.44 Magnum Loading Data

[spaniel]

I do not own a M329 and never will. I'm not much on buying something that has serious design flaws, just me, everyone is different.

You could communicate your personal decision not to own one, without being disrespectful to those who do. Your opinion on design flaws is not universal.

I have always used H110 for full power loads but I'm switching over to 2400 as the association between ball powders with full power loads and shield cutting is too strong to ignore. I am a fan of Unique for plinking; if nothing else it simply works, and allows me to bulk buy one powder I can use in every handgun caliber I own. I'm moving towards consolidating into as few powders as possible to keep things simple.

 

[jlynch34]

I've used 2400 in 44 mags for about 30 years now never any problems in my Ruger Redhawk some loads to stout for my brother-in-laws S&W.

 

[MMA10mm]

To each his own. There are good reasons to use Unique for 44Mag loads. Although it will not give you top velocity capabilities, it will perform adequately on paper and light skinned animals, humans included.

It performs well in a carbine where you can get the full use of the extra barrel length.

Can you get more with slower powders? YEP and 99.9% of the loads I have developed do just that. I am pushing a 240gr LRNHP with AA#9 (a lead friendly powder) to just under 1800fps from my Marlin 1894. That same load delivers just over 1300fps from my M629 Classic with a 5" tube.

I do not own a M329 and never will. I'm not much on buying something that has serious design flaws, just me, everyone is different.

There are rumors, and again, I have not substantiated them, that the ball powders associated with hotter loads cause frame cutting. Since the M329 has a flash shield, that means that that part is going to get attacked pretty heavily if you use them in it.

If that is okay with you, hey, have at it. Personally, if I did own a M329, I would use a flake powder, something like Blue Dot or SR4756, or something like them.

Just me, have fun and be safe.......

Wow, we are a lot alike! One other thing to consider on the M329 is to use a single-base powder instead of a double-base. I have nothing but my opinion, but I feel avoiding ball powders AND nitro-glycerin containing powders would be wise.

 

[tappedandtagged]

Wow, we are a lot alike! One other thing to consider on the M329 is to use a single-base powder instead of a double-base. I have nothing but my opinion, but I feel avoiding ball powders AND nitro-glycerin containing powders would be wise.

Why exactly would you avoid souble base powders And ball powder?

 

[MMA10mm]

Well, again, this is just my opinion, and not substantiated by any science I am aware of, but:

1) Ball powders, due to their shape diminish in size as each kernal burns, creating smaller and smaller balls. This CAN (doesn't mean always) cause an increase in speed of the burn rate as the ball gets smaller. This is controlled greatly by deterrent coatings, but I'm not confident it is a 100% thing. In addition, if we could climb inside a cartridge as it's fired and watch what is happening, it is my impression that the degressive-burning, smaller-and-smaller in size ball powders will increase the "sand-blasting effect" that causes the erosion of the topstrap. Also, I seem to recall that ball powders had a heat issue - again this may have been solved with new coatings/processes/materials in manufacture, but the combination of the sand-blasting effect of the small particles with the higher heat, and that ball powders are all double-base (which I'll address below), just gives me the impression that they may be more errosive on the materials the 329 is made from.

2) Double-base powders contain Nitroglycerine and burn hotter and can be more errosive (depending on the application) than single-base powders. Personally, for a heavy-load in the 329, I'd pick IMR-4227. This is a single-base, tubular-shaped (with perforation) powder which burns cooler, and the shape of the kernals combined with that perforation cause it to burn neutrally. Finally, the tubular shaped powders seem to have the erosive effect in this application (pistols) vs. ball or flake-shaped.

Several of these aspects have been reported and are known scientific facts, but I cannot say they all have, and I cannot say they've been combined to address this issue of the flame-cutting of the 329 frame, so this is purely speculative opinion on my part.

Also, I'm take my comments as applying to an apples-to-apples argument, say H110/W296 vs. IMR4227. I cannot say my argument will hold up at all, if one compares something like W231 and IMR-4227. The change in load mass, burning speed difference, and powder burning rate may all play a part in causing a difference there. I'm specifically thinking of similar-type loads (like full-power) comparing one type of powder against the other.

I suppose someone could buy two new 329s and shoot only H110/W296 through one and only IMR4227 through the other, and then measure/photograph the differences to prove it one way or the other... Myself, I don't have a single 329, although I'd like to have one.

 

[Hook686]

The Alliant web page shows 10.3 grains of Unique as max. with a 240 JHP bullet. I use Unique with my S&W 329PD. I have used 9.4 to 10.0 grains of Unique. with a 240 grain GDHP bullet. I have experienced no problems. I found I prefer the 9.4 grains with that revolver.


http://www.alliantpowder.com/reloaders/recipedetail.aspx?gtypeid=1&weight=240&shellid=33&bulletid=57