5-SHOT CONVERSIONS TO THE .44 MAG

[WL44]

I'm planning to have some work done to my old SBH (when I can finally sort out shipping to the US - a costly nightmare of its own!).

Anyhow, I was wondering what is to be gained in performance terms by going to a 5 shot cylinder in .44 Mag. I know that in .45 it's really a big deal, but I can't change calibre due to licensing issues.

I understand that more cylinder length allows me to go to a longer nose length and create more capacity - and go to heavier bullets as well. But it would be great if someone can assist me in quantifying this a bit more.

I'm grateful for any input.

Wim
(SA)

[Lloyd Smale]

if you want my take on it its a waste of time. Others may have different views on it but to me a stock 44 ruger will push 300s to 1300 fps and 330s to 1200 and theres very little to gain by pushing a cast bullet any faster then that. If you really want to push the envolope with a 44 it still would be cheaper to just buy a redhawk. The 44 redhawks are STOUT!!

[2 dogs]

Lloyd is correct. I am having a long 6 shot cylinder 44 made, but to shoot 340 grain bullets not lighter bullets faster. If you want a 5 shot 44 mag you could just get a Freedom Arms.

[MS Hitman]

I concur with Lloyd and 2dogs.  If you want ot have it customized, by all means do so.  However, there are better things to spend money on than converting it to a five-shot revolver.

[WL44]

Hmm... I'd figured that may be the case. Until I saw a comment on a prominet pistolsmiths website which could be interpreted otherwise, that's what prompted the post.

Is much to be gained in length alone 2 dogs? I figure up to 320grs probably not much?

Thaks for the replies they are much appreciated and - importantly - could save me some money!

Wim

[Ken ONeill]

Looks like we're unanimous. Unnecessary expenditure of time & money. Personally, I wouldn't think of crafting a longer cylinder on a fine SBH. My own highly personal thought is that if you can't get it done with a .44/300, you need to get something else, caliber wise... or run.
Certainly the Redhawk or Super Redhawk are stout and allow longer loads, although frankly, I never take advantage of that length in mine. Everyone has their preferences.

[Lee Robinson]

If you are planning on converting a 44 mag into a 5 shot so that you can shoot "specialty" ammo with heavy slugs...ammo that you won't be able to buy just anywhere...why not go to a bigger caliber like a 45, 454, 475, 480, or even a 500?

Either way you are going to be using specialty ammo, so why not throw a bullet that isn't just heavier, but also bigger...and get "two birds with one stone" (more accomplished with your money and effort).

[Lloyd Smale]

let me take a guess at this. Was it bowens sight and if so hes probably refering to the conversion of the new rugers on the smaller frame to 44 mag 5 shots. Now thats a practical conversion and would make a real sweet packing gun!!!

Hmm... I'd figured that may be the case. Until I saw a comment on a prominet pistolsmiths website which could be interpreted otherwise, that's what prompted the post.

Is much to be gained in length alone 2 dogs? I figure up to 320grs probably not much?

Thaks for the replies they are much appreciated and - importantly - could save me some money!

Wim

[WL44]

Thank you very much for the replies. It's certainly helped me make my mind up.

I don't have the experience to comment on this, which is why I asked. I've read whatever I could find on these topics all over and whilst the advantage of the .45 5-shot is undisputed, I had my doubts about the .44, mainly becuase I don't see the same strength increase relative to the 6-shot, compared to the increase in .45 based on cylinder diameter.

Length is another matter, but I doubt that I really want (or need) to go heavier than 300-320gr range in a .44 anyway.

Lee, "why not go to a bigger caliber" - you are absolutely correct, but the reason is the licensing issue referred to in the first post. I'm waiting for a licence for my .475 already (could just be a loooong wait  )

Lloyd, the comment that I saw does not seem to be based on small frames at all, but does refer to cylinder length and heavier slugs. That's why I didn't mention names and said it COULD be interpreted otherwise. I certainly didn't intend to disagree or discredit the party making the statement. As I said I don't have the experience with these - which is why I came to you guys for experienced input. (Which I'm pleased to say is what I got!)

I will go ahead with the customising, but not a longer, or 5-shot cylinder. Thanks.

Wim

[KENTDEP]

I have read of conversons on Blackhawks and on Marlins that were made to shoot the longer.44 Magnums. Longer bullets seated out further, more capasity and more velocity. It sound good on paper but when all said and done, fiscally it make more sence to go bigger. A FA in .454 or .475, while expencive, these guns a probally a better value in the end than converting a Blackhawk to shoot bigger loads.

Kentdep

[targetshootr]

Also, it might be difficult to find a smith willing to do a big bore five shot conv on an old model gun.