Big Bore Handgun Heavyweights.

flat top

Member
Joined
Dec 4, 2008
Messages
491
Reaction score
9
Last weekend, I took my 44 mag out to the range to test some new heavyweight bullet loads. These 400+ grain bullets are showing great promise in the 44 and we should begin working with the 45LC in the near future. Our small group of experimenters are now doing full fledge testing of this heavyweight bullet design, and, because we are working in unknown territory, we will not discuss the results until the testing has been completed. If there is any interest by members of this forum (sound off here), we will post the results upon the completion of the testing.
 
Register to hide this ad
Will there be pressure data as well? From a testing lab or powder manufacturer?

I think that is the crux of the issue. I think pressure data is essential for a home handloader as primer reading and observations of extraction effort aren't reliable indicators. Don
 
Don,
My question also includes the manner of acquiring the pressure data. There is a "home made" device, that incorporates a strain guage, that can be subjective at best. Pressure barrel information is what will be needed to be truly useful information.

I have a small question though. Practicality. If a 270 - 300gr bullet traveling @ 1500fps drops over a foot at 150 yards what will a 400gr+ load do? (Info attained from an article by John Havilland on 44Mag rifle data.)

Now, I'm not criticizing the effort at all. I like load development. My wonderings are much like some have asked me when I contemplated such endeavors. "Why, when a different caliber already provides this performance." Like the 45/70.

Just wondering.
 
I have done some testing recently with 44Mag rifle loads too. I live in a state that you can use this combination for deer hunting.

Most shots would be well under 100 yards. The heavier bullets would still drop significantly BUT may not effect/affect the type of shots one normally would take here.

I'm with the others though, @ 40,000CUP what velocity are you going to be able to generate with these big ole' boys.

I suppose Lil' Gun would be a good powder for this trial. In my experience you want to have a gas check bullet for it.
 
I want to congratulate you fellas (either sex) for your ingenuity and willingness to experiment. Bravo! Now, just don't get hurt. Wear hockey equipment with heavy gloves and headgear if you must, with a secure face-plate and chest protector.
John Linebaugh has written, IIRC, that 320gr cast is about a working max load for .44 Mag and 350gr cast bullets are the working max for .45 Colt. Go any heavier than that, and the bullets lose their ballistic efficiency or balance point for caliber. A bullet has a particular max weight for caliber, in terms of maintaining ballistic efficiency, barrel twist rate, velocity, etc.
I read that John Taffin has shot 400 grains, at least once, in one of his .44's or .45's, but doesn't advise it. I've shot hundreds of 450's out of my .500 Linebaugh Ruger Bisley, although I haven't pressed veloctiy beyond safe limits. And, 450 grains is fine for a .500 Linebaugh.
The illogical end-point of your experiment may be a 500-grain bullet which key-holes the target at 200 ft/sec and has a trajectory like a mortar shell. Of little use to anyone.
Most of the time, we hear about guys that are pushing "standard-weight" bullets at higher and higher velocities, above SAAMI, and sooner or later will get into trouble when the gun gives way to over-pressure...which it will. We have always had experimenters, (I am one...and began about 50 years ago with a Smith model 1950 Target in .44 special) and I encourage that...within strict limits.
By the way, long after I sold off that gun in a divorce, I was told that the frame of that gun had been stretched beyond further usefulness; i.e. it was junk. I wish I hadn't pushed that fine gun beyond its limits.
In the old days, we had the ".44 Associates" and Elmer Keith, John Linebaugh and Ross Seyfried. We had Neil Wheeler and Bill Topping playing with .50 caliber guns long before John Linebaugh brought it to a fine art. Hamilton Bowen is also a master of that field.
Today, we have Brian Pearce of HANDLOADER who is working "where angels fear to tread." His work is with .44 Special, .45 Colt and .44 Mag, but I haven't seen him go to excess on bullet weight. His contemporary work seems to concern itself with good maximum "working" loads for particular models of guns. Which I applaud and emulate. He divides various gun models into three successive pressure-level maximums..and carefully works up loads within each range. You find him in HandLoader primarily, although he writes for various gunrags. He's a good guy doing valuable work.
Now...after all that, I ask you...what is your goal? And, how do you define your safe working limits?
And yes...I would like to stay informed. Obviously, I can't stop you but I hope you guys will be careful. Pressure signs have worked for me in the past. I'm not certain that they work each and every time.
Sonny
 
I think I'd recommend a full-bore metplat design- so it looks almost like a full wadcutter...in the 275-300 grain area.

If you want heavy and something that will punch...try Penn Bullet's "Hammerhead"- exactly what I'm talking about.

Penn bullets was making them in .430, but have only shot the .454 diameter "hammerheads." However, they aren't currently producing the one in .454". :(
 
A 400 grain in 44 mag is interesting from a theoretical perspective, but I don't see as much practicality. Perhaps a heavy penetrator at close range. It should have a very high sectional density so even at moderate 44 Mag velocities should drive through about anything. I'd be interested in seeing your results.

A 400 grain 45 Colt load is more interesting. Sizing down 405 gr 45/70 bullets to .452 has been done. In the right gun, they can be loaded to some decent levels even though you lose a lot of case capacity due to deep seating in standard chambers. Redhawk are a good platform for strength. They are definately interesting as short range penetrators that provide a sledgehammer blow.
 
flat top, please let me know how the testing goes.

Years ago I found an RCBS mould in a gun store that had been special ordered, then the buyer refused to take it. It is a 41/300/FN #82039. I did find some load data for a 300 gr. lead bullet in Hodgdon #26, but there was no mention of the bullets shape, COAL seating depth or etc. The charges looked pretty impressive so, instead of testing them in one of my S&Ws, I used one of my Marlins. Wow!
 
Now, I'm not criticizing the effort at all. I like load development. My wonderings are much like some have asked me when I contemplated such endeavors. "Why, when a different caliber already provides this performance." Like the 45/70. Just wondering.

The more I reload, the less I like to "freelance" w/o guidelines from a reputable source. One of the things that drives me was a comment by John Linebaugh saying that he had seen loads running an estimated or perhaps measured (I can't say with confidence which) 70,000 PSI slide right out of the cylinder chambers, when one would expect seriously sticky extraction.

While I would have no interest in shooting many of them, I'd like Hodgdon or some similar source to see what they could get out of the .500 Mag when seating the slugs out to the full cylinder length as John Ross does. I'm sure Ross is knowledgeable but I don't want to try his efforts w/o lab data. Getting more and more conservative with passing years I guess. Don
 
Last weekend, I took my 44 mag out to the range to test some new heavyweight bullet loads. These 400+ grain bullets are showing great promise in the 44 and we should begin working with the 45LC in the near future. Our small group of experimenters are now doing full fledge testing of this heavyweight bullet design, and, because we are working in unknown territory, we will not discuss the results until the testing has been completed. If there is any interest by members of this forum (sound off here), we will post the results upon the completion of the testing.


So why even post something like the above unless you are just an attention whore. The first thought was " this guy sounds like a used car/bullet salesman trying to drum up interest for future sales".

The second thought was "here is how the conversation would likely go":

"I can't tell you all the details, but I work with some spec op ninjas who will teach you how to shoot like a navy recon swat ranger in just one weekend for the low price of $199.99"


Lathe turned projectiles? Cast?

I may be just a "bit" cynical, but I have not seen anything truly new or heard of any original ideas in regards to handgunning in a very long time.
 
So why even post something like the above unless you are just an attention whore. The first thought was " this guy sounds like a used car/bullet salesman trying to drum up interest for future sales".

The second thought was "here is how the conversation would likely go":

"I can't tell you all the details, but I work with some spec op ninjas who will teach you how to shoot like a navy recon swat ranger in just one weekend for the low price of $199.99"


Lathe turned projectiles? Cast?

I may be just a "bit" cynical, but I have not seen anything truly new or heard of any original ideas in regards to handgunning in a very long time.

Maybe they are having a good time and just wanted to share. While it was not any real info. I'm sure there was a smile involved.

It's almost to the point now days fun is a no no if not politically correct or technically correct. And heaven forbid if fun involves a tad of danger or excitement. :)
 
And heaven forbid if fun involves a tad of danger or excitement. :)

I think a lot of people honestly don't want to give out recommendations that might be workable to people of unknown expertise who might end up injuring themselves. Don't think that is bizarre at all. Don
 
Back
Top