Respectfully, if you can hit a hawk on the wing at 200 yards you are probably shooting at the wrong critter.
For my fellow .44 special lovers.
- Thread starter Thumbcocker
- Start date
Most of my 44 Special loads have been for a Charter Arms Bulldog. These use either 200 grain RNFP or 218 Lee SWC and 4 grains of Bulleseye or 5 grains of Win-231/HP38. My only Unique load was 8 grains and a 200 grain RNFP for use in a SBH. These would be a bit stiff in the Bulldog.
Winelover
North Central Arkansas
See a lot of you guys using light for caliber bullets in Bulldogs. IME, light for caliber bullets shoot low in fixed-sighted revolvers. I stick with 240-250 grainers in mine. I never found that much of a difference in recoil with light for caliber bullets.........slower burning powders seem to make more of a difference.
Edward R Southgate
Component Hoarder Extraordiniare
My Bulldogs shoots the Skeeter load just fine , a bit easier on the hand in the 4" Target than it is in the short gun. I shoot Elmer's load in the Ruger Flattop and the Second Model S&W HE .
Last edited:
L Ross
Well-Known Member
And when you use Unique soot as a die lubricant you get a unique shine to the brass for about 1/2". Sort of a burnished black over gold.
Glaciers
Alaska Land of the Midnight Sun
I’ve mostly in the same boat. I’ve had 3 or 4 Bulldogs of the years currently down to one. The 3” model is the first CA purchased years ago and Karyn made it hers right away. Never liked the 2” Bulldog the 3” is a small enough package for me. Keep in mind in this northern country you have a fair amount of clothing on usually year round to hide a pistol.
But I’ve generally loaded up Brian P. Level 1 loads even though the little CA a can probably handle a little stiffer load. Karyn can’t.
I found years ago a Rossi 720 3” SPL which is a heavier gun with adjustable sights and I’ve stayed with the same loadings that I use in the Bulldog. I’ve often wondered if the Rossi could handle the level 2 loadings, but never found any information to confirm my suspicions.
I picked up a 4” CA Bulldog with adjustable sights for my BIL who shoots it quite well.
My other experience with the Special was with the Lew Horton guns in the 80’s I picked up a 3” round butt and a 4” square butt. Sweet guns. But they regrettably went down the road and now that I would like to replace them I can’t afford them.
I had a 24-3 - 6” which I recently sold, beautiful pistol in new condition, wonderful shooter. But I don’t use a range pistol hardly ever so it would sit in the box and collect dust.
The biggest problem with the 44 special is the lack of a decent mid size pistol. Recent years have produced a few guns Rugers GP100 which comes in a blue 5” which is looking pretty nice for a Ruger, but it’s not a Smith. Still tempted though.
I did buy a Smith 69 4” a few years ago and that was nice, but it was stainless and very little weight and physical size savings to set aside my old 4” model 29-2 with a round butt that I’ve been carrying forever. So the 69 went down the road.
Dave has a new in the box Ruger Blackhawk that I’ve been eyeing, it can be had pretty reasonably but I have been shying away because it’s a single action. I think I’m about to get over that though.
The only fixed sight 44 I have is Karyn’s Bulldog, and if it gets used it will be close. A couple inches elevation one way or another won’t make any difference.
LOL. Got to love you man, you always have the sunny side in mind.
I’ve been frustrated with Unique because of the carbon in level one 44 loadings, possibly worse because I have a bunch of older Unique in the cardboard 4 pound jugs. I hear the new stuff is cleaner.
But I’ve been thinking about using Bullseye or 231 and seeing how that works out.
I’m still wondering if the Rossi 720 could safely handle level two loadings, I think it could, but not sure. It seems like a pretty well built pistol, but it’s not a Smith.
My 29-2, not pretty but it’s a workhorse.
The Charter top, Rossi below.
The blue 22-4 model 1950 45 ACP has in recent years stepped up to fill the void that the lack of a 4” 44 Smith has left.
Don’t pay any attention to that beautiful 625, it’s stainless for one thing, but I’ve got over my dislike of shiny things for this fine shooter.
I personally think that the Lew Horton offering's in the 80’s were about perfect. A little heavy for CC but you could find yourself making allowances for such a fine gun.
I know one member here who has one, I won’t mention him, but I am envious.
Cadillac Jeff
Well-Known Member
I wish I'd bought one of the cimarron single action with the 3.5 in. octagon barrel in 44 sp. With birds head grip.
Thought they looked spiffy.
Thought they looked spiffy.
Petrol & Powder
Well-Known Member
There's a lot of reality in that statement.
That Rossi 720 and a 3" Charter Arms come close to fitting the criteria of a mid-sized revolver chambered in 44 Special.
There are multiple impediments to making a mid-sized 44 Special revolver. The first is the physical size of the cartridge. You can get 5 rounds in a cylinder that’s not too big overall, but you still have fairly thin chamber walls. Go to 6 rounds and you’re squarely in “N-frame” territory in terms of cylinder diameter, which means N-frame overall.
It’s very difficult to find that sweet spot of compactness and necessary strength with that big bore size. Advanced materials can help to keep the weight down, with some penalties in the recoil department, but there’s not much that can be done about the physical size of the chambers.
Then there’s the question of strength. There are very few factory loads in 44 Special that I would be comfortable with in a self-defense role, particularly from a short barrel. The SAAMI limits are just too anemic. There are a few factory loads that are OK, but generally speaking I would want to step up the pressure slightly to at least get 800 fps from a short barrel with a minimum of a 200 grain bullet (240 would be better). Otherwise, there’s little reason to select a 44 over a smaller caliber. This is not an impossible goal, but the strength of the gun comes into play.
The 5 shot GP-100 and the 5 shot S&W 69 are both in the “L-frame” category in terms of size. With a tapered barrel between 2.5” and 3”, both of those platforms would be ideal, but we are now into custom gun territory.
I think the Charter Arms models are better than most people believe but I wouldn’t want to abuse one with warm loads approaching “Skeeter” level loads, even if the gun could handle a few.
A 2.5” L-frame chambered in .357 Magnum starts to look like a better option in a package that is the same size as a similar DA revolver in 44 Special.
Last edited:
KeithB
Resident Half Fast Machinist
I've got a Rossi 720 and it's pretty nice, handy size and all. Only two problems - the thing has sharp corners everywhere! and the cylinder throats vary by 0.003" from smallest to largest. I've thought about running a reamer through the throats and attacking the frame with a Cratex wheel. If I had two of them I'd put one on the mill and cut away some of the heavy underlug.
I don't work on it because I've got a Scandium frame hammerless L-frame in .44 that is lighter and handier to carry.
I don't work on it because I've got a Scandium frame hammerless L-frame in .44 that is lighter and handier to carry.
Winelover
North Central Arkansas
Current Bulldogs are offered in 2" (tapered barrel) 2.5", 3" and 4.2" (Target version/adjustable sights). Mine is the hammerless Fit for Duty with 2.5" barrel and weighs in at 21 ounces. They can handle Category Two loads but a steady diet is not recommended per Brian Pierce.
I have arthritis in the first joint of my trigger finger. The bone bulges and gets rapped with every shot. A cylinder full will abrade the skin at that joint. I wear a light glove when I practice. Practice sessions are 4 or 5 Speed Strips full.
I have arthritis in the first joint of my trigger finger. The bone bulges and gets rapped with every shot. A cylinder full will abrade the skin at that joint. I wear a light glove when I practice. Practice sessions are 4 or 5 Speed Strips full.
The Rossi 720s, Taurus 441s (90s versions) and the CA Bulldog are all nice, each has a few warts, BUT, I believe the Charter design to be the best, but there are no flies on the S&W guts of the other two. Taurus no longer maintains the old lockwork design, but the NEW Rossis DO AND the new Rossis have addressed the concertina-wire ergonomics and throat variations, at least based on the ONE (357 Mag) I have now.
These guns are all sized appropriately for 800 - 850 fps 240s, but the 750 fps loads are easier on the shooter.
I don't think Taurus has a 44 Special at the moment, but even as they have really started making some nicer guns, I'm not a fan of the lockwork/internals. Charter did the transfer bar thing and did it well. Taurus is not pulling it off as well - at least in their smallest guns, like the 85, 38 Spl. You can get decent triggers on the Charters, but not on the Taurus. The new Rossis have the old rebound-slide/hammer-block/hammer-mounted firing-pin going on, even though they are being built by Taurus and you CAN get a decent trigger on the new Rossis.
The problem is that the NEW Rossi is only offered in a 6-shot 357, not the 44 Special. The 357 I have has consistent throats at .358.0" to .3585" across all six throats and the sharp edges are all gone. It would be nice if they made a five-shot 44 Special on this frame. Those who know Colts say that it's more of a D-Frame size than a Smith J-Frame size, but it's just right for a 44 Special. The cylinder on this one and on the 5-shot CA I have (Bulldog frame) are within a couple thousandths of each other and I don't remember which was the larger. If not for the slightly wider lower/front portion of the frame on the Rossi, they would fit the same holsters, which the Taurus 605 or 856 WILL fit.
The Ruger "mid-frame"/NM Flat Top is one of t he best things to happen to the 44 Special in ages. Still quite a chunk of gun, but not as much so as the NM Blackhawk, which is fine for the 44 Mag, but a bit much for a 44 Special.
I had a 4" 624 years ago and it was good fit for the cartridge. The slender, profiled barrel, shorter cylinder both reduced weight and it was still "large" but not terribly unwieldy.
Winelover
North Central Arkansas
Matt_G
Curmudgeon in training
My signature below has a link to all the articles on my site.
Last edited:
Winelover
North Central Arkansas
That link doesn't seem to work any longer. Try these....................the particular one is the 12th one from the top.
Winelover
North Central Arkansas
I previewed the original post and it came up for me................once but then got a 404 Error when it was pointed out to me by Rick when I tried to open it the second time.
Matt_G
Curmudgeon in training
John, the link you posted isn't complete.
Spaces in the URL will do that when doing a copy and paste sometimes.
This link will take you straight to that article.
Brian Pearce on the 44 Special
You guys can always use the link in my signature to get to the list of all 44 Special articles on my site.
Spaces in the URL will do that when doing a copy and paste sometimes.
This link will take you straight to that article.
Brian Pearce on the 44 Special
You guys can always use the link in my signature to get to the list of all 44 Special articles on my site.