Popularity of the 44 Smith & Wesson Russian

Completed my research on the Target calibers 32-44 and 38-44 for the New Model 3 but what knocked me over was just how popular the 44 Russian was "PRIOR" to 1902.

This has got to be a record. I documented over 12 specific loadings for the 44 Russian Revolver. I'm not talking about from a reloading manual. I mean there were 12 different rounds available for the 44 Russian before 1902..

Here is the list:

275 Grain outside lubricated ( 1870)

246 Grain round nose heavy (First seen in 1888)

230 Grain round nose heavy (Military)

215 Grain Semi-wadcutter (1902)

200 Grain Wadcutter (1900)

205 Grain Wadcutter ( 1901)

175 Grain heeled Round nose (Target Bullet 1888)

160 Grain Hollow based (Target Bullet 1888)

110 Grain heeled ( Target Bullet 1888)

106 Grain Hollow based (Target Bullet 1891)

100 Grain Hollow Base ( Listed as a Gallery RN 1888)

110 Grain Gallery Ball

130 Grain Gallery Ball

I'd like to see "ANY" other revolver of that ERA surpass that amount of rounds available? These were actually commercially produced loads. Even the Ball loads. I found a few actually listed in Sears!

See photo's below of just a few. I'm amazed and had no idea. I guess the 44 Russian wins the title as the most POPULAR round in the old west. "Without Question"!! I mean there is nothing that even comes close!

Murph

More photos

Here are a few more

Murph

The round ball loads got me to thinking about the Dixie Gun Works catalog I have lots of great info in the back including an article written by Turner Kirkland he talks a bit about reloading obsolete black powder cartridges using a round ball of the correct size. He would fill the case with black powder and thumb press the ball into the case compressing the powder.

.44 Russian is my own favorite Cartridge of all the hand Gun Cartridges over time.

And I am sure, was also the favorite or a great many people back when, also..!

It was THE Premier Target Round in general, never succeeded by .44 Special for Target use even though in theory Ballistics and Loadings delivered same performance.

It has everything going for it in every way.

Energy delivered to the Target is on par with .45 ACP, which was originally designed to close to .44 Russian for energy delivered.

And with all this, it was the first inside Lube Cartridge of them all, too.

Experimenting with different original loads

With this researched information I definitely plan on working up several different Black Powder loads that mimic those original rounds on the list to see how they perform in a New Model 3 and some of the double actions in various barrel lengths.

I think its totally accurate to say that literally every New Model 3 is a Target gun in 44 Russian caliber! That's what this information is basically saying. The only difference being the sights. The gun is exactly the same. So I personally think we are missing the boat on experiencing the "accuracy" of the 44 Russian by not using all the available "original" period black powder rounds. So often on this forum 44 Russian collectors use only "The Heavy" bullet. I'd like to see how well these guns perform with the wadcutters, the various target bullets, in various bullet weights, etc. Evidentially there were a lot of them!

I think that common report of "It shoots High" will go away real fast when we see some nail driving results.

I guarantee that Ira Payne was not using the Heavy 230+ grain bullet when he was scoring high in the shooting contests. He was using one of the target bullets on the list. I also believe that they had developed a wadcutter prior to the earliest patented wadcutter in 1900. Those early targets having perfectly round holes are pretty solid evidence of a wadcutter in use. However, I've never shot a target bullet so I can't say for sure that it wasn't a flat nose target bullet that was making those holes? Up close, the face of those target bullets looks a lot like a wadcutter.

I have been fortunate enough to find a few target bullet molds recently so I hope to find out.

Murph

I guarantee that Ira Payne was not using the Heavy 230+ grain bullet when he was scoring high in the shooting contests. He was using one of the target bullets on the list.

Click to expand...

In the 1894 book "Modern American Pistols & Revolvers" the author A.C. Gould writes about Chevalier Ira Paine's famous match against the US pistol champion W.W. Bennett in 1887. He states that although Paine did shoot a 38-44 S&W which was "a special arm, made to order and taking specially prepared ammunition", Paine preferred the .44 Russian, factory loaded "heavy or full charge". In the book he states that a full charge will customarily shoot 18 inches above the bulls-eye at fifty yards, whereas the lighter loads are more accurate when using the short target sights. The oversized, tall half-round sights on the standard models are supposed to compensate for this up-kick of the full charge. The various target front sights available at that time were intended for different loads and he states that "the person who desires to shoot several kinds of ammunition accurately in one revolver, must carry about with him several front sights of various heights which will interchange". Paine and Bennett both used UMC and Winchester factory loaded ammo, however the book does not state bullet weight or charge. On an interesting side note, Gould and Paine experimented with the maximum distance they could shoot a .44 S&W Russian "Army Revolver" accurately and found they could hit a man-sized target reliably at 250 yards!
BTW - I found this book at the Sally Ann for $.50...

I think I will stick with one set of sights and pick the most appropriate ammo. Too bad we don't have the amount of choice they did back then!

Factory ammo

Oldmanwesson,
Very interesting article.

I personally will have to remain skeptical until I see things for myself at the range. I'm not saying that the article isn't accurate? I'm only saying that in a "highly competitive" sport the best of the best do not tend to volunteer any trade secrets. Like their personal best load/bullet select. Sort of like asking for a person's Pin number to their bank account.

I will have to see a pistol shooting 18" high at 50 yards before I believe it. Also, notice that he did not disclose his "specially prepared ammunition" for his 38-44? From my experience with competitors, That to me makes sense.

My Grandmother went to her grave never revealing her recipe for Apple Pie to anyone. I still remember that pie. It was the best I've ever had but nobody knows how she made it.

Some people are like that and highly competitive people are "very much" like that. They will often steer you in the wrong direction so they can stay on top and that is a true statement!

I also have a very rare New Model 3 in my collection that was one of about 30 guns that went to target shooters in about 1892. It has a vertical adjustment screw that is milled into the front of the barrel that allows the shooter to actually adjust the height of the front sight. "HOWEVER", you can not remove the sight to replace it without carefully punching out the horizontal pin....So, one would have to have some type of quick change front sight mounting that I've never seen or heard of in order to replace that sight at the range. I guess it's possible but not realistic.

I was part of a target shooting club years ago and the standard procedure was to "DIAL IN" a load. Never was it any sort of a procedure to shoot loads that shot 18" high and try to compensate for that during competitive shooting. The load was "dialed into the sights" that's the concept. Anything else is a Yarn.

UMC, Winchester, U.S. Cartridge Co, & Peters all made Target loads for the 44 Russian. You can call them full loads but they were for "TARGET bullets". Those that I listed above. I'm still trying to locate TARGET loads for the TARGET bullets but I honestly doubt that I will find them. Even loading manuals leave them "BLANK"....It's up to the shooter to generate.



Murph

Fiocchi makes a 247 gr. LRN for the 44 Russian, it is mfg. in Italy. I wonder how this load will shoot in a modern 44 Spl./44 Mag.?

Target Loads

I would often shoot a target hand load of 5 grains of bullseye powder with a 240 grain Semi-wadcutter in my long barrel 44mag Model 29 in between pig hunts just to practice hold and stance. I would expect the Fiocchi load to be the same type load. Target loads to me are like getting into the batting cage. Lots of fun and an important part of maintaining accurate shooting with a pistol.

Full load magnums should not change your hold or stance.


Murph

Hello

I had excellent results with my SW44 Russian with 118gr round ball with 12gr of FFG.

I will order an Accurate mould : 43.115C Wad cutter with a nice grease groove.

keep you informed

Patrick

Murph, you are probably right and I'm sure Paine had a few tricks up his sleeve...
Here are a few pictures of various "standard" front sights: .38-44 "Lyman". .32-44 standard S&W target, a Schofield, a No. 3 New Model, and a 3rd model Russian.

You can see on the No. 3 how the extra height of the front sight would compensate for a kick-up of the barrel.

Changing front sights would be extremely difficult if the gun wasn't specially modified to allow for this.

Modern Smokeless Target vs. Black Powder Target

I just wanted to clarify the difference between a "Modern" Target load and the original "Black Powder" Target load?

I think there is some confusion between the two. If we remain ERA specific?
Black Powder Target loads are "FULL LOADS"
Black Powder "Gallery Loads"are " LIGHT LOADS"

Smokeless Powder Target loads are "Light loads"

So, Patrick:

I think you made a great choice with that light wadcutter for distances up to 25 meters. Further would require a heavier bullet of 165/175 grain at least for 50 meter accurate shooting.

I would recommend you load several charges of Black Powder. Not just one....I would start with 15 grains of FFFG and work up 2 grains until you reach the maximum charge. As an example before you go to the range I would load 6 at 15 grains, 6 at 17 grains, 6 at 19 grains, 6 at 21 grains, and 6 at 25 grains. Using different seating depths with each load. Please do not use fill with the lighter loads. That will not give you "nail driving" results. Pressures will vary.
Simply seat the bullet firmly against the powder. You can always use a 44 sizing die to make sure it stays firmly against the powder.

The accuracy should improve with the heavier charge of powder until you reach the optimum, based on bullet weight vs powder charge vs shooting distance. Should be extremely impressive results.

Murph

Balloon head vs Solid head

I haven't located the original Black Powder target loading for the 44 Russian but if we do the simple Math? Here are the results from known Black Powder target loads:

Example photo 1: If we compare the 32-44 and 38-44 Target loads listed in antique Distributor catalogs? We see a heavy load of FFFG black powder with a Medium weight bullet for that caliber.

32-44 83 Grain RN Target Bullet 19 Grains FFFG

38-44 140 Grain RN Target Bullet 23 Grains FFFG

44 Russian 160-175 Grain RN Target Bullet 28-30 Grains FFFG
(*Estimated load for 44 Russian Target New Model 3)

This solution makes sense and might be surprising for some but the load is designed to be "HEAVY". The problem being that in order to achieve that load you must use a "Balloon Head" case. I have several Semi-Balloon Head cases in 44 Special. See Photo. That I plan on using for this test after trimming them down to correct length for the 44 Russian revolver chamber. See photo of original 44 Russian Winchester "TARGET BULLET" in a balloon head case. Unknown load but estimated at between 28-30 grains of FFFG "compressed". Likely a "NAIL DRIVER" at ranges up to and including 50 yards!!

*** All of these loads should be "extremely" accurate. In fact I would stand them up against "any" smokeless target load at ranges up to 50 yards for off hand pistol shooting. Perhaps beyond that range?

Murph

Case Volume Semi-Balloon vs Solid Head

I got impatient and decided to compare case volume of a Semi- balloon head case on the left (Early 44 Special altered to 44 Russian) in the photo with 32 grains of sugar with the modern solid head 44 case volume using the same load of sugar. I’m amazed at the difference in the earlier Semi- Balloon 44 Special altered case.
I can’t load for a few days. It’s too damp out and rain is forecast. So I’ll post examples when it’s dry enough out to load.

Anyway, you can clearly see that a lesser load of 30 grains compressed FFFG Black powder would easily work in the Semi- Balloon head case with a lighter 165-175 grain target Bullet. Especially a hollow base bullet! I just wanted to “see” not only the case volume difference but if it could be done. So the answer is Yes, it can be done.


Murph

BMur said:

I haven't located the original Black Powder target loading for the 44 Russian but if we do the simple Math? Here are the results from known Black Powder target loads:

Click to expand...

Standard Service Load for .44 Russian, was / is 23 Grains, 3F, and, 246 Grain Bullet ( and small variations in weight of either component, also existed ).

Example photo 1

Click to expand...

: If we compare the 32-44 and 38-44 Target loads listed in antique Distributor catalogs? We see a heavy load of FFFG black powder with a Medium weight bullet for that caliber.

32-44 83 Grain RN Target Bullet 19 Grains FFFG

38-44 140 Grain RN Target Bullet 23 Grains FFFG

44 Russian 160-175 Grain RN Target Bullet 28-30 Grains FFFG
(*Estimated load for 44 Russian Target New Model 3)

Click to expand...

Of course, with Black Powder Revolver, heavier Bullets have a little higher FPS than lighter ones, or maybe quite a bit more, depending...

Larger charges for lighter Bullets may be less efficient than smaller charges and Bullet seated deeper, or lighter charges and having 'filler' to allow normal compression and normal Bullet Seating for Bullets one wishes to crimp at a normal Crimp location ( Malto Meal, Corn Meal ) otherwise one is just blowing out a lot of un-burned Powder since the lighter Ball or Bullet accelerates out of the Barrel sooner, having less inertia, giving less burn time for the Powder, and not reaching as much FPS as a heavier Bullet would have.

This solution makes sense and might be surprising for some but the load is designed to be "HEAVY". The problem being that in order to achieve that load you must use a "Balloon Head" case. I have several Semi-Balloon Head cases in 44 Special. See Photo. That I plan on using for this test after trimming them down to correct length for the 44 Russian revolver chamber. See photo of original 44 Russian Winchester "TARGET BULLET" in a balloon head case. Unknown load but estimated at between 28-30 grains of FFFG "compressed". Likely a "NAIL DRIVER" at ranges up to and including 50 yards!!

*** All of these loads should be "extremely" accurate. In fact I would stand them up against "any" smokeless target load at ranges up to 50 yards for off hand pistol shooting. Perhaps beyond that range?

Murph

Click to expand...

As far as I gather -

What we now call 'Balloon Head' are what was originally called "Solid Head".

'Folded Head' was the original Metallic Cartridge Case, and was used for all the Rim Fires, who's wall and rim and head section was about the same all over, and the original external prime Primer Pockets of the earliest external-prime Center Fire Cases, the Primer Pocket was merely made by shaping or folding in and up and over, the center of the Case Head, who's Head thickness was about the same as the Case Walls, and, of course, this was a little weak, but more so, I suspect was evolved out of for being a little tedious for the Manufacturer to shape and form, requiring more annealing pauses, and more steps and draws than the 'Solid Head'.

"Solid Head" ( which we see mentioned on 1880s, 1890s Ammunition Box Labels or in advertisements for Ammunition of that time on onward for quite a while,) was the advent of a Cartridge Case having a slightly thicker Head face area, ( less tedious to make the Primer Pocket and more material to punch or draw it in to,) with the Primer Pocket shaped or formed in a heavier section, and these when we look in to the empty Case, we see the elevated Primer Pocket, with a Moat or Trough around it.

The next step eventually was to have a very thick Head, as thick as the Primer Pocket is tall, where in looking down in to the empty Case, we see merely a slightly dished bottom, and the center flash hole.

Logically, this is what one may expect the term "Solid Head" to mean, but oddly, the "Modern" Case design does not seem to have a name.

I am not sure when the term 'Semi Balloon Head' came in, or if it is a modern term, retro-actively applied, nor how it is imagined to differ from a Balloon Head proper...unless "Balloon Head" is understood to mean the earliest Folded Head Center Fire Cases, and Semi Balloon Head taken to mean what at the time was called "Solid Head", and what generally we now call "Balloon Head" with the latter being the 'Semi Balloon Head'.


I did compare ( what we now call ) Balloon Head ( nee: 'Solid Head' ) and modern Brass some time back, for .44 Russian and others to determine difference in Case volume, and I do not know where those notes are at the moment.

If memory serve though, I think for .38 Special, the difference is about 15 percent.

Larger diameter Cases, the difference is a slightly larger percentage.

Let us bear in mind, that if appealing to 'Smokeless' Loading Tables from the earlier 1900s, or from before WWII, which were written with the original 'Solid Head' - now called 'Balloon Head' Cases as tacit / given, if one is using the usual 'Smokeless' Propellants listed in these Loading Tables, and using modern Brass, one will have a meaningfully smaller Case Volume and a very different 'Loading Density' than intended...

...which will then result in higher pressures, or even send things in to over-pressure if using higher loadings...and, I suspect this is why sometimes on Forums one sees people writing in, saying Bullseye or Unique must be stronger now than 'back when', having loaded up some Revolver Cartridges using a 1920s IDEAL Handbook or other Tables of the time, and full or max charges of Bullseye or Unique, when, it is the loading density difference of Case volume, with their smaller volume modern Brass of today, that is at issue.

Catastrophic "Over Pressure" could possibly result if using max Charges of Bullseye or Unique if substituting modern Brass for the Brass intended from the era the old Loading Table was written.

If I am remembering right, new 'STARLINE" Brass, .44 Russian, 23 Grains of BP, just about fills the Case up to the Case mouth...presenting then an awkward conflict if one were intending Standard, Black Powder Loading, of Service Rounds...as the amount of 'compression' needed for the 246 Grain Bullet to seat and crimp as expected, would be enormous or impractical to achieve with usual Loading Tools.

While, for light to medium Black Powder Loading Charges in .44 Russian Black Powder, 20 odd percent or so smaller volume modern Brass ought to work fine and allow a nice usual compression.

Case volume

Case volume based on early cartridge design (Balloon head) can be an issue with various Black Powder Antique Pistols. As an extreme example the 45 Colt with 40 grains of powder compressed would likely use much less of the Black powders potential in say a 3" barrel Sheriffs model. Especially since the cartridge and case volume was originally designed for a 7 1/2" barrel Cavalry revolver. Possibly one distinct disadvantage to Black powder loads?

However, I don't think we have that issue here with the 44 Russian "Target" revolver having a 6 1/2" barrel. The Case volume for the 44 Russian cartridge is not a lot to begin with and if you look at the original "Target" cartridge that I posted a photo of? That's a Winchester Factory loaded Black Powder cartridge and it has a very heavy case crimp above the Target bullet. There are other ways of slowing down a bullet besides bullet weight when using black powder loads. A Heavy case crimp is one of them. The round is also obviously FACTORY engineered for the longer target barrel. I think Winchester knew what they were doing?

I also believe that when a bullet leaves the barrel that last millisecond of powder burn is very important for bullet stability on its way to the target. That's why the muzzle crown condition is also a critical part of overall accuracy. So I don't think we will have a problem with "too much" powder for the Target Bullets of 160-175 grains with a solid case crimp. I look forward to trying it out. I also will try to chronograph the results if I have that opportunity. I believe the bullet speed will be much higher than the standard 230/246 grain heavy. Which translates to much better accuracy.

Lets also try to believe that those "Factory" loaded and original Period stats (photo'd above) for the 32-44 and 38-44 high volume Black Powder loads are there for a reason? I have complete confidence that they knew what they were doing in the 1880's and 1890's. After all, they were there when the guns were being manufactured and smokeless powder was still on the drawing table.

I mean 23 grains of FFFG for a 140 grain 38 caliber? That's the heaviest load I've ever read about in that pistol caliber. That's heavier than the original 38 special full load in 158 grain round nose.

That's even heavier than the original 41 Long colt and "literally" matches the 44 Russian original heavy bullet load? I've loaded and shot the 41 Long colt with 21 grains of Black Powder and a "200" grain bullet and it's impressive.

I intend to load the Semi-Balloon head case to match my estimate of original case powder load with known and research proven bullet weight and designs for the Target New Model 3 in 44 Russian. None of this is "Hot Rodding" or modification. It's an accurate duplication of what was.....as close as possible.


Murph

New Model 3 Obsolete Prior to 1907

Well,
I found a ton more information about the 44 Russian cartridge and also what happened to the New Model 3 when smokeless powder was perfected in about 1907. I found an early book written in 1908 and According to Target shooters of that era the early Smokeless powders presented several problems prior to 1907. It wasn't until about 1907 that they perfected smokeless powder for pistol use. (worked out all the bugs?) These early smokeless powders were actually designed for NEW Smokeless guns according to Target shooters of that ERA.

I don't know who started the rumor or who documented the shooting of the 1 1/2" grouping at 50 yards? but it "WAS NOT" the New Model 3. It was the New Service Hand ejector in 44 Russian caliber having a 6 1/2" barrel and it was done with Smokeless loads post 1908. Likely with target sights.

Target shooters appreciated the New Model 3 history as an accurate target gun but once Smokeless was established and perfected in 1907 the New Model 3 was instantly "obsolete" according to several Target shooters of that early 20th century timeframe? The New Model 3 became obsolete in favor of the New "Smokeless" Hand ejector in 44 Russian and 44 Special in 1908. Right about the same time Smith and Wesson guaranteed their revolvers for smokeless???

They even clearly state that the New Model 3 was for Black Powder only in Target calibers including the 44 Russian and they were Not adapted for smokeless use. These are "Target Shooters" talking that were there! They simply changed over to the New Service Double actions in 1908 as the new and improved Target guns that just happened to be chambered in 44 Russian. So the early Smokeless loads in 44 Russian were actually designed for this modern smokeless double action. "NOT" the NEW Model 3's or the earlier double actions. The smokeless loads were designed for the new smokeless pistols according to the early Target shooters. They saw the New Model 3 as obsolete in 1907!!

So, I guess we are on our own regarding the accuracy of the original Black Powder Target loads for the New Model 3 and earlier Double Actions.

Murph

Historically Accurate Account

I found the source of the 1 1/2” grouping. Read the attached article of the extensive tests performed with Black powder loads with Target New Model 3’s in various calibers. The historians forgot to mention that the miracle shots were performed with a shoulder stock attachment, telescopic sights, and a sand bag rest?
Not to mention it was the best grouping of 10,000 rounds fired?
I swear, the more research I perform the more I realize that a good yarn is always part of human history!

I wonder how they mounted the scope?

Murph