.44 Magnum: Hands down the best survival cartridge!

Okay, okay I know I just pissed a lot of you off... but I ask you take a moment and a calming breath....

I did not say the .44 mag is the best cartridge in a protracted firefight... I did not say it was the best hunting cartridge... I did not say it was the best self-defence round... what I am saying is in the realm of one cartridge many guns, general purpose use, no other cartridge is as versatile as the venerable .44 Remington Mag.

Let's start with what one would expect a survival cartridge to do... defend yourself from ???? lets just call them predators shall we... I ask, is there any experienced shooter out there would be uncomfortable facing a Brown bear or mountain loin with a good quality .44 mag? SUre there are other weapons I'd prefer to hunt with but can you honestly say the .44 wouldn't do the job? even if that predator is of the two legged variety?

Now before we move on to hunting lets have a real talk about real life... here in North America we're talking about the common species of antelope, goat, sheep and deer hunted here(similar size game worldwide). These are often called medium size big game animals, or sometimes just medium game, and they range in size from the smallish pronghorn antelope and whitetail deer weighing about 90 pounds on the hoof to sheep, mountain goats and mule deer than might average up to 200 pounds. Even very large members of these species seldom exceed 300 pounds in live weight.

The smallest of these animals offers about an 8" diameter heart-lung kill area and most offer at least a 10" kill area. So, to be conservative, let's say that our rifle/pistol needs to be able to put its bullets (from a cold barrel) into about a 6" circle at whatever range our skill and the trajectory of the cartridge we are using allows. This leaves a little room for error on even the smallest medium game animals.

With that in mind a Rifle or handgun to be successful at 100-150 yard hunting , only needs to print 4" groups at 100 yards... don't look very impressive at the range, but 4 MOA groups mean all those bullets within will hit within a 6" circle at 150 yards, about the maximum useful range of this class of cartridges. A .44 Magnum rifle/pistol that can put all of its bullets into a 4" circle at 100 yards is a deadly and as accurate as it needs to be!!!

in contrast, a A 200 yard hunting rifle, such as a .30-30, .35 Remington, or .444 Marlin needs to print 3 MOA (3") groups at 100 yards. This means that all of the bullets will be landing inside of a 6" circle at 200 yards. A North American hunter can take any deer, sheep, pronghorn, or goat with such a rifle. Back in the day day, few hunting rifles would shoot better than that. Many will today, but practically speaking it doesn't matter. 3 MOA is good enough for 100% kills out to at least 200 yards. A 200 yard rifle that shoots 1 MOA groups is not one whit deadlier than one that shoots 3 MOA groups. or 4 MOA at the appropriate range.

Weapons chambered for the .44 Mag span all ranges from practical to downright overkill...
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/8d7e6955bdae.jpg[/atsimg]

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/2a6994353630.jpg[/atsimg]

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/320a8dcf7f58.jpg[/atsimg]

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/5c9ec5a58438.jpg[/atsimg]

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/a15c30f643c6.jpg[/atsimg]

Sorry with help from my two year old granddaughter I have to stop here... but I'd like to quickly close by saying the cartridges available run from snake shoot hydra shocks (Man Killers) to heavy 300 gainers for big game...
if your looking for one cartridge many guns look no further then the .44 Mag



[edit on 4-11-2009 by DaddyBare]

[edit on 4-11-2009 by DaddyBare]

[edit on 4-11-2009 by DaddyBare]

Originally posted by DaddyBare

I ask, is there any experienced shooter out there would be uncomfortable facing a Brown bare or mountain loin with a good quality .44 mag?

That was just too funny.

I had the image of a naked mountain man with dark skin, his loins exposed.

But your spelling aside, definitely a .44 is a handy tool when needed.
My idea of the best survival tool you can have is between your ears, the human brain.

So your saying that anti-tank riffle in the middle picture is a .44MAG?

Nice post, I'll stick with my .223 AR and .45 sidearm, but I like the idea of both using the same ammo.

reply to post by anxietydisorder


Amazing, you exactly described the picture I imagined when I read that part with the brown bare...

I know it was just a typo but it made me laugh out loud which is always nice.

You're right when you say that a man's brain is the best survival tool we have available.
Why would we have to kill others / animals in order to survive? (and even if you would feel the need to kill some animal there are other ways to do it, you really don't need guns for that)

As far as I'm concerned, everbody's chances of survival increase with every gun we dispose of. The fewer there are, the better.

reply to post by anxietydisorder


I am sorry I've been trying to type while struggling for control of the lap top with a two year old....

Still I think I did pretty well considering she would have preferred grandpa let her watch rugrats instead of all this boring old guy talk...

By the way that anti tank looking rifle was a found image and the caption read .44 Mag Yeah it looks like a .50 BMG ??? who's to say without having it in your hands

I still think my 9mm has unique capabilities that cannot be found in any other cartridge/firearm combination.

Here is my 'Illinois-Legal' prototype. You will note it is unloaded without a magazine inserted.

As long as I carry it in a fully enclosed case I can keep it with me in this state.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/b9ca3ac79779.jpg[/atsimg]

from what I remember..

a .44 magnum is the world's most powerful handgun and could blow your head clean off, so you must ask yourself 1 question - "do I feel lucky"


Well.....Do ya punk?

reply to post by emsed1


lmao! thats friggin hilarious!

good post to op!

ive been trying to decide on a good handgun and ive been thinking of a glock20. its got the 10mm ammo and ive read it is a good match between power and clip size, although ammo may be rare and expensive, which is a HUGE downfall for me.

any thoughts on the 10mm?

reply to post by mahtoosacks


I've never owned one so take this with a grain of salt...
From what I remember the 10mm came about because the FBI requested a replacement for the 9mm

I don't recall if it was Winchester or colt who proposed the 10mm I do remember the Delta 1911 they made to shoot it...

From the stories I read about its development the .10mm sits neatly between the .41 Mag and .357 (in one shot stop numbers)

The .40 S&W was picked as the FBI gun of choice (.40 S&W being a scaled down version of the 10.mm solely because of gun choice, old 1911 single column mag verses a more modern double action high capacity side arm...

more than that I can not say... but I do remember at the time, writers side this was the best self-defence round ever made... at the time

reply to post by emsed1


Lol, thats just hilarious. The duct tape really made me laugh.

Originally posted by mahtoosacks
reply to post by emsed1

 

lmao! thats friggin hilarious!

good post to op!

ive been trying to decide on a good handgun and ive been thinking of a glock20. its got the 10mm ammo and ive read it is a good match between power and clip size, although ammo may be rare and expensive, which is a HUGE downfall for me.

any thoughts on the 10mm?

The 10mm is a .40 S&W that's a little longer. The only 10mm I shot had HUGE recoil to the point of being very uncomfortable and that was through a steel gun.

As light as the Glock is I would imagine it would be a wrist breaker.

.40 is a great size and good balance between 9mm and .45.

I would also point out that statistics indicate 70% of shootings occur within 3 feet. The primary determining factor in the outcome was not the gun nor the cartridge, it is simply who was able to shoot quicker.

reply to post by DaddyBare


I think that is a good idea, as long as you have ammo to feed them and live in areas where long range shots aren't taken. .44 mag might be hard to barter for or even just to find when you need ammo to live off of.

I wouldn't give up my weapons now to get a .44, but if I had extra cash I'd add it to the arsenal.

I do love the .44 cartridge, but I disagree with your statement that it's the best "survival" round out there.

Survival, say in a sti-x situation, encompasses more than just protecting yourself, and in an environment like sit-x, I believe that more people will be feeding off of small game more than the large beasts you contend, squirrels, birds, things like that. Not an easy kill for a .44 also, what about being stealthy?

I just don't think, in the long term, for survival purposes, that the .44 is an ideal round for day to day feeding yourself.

It is a great round, but for pure survival, a .22lr is probably the optimum for long term survival.



[edit on 4-11-2009 by Rhetoric]

reply to post by DaddyBare


.. and emsed1

thanks for the reply. i have read they were hard recoil too. ill check out the 44 for sure. my dad has a 1911 9 that he has had for quite a while, but i was wanting one for myself. i remember reading the 1911 10mm could only hold 6 or 7 round, but the glock 20 held 15. i should double check but ....

22s are actually really good for small to medium game. i remember my dad dropped 2 deer with 1 shot at 150 yards with his 22mag marlin. luckiest shot ive ever seen. i got a little 22lr synthetic stock with a 10clip a year ago. all around decent gun, but not great for close range.

the duct tape definitely did it for me too, but who needs a flashlight and scope for a knife lol

reply to post by Rhetoric


you were talking about the .22lr. I got my Advantage Arms Conversion Kit for my glk 19 yesterday. Absolutely amazing.... (and cheap to shoot) I put 300 rounds through it without any misfires. (rem goldn 525 pk) One pistol, 2 uppers & 2 calibers.

fun factor +10

reply to post by mahtoosacks


I just remember something about the Delta 10mm... when they first came out there was talk about cracks in the frame... not 100% on that though but if you look at one look closely....

While I don't disagree that the .22 is a fine little gun I own several 10/22's
if I had to pick one to grab on the fly.. I'd probably reach for my scoped Dan Wesson... Compact carry, hits hard enough to one shot a mulie...
.22 are great for rabbits but so is a snare or fancy slingshot... things that don't give you away...

If I may suggest take a look at the Dan Wesson Large Frame...
High quality gun at a third the price of a Ruger... I just love mine
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/ebefa0cc9676.jpg[/atsimg]

i will have to check those out. never gave a revolver much thought, but i know that keeping it simple is usually the best policy.

thanks daddybare!

.44 is a good choice for a survival round but I have to throw in with the .22lr crowd on what is the "best" survival round. Not much stopping power against larger animals or people, but well placed .22 shots can still do enough damage.
personally I won't go anywhere without 2 calibers, mine being either 9mm or 7.62x39 in addition to the .22 (ruger 10/22, folding stock with 4x scope).
where do i get that special "gun quality" duct tape?

For the sake of argument, I think the .44 is the worst commonly-available caliber for the purpose of survival. The debate is situational to a great extent (surviving a guerilla war requires different tools and skillsets than surviving a lonesome wilderness), but I think enough of the pros and cons are universal to allow a discussion that's not completely apples and oranges.

So here are my reasons.

The rounds are heavy. You can carry thousands of rounds of .22LR or a hundred rounds of .44. The .44 takes up more room per round - a lot more room. Unless you have a small truck devoted entirely to your ammunition, you're going to have to make sacrifices when it comes to other, critical items in your kit.

The rounds are noisy. Very noisy. That's not something that matters at the range, but in a survival situation, you don't want your firearm of choice to make a loud report (unless it's being used as a signaling device). It alerts others to your location, scares away game, and takes the edge off your own sense of hearing.

The rounds are expensive.

The .44 has a lot of recoil (depending on what's firing it), compared to practically zero recoil from the .22. Recoil matters when it comes to putting multiple shots downrange, with accuracy. Following up on that first shot is all important, and you can do it faster, and more accurately, with a firearm that doesn't jump like a firecracker in your hand. Recoil also matters when it comes to women and children. I want my little girl to be able to use our one survival firearm just as effectively as her old man.

The .44 will obliterate a ton of usable meat, especially on small animals. Small animals are the most plentiful form of game. If your cartridge of choice is tailored towards medium/large game, you're going to be in a very unhappy place when you realize the relative scarcity of that prey. During the 1920's in America, deer were all but eradicated in a very short period of time, thanks to hunters/poachers feeding their family. Deer will not survive long in meaningful numbers in the face of the increased hunting pressure.

Anything that can be killed with a .44 can be killed just the same with a .22 - assuming proper stalking techniques and shot placement are not ignored.

I can comfortably carry (and keep dry) literally thousands of rounds in a BOB, along with all the other essentials, and I don't have to sacrifice other necessities.

If you absolutely must have a round better known for self-defense, then the .357 is a better choice IMO. It's more versatile, interchanges with the .38, and will wreck anything it hits. Even the stupidly ubiquitous 9mm is better, simply because it's SO common.

I only see three advantages to the larger cartridges - whallop, fecal-factor (the ability to make people poo themselves with fear looking down a barrel like a black hole), and ease of handling. I admit, it's downright miserable trying to navigate one of those little .22's into the receiver with frozen fingers...

At the end of the day I think the clear winner is the .22LR, for all the reasons I've mentioned and more.

If your situation is different, say you're in a densely packed city and you don't plan on leaving, there are still more well-rounded choices in handgun ammunition, like 9mm and .357. If it's a straight up warzone you want something with a much, much longer range, and more choices in platform, something like the 7.62x54/39 or, heaven forbid, .223.

I could go on..but I won't.