Pennsylvania Firearm Owners Association
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 12
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    somewhere, Pennsylvania
    Posts
    1,757
    Rep Power
    21474850

    Default Short barreled 44's

    I love big bore handguns. Just a personal preference.

    I recently bought a Ruger Alaskan in 44 magnum, which has become my carry piece. This gun has a 2.5 inch barrel, and it got me thinking about the performance of the 44 magnum in this particular platform.

    I understand that the 45 acp (another platform/cartridge that I love) is designed to be 5 inch barreled auto pistol that throws a .452 caliber, 230 gr. fmj slug at 850-900 ft/s.

    Now, with 44 magnum platforms like the Alaskan, I've seen chronograph tests that indicate factory 44 magnum ammo (Blazer 240 44 magnums sjhp) doing less than 1000 ft/s. That gives the Alaskan a .429 caliber, 240 gr. slug going ~950 ft/s.

    45 acp: 230 gr. @ ~900 ft/s
    44 mag: 240 gr. @ ~950 ft/s

    It would seem that the short barreled 44 magnums are NOT the 'overkill' cannons that will be just too much penetration. I know that many folks, even well-informed 'experts' (like Clint Smith) are staunch advocates of carrying a 1911 government model loaded with 'hot' 230 gr. hardball. But if that is not considered 'too much' for a carry load, than why do the 44 magnums with carry-friendly proportions (shorter barrels) get the reputation of being too much penetration? Consider further that the 44 mag slugs can be hollow points, and will penetrate less than the 45 fmj.

    Now I know that the 44 mag CAN offer loads that are too much penetration for carry (300 grain hard-cast stuff). And I also know that the magnums will produce muzzle flash and load report. However, I honestly don't see THAT much difference between this and when I shoot 45 acp.

    Upshot: Standard 44 magnum loads from a short barrel seem to approximate the ballistic potential of the much lauded 45 acp fmj from a 1911. Am I missing something?

    Of course the 1911 and Ruger Alaskan are different shaped, and the flatter 1911 might be seen as easier to carry. But it would seem that 44 magnum, to me, isn't the 'overkill, overpenetration monster, that it has been called.

    If we like/accept 45 fmj, than it would seem that 44 magnum from a concealed carry 44 platform would do just fine as well.

    What are others' thoughts on this?

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Newport, Pennsylvania
    (Perry County)
    Age
    58
    Posts
    5,228
    Rep Power
    21474857

    Default Re: Short barreled 44's

    My thoughts are that someone really likes to carry a .44 mag and is getting shit from his shooting buddies.

    In all seriousness, I just picked a 629 with 3" barrel. I love it. The recoil with the wood grips makes it somewhat slow to get back on target but rubber grips solve that. I'm still looking at holster options but I intend to work it into my carry selection. One of the reasons, I shoot it better than a lot of my others, including my 1911. I learned the art of the quick revolver reload from PSP so there isn't a great disadvantage that way. Once I get reloading, I'm going to play with some loads to get the most out of it.

    There's no reason I can see for it not being a good carry gun as long as weight isn't a limiting factor.
    "A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself"

    "He created the game, played the game, and lost the game.... All under his own terms, by his own doing." JW34

    "Tolerance is the lube that helps slip the dildo of dysfunction into the ass of a civilized society." Plato

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    somewhere, Pennsylvania
    Posts
    1,757
    Rep Power
    21474850

    Default Re: Short barreled 44's

    Quote Originally Posted by unclejumbo View Post
    My thoughts are that someone really likes to carry a .44 mag and is getting shit from his shooting buddies.

    In all seriousness, I just picked a 629 with 3" barrel. I love it. The recoil with the wood grips makes it somewhat slow to get back on target but rubber grips solve that. I'm still looking at holster options but I intend to work it into my carry selection. One of the reasons, I shoot it better than a lot of my others, including my 1911. I learned the art of the quick revolver reload from PSP so there isn't a great disadvantage that way. Once I get reloading, I'm going to play with some loads to get the most out of it.

    There's no reason I can see for it not being a good carry gun as long as weight isn't a limiting factor.
    Thanks for your input. Actually, the friends that have seen the Alaskan 44 haven't (yet) said it was 'too much' for carry---The Alaskan always gets a big grin as a response, especially after shooting. Most of the shit that I have w/re the 44 has been what I've read.

    Your 629 sounds like an awesome piece. De Santis makes a good pancake thumb break for it. http://www.amazon.com/Desantis-Thumb.../dp/B0020HJEEY

    There's also a lot of nonsense out there how 44 mag snubbies will be 'wrist wreckers', how the recoil and muzzle blast will just pound the shooter into submission, begging for no more. It sounds like both of our experiences are quite the contrary, as we both like shooting them.

    Frankly, I was very surprised how manageable a snub-nose 44 with standard magnum loads really is. My S&W model 58 with real 41 mag loads is louder and nastier to shoot than my Alaskan.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Next to the Corn
    Posts
    3,833
    Rep Power
    21474853

    Default Re: Short barreled 44's

    With the right HP bullet and powder load .44mag would be fine for self defense. Same with .44 special. Most people just don't want to lug around a big heavy .44 hand cannon.

    I always thought the Alaskans should have came with 4" barrels vs a 2.5" barrel. The extra barrel length will help greatly with powder burn however the extra 1.5" of barrel won't be noticeable in a revolver that big.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Newport, Pennsylvania
    (Perry County)
    Age
    58
    Posts
    5,228
    Rep Power
    21474857

    Default Re: Short barreled 44's

    I've got this one flagged on Ebay.

    http://www.ebay.com/itm/181432413870...84.m1423.l2648

    Thanks for the link.
    "A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself"

    "He created the game, played the game, and lost the game.... All under his own terms, by his own doing." JW34

    "Tolerance is the lube that helps slip the dildo of dysfunction into the ass of a civilized society." Plato

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania
    (Cumberland County)
    Posts
    6,063
    Rep Power
    21474858

    Default Re: Short barreled 44's

    I have a cheapo 44 mag snub nose ( Rossi ) - couldn't resist the deal. If the bullet doesn't take the bad guy down, the flame will ! My only issue is the recoil - ouch! For me, would make that second and third shot accuracy a bit tricky. But then again, after the first shot, if you miss, bad guy would be running for the hills!

    "Tastefully Pimptastic"

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    somewhere, Pennsylvania
    Posts
    1,757
    Rep Power
    21474850

    Default Re: Short barreled 44's

    Quote Originally Posted by unclejumbo View Post
    I've got this one flagged on Ebay.

    http://www.ebay.com/itm/181432413870...84.m1423.l2648

    Thanks for the link.
    I also have that CME holster, designed for the Alaskan.

    It's a good holster. The only thing that bothers me a little, is that on mine, the leather digs into the adjustable sights pretty roughly. It's almost like the rear sights get squashed and torqued when holstering and unholstering. The Ruger's sights are built pretty tough, so they seem to hold up alright.

    The De Santis holster does not unclose the rear sights. Just something to consider.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    somewhere, Pennsylvania
    Posts
    1,757
    Rep Power
    21474850

    Default Re: Short barreled 44's

    Quote Originally Posted by cruzans View Post
    I have a cheapo 44 mag snub nose ( Rossi ) - couldn't resist the deal. If the bullet doesn't take the bad guy down, the flame will ! My only issue is the recoil - ouch! For me, would make that second and third shot accuracy a bit tricky. But then again, after the first shot, if you miss, bad guy would be running for the hills!

    That's a nice little revolver. Looks like it would be lighter and handier than the Ruger Alaskan.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    back to Port Charlotte, Florida
    Age
    60
    Posts
    5,483
    Rep Power
    3627622

    Default Re: Short barreled 44's

    Quote Originally Posted by American1776 View Post
    Upshot: Standard 44 magnum loads from a short barrel seem to approximate the ballistic potential of the much lauded 45 acp fmj from a 1911. Am I missing something?
    A lot of recoil. Imagine if the powder that blew out of the barrel, unburnt, got burned......
    BCM and Glock...for a bigger pile of 'cold dead hands' brass.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Brookville, Pennsylvania
    (Jefferson County)
    Age
    51
    Posts
    20,076
    Rep Power
    21474874

    Default Re: Short barreled 44's

    Quote Originally Posted by American1776 View Post
    I love big bore handguns. Just a personal preference.

    I recently bought a Ruger Alaskan in 44 magnum, which has become my carry piece. This gun has a 2.5 inch barrel, and it got me thinking about the performance of the 44 magnum in this particular platform.

    I understand that the 45 acp (another platform/cartridge that I love) is designed to be 5 inch barreled auto pistol that throws a .452 caliber, 230 gr. fmj slug at 850-900 ft/s.

    Now, with 44 magnum platforms like the Alaskan, I've seen chronograph tests that indicate factory 44 magnum ammo (Blazer 240 44 magnums sjhp) doing less than 1000 ft/s. That gives the Alaskan a .429 caliber, 240 gr. slug going ~950 ft/s.

    45 acp: 230 gr. @ ~900 ft/s
    44 mag: 240 gr. @ ~950 ft/s

    It would seem that the short barreled 44 magnums are NOT the 'overkill' cannons that will be just too much penetration. I know that many folks, even well-informed 'experts' (like Clint Smith) are staunch advocates of carrying a 1911 government model loaded with 'hot' 230 gr. hardball. But if that is not considered 'too much' for a carry load, than why do the 44 magnums with carry-friendly proportions (shorter barrels) get the reputation of being too much penetration? Consider further that the 44 mag slugs can be hollow points, and will penetrate less than the 45 fmj.

    Now I know that the 44 mag CAN offer loads that are too much penetration for carry (300 grain hard-cast stuff). And I also know that the magnums will produce muzzle flash and load report. However, I honestly don't see THAT much difference between this and when I shoot 45 acp.

    Upshot: Standard 44 magnum loads from a short barrel seem to approximate the ballistic potential of the much lauded 45 acp fmj from a 1911. Am I missing something?

    Of course the 1911 and Ruger Alaskan are different shaped, and the flatter 1911 might be seen as easier to carry. But it would seem that 44 magnum, to me, isn't the 'overkill, overpenetration monster, that it has been called.

    If we like/accept 45 fmj, than it would seem that 44 magnum from a concealed carry 44 platform would do just fine as well.

    What are others' thoughts on this?
    You have to remember that the .44mag and .357mag loads that we have today have been pussified for the weak wristed, flash & blast fearing wimps that we have today.

    The standardized spec load for a .44mag is a 240gr bullet at 1350fps from a 6" revolver barrel. The .357mag's standardized spec load is a 158gr bullet @ 1450fps from a 6" revolver barrel.

    However, people have bitched and complained because they hurt their vaginas due to firing real .357 or .44 mag loads instead of sticking to .38Spl or .44Spl respectively.

    When you buy .357 or .44 mag ammo - be sure the manufacturer's specs are as I mentioned prior, or better. ...otherwise you're shooting puss loads, and might as well stick with a lessor gun to begin with. Exceptions on velocity for heavier slugs, of course. And your actual barrel length will need to be accounted for. But the manufacturer's load should perform around what I posted, if not - it is for the panzies.
    RIP: SFN, 1861, twoeggsup, Lambo, jamesjo, JayBell, 32 Magnum, Pro2A, mrwildroot, dregan, Frenchy, Fragger, ungawa, Mtn Jack, Grapeshot, R.W.J., PennsyPlinker, Statkowski, Deanimator, roland, aubie515

    Don't end up in my signature!

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Non-NFA Short Barreled Shotgun
    By Atonob in forum General
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: November 1st, 2011, 10:47 AM
  2. AR-15 short barreled uppers
    By cookyray in forum General
    Replies: 34
    Last Post: October 14th, 2009, 11:32 AM
  3. short (sort of) barreled 50 BMG
    By original gunner in forum General
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: May 26th, 2009, 08:22 PM
  4. Short Barreled Rifle (Build - 1)
    By RONNIE77 in forum General
    Replies: 45
    Last Post: December 21st, 2008, 10:12 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •