.44 Mag Performance

Point of interest - Maybe. . . From times to time I do a little research from reloading books to find the terminal effectiveness of various rounds. Yesterday I did it for the .44 mag, versus the 454 Casull. It was interesting to see that the .44 came in just a very few ticks lower than the Casull at 100 yards. When you do this you have to compare various weights and types of bullets and powder changes. You take the Ballistic coefficient of a bullet and the stated muzzle velocity over to the short or long range tables usually in the back of the book ( Example: Speer Reloading Book ). Then, what I do is multiply the bullet weight times the terminal foot pounds of effectiveness at various yardage. This time I took the Buffalo Bore 340 grain .44 bullet and what they say is it's muzzle velocity on the box and compare it to the .454 at 100 yards in the Speer Book.

Sometimes you have to make a reasonable guess at the BC, but you won't be far off if you are "reasonable". To measure "Terminal Effectiveness" my personal preference is to see what the average weight and toughness of the game animal might be and then allow only half of the terminal effectiveness as absolute knock down power. Example: If the down range foot pounds is 1,500 I divide it by 2 to give me 750. That 750 would then be the weight of the animal - you have to go less for heavy skinned/tougher boned animals.

This is not an advertisement but you can only use Buffalo Boar Ammo in very sturdy firearms ( Mine is a Ruger Super Blackhawk Hunter).

Here's the formula I used for this one: I reasonably guessed the BC for the 340 grain bullet to be one bite more than the 300 grain bullet noted in the Speer Manual. At 100 yards the heavier bullet came in just slightly less efficient than the 300 grain 454 comparison. The bullet drop, etc. was comparable as well.

Point is, you really don't have to buy a bigger gun sometimes - if you do the research properly. I'd like to hear from some of you good guys along these lines

[Phil T]

www.Hiornady.com
ballistics resources
HITS
Now look at the lowly, unpopular 480 Ruger and compare it to even the 460S&W. 400-gr .475" diameter bullet at 1200 fps (muzzle) is serious power, and it's easier to shoot than the hot 45's, too. I "need" one!

Originally Posted by Phil T

www.Hiornady.com
ballistics resources
HITS
Now look at the lowly, unpopular 480 Ruger and compare it to even the 460S&W. 400-gr .475" diameter bullet at 1200 fps (muzzle) is serious power, and it's easier to shoot than the hot 45's, too. I "need" one!

I have the lowly 480 Ruger, but I have not shot it yet with Buffalo Bore. I will report back when I make it to the range.

[Phil T]

Without resorting to Buffalo Bore, you have more impact momentum than even the S&W 460.

I own a 45-70 Marlin 1895 rifle. Buffalo Bore (405grain bullet @ 2000fps) is not my idea of fun in a rifle that weighs about 7 1/2 lbs. However, I will take a few rounds with me on a SE Manitoba bear hunt.

[CharlesEnnis]

Uhmm... Interesting.

[jarhead]

Originally Posted by Phil T

Without resorting to Buffalo Bore, you have more impact momentum than even the S&W 460.

I own a 45-70 Marlin 1895 rifle. Buffalo Bore (405grain bullet @ 2000fps) is not my idea of fun in a rifle that weighs about 7 1/2 lbs. However, I will take a few rounds with me on a SE Manitoba bear hunt.

Phil, are you expecting a polar bear to wander by? I believe in bringing enough gun also , and indeed you will have enough gun.

[Phil T]

No polar bears. But the bait stations are only 17-19 yards from the shooter. My back is so bad I'll be hunting from a ground blind. The last couple rounds in the magazine will be Buffalo Bore and the rifle's front bead is now a glowing Tritium dot, just in case.