Author Topic: 44 mag: 260 or 280g WFN GC?  (Read 1189 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline ccoker

  • Trade Count: (1)
  • A Real Regular
  • ****
  • Posts: 590
  • Gender: Male
    • www.tacticalgunreview.com
44 mag: 260 or 280g WFN GC?
« on: April 21, 2009, 10:52:20 AM »
Hello Veral,

I just got a S&W Performance Center with a 6.5" barrel
I am looking for the right bullet for it, leaning towards a 260 or 280g WFN GC from Montana Bullet works
going for 11-1200 fps for hogs and deer, using an aimpoint micro sighted in at 75 yards
have 2400 on hand
I tried 17.5g of 2400 with a 255g plain based Cast Performance WFN and was getting about 3" at 75 yards
I am sure it can do better than that

what's your recommendation for the bullets and with a PC gun do you think it'll be good to go out of the box (hopefully) or need some additional tuning? 

I haven't slugged it but it should be .430 for cylnder and .429 for barrel if I have been told correctly

open to whatever, powder changes, etc...

thanks in advance

Offline Veral

  • GBO Sponsor
  • Moderator
  • Trade Count: (1)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1675
    • Lead Bullet Technology
Re: 44 mag: 260 or 280g WFN GC?
« Reply #1 on: April 23, 2009, 05:38:03 PM »
  As for dimensions of your Performance center gun there is only one way to know what internal dimensions are, and that is to slug the gun.  As for doing improvement work, lapping the barrel, using the LBT bore lap kit, will almost certainly improve accuracy and overall performance.  If there is any roughness, constrictions or other changes in internal barrel dimensions, lapping will correct them and make the barrel shoot with optimum accuracy.

  When you purchase powder again I recommend 296 or H110, but burn the 2400 you have first.  If the bore and other internal dimensions are good, you should be able to just pick any load from a manual which promises the velocity range you want and get excellent accuracy.  The aimpoint sights are real nice for hunting, but I have never been able to shoot tight groups with them, due to the large aim point and the fact that the dot obscures the mark on the target.  In other words, in my opinion, you may be holding as well as possible with the aimpoint.  I'm not a good judge on those sights though as I never used mine very much.  When I was shooting one day soon after I got it, the battery failed to keep contact after a couple of shots, and I had no aim point.  I took the sight off and never messed with one again.  Switched to a 1X scope which isn't likely to lose it's cross hairs.  Had to do something as my eyes had failed enough at that time of my life that I could no longer use iron sights effectively enough to suit me.

  Both 260 and 280 gr are good choices, but accuracy will probably be slightly better with the 280 gr, due to longer bearing length.

  I favor 296 and H110 ( which are the same powder) because it gives more uniform velocities, and much longer gun life than 2400, with particularly the throat erosion issue being tamed by the ball powder.  When using stout loads, don't even consider 2400 or other stick powder.  Use the ball powders.
Veral Smith

Offline ccoker

  • Trade Count: (1)
  • A Real Regular
  • ****
  • Posts: 590
  • Gender: Male
    • www.tacticalgunreview.com
Re: 44 mag: 260 or 280g WFN GC?
« Reply #2 on: April 24, 2009, 02:38:58 AM »
thanks Veral

I ran a tight fitting jag with a patch through the barrel and can feel no restrictions or change in resistance
I also ran a little JB bore paste with CR10 through it

I will have to get some new powder as the 2400 is about done
I have been using Starline Brass and Winchester WLP primers, my understanding is that 296 and H110 require magnum primers

Going for 11-1200 FPS

As to the Aimpoint this one has a claimed 4 MOA dot and most people think it's actually about 3MO
I can fit it inside a 3" shoot and see target at 75 yards

if your battery went out I bet the cap just needed to be cranked down tihgter
I have ran them on ARs and a 45/70 guide gun and never had an issue
but you are right, they aren't a target sight for sure
might be good to get a pistol scope (sold the one I had) just for load development

I have ordered 280g WFN GC from Montana Bullet Works

thanks again

Offline ccoker

  • Trade Count: (1)
  • A Real Regular
  • ****
  • Posts: 590
  • Gender: Male
    • www.tacticalgunreview.com
Re: 44 mag: 260 or 280g WFN GC?
« Reply #3 on: April 24, 2009, 05:25:52 AM »
When I go the Hodgdon's website and put in a 280g bullet and looked at all the pubished data, to me it looks like HS-6 is the right powder

I realize a cast will have even higher velocity than jacketed and the velocities listed for H110 are considerbaly higher than what I am going for... 11-1200 tops and H110 can't be downloaded

Hs-6 data

11.0      1006
14.0      1251

what's your take on HS-6?
or anyone else for that matter?

Offline Veral

  • GBO Sponsor
  • Moderator
  • Trade Count: (1)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1675
    • Lead Bullet Technology
Re: 44 mag: 260 or 280g WFN GC?
« Reply #4 on: April 24, 2009, 06:15:24 PM »
  H110 can be downloaded, but magnum primers will probably be needed to get sure ignition.  Nothing wrong with HS6 and it will take consideribly less powder to get your speed.

  A tight fitting jag is meaningless for getting variations in the bore, except it will normally feel roughness ok.  My push through slugs are pure lead with a tiny band that gives an exact measure of the tightest spot in the bore, and gives a true feel of what the bore is like while pushing the slug through.  They slip into a cleaning rod, which is used to push them through with hand pressure.

  My problem with the aimpoint was that it happened once when I want to trip off a shot (at just a target), but I can't ever forget it, though I know a lot of people who love them.  I like the aimpoints quickness, and hate all scopes, but can see the target through a scope, and in worse light conditions, with the bad condition of my eyes.  I will use only a 1X, and the one I use is a Burris.

  If my eyes were sharp as they were 20 and more years ago I wouldn't tolerate any sights but iron on a handgun, but as my eyes degraded, I had to allow some of the knots be knocked off my knothead or put the revolvers away!
Veral Smith