fps with 250 grain bullets. His reason for favoring the .44 Special so much was he considered it inherently accurate. But crusty old Charlie Askins had an individualistic streak in him. He wrote the .44 Special was never needed because there was already the .44-40. Atta-boy Charlie!

Revolver accuracy is a combination of factors like barrel quality, forcing cone smoothness, cylinder chamber mouths matching barrel diameter and other tidbits. Those are all factors in the handguns themselves. Then with the cartridge there are things like proper size bullets of proper temper of alloy for the pressure level desired, bullet lubricant, powder of proper burning rate for the pressure level desired, a concentric crimp applied evenly around the case mouth and much more. The most finely crafted revolver cannot shoot accurately with poorly constructed ammunition, and perfectly made ammunition cannot deliver precision from an improperly manufactured revolver. The idea of "inherent accuracy" from a revolver cartridge is a myth.

The Myth

The reason for that myth's existence is just that sometimes the handgun maker's engineers and the ammunition maker's engineers happen to spec things out so they mate well. That has occurred much more often with revolvers and ammunition for the .38 Special, .357 Magnum, .41 Magnum and .44 Magnum than it has for the .44 Special, .45 ACP/.45 Auto-Rim or .45 Colt.

I have a S&W Military & Police .38 Special dating from the late 1940s. From a machine rest with .38 Special 148 grain full wadcutter factory loads, that worn-looking old gun will group five shots in about an inch at 25 yards. It is superbly accurate. Its barrel is .357" and its chamber mouths uniformly measure .358".

Conversely, the only handgun I sold because it was dismally inaccurate was a handsome, nickel-plated Colt SAA .44 Special with 4%" barrel. That thing wouldn't keep five shots of any factory load or handload inside 4" at 25 yards, likewise fired from machine rest. I discovered the probable cause for its bullet-spraying tendency, though. Being of fairly early 3rd Generation manufacture, for some reason Colt saw fit to drill its cylinder with .435" chamber mouths. Firing bullets of .429/.430" through .435" chamber mouths and into .427" barrels (Colt's diameter for all .44 caliber barrels) is a sure recipe for poor groups.

Me? .44 Special?

Now, before some of you guys start sharpening your hatchets let me fess-up that for years--even decades--I bought into the .44 Special myth. I just perused my hand-jotted records of all the handguns I've owned starting in 1966 and there were 21 .44 Specials listed. They run the gamut from those little Charter Arms five-shooters to all the legendary S&W N-frame double actions, through several Colt SAAs and on to one of the latest--the Smith & Wesson/Clint Smith collaboration. That one was called the Model 21-4 Thunder Ranch Revolver. At this writing I still have six; none of which have been kept because they are "special" in regards to shooting, but because they are special in regards to collecting or for sentimental reasons.

Back in January 1980 1 was so enthused upon learning of a S&W Model 1950 Target .44 Special with rare 4" barrel for sale I drove nearly 400 miles round trip on extremely icy roads to grab it before someone else did. It wasn't that special. In fact it was the first of four Model 1950 Target .44 Specials (Model 24s) and one stainless Model 624 I have owned, and none shot that great. Right now I have one of S&W's brand new Model 24s on loan and it doesn't shoot that great either. Sorry boys.

Saying a revolver doesn't "shoot great" isn't the same thing as saying those .44 Specials shot terrible. They all grouped fair to middling, say 2.5" to 3" five-shot, 25 yard groups, or occasionally a 10- or 12-shot group of about the same size. It's just that such groups are nowhere near grounds for a "special" accuracy reputation. In my career I've tested many far more accurate handguns, and I'm talking ordinary off the shelf types, not custom jobs.

For instance, I once developed handloads for two S&W Model 29 .44 Magnums with 6 1/2" barrels that averaged around 1.5" for 5-shot groups at 50 yards. In fact my favorite pair of Colt 1873/1973 PEACEMAKER CENTENNIAL .44-40s and our three U.S. Firearms .44-40s will all shoot tighter groups than any .44 Special I've encountered.

But Wait ...

There's more, as they say. Lacking special accuracy potential isn't the only reason I don't consider the .44 Special to be special. From the ammunition factories it's never been loaded to any sort of "special" ballistics either. As said early on, for most of its 100-year production life the .44 S&W Special was loaded with 246 grain roundnose lead bullets at around 755 fps. Then starting in the 1980s the big three--Federal, Remington and Winchester--began to modernize factory loads. They put out various types of hollowpoint and/ or semiwadcutter bullets of only 200 grains traveling at speeds of about 900 fps. The keyword in this paragraph is "about" because in actual fact few of those factory loads reached their advertised specs. Usually the traditional 246 grain factory loads were lucky to hit 700 fps and the later 200 grain types often didn't break 800 fps.

As regards to self defense revolvers, why would anyone pick a .44 Special with its un-special factory loads, when revolvers chambered for .41 Magnum, .44 Magnum, .45 ACP/.45 Auto-Rim and .45 Colt offered better options? It should be noted that coinciding with those new Thunder Ranch/Model 21 .44 Special revolvers, both Black Hills Ammunition and Cor-Bon have brought out some top-notch factory loads. They were almost a century late, though!

Handloaders have always been able to improve on .44 Special factory load ballistics, but often haven't been very smart about it. I was one of them once. As soon as I found a fine S&W target-sighted triplelock I had to load up Elmer Keith's recommended heavy handload to try. I won't mention its details here and you will see why in the next sentence. At the first shot the triplelock's cylinder fell open. Perplexed, and not very intelligently, I fired another round. The cylinder fell open again and that ended my use of such hot .44 Special handloads forever. The old six-shooter wasn't damaged--luckily.

Today's .44 Special handloaders can go to the latest Speer Reloading Manual #14 and find any number of suggested loads with 250 grain bullets that go upwards of 850 to 1,000 fps. And of course milder ones too, for duplicating original ballistics and general fun shooting.

The Last Straw

And here's one last fact about the .44 Special's lack of special-ness--that was in sales. Revolvers chambered for that caliber have never set sales records. From 1908 upon introduction by S&W, until 1966 when they dropped it completely for the first time, they sold less than 50,000.44 Special revolvers. Those included such famous versions as the triplelock (1st Model .44 Hand Ejector), 2nd Model, .44 Hand Ejector, 3rd .44 Model Hand Ejector (Model 1926) and 4th Model Hand Ejector (Model 1950 Target, Model 24 and the Model 1950 Military, the Model 21. Let's just look at details of just the last two models. Between 1950 and 1966 only 5,050 of the Model 1950 Target .44 Special were made and exactly 1,200 of the fixed sight Model 1950 Military were made.

Colt Single Action Army revolvers were even more sparse as .44 Specials. Colt only made 506 chambered for .44 Special between the cartridge's introduction and the SANs first demise in 1941. Colt's other revolver that was chambered for .44 Special was the DA New Service. I have no idea how many of those were made as .44 Specials but I can say I've seen more as .44-40s. Many more Colt SAAs were made in 2nd and 3rd Generations from 1956 to present as .44 Specials, but due to my earlier experiences with them I will buy no more. In that type of handgun give me a .44-40 any day. For DA revolvers make mine a .45 Auto-Rim such as the new S&W Model 22 also Thunder Ranch Revolver. Among non-magnum, big bore, handgun cartridges that one shines.

The .44 S&W Special isn't a bad cartridge, and with a few exceptions the handguns made for it haven't been bad revolvers. It's just that neither cartridge nor handguns deserve any kind of "special" reputation. Among big bore handgun cartridges and their revolvers they're just a sort of mediocre, middle of the pack, combination. Heresy? Nope, just the truth.

Jim

 

[41]

Yes...I just browse some of the gun magazines now in the stores instead of having a subscription. I wonder how many subscribers have dropped their subscription due to his attitude ...for a lack of words.

I like to see some accuracy testing showing group size and loadings used. Where have all the good gun writers gone?? Run off by the editors?? due to a difference of opinion?

One persons opinion is only worth so much.

41

 

[wheelgun1958]

 

[Vanilla Gorilla]

I'm inclined to think ol' Duke has gone the way of Charley Askins, purposely writing articles that he knows will be incendiary, to get more attention.

 

[firedog3700]

Huh?

Two issues ago he and Taffin were testing the new S&W Classic line .45 Colt and .44 Special. He gave the .45 Colt to Taffin to test and tested the .44 Spl. If I recall correctly, he sorta damned it with faint praise. I also remember that he doesn't particularly care for the .45 Colt anymore, either, as he has found love with the .45 Auto Rim.

I'm beginning to think his farm/home is located under some high tension lines that are affectling his thoughts and moods.

I have always enjoyed his writings, but here lately he has struck me a bit funny.

 

[oldRoger]

Venturino does his tests from a Ransom Rest and so I suppose we can conclude that his prejudice does not influence his group sizes. I also suppose that he has had some poor shooters. I think we can expect when we buy used guns to find a poor shooter past along from time to time.
I have seen some great groups shot with .44 SPLs and have shot a few good ones myself.
I always attributed the lower (why say poor?) sales of the .44 SPL to the fact that few people shot it in matches, the standard being .22, .38, and service pistol and that you had to reload to have high performance.
The low pressure factory ammunition is simply an artifact made necessary by all of the old .44s on the market, not up to modern pressures.

I view the entire article as the magazine equivalent of "flaming".

 

[feralmerril]

If I was more articulate and known, I would make this a "now see here mike" article as bill jordan did when he took charlie adkins to task over autos versus revolvers. I like mike, and see him copying askins style of writeing! I like mike, but am raiseing a eyebrow!
First of all, a .38 special aint a .44 special in knockdown. Sure it can be as accuarate as most all cartridges can match others.
It aint JUST about accuarcy, but versatality, knockdown AND portability. A .44 special in everything BUT a mountain gun in .44 mag is far more sweeter to handle and carry then a .44 mag and is as usefull at least 95 percent of the time. A .44 special case is more efficent than a .45 colt and can be loaded up to about identical power. A .44 special kicks different and less sharp than a earsplitting .357, and has more knockdown properly loaded. By coincidence I also have 6 .44 specials as mike does. Four are smiths and two colt single actions. I once many years ago spent a day shooting and compareing about 3 of them off the bench plus a model 29. My triplelock outshot them all!
The beauty to me, of a .44 special is a combination of versatality, accuaracy, portability, power, weight, and yes, reputation and pazase that no other caliber can match and the guns made for it. I also own a 5" 29-2, that is heavier and less portable. A 25-2, that is also heavier and less portable and seems to shoot identical to my 23-3 4" in both accuarcy and power. I have two 3rd generation colt SAAs, one in .45 colt, the other in .44 special, both in 4 3/4". I had to send the .45 back as chambers were overbored, got a new clyinder that I havent tried yet, but it was free. I like the .44 better.
I own about 5 .357s. Also own about 4 .38 specials, 5 .45 colts, a 1917, and other 32/20, .32 H&R mag, a jet, a 44 wcf, etc. For many reasons given and maybe others I prefer .44 special the most. Here are my 6. My 24-3 and colt SAA in 4 3/4 are my favorites. It boils down to my personnal 40 years experiance and desires. Mike has overstepped himself and is plageriseing on Bill Jordan and Charlie Askins articles. He needs to get some original material, but that is impossible to do with the .44 special as it has already been wrote about singing its praises for about 80 years, ya just cant come up with anything new about it!

 

[deadin]

Another plus for the .44 Special is the ease of reloading. I've loaded both .44 Special and 44/40 (The one he says does everything a 44 Sp does, so why duplicate it?)
I have a number of "accordioned" 44/40 cases due to its thin walls collapsing when seating the bullet. I've yet to mash a .44 Special case.

 

[bk43]

He needs to get some original material, but that is impossible to do with the .44 special as it has already been wrote about singing its praises for about 80 years, ya just cant come up with anything new about it!

That's what I think too. Contrived controversy 'cause he couldn't come up with anything interesting.

Bob

 

[rburg]

He's free to write any of the drivel he wishes. I haven't read anything he's written in a long time, and now it'll be longer.

I have some friends who write for hobby/sports magazines, and I trust little written about products these days. Many write to secure favor from manufacturers. Its just the old payola scandals, but neatly wrapped. They write a glowing article to review some product. Then they're given another similar product to write about in a few months. It secures them stuff to use, and almost guarantee's them good press.

I'm not sure Venturino is crooked. But I doubt he gets many guns in his "out of favor" calibers to review. Who makes them? If the sales are as low as he reports, then you won't see the market for giving out graft. Maybe he's just playing to his audience. And I don't care.

When you see and read information on the internet, in places like this one, you're subject to others either attacking it or providing offsetting information. Venturino tells a pretty story, and gets his stuff published. But his opinions aren't any better than anyone elses. He certainly has had his detractors in the past, and now he can add a whole list of new ones.

 

[jag312]

After reading this I took my .44 Special revolvers, went to the pier in Santa Cruz, and threw them as far as I could into the ocean. Including my US Firearms Single Action revolver with the Paul Persinger ivory grips. Now I'm happy that I don't have such inferior guns.

 

[The Last Standing Knight]

The sad truth we are all well aware of is that most quality made firearms in whatever caliber they may be chambered for are FAR, FAR more inheritantly accurate than the shooter firing them regardless of experience.

As my old D.I. said, "It's not the dope on the weapon, it's the dope behind the weapon...."

 

[Bullet Bob]

I agree he's writing this to get attention, but in my opinion he doesn't hold a candle to the writing of Mr. Askins. At least Charlie had a sense of humor.

 

[N_itis]

Simply put, there is no money in promoting guns that are out of production or encouraging consumer demand for something that the manufacturer does not want to make.

So, why not use the "facts" surrounding the grand old guns and cartridges to prove that the latest "death ray" is markedly better than the tried and true stuff?

Intentionally weak factory loadings and "worn out old guns" (as we all know, a couple of thousandths of an inch of wear over 75+ years of use is just intolerable) are the preferred tools of deceit.

Is it any wonder that people whose research simply consists of reading gun magazines, run out and buy featherweight revolvers with infernal locks, plastic pistols, and Short Magnum rifles and people with actual experience hunt down the best of what has worked since the introduction of smokeless propellents?

 

[perrazi]

agree with those people here about the 44spl.particularly agree with mr. burg. "iron duke" mike needs to stick to what he thinks he knows about. his latest venture into the world to ww2 firearms and especially the full auto guns is laughable. what he ahs written about them was said many years ago. not breaking any new ground with his writings. suggestion for "iron mike" get the knee fixed you whine about and take some time off.

 

[Texas Star]

I'm sorry to see Mike going this route. I read his story, and read most of his stuff.

His articles and books on Old West guns are superb, offering much detail not available elsewhere. But what he's learned about .44/40 and .45 Colt cylinder throat and forcing cone measurements should tell him why the more uniform .44 Special will usually shoot better than a .44/40. The Special also easily uses a 250 grain bullet, much heavier than the .44/40's 200 grainer.

Mike has also drifted into writing about WW II guns. He needs to do more research in that area before writing about them.

I suspect that he just ran out of things to say about older guns, or his editor thought that he needed new material.

T-Star

 

[BLACKHAWKNJ]

This is an old trick of gun magazine editors-have one of the writers attack a favorite cartridge or rifle or whatever, then sit back, watch the readers' letters pour in. Charlie Askins was notorious for this. "The Sixgun is a Clunker!" to cite one his titles.

 

[Grayfox]

At one time I was quite a fan of Mike Venturino.
I believe it was right about the time his head got so swelled up that he started calling himself "Duke" that I lost interest in his writing.
Now he's just another hack trying to draw attention. I guess it worked, we are talking about him.

 

[Photog]

My 24-3 is one of the most accurate revolvers I own. But since Mike is having such a bad time with his 44 Specials, I suggest he send them all to me for some very intense testing to make sure it is something actually wrong with the guns and not him. I figure about 15-30 years of testing should be enough. If he sends them soon enough, I can start my work this summer!

 

[m657]

Other points aside, one of my best all-time accurate SAA Colts was a 44 special early 3rd gen 4 3/4". Found a load that would produce cloverleafs regularly at 25 yards. Of course a buddy talked me out of it in a weak and desperately poor moment...

Perhaps he is keying off the notion of "special" in the name. Perhaps he had a tractor payment to cover. Perhaps he is getting bored with his life as a gun writer.

I've never missed 44/40 in my own multiple decades of shooting, nor have I found reason enough to buy a brace of them. Nor do those I know at the SASS Cowboy matches see to do well enough to pursue a brace of them. The Black Powder boys seem to favor them or the 38-40...but so what?

Thanks for posting the article.