Short 44 mag brass and heavy bullets

S

Scrumbag

Regular
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Hi folks,

I have recently been playing around with some heavier bullets in my .44 mag lever action and getting some good results accuracy wise:

ntFq0p0l.jpg


This load was developed from 25,000 psi data for 44 SPC + P listed in American Hand Loader (https://www.handloadermagazine.com/44-s-w-special-p)

However, the issue is that with these longer bullets I am having to load them in .44 Special brass as they are too long to go through the action cleanly in .44 Magnum cases.

I was wondering, would it be worth trimming down some .44 mag brass shorter than usual "Trim to" length in order to get the case mouth in the crimping groove. This is what Hornady recommends with their FTX bullets in .44 mag (FTX bullets are rather long).

The issue of course is load data with the shorter case and reduced case capacity.

My thoughts would be to pick a powder that would be forgiving in terms of having a wide min - max charge and 2 powders come to mind: 2400 and Vihtavouri N110
(Certainly wouldn't use Hodgdon H110 / W296 for this).

So, starting with 25,000psi 2400 (from Hand Loader) and Viht N110 tested load data from https://castboolits.gunloads.com/showthread.php?410374-44-SPL-the-RCBS-44-250-KT-and-VV-N110 and here: https://castboolits.gunloads.com/showthread.php?448606-44-Special-P-First-Foray/page2&highlight=Special).

I would then work up a load checking against Gordon's Reloading Tool predictions to determine a max load (Making sure to come up in small increments)

Any thoughts folks? Am I crazy?

Best wishes,

Scrummy
 
I think you are giving a lot of trouble for little gain. Playing with pressure without the instrument to mesure it is just guessing.
There is plenty of proven published .44 mag loads data for almost any bullet up to the 300 grains. If it does not function in your gun, good chance the gun was not designed for it. ( barrel twist and chamber). If the 44 mag is not powerfully enough for you, get a .454 instead or a real rifle round.
 
You might be right. Just be cool to get some of these heavier bullets with a decent amount of powder behind them.

You make a valid point re more powder capacity rounds though. I shall mull it over
 
Scrumbag said:
The issue of course is load data with the shorter case and reduced case capacity.
Click to expand...

All things equal, will the shortened 44 mag cases load actually have reduced internal case capacity though? Just trying to make sure I'm understanding here. In other words, if you had a 357 mag cartridge loaded to a standard col, and you then put the same load in a 38 Special case, but with the same col as the 357, they'd still have the same internal capacity. Sure, one case is shorter and there may be other factors to account for (less tension on the bullet), but the same powder occupies the same space inside, and unless there's some crazy voodoo going on, I would tend to think similar pressures.

The above is only regarding shortening cases, nothing to do with working up a load.
 
saskgunowner101 said:
All things equal, will the shortened 44 mag cases load actually have reduced internal case capacity though? Just trying to make sure I'm understanding here. In other words, if you had a 357 mag cartridge loaded to a standard col, and you then put the same load in a 38 Special case, but with the same col as the 357, they'd still have the same internal capacity. Sure, one case is shorter and there may be other factors to account for (less tension on the bullet), but the same powder occupies the same space inside, and unless there's some crazy voodoo going on, I would tend to think similar pressures.

The above is only regarding shortening cases, nothing to do with working up a load.
Click to expand...

Some of the heavier bullets I have seen and I'm thinking of are seated rather longer than the usual 1.61 max COAL listed in manuals. Therefore if you bring the COAL back to 1.61", there is less room for powder.
 
Scrumbag said:
Some of the heavier bullets I have seen and I'm thinking of are seated rather longer than the usual 1.61 max COAL listed in manuals. Therefore if you bring the COAL back to 1.61", there is less room for powder.
Click to expand...

How far off the reservation are you talking here in bullet weight? And can you seat them long (with shortened case) and still manage to have them cycle through the action, like when you cycle the action and it's nose goes up to clear the lift gate?
 
saskgunowner101 said:
How far off the reservation are you talking here in bullet weight? And can you seat them long (with shortened case) and still manage to have them cycle through the action, like when you cycle the action and it's nose goes up to clear the lift gate?
Click to expand...

Well, the 255gr SWCGC I am currently using has a COAL of 1.68" when seated at the Cannelure and has issues with cycling. I need to shorten the case back to ~1.21" (Usual trim length ~1/285") to get COAL to 1.61 and keep case mouth at cannelure / crimping groove.

Scrummy
 
Neilm said:
With a cast bullet you don't have to crimp at the cannelure.
Click to expand...

I would normally agree but my issue is not a lot of bullet shank in front of the crimp groove and the bullet. I'm not sure I like the idea of seating deeper and crimping onto the tapering nose.

4Fcah6Ql.jpg
 
SaddleTramp said:
Used Hornady cases are shorter than any other manufacturer if you want a shorter case.
While that would help with your OAL you may have to use a 44 special die to crimp or a taper crimp die as I find the cases are too short to roll crimp.
Click to expand...

Fortunately the factory crimp die seems to be working as can do 44 mag and 44 special with it.
 
For cartridges like 44 Mag that headspace on the rim, case length is irrelevant with respect to load data. You're already using shorter 44 Special brass with a particular bullet and load, so that you can align the case mouth with the crimp groove. Is the question whether or not you can make 44 Special brass from 44 Mag brass? The answer is yes, in fact you can make it a little longer or shorter than 44 Special if need be - "custom" brass as it were, only useful to you, in that gun, with that bullet.

The only possible issue is that you'll eventually erode the end of the chamber that was cut for 44 Mag, which will possibly be a "problem" when using 44 Mag brass.
 
Andy said:
For cartridges like 44 Mag that headspace on the rim, case length is irrelevant with respect to load data. You're already using shorter 44 Special brass with a particular bullet and load, so that you can align the case mouth with the crimp groove. Is the question whether or not you can make 44 Special brass from 44 Mag brass? The answer is yes, in fact you can make it a little longer or shorter than 44 Special if need be - "custom" brass as it were, only useful to you, in that gun, with that bullet.

The only possible issue is that you'll eventually erode the end of the chamber that was cut for 44 Mag, which will possibly be a "problem" when using 44 Mag brass.
Click to expand...

Andy is correct. - dan
 
I really asked this question badly. I should have just asked about heavier bullets and loading to a shorter than published COAL...
 
i dont see the point. just load/ seat the bullet deeper in the case. you will end up with the same amount of powder space if you do that or trim the cases to have more bullet exposed. ether way bullet has to set back father.
 
The bottom line for loading for a lever, is that the OAL should not exceed 1.600 by an appreciable amount. Too long a OAL will jamb up the works.

Many of the cast bullets used in the 44 Mag came out before the 44 Mag and are intended for the 44 Special.

The 44 Special has the same 1.6 max OAL, so a 44 Special bullet will result in a over length 44 Mag cartridge if you crimp in the same cannelure.

To get around the issue, I've just loaded all my rifle ammo in 44 Special cases. I use 44 Special data that Keith and others have recommended. Not recommended if you own a weak old 44 special firearm and the rifle. i don't, so not an issue. My rifle was labeled 44 Mag/Spl. I used a 429421, More than enough power with a Skeeter or Keith load, IMHO.

Nitro
 
Scrumbag said:
I really asked this question badly. I should have just asked about heavier bullets and loading to a shorter than published COAL...
Click to expand...

I think you understand the basics. If all else is equal, and if your bullet is loaded deeper in the case than the load data specifies, pressures will be higher. The internal volume of a case fired with a certain powder charge/bullet weight matters. That's why load data cautions against using .357 magnum data for loading a particular bullet/powder charge in shorter but otherwise identical .38 special cases. Pressures would be much higher. Higher enough to be unsafe? That is a question only a pressure testing lab can determine.

You're on the right track, but exploring in uncharted waters. "There be dragons!"
 
OP,
Seat one of your preferred projectiles to a jam in the rifle chamber.
Max OAL.

Measure the length of the lever gun carrier/shell lifter to ascertain if it is feasible to modify it to cycle cartridge.

If you are planning to shoot said ammo in a lever rifle & a revolver...load accordingly.


CCI/Speer listed Silhouette loads decades ago that required trimming cases shorter to allow crimping in the crimp groove.
 
In my limited testing, that 255 gr bullet was only just slightly too long to function.

I suspect only a little shorter and it would have chambered fine. Also, I am wondering about whether a more tapered nose leading to a less wide meplat might get enough "wiggle room" to chamber better.

Scrummy
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom