.44 Smith and Wesson Special ballistic test, updated
.44 Smith and Wesson Special ballistic test
The .44 Smith and Wesson, based off the .44 Russian was introduced in 1907 for the Smith and Wesson New Century Revolver. Truthfully the .44 Special was nothing special at it’s inception. With similar ballistics and accuracy of the .44 Russian using the then new smokeless propellant. It was not a bad cartridge at all but nothing really new, yet.
A grouped dubbed the The .44 Associates formed around the end of the 1920s and was made up of such legends such as Charles Allan “Skeeter” Skelton and the famed Elmer Keith. The .44 Associates begin to really develop and push the .44 Special trading information with one another. It was not long and the potential of the .44 Special was realized and loads that were developed by that crowd are still around today and considered ideal. Elmer Keith had a huge part in the development of the .44 Remington Magnum, based directly off the .44 Special by lengthening the case by .125″. Keith had suggested the round be called the .44 Special Magnum but Remington choose just .44 Magnum.
The .44 Special, though less powerful than the .44 Magnum, has distinct advantages. It is a shorter round so it can be chambered in smaller, lighter revolvers. Such revolvers are more conducive to carry. With such short barreled revolvers smaller bullets with high pressure cartridges such as the .357 Magnum are excellent cartridges but require longer barrel lengths to really perform. Take a large slower bullet that makes it’s energy with mass more than velocity and it can shine from a shorter barrel. Enter the .44 Special. A heavy slow slug that works great in revolvers that are easily carried, not unlike the .45 Automatic. The .44 Special and .45 Automatic have very similar ballistics.
With all that in mind, I choose the Charter Arms Bulldog, reviewed here for the ballistic test since it is designed primarily as a self defense handgun.
As with the previous ballistic tests we shot the rounds over a chronograph into bare ballistic gel. Recovered the bullet, measured how deep it penetrated, how much it expanded, and weight retention. Then we did the same SOP with 3 layers of khaki work pants type material.
From Left to right, Hornady Critical Defense, Glaser Safety Slug, Hornady JHP, PMC SWC, reloads 1-2-3. Top row is bare gel, bottom is 3 layers on cloth.
CCI 200gr JHP
Please click on the chart for a larger version
The first reload, the 240gr LSWC was loaded with Unique, the second was Blue Dot, the third was Power Pistol, and the fourth was American Select
As you can see, the Hornady Critical Defense and Glaser Safety Slug performed very well as a defensive round while the others penetrated deep enough that I would consider as hunting rounds. The PMC SWC was very mild recoiling and an accurate round. I would have no problem with using the Bulldog as a carry handgun or with any of the other rounds would do well as a woods gun. It is true you can shoot .44 Special through a .44 Magnum and with a longer barrel you would get increased performance, but if you are going with a large revolver, why not carry .44 Magnum, though that may be a bit much for a self defense round, sorry Dirty Harry, but .44 Magnum would not be my first choice for a concealed carry defensive round for preservation of one’s self.
As always the Charter Arms preformed well and did the job as I asked, I am now seriously considering cleaning it for the first time, one day….soonish. Promise.
Hunter Thanks for the article. While I don’t have a 44 special pistol, I do have a S&W Mod 29 8 3/8″ 44 Magnum that has provide a great platform to shoot both. Handloads do bring out some great performance.
Best regards, Wade
Wade, I would agree with you 100%.
Thank you for taking the time to comment on the article.
Thanks for the in-depth test results, which were so interesting I’ve bookmarked this page for future reference. It’s difficult to find data like this for the 44 Special.
I just purchased some Critical Defense for my new Charter Arms Bulldog. I also have some CCI Blazer with the 200gr Gold Dots. I purchased the Critical Defense after reading reports that the Gold Dots didn’t expand from the short Bulldog barrel, but your test indicates otherwise so now I have two good self-defense loads for my Bulldog.
Thank you very much for the kind words and feedback.
I am a huge fan of the .44 Special and the Charter Arms Bulldog is an excellent revolver. I enjoy the ballistic testing a great deal and I have done a lot of other calibers.
I would appreciate any feedback you have on those or anything else.
Thank you again, Hunter
Thank you Hunter, I’m a fan of .45 auto performance and I’m considering a DAO bulldog in .44spl as a backup or deep carry/ pocket carry since my Glock 30 can be a bit big on some occasions. I used to carry a S&W J frame in .38spl, but I was always concerned about over-penetration with the .38. Thank’s to your article and data, I feel confident that a Bulldog with Hornady rounds will give me the performance I’m looking for. Thank you for the information!
Jeremy,
First of all, thank you for taking the time to post your comments.
The .44 Special is very similar to the .45 Auto in ballistics, as you saw. I have had the Bulldog out several times since the review and it is still trouble free also there is a cool factor of the .44 Special. Charter Arms is now making a Bulldog in .45 Auto but I have only seen them but but I have not shot one yet. Please keep me posted on what you decide. Thank you again. Hunter
Great article Hunter, I’ve been considering a carry revolver when going around wearing my Springfield Milspec1911-A1 becomes too heavy for me and I believe I have found it with the Charter Arms .44 Special. Although I like the look of the Tiger with the green and black tiger stripes as well.
Thank you very much Tom.
I am wrapping up my review of the Charter Arms Boomer, .44 Special DAO dedicated carry revolver. The Bulldog is a classic but you may consider the Nitride finish. It is very durable.
Great test and article sir. I carried a .45acp Detonics for many years, but at 69 years of age had a minor stroke that took some of my left arm and hand strength. I reverted back to the .44 Special. My EDC is either a S&W Model 69 with a 2.75″ or a Hammerless Bulldog 2.5″, sometimes the Smith in a hip holster and the C.A. in a pocket holster for a NYC “reload.” I carry the Critical Defense 165’s as all testing shows what youo say. I am a little concerned due to the shallow penetration however. I have worked up 200 GRN HBWC reversed in the case loaded to 850fps in both guns. Both are mild recoil, accurateout to 25 yards, expand violently and penetrate 17-18″ of gel! I have shootout experience with HBWC in .38 + P Both were one shot stops. >44’s shoow as much promise and most likely more. Thanks again. Bill aka WDW44
I am curious about accuracy with the bulldog . The Hornadys perform well but you have to hit the target. How is its accuracy at 5, 7 and10 yards? Have you done research in that area?
Take a look at the review of the Bulldog I linked to the ballistic test and it has a chart showing 25 yard accuracy. https://range-hot.mystagingwebsite.com/charter-arms-bulldog-guard-dog-pocket/
I did test the Bulldog at 25 yards from a rest. The accuracy chart is in the review. https://range-hot.mystagingwebsite.com/charter-arms-bulldog-guard-dog-pocket/
Just for the record, my old friend Elmer Keith (I consider myself very fortunate to have worked with him for several years.) was never a member of the “.44 Associates.” At the least that’s what I was told by gunwriter John Lachuk, who was indeed a member of the .44 Associates. Lachuk claimed to have invented the .44 Magnum about 15 years before Remington came out with theirs. Lachuk’s .44 Magnum utilized cut-down .405 Winchester brass in a modified Colt SAA.
Hello,
Elmer Keith was a member of the original “44 Associates” (note that the group was 44 Associates, not .44 Associates). The 44 Associates load guide was edited by Lawrence I. Newton, and listed for sale for $1.00 in 1945 issues of American Rifleman. The guides are numbered as “Copy No. _____ of Two Hundred”, but I am unsure as to how many were actually printed and sold. The highest number I am aware of is 160. I have numbers 4, 14 (inscribed by Lawrence Newton to Philip B. Sharpe), 26 (inscribed by Lawrence Newton to Bob Nichols), 47, 77 and 108. I don’t think Skeeter Skelton would have been a member, at least when the load guide was printed.
Load source identification includes Elmer Keith, Capt. Philip B. Sharpe, Gordon C. Boser, Ray C. Thompson, F.C. Ness and Lawrence I. Newton, as well as “Competent ballistic authorities who prefer anonymity”. The Acknowledgement section includes this: “No record of the .44 Special would be complete without specific mention of Elmer Keith, who pioneered its recent development, and of Gordon C. Boser, J.W. Landon, and Ray Thompson, who have done a tremendous amount of experimental work to carry the development forward. Special thanks are also due Belding & Mull, Funk & Wagnalls, Lyman Gun Sight Corp., F.C. Ness and Capt. Philip B. Sharpe for permission to include copyright material, and to Eric M. Farr for counsel and advice throughout the preparation of the manuscript.
In the Declaration of Principles it states:
44 ASSOCIATES is a group of sportsmen drawn together informally by their interest in shooting an all-purpose large-bore handgun, as distinguished from other handguns, rifles and shotguns, all of which they enjoy.
The name is taken from the .44 Special, which has been rightly called by Elmer Keith “our finest large-caliber revolver cartridge by a wide margin.”
Purposes are:
1.) The exchange of ideas and information about guns, shooting and handloading, particularly as to handguns;
2.) The exchange of guns, accessories, equipment and components to mutual advantage;
3.) Pure sociability, such as customarily animates all true gun lovers.
There are no dues. Anyone who feels a kindred spirit moving him is welcome to our deliberations, providing he is willing to report periodically to headquarters on his shooting or handloading activities, or on anything else he thinks may be of interest to his fellow Associates.
If fellowship in this group appeals to you, “Declare yourself in,” and write soon and often.
Yours in sportsmanship
44 ASSOCIATES
Lawrence I. Newton.
Sorry for the long-winded post.
Thank you very much for the invite. I am declaring myself in.
Where can I go to contribute to the discussions?