I surfed over to the Cast Performance Bullets site the other day and couldn't help but admire that incredible Kudu the guy took with his .45 Colt Bisley. Over the years, I have read many accounts of handgunning for the bigger stuff, from Ross Seyfried and his Cape buff to Larry Kelly and his pachyderms. I may never have the cash to hunt in Africa, but the larger North American critters, from elk to moose and bison, might be doable. Although many cartridges have now exceeded the old .44 Magnum's performance, I am thinking that the .44 loaded with a good 300 or 325-grain WFN gascheck will do just about anything the .45s and .480s will, perhaps with a little less flair. Anybody still hunt big stuff with the poor old .44?

Years ago a buddy of mine shot his cape buffalo with his 44 mag using cast bullets.

Hi Bill.
Although if I was going to buy a new gun I would probably opt for a .480, I do carry my 8&3/8 mod. 29 for my hunting revolver here in AK. I use either 300 or 320 gr hardcast WFN gascheck bullets loaded to around 1340 fps. I feel fine for black bear at any practical range, & OK for moose to about 75 yds, maybe 100 yds under perfect conditions.
I will admit I felt a bit undergunned when I had an up close & personal confrontation with an 8'+ brown bear (800-900#?) last Friday, but after a tense moment or two we both parted unscathed. I don't think even a .500 S&W would have made me feel real comfortable at that moment.
So for any critter short of Alaskan brown bear I'd feel OK with the .44 mag. For them (if I decide to hunt them) I will grab my Contender in .444 Marlin.

kinda wondering...the 44 doesnt seem sufficent to shoot a squirrel these days ...the 44 has been doing it for a long time and is what all others are trying to catch...jim257

Truer words were never spoken. JDJ, Larry Kelly and many others have used the .44 successfully in Africa and North America. I really think it just comes down to proper bullet selection, a cool head, and proper placement. I have never recovered a big heavy slug from a white-tail or Black Bear, but then again I never shot a Black Bear! Even whenI go to Colorado hunting Elk with my TC's, my 44 is always on my side; it is loaded with heavy, hard cast SWC. I did use my .44 for squireels one time, but when I hit one, it turned into what resembled a bloody gray sock! How can anyone question a .44?

The lowly .44 mag and 30-06 seem to get bagged on a lot these days. Yet both can be loaded light or heavy enough for any game I ever intend to hunt. The recoil from either round can be handled by most anyone, which will improve accuracy and confidence. You can find ammo for both rounds pretty much anywhere you go. There are a lot of bigger and badder rounds these days, but I would never feel under-gunned hunting with a .44 mag or 30-06.

Thanks for the replies, guys. They are pretty muchin lin ewith my thinking, that the .44 Mag is still an extremely effective hunting tool. Mine is a stainless SBH with the long silhouette tube -- easy to shoot and eaiser for me to shoot straight.

If I can add my 2 cents worth (on the buff and african nasties), not having hunted the big unfriendlies as yet. I think a bullet that holds together is first prize. The emphasis on the big stuff is the hunt, getting in close to the herd and selecting a trophy, in bushveldt country the shot could be anywhere from 10-40 meters. As long as the 44mag has the power to get the bullet into and through the vital organs. The its just a case of how fast can you turn the cylinder over to give him another and how competent is the guy backing you.

I t

Although I've turned to bigger nastier cartridges, primarily my 475s I would not hesitate to go anywhere in North America with my trusty SBH 44 and I would never feel undergunned. I may prefer to have my big stuff but I know the 44 would get the job done as long as I do my part. Another point to consider especially at close range if things get uncomfortable is the fact that the 44 is going to be a lot easier to bring back on target for the follow up than a big boomer thats pointed at the clouds everytime you pull the trigger

Rod: I agree the .44 is plenty for anything we have here in Orygun ...

It may be characterized as a boy doing a man's job, but the .44 magnum comes in factory rounds from mild to wild. And the truth is, a proper bullet from a .44 magnum placed in a vital area or in the central nervous system, will take down ANY animal in the world.
It is not a pure stopper like a .475 or .500, but it will kill.
So aim it right and load it right and look no further for your hunting weapon.

Even Bigfoot?

Seriously though, in defense of the bigger boys (not that they need it

though) I haven't done any penetration tests but the one I remember reading showed the .475L out-penetrated everything, including .500 class cartridges.

So all other factors being the same, the big nasties may or will give the hunter a better chance of getting the penetration he needs, with some margin for error; thereby increasing the odds of putting down that dangerous game animal and maybe even faster.

Damn, 12yr old thread!

There is nothing I'd hunt with a handgun that I wouldn't hunt with the .44Mag. Anything up to and including hippo.

IMHO, comparable bullets of comparable weight/design/construction will have comparable penetration. Bigger bullets make bigger holes but at some point all you're doing is increasing the odds of a quicker demise, not guaranteeing them.

Its all in the bullet. Its not the hammer the big boys are and since i dont mind the recoil i just grab the 454 or 460, but the 44 will do it. Just gotta use the right bullet and place the bullet right. Might take a few more shots in some circumstances but itll get er done.

COOL, REVIVING AN OLD THREAD. I DO NOT USE A 44 MAG, NOT BECAUSE IT WON'T WORK, BUT BECAUSE I AM A 45MAN.

Craig, here is what I was referring to.

The penetration test was done By John Linebaugh and the .475 beat out all other handgun calibers tested.

Linebaugh Penetration Test

Interestingly, the .475 doubled the penetration of the .44 magnum; both using LFN's; the .475 bullet was 90 grains heavier but traveling slower; 100% more is a lot.

Not saying I wouldn't use my SBH on big stuff, it was on my side loaded with JD/s 320 grain hard casts when I was hunting in Alaska, and we had brown bears all over. I just like my .475.

And all I said was that the greater the penetration you get, the better your odds are of getting that bullet where it needs to go; and the more penetration the more margin for error.

Pretty simple IMO.

That is a significant difference, even if traveling slower.

I guess that's why I decided I "need" a 480 Ruger or a BFR 475L/480 !

Mass matters ;-)

Yeah, look at that carefully. Yea the 475 will outpenetrate the 44 but that 100% more is an outlier. That load will usually penetrate 43-50? or so. When the beef knuckle was introduced penetration was dismal. The 44 doesnt match the 475
In paper but the punch and other monometals will help close the gap. In testing on buffalo the 44 punch and barnes buster passed thru many times. None of the big boomers passed thru with cast. Sooooo if the cast does so well out of the 475 u can do alot more with the 44 by picking the right bullet than originally thought. If i was going elk hunting with a 44, id redline a ruger with a 280gr or 300gr aframe and never look back. No doubt the bigger bores will do even better with the above bullets, but the 44 can do what is needed and more than we expect or have come to expect with the right bullets.

I know but I'm not real nuts about wet newsprint tests and the .44 was not very well represented in those tests. The 430gr gained legendary status from that sinlge test and I have to wonder if it was really deserved. Particularly compared to better bullets in the .44/.45 and .500's. Double the penetration is hard for me to believe.

Anybody know exactly what bullet the 430gr .475 was? Is it this one? I can test them in SIMTEST out of the .480 in the next few months.

http://www.grizzlycartridge.com/index.php?app=ecom&ns=prodshow&ref=CP475425LA

Im not sure if that was the one, but it begs the test. I know a hunter that duplicated that exact load as the ultimate penetrating revolver round due to that test and he did not get a full pass thru on a nilgai on a broadside shot. So 64? or whatever is an outlier. It never got that far before and never got that far again. In any scientific test all outliers on both sides of the coin are eliminated. Craig. We need a consistent media and tester in simtest to test rounds and get consistent results. Paper is notoriously unreliable consistency-wise. I think the plethora of evidence shows the 475 will definitively outpenetrate a 44 with similiar bullets scaled for caliber but 100% as much, i dont think so. The big boys do it without as much concern for bullet choice imho and on that i agree with gregg. Pick an old school bullet in a big cal and a premium in a 44 and the gap closes. One of the reasons im pushing swift for a bigger aframe in 475 and 50 cal

+1
The only way to get an accurate comparison is to fire each in a consistent, uniform, UNDAMAGED medium. And yes, that would be very interesting.

Maybe we are "overthinking" this. If my one and only revolver was a .44 mag and I had a chance to hunt a moose with it I wouldn't pass that up. I would try to load it appropriately and go moose hunting. I am not that limited in my choice of revolvers though. So as for me, I would grab a .454 or .475L. IMHO, that would be better suited for the task at hand and this is based on the fact that I have that option. If I shot my .45 Colt's better than any other six gun I might pick one of those.

I think you are probably right.

As long as the right bullet is used, I honestly don't think the moose will ever know the difference.

I too have a .44 magnum,2 in fact, along with a .454 Casull. It's funny to me that the .44 is now somewhat frowned upon for big game and/or dangerous game hunting. We all remember when it was the "most powerful handgun on the planet", no one frowned on it then. It is STILL quite powerful and will STILL take down the biggest of game, regardless of the species. As we all know it can be loaded way down or waaaaaay up. I won't load mine waaaaay up, I tend to stay with 240-255 grain loads, JHP and hard cast. IF I feel the need for something more I will take the .454, all the while knowing that the .44 would do the job.

I think its human nature to go from wanting something, to getting something, to thinking we need what we used to want but now we want more/better/different.

What is also very interesting according to this test is the column that shows the penetration in the "paper and bone" medium. Common sense would tell me that bone would be a very inconsistent medium to try and test a bullet in. And that column bears this out. (Wet paper isn't perfect either but it tends to be more consistent and therefore gives viable comparisons, IMO.)

Note the two .44 magnum bullet tests: the levergun and the .44 load two spaces below that one. Both firearms used the same load: a 300 grain LBT, with only 49 fps difference. Note the illogical difference in the "paper and bone" column between these two: 35 inches vs. 16 inches, more than 100% difference! Just another example of how difficult it is to judge terminal bullet performance in game animals from only a few examples.

And this proves out again that the information gathered and shared by handgun hunters such as our one and only Doc Rogers is so valuable. One example of this is if you haven't read his Africa story published here, you should because he goes into some great detail on the bullets he tested on game looking for the right ones to take to Africa.

Yup. Thats why media such as simtest is important. Very very consistent media infact but no one knows whats gonna happened till us actually test putting bullets thru big thick hide and bone.

I saw the data. 42 inches with a 44 magnum 340 grain bullet. 64 with the 475 Linebaugh. I guess I would use the 44 magnum nonetheless, as penetration as deep as 42 inches ought to be at least half-way through a huge animal. And over 40 inches from the front would be a very large skull not to reach the central nervous system. Penetration of 36 inches is noted as necessary to brain a elephant. So how much penetration is really sufficient? Elephant have fallen to the 44 magnum. Cape buffalo, rhino and hippo too. Even the 41 magnum has dropped elephant and cape buffalo. So it comes down to bullet performance, bullet weight and sufficient velocity to stabilize the bullet. And of course, knowing where to place that deadly bullet is paramount.

True. What I brought up was the test showed that both of those calibers used the same type bullets, a LFN. And I agree that this test is not the Holy Grail. It was just a comparison on that day with those mediums, and they tried to make it as consistent as their means would allow but obviously it was not perfect.

BTW thanks everybody for keeping this a very enjoyable thread and nobody getting mean.

True. What I said I quote:

"So all other factors being the same, the big nasties may or will give the hunter a better chance of getting the penetration he needs, with some margin for error; thereby increasing the odds of putting down that dangerous game animal and maybe even faster."

Margin for error; I can always use that!

Since a lot of this is theory and our own opinions, what about this for "over-penetration":

"I was above him thinking he couldn't wind me but suddenly the big bear whirled and came for me. Remaining calm, I leveled my .475 in a heartbeat, almost instinctively, aiming for the center of his head, and pressed the trigger. The angle of the shot was such that the bullet entered and passed through his skull and continued on penetrating the spinal column..."

I would like to see testing done with simtest, Craig. Hopefully you can do that!

I second that Simtest suggestion. At least there would be as much consistency as could be presented. I also liked the write-up in Hunting Revolvers by Max Prasac when a test was done comparing the 44 magnum and 45 Colt. It came out neck and neck with the 44 magnum besting the 45 Colt with a 330 grain bullet with an undamaged nose but only by an inch or so. But it was in Simtest and that was consistent.

What I've been trying to figure out is how to simulate bone using something that is very consistent. IMHO, using round leg bones or knuckles is useless because it's impossible to get consistent, comparable results. One thought I had was to use micarta in maybe 1/4" thickness. Might not be able to figure out just ow much bone we're simulating but I think the results would be comparable to each other, if nothing else. Maybe not even in comparing penetration depth but bullet integrity. I think I'll get some to try after the initial testing is done.

Surely I can get those .475 LFN's from somewhere and test them out of the .480 SRH. I think what I have is the WFN, will have to look.

Jeff, that was my writeup.

I know Craig. I recognized your handle and you were very balanced and fair in your commentary.

And not near enough credit is given to max for printing that.

And greg that margin of error is what it possible for cousin to get his kudu and got us those 3 cow elk in 3 days! Im a big believer in that margin for error!

Interesting read! We do know that news print can be consistent as can be ballistic gel but bone is almost impossible to duplicate. Water can also be consistent but is pretty tough on bullets, especially cast bullets & the container shouldn't be milk jugs because of the handle causing inconsistency.
I'm surprised no one as mentioned Bob Hagel's method of using wooden baffles with wet sawdust & wet, sifted dirt in between the baffles. He did some quite extensive testing at one time although it was mostly done with rifle bullets in mind.
The method was mentioned in one of his fine books & I might be able to find it. One last thing, remember not so long ago that Phil Shoemaker killed a rather large, agitated bear with a 9mm using a hard cast bullet. So the 44 is still a pretty good big game cartridge in most circles.

Dick