"Smith & Wesson's .44 Magnum Revolver: Why You Should" Topic

…. Fear the 'Dirty Harry' Gun

"Few handguns combine power and cachet, but the Smith & Wesson Model 29 manages to do so with ease. Described by fictional San Francisco Police Department Detective Harry "Dirty Harry" Callahan as "the most powerful handgun ever built," the Model 29 indeed held that slot for many decades. Although more powerful handguns and ammunition types have since appeared, the .44 Magnum Model 29 is probably the most powerful—practical—handgun still in production.

In the first half of the twentieth century the largest revolver calibers were .45 ACP, used in revolvers such as the M1917 revolver , .45 Colt , a round used in older Colt revolvers, and .44 Special . While all of these bullets exceeded a diameter of .40 inches, they were eclipsed in energy delivered by the .357 Magnum. Although a narrower bullet, the .357 Magnum delivered a very respectable 494 foot pounds of energy, while the .45 ACP delivered 365, the .45 Colt 444, and .44 Special a mere 295 foot pounds. The .44 Special was also significantly slower, at 776 feet per second. All three of the big bore rounds flew at subsonic speeds. The .357 Magnum round, by contrast, broke the sound barrier at 1150 feet per second…."
Main page
link

Amicalement
Armand

I fired my buddy's S&W 629 and it does kick pretty good but not as bad as you would think. Pretty accurate at 15 yards.
You can get a used one for about $600 USD-700.

Ruger Redhawk is my choice-- and if I remember correctly, in one of the later movies Harry said that he used .44 Specials in his revolver.

I heard Harry used .357 loads for his .44.

Skippy, read that too in some movie write up, for visual it was all thats was needed.
44's do kick a bit.

The .44 Magnum, as intended by Keith Elmer, was always a better hunting round than a practical general purpose cartridge. Ideal for a walk in bear country when you don't feel like hauling a rifle.

Personally I'd rather carry Col Cooper's "Mighty Centimeter" in say a Rock Island HC, 16+1 10mm Underwoods will put a serious amount of foot-pounds downrange.

The .44 magnum has always been less practical than the mystique surrounding it.

I fear a Beretta 950 if it's loaded and pointed at me!

I'd fear just about any gun if it was loaded and pointed at me.

In the USAF in the '60s I was trained (sort-of) on the S&W Combat Masterpiece .38 Special revolver (although I was always under the impression it was made by Colt). Which was a pretty accurate weapon at 25 yards range.

link

I have about a dozen Model 29's of various barrel length and ages, all are fun to shoot, and very accurate.

I also have the big brother, a Smith & Wesson .500 Magnum. It will put a hole through an engine block without too much trouble.

The scary one is the Airweight. Has a titanium cylinder and scandium frame, and weighs about as much as 6 rounds of .44 magnum!

With good grips (the same type as used on the .500!), it doesn't hurt to shoot 240gr slugs. I only fired one 300gr slug, though, I was done after that. Had a bruise right through the web of my thumb!

I'd fear just about any gun if it was loaded and pointed at me.

Yep … bottom line …

Hit the spinner at 20 yds with my brother's.

Felt recoil with the rubber grips was quite acceptable.

With issue grips and milspec loads a Makarov bites more.

The 500 was only built so someone can claim they made the biggest legal handgun bullet in the US.

When I would target practice with my .44, I would shoot the .44 special rounds. With two hands and a 8" heavy barrel the kick was not that bad.

"… I was trained (sort-of) on the S&W Combat Masterpiece .38 Special revolver (although I was always under the impression it was made by Colt). Which was a pretty accurate weapon at 25 yards range."

Hi, Don! The S&W K-frames are fine weapons; easily stay on a man- sized target at 50+ yds.

I would shoot the .44 special rounds. With two hands and a 8" heavy barrel the kick was not that bad.

You need to put wheels on that thing !!!!

When I take my .44's to the range, I usually shoot about 100 rounds, most of those are one-handed. You get used to the kick after a while.

With the .500, not so much. 5 rounds and I call it a day.

Surely this discussion needs to be on another forum entirely? Gun porn discussions have nothing to do with miniatures or in this case rules simulating games. I would not like the idea of a 13 year old's mom checking on his reading and running across this any more than I would want her to see the NSFW pics and a discussion/pics about real nudity. This simply is not the place for it.

There was a long discussion about the pros and cons of needing discussions of real world weapons to have their own place or to be would it result in censoring rules discussions. You guys are adding fuel to the fire.

I've fired a full size .44 Magnum way back when I was 14. Didn't kick much.
Now that 300g snubnose in .357 on the other hand now that kicked.

I find something disconcertingly oxymoronic about a site devoted to discussing war "gaming" … ie the hobby aspects of a war where 100 million people were murdered … being "gun shy" about discussing ANY of the firearms involved.

Good Grief Charlie Brown!!!

Toys are one thing but in the wake of so many shootings, discussions about real firearms has A different flavor entirely. Anyone observed as obsessed with with real weapons will be perceived in quite a different light by any new visitor here. I have yet to see anyone killed by a miniature unless it was melted down and made into a bullet. We already have enough problems with this hobby being perceived badly by our SS panzergrenadiers and ACW confederate battle flags. Please, don't contribute to the stereotype here.

Point is, there are plenty of places where this sort of discussion is welcome but it's relevance here is only tangential and some of us do not wish to be associated with it.

You should respect any missile weapon.

My old 100lb pull longbow could kill you out to 250 yards or so.

I have an 8 shot umarex air pistol uses a soda syphon co2 thingummy. It's about 6psi.
I group within 2cm with that at 20 yards.
How big is your eye?

You might think a 12psi .22 air rifle is a bit of a joke weapon.
You really don't want to be shot with one of them neither.

Not sure how this has much to do with ww2 though.

@Aethelflaeda was framed: No one forced you to click on this thread, and the title pretty clearly indicated that this would be a gun-oriented discussion. You may find another thread to be less offensive to your sensibilities.

Gun porn discussions have nothing to do with miniatures or in this case rules simulating games.

Depends what ruleset you're using. I remember Top Secret having an exhaustive listing of firearms available for player-agents…

Top Secret was famous for killing player characters when you used the advanced wound location tables…

In a Bureau 13 campaign I allowed a .666 Smite & Blessing 5-round revolver. The soft nosed Cold Iron slugs were blessed by a Cardinal, during a eclipse with a comet in the sky. It pretty much dropped everything.

Tri Tac game systems were developed from Forensic charts and dealt with tissue damage, shock and organ failure. Had a fire fight with two characters and two npc's-took 45 minutes to track three bullets and what they did.

This is why I use Savage Worlds.

Agree with Editor. My rules allow weapons choices including various pistols such as Luger, P-38, 1911 45 Auto, each with their own unique stats (such as a Stopping Power Modifier) so they're not just grouped under a generic weapons type of "pistol".

My NAM/Modern rules (WIP) will allow choices like the .357 and .44 mags. So I believe this discussion is relevant and interesting. Good job!

Well regardless … for gaming or just general knowledge discussion of weapons, their effectiveness, etc. is relevant, IMO. As others have said. Wargame rules, at least the ones that are worth a , take into account weapons' characteristics, etc. E.g. a 37mm AT gun is different than an 88mm, etc., in many categories. Or an M4 vs. a Tiger, I or II.

And since many/most games take such things into account, like this whether a .357 or .44 or .45 are used. Or again a T34/76 vs Pz.V …

I for one like to hear real world experiences from anyone who has used a .45 or .44, etc.,, i.e. as I have. As I always say a "good" wargame should be based on some level of "realism". And of course that will vary by period, game rules, etc., etc., etc.

On the other hand one can use wargame models for playing Monopoly or "Shoots" & Ladders, etc. too !

At least you guys have started a game related aspect to this thread. Prior it was indeed just gun porn. Now it is just borderline obscene. Carry on. I am sure mothers supervising their teens everywhere will approve.

This weapon
link
features prominently in Cormac McCarthy's anti-Western Blood Meridien link It is called a "dragoon pistol" or a "horse pistol", so called because easily capable of despatching a horse. It is these troops' sole armament.

Does anyone game this, and if so, how are abnormally powerful pistols handled? Should a unit get a higher fire factor or melee factor for carrying a weapon like this. I do Napoleonics where they are ignored, and WW2 where they're all the same.

I am sure mothers supervising their teens everywhere will approve.

My Mom died and I'm 62 years old … I served as an Army Infantry Officer in my long passed youth, in 4 Inf Bns +, '79-'90.

I certainly don't fear or feel uncomfortable discussing guns of any type. I was around guns all my life. Albeit I'm not a hunter.

My Father was a Inf SGT in WWII. I respect guns and know how, when and why to use them. In my youth there may have been some youthful bravado, etc., with firearms. But I developed an understanding that they are tools. With "special" specific uses. They are not toys. I never thought that …

If talking about weapons of any type would cause someone to get a gun and go shot at people. Than I'd think no matter what someone like that would have done that or worse eventually. But I'm just making an "educated"(?) guess …

But I am a strong advocate that the best way to stop someone with a gun is someone else with a gun. On the gaming table, or in reality …

"It is called a "dragoon pistol" or a "horse pistol", so called because easily capable of despatching a horse. It is these troops' sole armament.

Does anyone game this, and if so, how are abnormally powerful pistols handled? Should a unit get a higher fire factor or melee factor for carrying a weapon like this. I do Napoleonics where they are ignored, and WW2 where they're all the same."

I think the description as "horse pistol" was intended to indicate that the pistol was usually carried by mounted troopers in saddle holsters. I've handled (though not fired) replica Walker Colts and they are a little unwieldy if one carried in a belt holster. The later .44 Army Colts are much handier. I don't recall if the Walkers had a detachable shoulder stock, but some of the Army Models did; this would probably give much more accurate fire at longer ranges.

Some rules may generalize firepower of most pistols or revolvers, especially in WWII when the sidearm was not the preferred weapon in combat. I've used Necromunda rules with adaptations for WWI and Vietnam skirmishes and usually give the larger caliber sidearms a greater Strength factor when they hit; greater range may not be appropriate since this is more dependent on the shooter's skills than the inherent capability of the cartridge/ weapon.

"….it's relevance here is only tangential and some of us do not wish to be associated with it.".

If you don't like the link and discussion, stop clicking on and reading it.

In the old timey Stalingrad rules I helped to write aeons ago, I made a difference between individual handguns, which was not really based on actual reality and reliability of involved weapons.

These days I wouldn't even skip differentiating between individual handguns, but simply assume they are part and parcel of the bit called "Hand to Hand combat" And assume that they will be used in close combat, with sheer human ferocity playing a larger role than whatever individual implements of death they carry.

If you don't like the link and discussion, stop clicking on and reading it.

I've said this many times before here … But on the other hand all points of view could be of some worth to any discussion. In most cases, generally.

But … e.g. I'm not a zombie fan so I don't go to threads that talk about zombies … so …

Talking, reading/writing about zombies my lead some young impressionable readers to take puffer-fish poison, don't you think?

Interesting discussion. I have fired everything from BB guns to air to air missiles and while I am far from God's gift to marksmanship, I can share my observation of large caliber magnum type handguns.

I put between 500-1000 rds downrange over the course of a month. I am primarily a rifle guy but shoot pistols occasionally, usually 380s, 9 mil or 45 ACP, and I'm here to tell you that the most guys in the stalls adjacent to me shooting 44s or even 357s aren't even on the paper at 7 yds after the first shot because they are flinching so bad! Which has a lot to do why the military used 38s or now 9 mil.

Maybe it's the bozos at the range I go to so ymmv, but that has been my experience.

FWIW, the guys with the ARs fully loaded with latest tacti-cool gizmos can't hit the broad side of a barn at 100 yds either. I don't know whether it is a bore-sight or BRM problem but they do waste a lot of ammo.

Bringing the history to the forefront, as it may apply to wargaming (and historical miniatures gaming)…

It is called a "dragoon pistol" or a "horse pistol", so called because easily capable of despatching a horse.

I don't think so. Be interested in any credible source that claims this as the source of the name.

The Colt Patterson was not a "dragoon pistol". It was a Patterson. It was the gun of and for the Texas Rangers. The Patterson was followed by three Colt pistols referred to as the Colt Dragoons (Dragoon Models 1, 2 and 3).

These were the guns that made Colt -- the company, the man, the legend. The Patterson was an interesting precursor, but was not any sort of success, either commercially or martially. It was not made in large quantities, and was not sold widely. It had a real tendency to jam, as the loading lever would drop with the recoil of the gun. With the lever down the cylinders couldn't rotate, and you wouldn't get any more shots out of your repeater until you put the lever back up, meaning a 2-handed operation in a gun intended for single-handed use. Also, the powder capacity of the cylinders meant you could load a quantity of powder that would generate pressures exceeding the stress strength of the cylinder walls, leading to chain-firing. Or to put it more bluntly, those who put full loads of powder in wound with a grenade detonating in their hand.

These issues were resolved in the Cold Dragoon series, which were initially developed and sold under contract to the US Army for the "US Army Mounted Rifle" troops -- known as Dragoons. Hence the name.

These were large and powerful pistols, no doubt. I can see how someone might assume they were intended to kill a horse. But in fact they were designed to be one-handed carbines, to be fired from horseback or from foot. They were sized such that they could only be conveniently carried in a horse-holster (on your saddle, not on your belt).

They became quite popular in the west, particularly among bandits. They were, in their day, the equivalent of the Tommy-gun in the 1920s, and in a population just getting past flintlocks to cap-and-ball muzzle-loading rifles it was an appropriate comparison. Joaquin Murietta, for example, along with his gang (including the locally infamous three-finger Jack) would normally carry two or three Colt Dragoons festooned on their saddle pommels. Their modus operendi in the Sierra gold rush days was to ride into a mining camp with Dragoon revolvers in hand, shoot everyone dead within 10 or 15 seconds, and then rummage about to see if they had anything valuable.

Can't hardly play ante-bellum westerns without them.

-Mark
(aka: Mk 1)

Talking, reading/writing about zombies my lead some young impressionable readers to take puffer-fish poison, don't you think?

Oh yes !?!?! Maybe the Ed. should snip that out of my post !

To be clear, I'm going by the Cormac McCarthy description:

In his hand he held a longbarreled sixshot Colt's patent revolver. It was a huge sidearm meant for dragoons and it carried in its long cylinders a rifle's charge and weighed close to five pounds loaded. These pistols would drive the half-ounce conical ball through six inches of hardwood and there were four dozen of them in the case.

McCarthy, Cormac. Blood Meridian: Picador Classic (p. 75). Pan Macmillan. Kindle Edition.

From this and other descriptions, and the date at which the novel is set, the Colt-Walker / Walker-Colt is the best fit.

I think it's referred to as able to kill a horse elsewhere. Also, and conclusively, John Wayne calls it a horse pistol in True Grit so that proves it.

Handguns, like the wheel-, flint- and other percussion locks before them, broadly came in two sizes, the "horse pistol" used by cavalry, and the personal weapons carried for self protection against bandits or on the battlefield.

Horse pistols were meant to pack a hefty punch, originally when fighting troops still wore metal armour. These guns were big and heavy and remained so because they could bring down another rider or his horse even when the use of armour diminished.

Dragoon pistols were big and heavy and not really meant to be carried all day, that's why most were kept in saddle holsters (exceptions like bushwhackers carrying multiple pistols did exist) The tradition of such guns continued right into the 20th century with the Colt 1911 being used on horseback by US cavalry in Mexico and the .45 ACP considered effective enough to bring down a cavalryman's horse.

By contrast most other handguns were much smaller, usually with .3x type calibers like the Colt Navy, easy to carry and not overly heavy. That's why we see many small pocket guns being carried by people who need a handy weapon rather than massive revolvers. See also the many "pocket" automatic pistols popular in the 20th century which were replaced by high-capacity small frame 9mm polymer pistols like the Glock 19.

Some people took to carrying Dragoons or Walkers because they packed a huge punch while guns like the Colt Army were a compromise using the frame of the Colt Navy with a heavier .44 cylinder though it had a reduced powder charge compared to the Dragoon or Walker. So the Colt Army was quite effective without weighing a ton or generate massive recoil. This design carried over into the Colt SAA in .45 which may have lacked the raw power of a Dragoon revolver, but still was quite potent, comparing favourably with the .45 ACP.

No wonder Patton carried a .45 Colt as a testimony to that gun's effectiveness and also had one of the most modern revolvers at the time, the very powerful .357 Magnum. It a smaller bullet, but with very high velocity, roughly in the same league as a Dragoon when it comes to effectiveness.

One last thing, the Dragoon and other percussion pistols lasted way beyond the introduction of the cartridge revolver because lead and loose powder remained almost always available, and the store in nearest town may not have a particular type of ammo in stock. Surviving examples from the period often show extensive wear and tear, indicative of their long useful life.

The Colt Patterson was not a "dragoon pistol". It was a Patterson. It was the gun of and for the Texas Rangers. The Patterson was followed by three Colt pistols referred to as the Colt Dragoons (Dragoon Models 1, 2 and 3).

The revolver that was designed for the Texas Rangers was the Walker Colt, the .44 magnum of its day. It was designed and produced at the request of a Ranger captain named Walker, as the Patterson (so called because it was produced at Colt's first factory at Patterson NJ) was too small for his wants (.36 caliber IIRC). The Army took an interest in the Walker, and Colt made a few changes and came up with what is usually called the Colt Dragoon, also in .44 caliber, and carried by the mounted regiments of the Army. (This was in the 1840s and 50s).

Colt then produced "baby Dragoon" pocket pistols in .32 caliber (buck shot size), that were very popular on the civilian market, especially in the California gold rush. And in 1851 he produced a medium-sized model in .36 caliber for the Navy, which also was popular with gold-rush miners, and soldiered on in the ACW (with the Confederates making unlicensed copies).

The 1860 (new) Army model was a clever combination of the frame from the 1851 Navy model with a barrel and new, lighter, more stream-lined loading lever design for .44. The rear of the cylinder was the same size as the .36 caliber Navy, to fit the Navy's cocking mechanism, then stepped up (enlarged) to hold the .44 ball, giving it a distinctive look. The result was a .44 not much heavier than a .36.

In 1861 Colt added a new Navy model using the same loading lever design as the '60 Army. And shortly thereafter used the same stepped-up cylinder idea to mate the (shortened) barrel and loading lever of the .36 '51 Navy to the frame of a .32 pocket pistol, calling it the Pocket Navy. And did the same but with the new Navy version of the lighter and streamlined loading lever assembly and called it the Pocket Police.

Hi Scoutjock -
Been a very long time since I was at the range, but your comment about those AR shooters missing at 100 yards suggests to me that they either did not bother to sight in their rifles or their failed to update their sight-in: at any sort of respectable distance, a simple change in ammunition brand, or even a change of season (i.e. ambient temperature) can change the zero.

I'm guessing that even addition of a muzzle brake or silencer (no personal experience here) might cause a problem.

The devil is always in the details.

B

Donlowry, the Colt Paterson was carried by units such as those commanded by Jack Hays long before the Colt Walker was issued.

FWIW, the guys with the ARs fully loaded with latest tacti-cool gizmos can't hit the broad side of a barn at 100 yds either. I don't know whether it is a bore-sight or BRM problem but they do waste a lot of ammo.

@Scoutjock, I refer to that problem as a "loose nut behind the buttplate"

Choctaw: OK, didn't know that. But it was the Walker that was designed for the Rangers, and led to the Dragoon series.

Since this was cross-posted to the WWII board: was there any military in WWII that issued .44 revolvers as sidearms?

But it was the Walker that was designed for the Rangers, and led to the Dragoon series.

I believe donlowry is correct. In my post above I erroneously referred to the Colt Walker as the Colt Paterson (and I even misspelled Paterson!).

It was the Walker I was intending to describe. That was the gun in the Wiki page linked to in 4th Cuir's posting:

This weapon
link
features prominently in Cormac McCarthy's anti-Western Blood Meridien link It is called a "dragoon pistol" or a "horse pistol", so called because easily capable of despatching a horse. It is these troops' sole armament.

This was the statement I was responding to. Yet somehow, even after clicking on the link and verifying that it was the Walker he was calling the "dragoon pistol", I typed Patterson [sic].

Sigh.

So much for decaf. YouTube link

-Mark
(aka: Mk 1)

@Mark: that's why you don't drink decaf, stuff will kill you!

At least not strictly decaf. I drink decaf after 5pm.

The stuff they use to remove the caffeine is probably worse for you than the caffeine.