Is 44 Magnum (rifle) adequate for moose?

[Home3]

I am puzzled by folks who are comparing 44 Mag. to 30-30 or other similar rifle ammo.

At the risk of exposing my lack of knowledge in the area of ballistics, how is a 250 grain, slow moving handgun cartridge comparable to a 150 grain 30-30 rifle bullet in 80 yards?

 

[Gatehouse]

Yes, but what if the moose breaks cover 200 yards away. Why handicap yourself when it's not necessary? Thr .22lr hes upended a few moose as well but it's not a moose gun either.

It's not necessarily a handicap for some people...

 

[Gatehouse]

I am puzzled by folks who are comparing 44 Mag. to 30-30 or other similar rifle ammo.

At the risk of exposing my lack of knowledge in the area of ballistics, how is a 250 grain, slow moving handgun cartridge comparable to a 150 grain 30-30 rifle bullet in 80 yards?

Google an online ballistics cal;calculator, punch in the data, and you will see they have similar (not the same) ballistics.

 

[Toomanyguns]

Yes, but what if the moose breaks cover 200 yards away. Why handicap yourself when it's not necessary? Thr .22lr hes upended a few moose as well but it's not a moose gun either.

Some of us simply open the truck door, get out and shoot our moose at close range. Very simple, very easy, and very dead with a 44.

Sometimes we call them to us.

 

[Johnn Peterson]

I think the penetration of trees has more to do with the .30/06's high velocity than a .44 magnum's penetrating power. The higher velocity bullet more or less disintegrates when it strikes a tree squarely. Penetration on game is a function of moderate velocity, high sectional density(bullets that are long for calibre) and bullet construction. The .30/06 with a well desgned 180-200 grain bullet will wade more meat than any .44 magnum load.t-star, the conditions are much different here. We get three days to get a moose and if you miss an opportunity with all the hunting pressure and the moose usually in full rut you may never see that moose again or any other ones either. Just my opinion from my experiences.

There was an episode in line with this discussion that Elmer Keith made mention of in one of his books and I'll try and find it later. As I recall the basics delt with some cattle that had to be put down and one of the firearms being used was a 30-06. Supposedly Keith was partially involved in the task and he used his 44 Mag S&W 4" model 29 with his 250gr hard cast bullet loads. The shots he took were as close as possible to the same angle and direction as the shooter using the '06. I realise bullet technology has improved considerably since that time but the 44 Mag repeatedly penetrated further than the '06 bullets. I'll have to do a bit of digging and see if I can find that specific article and define some of the details better.

 

[Northman999]

Yes it is adequate. I know two people who hunted everything in the Yukon except wood bison with .44 mag rifles. They were experienced hunters who were good shots, used good bullets, and only shot when there was a good shot presentation at fairly close range. I am not aware of either of them losing an animal.

 

[t-star]

Some of us simply open the truck door, get out and shoot our moose at close range. Very simple, very easy, and very dead with a 44.

Sometimes we call them to us.

we got that beat- yesterday one went for a walk downtown

 

[sahara]

Perfectly adequate so long as you use good bullets. My preference would be cast bullets.

Ditto. I've hunted a bit with a custom 44/40 which is somewhat less powerfull and can offer a bit of advice. If your shots WILL be close, ie: under 50 yards use an expanding bullet. I'd use a soft point rather then hollow point as a hollow point will open too soon at rifle velocities. If shots are up to 100 yards use a hard cast and punch a 44 caliber hole right through. Don't shoot further then 100 yards.
One of my most memorable moments hunting was shooting a nice buck through the ribs at 75 yards. He dropped like he was hit by a falling bus and I could hear the slug as it rattled through the trees past him. Also shot 5 bears in about 20 seconds at about 20 yards, but that's not a story for here.

 

[Toomanyguns]

we got that beat- yesterday one went for a walk downtown

I saw that. She must have been looking to get her hair and hooves done. A long legged Sally out for a stroll.

 

[Win 38-55]

The .30/06 with a well desgned 180-200 grain bullet will wade more meat than any .44 magnum load.t-star,

I admit I have not Moose hunted with a 44 Mag, but I've seen the results of some tests posted over the years on the levergunners forum, and the slower moving bullets (i.e., less than 1,800 fps) consistently seem to out-penetrate the modern high velocity bullets in actual meat, though they do not have the shock value that a high energy bullet does. I have the results of a very interesting Moose hunt this past fall involving a 44-40, a 375 H&H and a 458 Win Mag. I'm saving the details and photos for an article I hope to publish on the 44-40, but let's just say that the 44-40 performed beyond anyone's expectations. Of course, the hunter who used the 44-40, usually bags his Moose with a handgun, although in this case, that did not seem to be a factor. My point is that the slower heavy bullets can compete much better than people expect. I got 26" of penetration this past fall, including shattering the spine halfway through the bullet channel, with my 44-40 on a frontal shot Whitetail. The 44 Mag with a 265 bullet at 1,600 fps has 60 foot-pounds of momentum (which I have found to be a better indicator of penetration ability than muzzle energy). The 30-06 with a 180 grain bullet loaded to 2,600 fps has 66 foot pounds of momentum. That does predict it will give more penetration, but my point is that a 44 Mag firing a 265 grain bullet at 1,600 is still a very decent contender at ranges of 200 yards or less. My Moose hunting friend in Alaska indicates that there have been an awful lot of Moose taken by handgun hunters using the 44 Mag. A rifle will give a significant gain in power over a handgun. On the other hand, with the slow moving cartridges I use (1,300 fps to 1,400 fps), 200 yards is my upper limit. So, as you say, if it is a long shot out beyond 200 yards, the 44 Mag is a non-contender in my opinion. The kind of hunting I like to do however, (no scopes, old black powder cartridges) requires that I stalk to within 200 yards. That means I tend to take fewer animals averaged over the years, although recent years that has not been true. When all is said and done, there are certainly a lot more powerful, flatter shooting cartridges out there than the 44 Mag. The only reason to hunt Moose or anything else with a 44 Mag is if that is the only rifle a fellow has, or they really like the 44 Mag, in which case they need to hunt within the limitations of the cartridge.

 

[mbogo3]

They do make a 265gr and bigger...............Harold

 

[Brutus]

I admit I have not Moose hunted with a 44 Mag, but I've seen the results of some tests posted over the years on the levergunners forum, and the slower moving bullets (i.e., less than 1,800 fps) consistently seem to out-penetrate the modern high velocity bullets in actual meat, though they do not have the shock value that a high energy bullet does. I have the results of a very interesting Moose hunt this past fall involving a 44-40, a 375 H&H and a 458 Win Mag. I'm saving the details and photos for an article I hope to publish on the 44-40, but let's just say that the 44-40 performed beyond anyone's expectations. Of course, the hunter who used the 44-40, usually bags his Moose with a handgun, although in this case, that did not seem to be a factor. My point is that the slower heavy bullets can compete much better than people expect. I got 26" of penetration this past fall, including shattering the spine halfway through the bullet channel, with my 44-40 on a frontal shot Whitetail. The 44 Mag with a 265 bullet at 1,600 fps has 60 foot-pounds of momentum (which I have found to be a better indicator of penetration ability than muzzle energy). The 30-06 with a 180 grain bullet loaded to 2,600 fps has 66 foot pounds of momentum. That does predict it will give more penetration, but my point is that a 44 Mag firing a 265 grain bullet at 1,600 is still a very decent contender at ranges of 200 yards or less. My Moose hunting friend in Alaska indicates that there have been an awful lot of Moose taken by handgun hunters using the 44 Mag. A rifle will give a significant gain in power over a handgun. On the other hand, with the slow moving cartridges I use (1,300 fps to 1,400 fps), 200 yards is my upper limit. So, as you say, if it is a long shot out beyond 200 yards, the 44 Mag is a non-contender in my opinion. The kind of hunting I like to do however, (no scopes, old black powder cartridges) requires that I stalk to within 200 yards. That means I tend to take fewer animals averaged over the years, although recent years that has not been true. When all is said and done, there are certainly a lot more powerful, flatter shooting cartridges out there than the 44 Mag. The only reason to hunt Moose or anything else with a 44 Mag is if that is the only rifle a fellow has, or they really like the 44 Mag, in which case they need to hunt within the limitations of the cartridge.

My mother comes from Labrador, and the local hunting & fishing was truly subsistence up until the 1950's or so.
Rifles were always at a premium, and Post WW2, when 30-30s became popular (along with a dirge of .303s) those Pre-war 44-40s were not needlessly discarded by trappers & hunters.
Often the less used, older 44-40s were regulated to remote trapper/fishing camp survival gun. They were mostly stashed behind the wood stove, next to a pile of tinder and dry wood, so those in need could always find a rifle to convince bears to go elsewhere, or for the odd caribou/seal harvest.
No-one up there ever considered the good ole 44-40 as marginal for even polar bears. However I have heard of & read, that local Inuit, got very close to bears before pulling the triggers, if they could plan it to be this way.

 

[ben hunchak]

I wouldn't hesitate using one of my .44s for moose, if using a fairly hard cast(BHN 20 no more) LBT WFN or LFN from 280gr. to 325gr. and a healthy dose of H-110. I would not try with a much lighter bullet or a jacketed bullet, i have not tried heavier cast bullets then 325 gr. in the .44 fearing instability problems. From my standpoint, I have bigger and badder guns/cals. to take out for moose, so i wouldn't be stuck and could opt out of the .44, some folks may not be able to do that.

 

[Wrong Way]

Hey..... I've got a box of CorBon 44 hard cast moose medicine if anybody is lookin'.

 

[Win 38-55]

No-one up there ever considered the good ole 44-40 as marginal for even polar bears. However I have heard of & read, that local Inuit, got very close to bears before pulling the triggers, if they could plan it to be this way.

Polar Bears with a 44-40 ..... now that would be exciting to watch .... from a distance. Those Inuit must have had a pretty good Pair to do stuff like that. Of course, before they used a 44-40 they went right up to it with a spear and did it in. If you'all get a chance, download 'Nanook of the North'. It is an early 1900's silent film of a real Inuit family. I was particularly impressed when Nanook hauls out his winter's take of Polar Bear hides ..... and he didn't have a rifle either! The film is a real education of what it used to be like to be an 'Eskimo'.

 

[Brutus]

Polar Bears with a 44-40 ..... now that would be exciting to watch .... from a distance. Those Inuit must have had a pretty good Pair to do stuff like that. Of course, before they used a 44-40 they went right up to it with a spear and did it in. If you'all get a chance, download 'Nanook of the North'. It is an early 1900's silent film of a real Inuit family. I was particularly impressed when Nanook hauls out his winter's take of Polar Bear hides ..... and he didn't have a rifle either! The film is a real education of what it used to be like to be an 'Eskimo'.

I'll have to look that up 38-55.
A book written by the Helmericks entitled "Arctic Hunter" is a very good read as well. Life in a Northern Alaskan coastal village.
This Alaskan couple's teenage son kills a very big polar bear with his eskimo friend. Too boot at some ridiculously close & deadly encounter.
To summarize, the kid first wounds the bear at distance only to save his friend from certain death, as he is unaware he is being stalked by the polar bear. Now it's wounded amongst the ice heave!
After an hour of tense cat & mouse stalking, the boy's only warning is the click of bear claws on hard ice. He turns and fires killing it with one shot from his 30-30 carbine!

It's a great book, with lots of arctic survival information from the Alaskan Inuit.

 

[rem338win]

Yes, but what if the moose breaks cover 200 yards away. Why handicap yourself when it's not necessary? Thr .22lr hes upended a few moose as well but it's not a moose gun either.

No offense Mike, but it is comments like these that help me understand why they give out a participation ribbon to all the kids on race day.
Its because its a challenge and it makes success sweeter.
I hunt with a bow for that very reason.
The 44 with a 270-300gr cast and a good sized (about 2/3 of the diameter) meplat would suffice and then some. That's a big hole that leaks a lot of fluid.

 

[Toomanyguns]

I bet many a polar bear dropped dead from fear upon seeing an Inuit woman holding a knife. Those ladies really know how to work a knife.

 

[Mike Webb]

No offense Mike, but it is comments like these that help me understand why they give out a participation ribbon to all the kids on race day.
Its because its a challenge and it makes success sweeter.
I hunt with a bow for that very reason.
The 44 with a 270-300gr cast and a good sized (about 2/3 of the diameter) meplat would suffice and then some. That's a big hole that leaks a lot of fluid.

None taken, I thought the op asked a legitimate question and if he had a lot of experience with moose hunting he wouldn't have to ask. Everyone has their own opinion but I wouldn't like to see the guy's first moose hunt end in frustration or worse wounding and losing a moose. I never said the .44 wouldn't kill a moose just that there were better picks. The Inuit are awesome hunters, I recall seeing an old documentary about a seal hunt where they encountered a polar bear. The Inuit guy just rested his seal rifle on a block of pack ice and drilled Mr. Bear with a .222 Remington!!!
My grandfather thought the .32 special was a great moose gun and I wouldn't hesitate to shoot one at closer range with one but there are better choices.

 

[Win 38-55]

I can certainly see Mike's point; for guys on their first Moose hunt, it may be more about getting a Moose, than how it was gotten. When I first started hunting out in Manitoba as a kid, getting a deer was the most important thing, by far, for me. Hunting was not about stalking, or what kind of rifle I was using ...... it was all about simply getting a deer. Getting a deer was so exciting that nothing else really mattered. As the years went by, my priorities changed, just as it does for fellows who start bow-hunting, or hunting with a muzzle loader. It became all about how I hunted, rather than about simply bagging game. For me, it was hunting with less-than-ideal black powder cartridges chambered in old Winchesters, preferably at least a hundred years old. My hunting skills improved as well such that I really don't think it is much of a disadvantage anymore. I bring home the game about as often as my friends with the modern cartridges. The who bowhunts on the next property does better than everyone else.