Back to the Future - Elmer's .44 Mag Load

Jeff Higgins · 12-06-2009, 04:50 PM

Firearms enthusiast among you will no doubt remember Elmer Keith, the Idaho cowboy that changed the face of wheelgun shooting forever with, among other contributions, his experiments with heavy revolver loads that led to Remington and S&W jointly introducing the .44 magnum. Elmer's favorite load was his old 250 grain semi-wadcutter, Lyman mold # 429421, over 22 grains of Hercules #2400 (thus named because it could achieve 2400 fps with a 40 grain bullet in the old .22 Hornet, the cartridge for which it was intended).

Well, I have been shooting the .44 mag in various revolvers quite literally since I was a kid. I have never been impressed with the old Keith load. In old Elmer's defense, however, his design of the #429421 has not been available in my lifetime. Lyman saw fit to alter some key design features (the crimping and grease grooves) in the interest of producibility. The changes have been widely regarded as compromising the performance of this bullet. So, several years ago, RCBS re-introduced the original design. Being very happy with my "standard" load consisting of the LBT 300 grain LFN over 23 grains of W-W #296 for about 1,200 fps, I never really thought about trying the old Keith design again.

Until last month, when I ordered a mold from my old friend Dave Gullo at Buffalo Arms. I dutifully cast up a bunch and loaded them over 20 grains of Alliant (who bought out Hercules) #2400 (the "new" #2400 is slightly faster than the "old" #2400, so loading manuals now list 20 grains instead of 22 to match Elmer's old load). My new "old" load is on the left, with my 300 grain LBT load on the right:

So, I hit the range with this load and my old Virginian Dragoon this morning, just to fart around a bit and see what it would do. The gun is sighted for my 300 grain load, so I knew the 250 grain load would shoot low. The first cylinder full got my attention - all six went into about a 2" group, offhand at 25 yards. Quit low like I expected, though. With a center of bull hold, they are the six represented by the lowest three and then the three shot backwards "L" just above them, and below the ragged hole formed by the six shots.

I raised the sight two clicks and fired that one ragged hole six shot group. The next six were fired without adjustment, trying to see if I could keep that group going. Those are the four to the left and the two to the right, at the same elevation - I was getting lazy.

So, I took a break, raised the sight two more clicks, and fired the next two cylinders. Those are the nine visible holes from 9:00 to 3:00 across the center of the bull, with three "missing in action", lost in the myriad of other holes (it looks like at least one "double" in those nine, with the other two going low through some of those bigger holes).

Anyway, to say I'm happy would be an understatement. Recoil and blast are far less than my 300 grain load, and accuracy looks very, very promising. I'll get serious and shoot it from a sandbag rest at 50 and 100 yards in the next few weeks. If it continues to shoot like this, I may very well have a new "standard" .44 mag load. Maybe the old coot knew what he was doing after all... And big thanks to RCBS for realizing that, and bringing Elmer's original ideas back for us.

Jim Bremner · 12-06-2009, 07:37 PM

sometimes old ideas are still right!

onlycafe · 12-06-2009, 08:17 PM

that group in a six-pack is very impressive.

Joeaksa · 12-07-2009, 05:30 AM

Very nice. Elmer was an icon back in my shooting days. Glad to see him proven right.... again.

legion · 12-07-2009, 06:50 AM

I looks like Elmer's bullets have less surface area (just the ring at the back) with which to grip the rifling.

I think the more modern bullets were designed with semi-auto in mind. I know that you can get a Desert Eagle in .44 mag. I'd think that the step at the back of Elmer's bullets wouldn't work well in a semi-auto.

Jeff Higgins · 12-07-2009, 07:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by legion

I looks like Elmer's bullets have less surface area (just the ring at the back) with which to grip the rifling.

They actually have more of their length at groove diameter than the LBT design. It's hard to tell from that picture, so I'll try to remember to post one of just the bullets. That is actually one of their key design features - the length of the bullet that engages the rifling. The Keith bullet is quite a bit longer than the LBT, even though it is 50 grains lighter. The crimping and grease grooves are much larger, and the nose much smaller in diameter. The LBT design is meant to pack as much weight as possible into the shortest bullet possible, so it has very shallow crimping and grease grooves, plus that bulbuous nose.

Quote:

Originally Posted by legion

I think the more modern bullets were designed with semi-auto in mind. I know that you can get a Desert Eagle in .44 mag. I'd think that the step at the back of Elmer's bullets wouldn't work well in a semi-auto.

The Keith bullet is definitely designed for revolvers. It's length, along with its three equal width, widely spaced driving bands (the full diameter portion of the bullet) is meant to enable it to jump the barrel/cylinder gap without tipping. There are always two driving bands supported by the cylinder or by the barrel as the bullet makes that transition, holding it straight. In other words, as the middle driving band (between the crimping and grease grooves) jumps the gap and engages the rifling, the base band is still in the cylinder. Shorter bullets, like the more modern LBT design and almost all new JSP or JHP designs don't do that.

The very length of these bullets makes them unsuitable for use in autoloaders. That, and they will soon solder shut the gas port in a Desert Eagle or any other gas-operated autoloader.

As an aside, autoloaders in the magnum revolver chamberings are a useless abberation anyway. Autoloaders are defensive arms; hunting is best left for revolvers. The magnum revolver rounds are needlessly powerful for defensive purposes, and the autoloaders that shoot them are needlessly heavy for hunting purposes. They won't shoot proper (hard cast semi-wadcutter) hunting bullets, and they are just too damn heavy and bulky to carry comfortably on the hip all day. The only "need" this combination fills is for less than savy shooters to impress their less than savy shooting buddies at the range (they probalby won't get them laid, though).

onlycafe · 12-07-2009, 08:57 AM

jeff,
have you read a book called "fast and fancy revolver shooting" by ed mcgivern?
he was an amazing shooter.

Jeff Higgins · 12-07-2009, 10:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by onlycafe

jeff,
have you read a book called "fast and fancy revolver shooting" by ed mcgivern?
he was an amazing shooter.

Yup; I have a copy in my shooting library. Actually, I have never really sat down and read all the way through it. It's pretty dry reading, and really only covers trick shooting, or exhibition shooting. I'm not really into any of that. The parts I have read have left me more or less wondering why on earth anyone would even want to do that stuff. There is no real practical application for any of it.

Jeff Higgins · 12-10-2009, 05:42 PM

Here are a few photos highlighting the design features that make the Keith bullet work so well.

First photo shows the Keith design in both .44 and .45 calibers (the pair on the right). The .45 is actually designed by Dave Scovill, current editor of Rifle and Handloader magazines. Mr. Scovill noted there were no Keith style bullets available (with all of the correct design elements) in .45 caliber, so he persuaded RCBS to make a mold for one. The .44 caliber version is 250 grains, and the .45 caliber is 270 grains, even though the .45 version is notably shorter in length (it's the one on the left in that pair).

On the left are a pair of Veral Smith designs, proprietor of LBT - Lead Bullet Technologies. Both weigh 300 grains, again with the .45 caliber version on the left and the .44 on the right. Note how much shorter that .45 is, and how much less bullet it places in the case, below the crimp groove. Powder capacity, baby - that's why the old .45 Colt can actually outperform the .44 mag in a suitably strong revolver.

The next photo shows three .44 caliber bullets for comparison; the LBT, Keith, and a Speer 240 grain half jacket. Key design elements of the Keith that can be seen in this photo are the wide, flat nose followed by that secondary full diameter shoulder. These work together to actually cut tissue out of the way, like a conductor's punch. A roundnose bullet, or a jacketed soft point, or a hollow point, merely parts tissue before it, allowing that tissue to fold back into the wound channel, checking the bleeding to some degree. The cutting action of the Keith design "ventilates" critters far better.

Next are the three equal width driving bands. I explained how they work above. Notice the size of both the crimping and grease grooves when compared to the LBT. The grease groove holds several times the lubricant of the LBT design (which represents the norm for most of today's designs). The crimping groove is also beveled, allowing for a very deep crimp without working the brass so much, and also working to more gently and uniformly open the crimp upon firing. The crimping groove on the LBT allows for none of this.

The jacketed bullet is crimped over the front of the jacket, which is actually the best method I've ever seen on a jacketed bullet. We still can't get anywhere near the crimp we can get on the Keith design, but it is better than most. Most simply have a very shallow cannelure rolled into the jacket, which is wholly inadequate for heavy magnum loads with the correct slow burning powders.

These powders demand a great deal of initial resistance to bullet movement, so they can build adequate heat and pressure to burn efficiently. We use the heavy roll crimp in conjunction with larger diameter bullet to achieve this; I size mine to .431" dia, where jacketed bullets are .429" dia. The larger diameter provides a tighter fit in the case, for even more resistance to that initial movement. Jacketed bullets cannot be that large in diameter, as they would provide too much resistance once in the bore itself, dangerously raising pressures.

As a result, jacketed bullet loads are typically at their best using faster powders that do not require that heavy resistance provided by the heavy roll crimp and bullet pull in the case. Since they also provide much greater resistance once in the bore, the net result is very much compromised internal ballistics, resulting in much lower velocities than those that can be achieved with cast bullets. Couple that with their inability to cut a clean permanent wound channel, and we can see that the modern jacketed bullet is inferior in every way to the old Keith designed cast bullet.

So why do bullet companies peddle these things? Simple - they are easier and cheaper to manufacture in quantity than a properly designed cast bullet. Like so many things these days, economics trump everything else. Then it's the marketing boys' job to sell their latest whiz-bang creation to the unwitting shooting public. Hang a fancy name on it, show photos of neatly mushroomed bullets, and get the gun rags with whom you buy all that advertising space to tout the virtues of your product, and it's really the perfect crime. Gimme the tried and true cast bullet any day; it's by far the most effective handgun ammunition we can make. Just not very glamorous, I guess.

m21sniper · 12-11-2009, 02:16 PM

The rounds i keep in my .32 auto pocket pistol are Elmer Keith style bullets. I'm sure it's a role he never envisoned his bullets filling! Turns out that in .32 auto the #1 thing that people who carry them worry about is penetration, not expansion. The "Buffalo Bore" loaded Keith bullets in .32 will penetrate 15.5" of ballistics gelatin, more than a lot of full power defensive rounds in much larger calibers.

Jeff Higgins · 12-11-2009, 06:05 PM

Good call, sniper. Penetration is vitally important in handgun ammunition, along with a bullet shape that will cut its way through tissue, as opposed to pushing its way through.

Handguns, even the most powerful, are woefully underpowered when compared to rifles. We have to make choices. Rifles have the power to both penetrate deeply and expand the bullet, where handguns do not. It's one or the other. Forced to make a choice, the only one that makes sense (especially in big game hunting) is penetration. Fortunately, big bore handgun bullets are already about as big in diameter as a typically mushroomed .270, 7mm, or .30 caliber rifle bullet. If we can extract equal or better penetration from them, we can equal the killing power of the medium bore rifle.

Self defense with small caliber, concealable handguns is governed by the same set of rules. Yes, with a large bore handgun we can get full penetration and good expansion on human targets. Not so with the small caliber sidearm. Expansion does us no good in these, as they are already somewhat challenged with regards to penetration. Expanding bullets in the .32's and .380's have been known to have been defeated by heavy raincoats and other winter clothing. If it never even makes it into the boiler room, it matters little how nicely it mushroomed.

Jim Bremner · 12-11-2009, 08:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by m21sniper

The rounds i keep in my .32 auto pocket pistol are Elmer Keith style bullets. I'm sure it's a role he never envisoned his bullets filling! Turns out that in .32 auto the #1 thing that people who carry them worry about is penetration, not expansion. The "Buffalo Bore" loaded Keith bullets in .32 will penetrate 15.5" of ballistics gelatin, more than a lot of full power defensive rounds in much larger calibers.

Will that plastic pistol handle that load for a decent amount of firings?

m21sniper · 02:53 AM

Kel Tecs are rated for "+P" ammunition (something that doesn't technically exist in .32 ACP anyway). The Buffalo Bore .32acp rounds i use are loaded to max. SAAMI pressure for .32 ACP. I am sure that they would accelerate wear if used regularly, but i only fired enough of them to ensure reliability and zero the laser at 7 yards.

These little bad boys will punch clean through even a portly bad guy. They may be little .32 caliber holes, but they'll be deep ones. And lots of them.

That's probably actually a really solid trail-gun round too. 15.5" is plenty of penetration as long as you're hitting the right spot. With the pressure activated dedicated laser, that's childishly easy.