trimming failed 44 mag cases to 44 special

hickstick_10

New member
Is it advisable to trim 44 magnum cases that have split at the neck down to 44 special? These cases have been fired a fair amount of times and I think I had to trim them maybe once, anyways will the brass still be useable for a few more loads as a 44 special? or has the brass work hardened to much?
 
Can't tell without trying. Most of the work hardening happens at the crimp, and if you cut to .44 Special length you will be clearing that off.

I've never annealed pistol brass, but see no reason it can't be done in principle, then you'd save the trimming. You mainly need some way to ensure the heat remains local to the case mouth. The usual method is to sit the cases in water the right depth to expose the part you want to heat (last three eighths inches or so in this case) to the torch flame. I'd experiment very cautiously if you try this. It's easy to overhead the brass.
 
As long as the split doesn't continue into the part of the case that would be the .44 Special, there's no problem with this at all.
 
yep... done it myself... only issue is improper head stamp... I usually knurle over the head stamp on the cases that are too close to the original length, just to make thing easier to identify ( like 44 mag to special, 357 mag to 38 special, or my custom short 50 A.E. for my Blackhawk...

on some cases the thickness of the case may be thicker at the new shortened case mouth, causing too much buldge as the bullet is seated... especially if cast bullets are used, but you'll likely be fine with the little amount being trimmed of the 44 mag case
 

Doodlebugger45

New member
Good idea. If the splits are too long, you can even trim those cases back to .44 Russian length. It's even shorter than 44 Special (0.970" for Russian, 1.160" for Special, and 1.285" for Magnum) but everything else is the same. Load data for .44 Russian shows it's pretty weak, but it could be fun to play with.
 
"Load data for .44 Russian shows it's pretty weak, but it could be fun to play with."

When originally introduced, the .44 Russian and .44 Special had identical ballistics.

The reason the .44 Special was brought out was because, with the introduction of smokeless powders, the .44 Russian case just wasn't big enough any more to maintain those ballistics.
 

SL1

New member
Mike

Huh?

Maybe you meant that the .44 Russian wasn't large enough? It is self-contradictory the way you wrote it.

But, worse, it isn't even true that the .44 Special case came out because the .44 Russian wasn't big enough to hold "bulky" smokeless powder. Smokeless powder was always more energetic per unit volume than black powder. I know that the line about the .44 Special case being large because smokeless powder was more bulky was written long ago and has been repeated many times since, but I don't think it was EVER true. I do wonder if some cartridge designer REALLY wanted more case volume to keep pressure down with smokeless powder, even though they were not loading it to 100% fill? But, remember, that is CURIOUSITY on my part, NOT knowledge.


SL1
 

gwalchmai

New member
I thought .44SPL was introduced as a smokeless cartridge and lengthened to prevent it being loaded in older .44 Rusky guns.
 
"Huh?

Maybe you meant that the .44 Russian wasn't large enough? It is self-contradictory the way you wrote it."

What are you talking about? I see NO error in my message... :D

Yeah, I messed up and wrote .44 Special when I mean .44 Russian. Thanks for catching that.

And yes, SL1, it is true. The early smokeless powders that were available commercially at that time tended to be QUITE bulky, and getting enough into a case the size of the .44 Russian caused a significant drop in ballistics. Increasing the powder's physical grain size (it's bulk) was the only true way at that time to regulate its burning rate. Deterrent coatings and the like wouldn't be developed in a reliable fashion for some years.

The solution was to lengthen the case and introduce the .44 Special.

Remember... up until about 1910 virtually all of the Bullseye powder, the first truly suitable smokeless handgun powder available in any quantity, was going to the military. Production was slow, and it took Herculese a long time to gear up to produce Bullseye in a dedicated fashion. Prior to that, Bullseye was the "fines" left over from production of one of the Herculese shotshell powers (Imperial? can't remember).

But, here's where it gets REALLY odd...

The .44 Special was designed as, introduced with, and apparently until about World War I, commerically loaded with BOTH smokeless AND black powder.

There's a picture over at THR of a box of Remington .44 Special from about 1912, I think, based on box design, that is clearly marked that the rounds are loaded with black powder.

Back to the smokeless powder; I have several boxes (several sealed, one broken open) of .44 Special ammunition as loaded by Winchester about 1915.

Out of curiosity one day I cut one open. The powder used filled the case to the base of the bullet (which, incidentally, was a hollow base bullet). It's a fairly light weight charge, but very bulky and appears to have been fairly compressed in the case.

While I can't be sure, I think it might be what was known as RESQ powder, one of the earliest commercially available true smokeless powders.

I've seen the same powder, in the same loading densities, in Winchester .45 Long Colt and .44-40 rounds that I have cut open.
 

farmall

New member
I have done it, but only to make dummy rounds to use in setting up seating dies. Never loaded and fired one. In "Handloader" or one of the mags, one of the writers claimed he'd gotten a box of 44Mag cases headstamped 44Spec. That's indicate to me they're probably the same case, just trimmed to different dimensions.

Andy
 

a7mmnut

Moderator
I was just going to advise a warning to check the case wall thickness near the base. As Magnum WM said, it may very well be thin at the bottom and flowing brass toward the mouth that ruptured them in the first place. If you ever have the horrible chance to see one rupture at the base while inside one of the thinner walled cylinders, you won't want to see another one.

-7-
 

Doodlebugger45

New member
Amazing what you can learn around here. I had only a vague knowledge of the .44 Russian cartridge before. I had made a mental note to myself when I started loading 44 mag to think about doing exactly what the OP was asking about. In flipping through the Speer manual, I had noticed the 44 Russian as an option as well. In the Speer manual though their loads were only tailored toward CAS shooters, so their loads were running around 700-800 fps. Now that you got me curious, I see in the Hodgdon loading data, they have loads with Tite Group up to 950 fps with a 200 gr bullet. Not too shabby at all. I l oad some of my 44 mags down already using Trail Boss just to work on good shooting technique. So if I have some cases that would otherwise be junk, it seems like it would be a great option to get some more firings out of them.
 

SL1

New member
Mike

I guess I am learning something here, so I will follow-up.

I remember that some early smokeless powders for handloaders were "bulk" powders that were intended to be volume-for-volume replacements for black powder. So, that may be what is loaded into your factory ammo. But, it seems stange that the powder made for the military was fined grained and the powder made for handloaders was so coarse grained that it didn't fit the intended case.

The "other story" that I heard was that the .44 Special was intended to be more powerful than the .44 Russian, and was intended to maintain that margin when it was reloaded with black powder by handloaders, back when smokeless was not available to them. That certainly makes sense for a longer case. Maybe I have that mixed up with the .38 Special or something, but it would seem like the two series of cartridges are pretty much parallels with respect to volume changes.

SL1
 
AH! OK, I see the problem.

There were SOME early smokeless powders that were called bulk smokeless powders. These were a separate class of smokeless powder and were not the same as other smokeless powders like early Bullseye, Unique, Military Rifle (MR) 15. I have a list at home of early smokeless powders and their applications.

The bulk replacement smokless powders were, as I understand it, primarily aimed at the handloading market and not the commercial market.

As you note, these were intended to be used in the old black powder cartridges (primarily rifle, but they would also work just fine in handgun cartridges) without the need to measure.

These bulk replacement powders were also relative late comers into the early smokeless powder arena. I THINK, but I'll have to check, that most were introduced AFTER World War I.

The World War I era was a huge watershed in the American cartridge industry. Literally, in a matter of months, dozens, if not hundreds, of older cartridges were dropped from production as the factories geared up to supply European and US military contracts.

At the same time, production of black powder for the commercial market virtually ceased.

After the war, many of the plants didn't want to convert back to producing a propellant that was now seen as obsolete, so Du Pont developed the first bulk replacement powders.

These bulk powders kept with the new technology, were based on very slow burning smokeless powders that were used in artillery during the war (or so I understand) and required no costly line conversion back to what was seen as a dying black powder market.

The other factor that I've not discussed is that early smokeless powders had, generally, a very low energy content ratio, which required greater grain size. This is the factor that made rounds like the .44 Russian inefficient with the new smokless powders. You simply couldn't get enough of the early low energy smokeless powders in the case to make it perform like the .44 Russian.

A similar cartridge die off happened in the late 1930s, a combination of both the Depression and contracts that were let for World War II.

What's truly amazing, though, is that many of the cartridges that were, for decades either partially or completely obsolte, like the .38-55, the .45-70, the .45 Colt, the .45 S&W, the .32-20, and many others, have come screaming back to life.

Unfortunately, with the rebirth of many of these cartridges we had a similar situation -- lack of suitable powders. The old bulk replacement powders were discontinued in the 1950s/early 1960s. Hardly anyone shot the old rounds anymore.

But, with the resurgence in interest in American history that started with the centennial of the Civil War, the American Bicentennial, Little Big Horn, and the rise of Cowboy Action shooting, some of these cartridges are selling as well as they have in 100 years.

The .44 Special is a great case in point. Until Trail Boss came out a few years ago, there was no truly suitable powder that had both the burning rate and energy necessary to get standard ballistics but also to fill the case to promote ballistic conformity.

I used to load my .44 Special with WW 231, but it was imply unsuitable. A tiny tiny amount of powder in a huge case. Trail Boss changed that.

I've said it here numerous times. Trail Boss has characteristics that are, from my understanding, VERY similar to some of the later bulk smokeless replacement powders. It's not a truly bulk powder, but it's god awful close.


"The "other story" that I heard was that the .44 Special was intended to be more powerful than the .44 Russian, and was intended to maintain that margin when it was reloaded with black powder by handloaders, back when smokeless was not available to them."

Well, I'm not really sure that's the case. The .44 Special was a late development, 1907. Original published ballistics for the .44 Special, whether with black powder or smokeless, were identical to the .44 Russian.


The .38 Special has a different story behind it altogether, but one that is equally as interesting.

Final note.

There were three cartridges, all introduced in roughly the same time frame, that used the name Special -- the .38 and .44 Smith & Wesson Specials, and the .32 Winchester Special.

In the case of the two handgun rounds, both were offered commercially from the beginning in both black powder and smokeless loads.

The .32 Win. Special was only offered commercially as a smokeless round, but it was intended to be reloaded with either smokless OR blackpowder at the owner's choosing.
 

hickstick_10

New member
thank you gentleman

hot damn what a wealth of info

I'l check the thickness near the base to see if its to thin before I proceed, thank you very much for the information.
 

Jim243

New member
hickstick

I don't load 44 anything so I am all wet to start with, just one question:

How much is new 44 mag brass compared to a 44 mag gun???

Just a thought
jim
 
If you're going to vomit, please lean over the side to get the crowd below. (Actual sign on a carnival ride I once rode).

The more I thought about some of the things I said re: chronology, the more I thought that my timeline might have been off by several years.

I found an incredible book on Google Books last night, one I NEVER knew existed. I didn't have much time to read through it, but I think it's going to add a LOT more substance into my understanding of the early development of smokeless powders.

The book, published in 1911, is a comprehensive overview of the state of the nitrocelluolose industry at that time. It's a two volume set, well over 1,000 pages.

The important things...

1. Bulk smokeless replacement powders were available in 1911. The terminology the author uses is a little wonky, but its very apparent that he's talking about bulk smokeless replacement powder.

2. Also very valuable is the list of what he claims is EVERY smokless powder then manufactured. I only had a chance to glance through that list, but there are powders listed there that I had thought had not yet been introduced, or which had been dropped from production, by 1911.

I need to spend some quality time with this book and see if I can find another one like it, hopefully earlier, to really lock things down.
 

SL1

New member
Cool, Mike!

Keep going.

And can you give us a reference to that book you found on Google?

SL1
 

hickstick_10

New member
Jim243

44 mag brass isn't as cheap as 38 special brass or 45 acp at least in my neck of the woods. The cost of brass in relation to the gun differs with handgun and rifle, in a handgun 44 (almost always a revolver) they are made on a larger and stronger frame so the pistol is more expensive. In a rifle, like those lever action carbines, the cost is the same whether its a 44 or a 357, in my experience.

The 44 mag is what got me into handloading on account of the price of new ammunition, 50 bucks canadian a box and the 44 specials were not far behind!! were 357 a man could get a box for 20-30 bucks.

Excellent cartridge though, accurate as hell and puts a black bears nose in the dirt for keeps
 
Top