Talk:.44 Magnum

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Cleanup notice[edit]

I came to this article by the cleanup notice. However, as the fact is that I have no understanding about the .44 Magnum, what I have with me is only the passage here. I've split and correct things inside this article without referring to anything else outta this article. Therefore, many many factual inaccuracies may be generated and needs help. Anybody interested can contact me through my talk page. Deryck C. 09:57, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The first paragraph has this: ".44 Magnum and its parent use bullets .429 in (10.9 mm) in diameter." Without the brackets it reads: "...bullets .429 in in diameter." I know the first one is "inches" but perhaps it should be changed to"...bullets .429 inches in diameter." for non-inch-using-countries. Gohst 11:47, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I spelled out inches. That fits with Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers), too. -- Mike Wilson 15:06, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dirty Harry[edit]

This article says that Dirty Harry used a Model 25, but the Dirty Harry article (amongst others) says that he used a Model 29. Can someone who knows about these things confirm and correct this. Tim 10:27, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In the movie, the firearm was a model 29. In real life, Eastwood was carrying a model 57 (.41 magnum) due to the model 29 being unavailable.

Futhermore, John Hartigan in Sin City was shooting a .45 Colt chambered Ruger Blackhawk. --Mfree 16:52, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In the first part Hartigan used a 29, I think. Second part WAS a Blackhawk. I too heard it was a Model 25 Dirty Harry used, and not only was it because the 29 was unavailable, but because they had a shitload of .45 blanks. Few would be available for .41 Magnum.

It is extremely unlikely that it was a Model 25. Until 1977, the Model 25 was only catalogued in .45 ACP. Moreover, up until the introduction of the Model 25-5 in 1978, the Model 25 in .45 Colt used the same short cylinder as the .45 ACP model. This is well after the the filming and release of the movie Dirty Harry. D.E. Watters 21:12, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dirty Harry admits to using a light .44 special load in the context of ipsc target shooting. I don't think it is possible to infer he is using the same load when on duty. It really wouldn't make any sense at all to carry that eight inch "hand cannon" otherwise now would it?--Cancun771 22:45, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It makes no sense to me either. He brags of it being so powerful, yet admits tyo using "light specials"...He also says his .44 Auto super-mag, in "Sudden Impact"; has a 300-grain "cartridge" (??) Stupidity--he means bullet. Oh, well it was in the script.68.231.189.108 (talk) 16:19, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was a model 29; with a longer custom 8 1/2" barrel for the movie. Eastwood tried it on live rounds at a range before filming, so he could accurately simulate the recoil.68.231.189.108 (talk) 16:19, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WPMILHIST[edit]

The WPMILHIST tag has been removed due to this article not being military related.--Oldwildbill 07:59, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

European Designation?[edit]

Is the European/Metric designation the 10.92×33mmR? If so, we might want to add it to the synonyms. We should, of course, verify it first.

Double Action?[edit]

double action, and single action revolvers are very, very similar, both mechanically and in operation. in double action, you may cock the hammer either with a thumb or by using the trigger. thats the only difference; there is simply no way a double action revolver can transfer more energy to a shooter than a single action. if you mean to say pulling the trigger increased perceived recoil, that only applies to double action only revolvers. its misleading- i'm going to delete it. 66.222.214.217 04:20, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, double action and single action revolvers are very different--different loading mechanisms, different construction, and--the relevant issue for perceived recoil--different grip shapes. Single action revolvers are convex all they way up the back strap, while double action revolvers almost universally have a concavity at the web of the thumb and forefinger. This concavity is intended to keep the shooter's hand clear of the hammer, which otherwise could bind things up in double action fire. It is this concavity that prevents a double action revolver from rolling back under recoil, and some shooters feel that this makes the single action grip style better suited for heavy recoiling calibers, such as .500 Linebaugh. I'll find a source to back that up and get it back in. scot 13:51, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Most powerful handgun in the world[edit]

It states in the article that this isn't, and indeed wasn't ever the most powerful handgun in the world. If so, what is? And should there be a link to the handgun that does fit this criteria? 81.110.14.145 23:19, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which handgun is the most powerful changes over time as new models come out and new ways to tweak the old models are found. I believe for a time it was the Smith and Wesson Model 500. The most powerful handguns are all either .50 caliber or .460. 90.11.11.141 (talk) 20:20, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Too much pop culture[edit]

Is it just me, or is this article WAY too heavy on pop culture. For example, the extended explanation of whether or not the gun used in "Dirty Harry" was an actual .44 Mag instead of some other caliber would be much better suited to the Dirty Harry article. Arthurrh 00:40, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Need much trimming. I may do it later if you don't first. —Thernlund (Talk | Contribs) 00:48, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I took a bunch of it out, probably more can/should still be done. Arthurrh 17:01, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree as well. I took out the entire pop culture nonsense. We'll see what happens. Motorrad-67 22:10, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, some of the popular culture material should be restored to the article. Such material is relevant to the subject, and appropriate to include. There's no rule or guideline saying that articles like this one need to be completely technical. In fact popular culture is one of the strong areas of Wikipedia in general. Of course the article shouldn't have too many pop cultural references either, but I really think the article is not as good as before now. Certainly Dirty Harry and Taxi Driver should be mentioned, and maybe a few others as well. — Mudwater 23:02, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about going beyond Dirty Harry and Taxi Driver, but for sure you can make a strong argument that Dirty Harry helped popularize .44 Mag guns, so he should be in. Re trivia being a strong point, I stick with guidelines, IE it should be incorporated, relevant, notable, etc. Not just a big list of random unconnected things. Arthurrh 01:31, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to go ahead and restore the last version of the "popular culture" section. It's limited to the two most important or notable pop culture references (Dirty Harry and Taxi Driver), and it also addresses related technical questions about the cartridge itself. — Mudwater 12:50, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bruce Lee[edit]

How come there's nothing about Bruce Lee? After all, he was shot with a .44 Magnum in one of the strangest incidents in film history. 24.86.106.32 (talk) 19:22, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're thinking of his son, Brandon Lee, who was killed by a blank fired in a revolver with an blocked barrel. scot (talk) 20:22, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why is the 44 magnum used in films like magnum force (Clint Eastwood) a police genre when there is no way that the gun could possibly be used in the police with it's high caliber and recoil the likelyhood is that the over sized hunting bullets would rip through one person and go into another. ----matthewsuter---- 18:49 10 june

And movies of this sort are typically known for their accurate portrayal of reality? There are suitable defensive loads for the .44 Magnum, they tend towards the lighter, aggressively expanding bullets at moderate velocities rather than the heavy solids used for big game hunting. Federal's .44 Magnum personal defense offering, for example (catalog #P44HS1), is a 240 grain Hydra-Shok at 1210 fps, for 780 ft lbs. at the muzzle, versus a 300 grain solid at 900 ft. lbs. for the big game bullet. And of course you can always fire .44 Special ammunition; Winchester offers (catalog #X44STHPS2) a .44 Special Silvertip with 200 grains at 900 fps, identical to Browning's original .45 ACP loading. The biggest problem is that most .44 Magnums tend to be large, heavy guns (especially those with manageable recoil) and police prefer lightweight guns. scot (talk) 18:42, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Even though Dirty Harry inaccurately talks of ".38's glance off windshields"; every cop I've asked said the .44 Magnum would be the "last" gun they'd ever choose. A miss in SF could hit someone in Alameda.... In "What Cops know"; there is an incident of an undercover officer, nicknamed "Crazy Swede"; who carries a .44 magnum. He actually stops a kidnapping by shooting through a thick cable that holds a sign in place. The sign slams down, inches from the assailant; the show of power made the would-be kidnapper surrender.68.231.189.108 (talk) 16:26, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like those cops know even less about firearms, ammunition, and ballistics than you would think.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 22:15, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dubiousness[edit]

A lot of those sentences just make me confused, honestly. What does it mean by the cartridge has a "natural home"? The worst example though was "Still, many shooters like it as they can thus have a rifle and a handgun in the same cartridge, making logistics easier." I fail to see what "logistics" has to do with that at all. I apologize if I used the wrong tags at points but they seem ambiguous as far as I am concerned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.233.37.51 (talk) 20:22, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You do bring up a good point--it's probably time for this article to be re-written, with sources. I'll start the collection:
And more on the use of shared revolver/rifle cartridges in the old west:
  • The Look of the Old West: A Fully Illustrated Guide By William Foster-Harris mentions the popularity of the .44-40 rifle and revolver combination, and the fact that the shooter had only to purchase one type of ammunition.
  • The Pistol and Revolver by Abraham Lincoln Artman Himmelwright (1908) notes that where interchangeable ammunition may be desirable, the .44-40, .38-40, and .32-20 may be used. (full text downloadable at books.google.com)
scot (talk) 22:48, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
More sources, these covering accuracy...
And other...
scot (talk) 02:33, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hunting[edit]

The article states "The .44 Magnum is well suited for game up to brown bear size". I'm not aware of many big bear hunters who consider the .44 Magnum to be "well suited" for that task. I'd say it's more often listed as the bare minimum for a backup sidearm in dangerous game country. Of course, people can and have taken big bears with it, and they've done so with smaller and less powerful rounds too, but I think it would be more accurate to say it's "adequate" for big bears as opposed to "well suited". I suppose the sentence, as it is, is up to the reader's interpretation. Should it be clarified? —Preceding unsigned comment added by SquareWave (talk • contribs) 16:53, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's all a matter of opinion, and skill. If you can put shots into the vitals, Dick Metcalf recommends "a minimum .40 caliber, a minimum 200-grain solid deformable bullet, and a minimum 1000-fps velocity", all of which is very easily met by the .44 Magnum. If you can't get a shot in the vitals, not even J. D. Jones hottest offering will do you any good. As for "minimum backup sidearm", the scenario is entirely different, because you're no longer the hunter, choosing your shot, you're the hunted, and you don't get any choice. You use what you have, but really the minimum would be big can o' bear spray and a .45-70 lever action carbine to back that up. Bear spray will discourage a curious bear, but if you shoot it, you WILL make it mad (according to US wildlife officials, 50% of defensive uses of firearms against grizzly bears result in injury of the shooter, even if the bear ends up dead), so you'd better be prepared to STOP the bear. scot (talk) 17:53, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Air resistance or weight?[edit]

This section:

Range The accuracy of the .44 Magnum is very good, with models from Colt, Smith & Wesson, and Ruger producing groups of 3 to 4 inches (7.5 to 10 cm) at 50 yards with most ammunition.[16][17] The limiting factor of the .44 Magnum is not terminal ballistics, as a heavy, non-expanding bullet at .44 Magnum velocities will shoot entirely through large game such as elk and in some cases even bison.[18] The limiting factor is the trajectory; the heavy bullets best for hunting mean a significant drop out at ranges beyond 100 yards (90 m); with a 50 yard zero, drop at 100 yards is about 2 inches (5 cm) and drop at 150 yards (135 m) is over 8 inches (20 cm). With a 100 yard zero, drop at 150 yards is over 6 inches (15 cm).[19] Experts recommend limiting hunting ranges to 100 yards (90 m) with the .44 Magnum, less if practical accuracy requires it.[13][20] [edit]

seems to say that heavier bullets drop faster than lighter bullets. Has it not been made clear that gravity accelerates all objects at the same rate and that only air resistance makes some objects fall faster than others? The trajectory of the .44 is influenced by its shape, size and resistance to air flowing around it as well as it's mass and velocity. In a vacuum, a .22LR bullet, a .44 bullet and the Empire State Building will all fall with the same acceleration. 24.2.52.192 (talk) 20:41, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Right, they all fall at the same rate, but you forgot the horizontal velocity. You simply cannot push a 300 grain, deep penetrating hunting bullet as fast as a 180 grain fast expanding bullet out of the .44 Magnum, much less as fast as a rifle like the .204 Ruger can push a tiny 32 grain spitzer bullet. The 300 grain .44 bullet will have the best ballistic coefficient, but at a third the velocity, it's going to have by far the most drop, even in a vaccum. scot (talk) 21:25, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The text certainly seems to imply the bullet falls faster because of it's weight. If it has a slower velocity and poorer BC, the text should be changed to reflect that fact. Jeffrey.Rodriguez (talk) 20:39, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I reworded things slightly to read "...the bullets best for hunting are heavy, and thus relatively slow, which means a significant drop...". How does that work? scot (talk) 20:55, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How do you pronounce it?[edit]

Is it "44" or "dot 44" or "point 44" or "zero point 44" ? --IceHunter (talk) 17:11, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just "44" - the dot is a wikipedia convention used for consistency in all firearms articles, but doesn't necessarily match the common names for many cartridges. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 18:12, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Famous?[edit]

I'm wondering if, because of the association with Dirty Harry, it would be appropriate to add this article to Category:Famous individual firearms? -- Ϫ 07:09, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No. 44 Magnum is a handgun caliber, not a model. You might have better luck with the S&W M29.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 17:43, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dead link[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 12:59, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dead link 2[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 12:59, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dead link 3[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 12:59, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dead link 4[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 12:59, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bullet Energies[edit]

The energies are BS on this. Why don't you show factory loads, like a Speer Gold Dot 200 grain JHP doing 760 ft-lbs out of a 6.5" revolver? Why don't you show a range of loads, like it's sister the .41 Rem mag. on Wiki? You know, the .41 (.410" diameter) and the .44 (.429" diameter) are made out of the same guns parts, which means the .41 has 9.5 thousandths of an inch extra support to hold extra pressure in the cylinder and barrel... Anyway, you need to show a range of rounds, not just super loads like Double Tap and Buffalo Bore. I think people getting into shooting or looking at these things would like the variety, also. Msjayhawk (talk) 02:01, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree,the numbers on the listed rounds are atrocious, don't get me started on how much of a significant figure nightmare they are. The worst one has to be "LFN +P+" having a listed 2078 J, when in reality it should be around 1800 J(using KE=(1/2)(m)(v*v). I can't find any justification for any other the values listed either. BradandRose725 (talk) 05:44, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on .44 Magnum. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:03, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

how to tell if a gun is a magnum[edit]

i searched and searched. and i couldn't find the answer anywhere. so this will have to do. 1: magnums often have revolving chambers. 2: magnums often have their hammers/firing pins exposed at the back. 3: magnums are big. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.65.69.142 (talk) 20:33, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not a forum, but... Read the barrel. It will probably mention the caliber. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 23:29, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"10.9mm" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect 10.9mm. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 November 28#10.9mm until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Mdewman6 (talk) 01:47, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Correct Caliber Designation[edit]

The unit or designation of measure is Caliber. Caliber is a unit "based" on inches and/or millimeter (mm). When using the designation of caliber it is not represented directly as a measurement of inches. Refer to the definition of caliber. Caliber is expressed in hundredths or thousands of an inch depending on the number of digits. When referring to cartridges, bullets or chambers the units or designation used is caliber. This would be expressed without any leading decimal. Example: 22 LR is the 22 caliber Long Rifle cartridge. It may be approximately 0.22 inches in diameter; however, the Caliber is 22.

Leaving the decimal out of imperial specifications is intentional. It is not common language to say "Point 22 LR" or "Dot 22 LR", the common phrase is "Twenty Two LR". It is also easy to miss read or not see markings with a leading dot, thus another reason the unit of caliber is used.

This page is for specifications in caliber, This is what is used in the industry. Expressing it incorrectly as for example .45 caliber would translate a measurement in inches of 0.45/100 equaling 0.0045 inches. Another example .223 Rem. If this is a caliber unit it would translate to 0.223 thousandths (0.223/1000), which would equate to 0.000223 inches. for empirical units caliber designation never has a decimal place. Metric calibers are also often but not exclusively written and used without a decimal (i.e. Caliber 762).

The title of these pages should be updated as well as the content to avoid confusion for people learning or understanding the correct terms.

Further information on the correct way to specify values and units. Values and the units used are separated by a space. Example 7 mm is correct, 7mm is not correct. Correct case of letters (upper, lower) is also important, mm = millimeters, MM who knows that that would be. Another example (5.56 x 45 mm). Both 5.46 and 45 are in mm (millimeters), note the spacing around the x and between the number (value) and the units (mm).

216.160.0.104 (talk) 21:10, 2 May 2022 (UTC)Scimernet[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:.44_Magnum&oldid=1212524213"