anyone use one,used one,seen one,know of one,heard of one....,was reading an old article awhile back about English stalking rifles.I would imagine it's WAY overbore...but looks interesting!!!!

Oh yes, HArry Selby let Bob Ruark in on the 244 and Bob used it a lot. Did some foolish things with it like shooting buffalo and whatnot but it came highly recommended for what it was. I'd love to have one just because you never see them. I have heard that the actually performance did not quite meet H&H's claims, but still...a beast of a 100gr pill...

Noted ballistician Bill Davis studied the .244 H&H and wrote about it in the March 1991 issue of American Rifleman. His research found that while Kynock claimed 3500 fps with the 100-grain bullet, Independent test showed only 3276 fps (factory .240 Weatherby loads beat that speed). Ackley indicated two inches of bore erosion after just 115 shots. Ackley also blew up an Enfield action using a recommended .244 H&H load. Not a very attractive cartridge according to these older accounts.

Dr. Louis Palmisano (of PPC fame) wanted to find out just how bad the cartridge really was, so he had two barrels made up by H-S Precision – one 24” long and the other 32” long. Using modern powders like RL-22, H1000, IMR7828, H5010 and MR3100 results were not that far off what had been reported decades earlier. Keeping chamber pressures no higher than 64,000 psi, velocities with 100-grain bullets did not exceed 3390 fps, with most loads in the mid-3300s in the 24” barrel. Velocities out of the 32” barrel were ~300 fps higher than from the shorter pressure barrel.

After 300 test rounds, the throat had advanced 0.150”. Unexpected was an increase in pressures as the erosion increased. By 300 rounds some loads which had proven safe in a new barrel had to be backed off by up to 10%. The result was a decrease in muzzle velocities of up to 200 fps from those fired in a new barrel. The cause of this effect was a combination of roughened bore surfaces and deposits of jacket fouling. Complete removal of all copper did not completely solve the issue.

Bottom line – the .244 H&H cannot reach the advertised velocities in a normal length hunting barrel at safe pressures. It can be very unpredictable to load for. Loading the .244 H&H is not recommended for the inexperienced. But it has an interesting history and it does produce more velocity than any other factory 6mm cartridge. What an fascinating chambering!



.

Ross Seyfreid did a wildcat with a 7 mag necked down and improved. I have the article here somewhere, but cant remember what he called it.
He found carbon fouling to be the biggest problem. Velocity was similar to the 244 H&H, but maybe the sharper shoulder kept erosion down some. He had 500 + rounds through one barrel with no erosion, but figured 800-1000 rnds was the likely limit if I remember correctly.

OK found the article. It was called the Mach IV
He was getting 3634 fps from a 25" barrel 3780 from a 28" barrel.
at 580 rnds the barrel was shooting at it's best, but guessed 1000 rnds would fry it.

I think Saeed has a 244.

One issue with it is bullet diameter which is something like .246 or so.

I think there is a reason why old obsolete cartridges remain obsolete. "One issue with it is bullet diameter which is something like .246 or so.".... Yup.

Seyfreid's Mach IV was an interesting update of the original .244 H&H. But he found it to be even more particular to load for than the original, with few suitable powders available. His maximum velocities must be taken with a grain of salt as he did not use pressure equipment like Palmisano and Davis used. Those who have used an Oehler 43 know that loads which seem fine measured with a micrometer can in fact greatly exceed the design pressures of the parent cartridge when measured on the 43.

Ross also found that after 280 rounds his rifle stopped shooting; Davis reported hitting this wall at 300 rounds - coincidence? I think not, these cartridges foul terribly. Ross thought it was carbon fouling, Davis though it was copper. Regardless, both restored safety and accuracy by removing all the fouling.

Barrel life? Davis reported actual throat erosion in inches while Seyfreid just said the rifle still shoots well at 580 rounds. It would not surprise me to find out that the sharp 40* shoulder of the Mach IV improves barrel life. He ends his article by stating that the Mach IV is "unquestionably the most useless and troublesome toy" he ever built. He followed that with his typical hyperbole about the bullet defying gravity, etc. etc.

Both are highly interesting cartridges, but hardly for the causal reloader - and maybe not for many advanced ones either.

COTW lists bullet diameter for the .244 H&H as .244. Others report from .243 to .245". Who knows....



.

It is a totally pointless cartridge designed by a man who was an arrogant idiot! One Mr Lloyd of Pipewell in Northamptonshire.

Who designed an oversized montrosity that did nothing that the (later) American 243 Winchester or 6mm Remington don't, for all practical purposes, duplicate.

Or that the wildcat 6mm-06 doesn't do!

And this from a "Brit" who spoke to him and knows those who bought his rifle in that calibre.

I've also seen and handled Holland & Holland rifles in BOTH 240 H & H and 244 H & H. The 240 H & H is the BETTER cartridge design, even though it uses the same 100 grain .245" bullet.

Quite simply it offers NOTHING that the 6mm Remington does not or, in "wildcat" the 6mm-06.

Also it is a "bastard" bullet size of .245" diameter and with that stupid selection of the parent .300 H & H case one less magazine capacity.

I do know that some who have tried the 244 H & H found that it was a poor killer on big red deer.

My friend bought one, used it a couple of times, needed to put six shots into a stag, and sold the rifle and went bag to his tried and trusted 303 British!

If you can get a cheap used 244 H & H I would not pass it. You'll probably find it little used too!

But as a product I'd stick with 6mm-06 a far better choice.

Or actually 240 Weatherby which is Roy Weatherby's modernised (blown out case) of the 240 Holland & Holland "Apex".

The 240 Weatherby will do anything, better, and with a .243" bullet that the 244 H & H will for all practical purposes.

The 240 and 244 have always been held back by the bore size, regardless of all the other bad aspects.

I haven't purchased both calibers for that reason,
too much stuffing around nickel plating or bumping up .243 bullets just to get the gun shooting.

I have used a 240 Apex H&H and it is a fine cartridge. Virtually identical to the 243 win.

I've used the 240 in both Bolt and double Rifle,
yes, it is a fine cartridge but is still held back
by bore size - and a lot of them were different, not great consistency, some .2245, some .245, some .246.

.

quote:

Originally posted by enfieldspares:
It is a totally pointless cartridge designed by a man who was an arrogant idiot! One Mr Lloyd of Pipewell in Northamptonshire.

Oh dearie me, imagine if all wild-catters were relegated to history's rubbish dump thus.

ahh, Mr Enfieldspare, did you know him personally to make such a scathing assessment of him?
Most of our wildcats, indeed most of our cartridges were based on a couple of folks saying "wonder what if......." Some are hits and some are misses.
Regardless of hit or miss, once a cartridge is obselete, through disinterest or poor performance, there will be those that anguish over its demise and curse we fools that let it die.
I daresay in the not too distance future, cyberspace will be filled with cries about the various shorties that didn't live up to expectations or was just another attempt to do what had already been done.

Oh yes...had dealings with Mr Lloyd once or twice and, as said, know others that did.

There are some ground breaking wildcat cartridges...that were real game changers.

Those that eventually became the 243 Winchester for example...and (after it was "re-invented" with a 100 grain bullet capability) 6mm Remington.

But the 244 H & H just doesn't do anything that wasn't being done better, ALREADY, by those in the USA experimenting with 6mm calibre.

It also has a reputation, shall we say, for pressure problems.

If you have ever handled a Lloyd rifle you'll realise that it isn't much either.

A useless calibre chambered in over priced junk.

Quick...pass me the wastebin! On BOTH counts!

The .244's great problem was throat erosion, not accuracy or velocity. It's an interesting and nostalgic caliber, but wouldn't want one.

I have owned and shot the .240 H&H Mag, or .240 Apex. Great caliber with statistics similar to .243 with a beautiful profile. It used a .245 bullet. I had a custom Interarms Mark X done in this caliber using a .243 barrel and just necked down when handloading. Made since due to availability of bullets.

If I had to do it over again, I would have done the .245 and had the real thing.