The late John Lachuk

[Bill in Oregon]

I remember reading some of his articles in some of the gun publications years ago, and wondered what happened to him.
For some reason I had the impression that he was not always well-liked or appreciated, but we know he really should be credited with developing the .44 Magnum as his .44 Lancer after World War II.
He lived in Southern Oregon for many years, a half-hour's drive from where I did, but I never ran into him.
I just found his grave at a cemetery in Grants Pass, and "left a flower."

https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/142 ... iel-lachuk

[Ray]

Deleted.

[gamekeeper]

I remember reading some of his articles, RIP John Lachuk.

[Ray]

Deleted.

[Bill in Oregon]

Great links, Ray. Thanks for posting them. I couldn't help but notice the mention in the Boser article of the Herter's .401 Powermag. I read those old Herter's catalogs closer than Scripture, and wanted one of those Powermags in the worst way.

[Blaine]

What Trailblazers!

[jeepnik]

Somewhere in my books I have one either authored or edited by John. It was on .22 pistols and has a good write up on the Ruger Mark I. It's the reason I bought mine. If it's the same book, there is a short article on a trapper fending off several wolves with a .22 semi auto (S&W or Colt?).

[Scott Tschirhart]

I'm sure that lots of people had a hand in this. There were so many who were experimenting with the .44 Special and hot rodding the round beyond the factory loads and there were countless others who read what Elmer and others wrote. These people carried on the experiments and most of them are undocumented.

[marlinman93]

I never really understood why Lachuk went ignored, and later not acknowledged for his large part in the development of the .44 Magnum cartridge? It was almost as if there was some concerted effort to not credit him for his part in developing the .44 Lancer, which was virtually identical to the Remington .44 Magnum in ballistics, and dimensions. I wondered if they did so to avoid paying him for his part in the development, or what?
He certainly is one of the most overlooked greats in cartridge development.

[piller]

That .401 bullet looks so much like what I have learned to call a Keith style bullet that I cannot tell any difference.

The 10mm is a .401 diameter. With the high praise heaped upon the .41 Magnum by those who have used it, it seems that it is a good caliber for many things. I like the 10mm as well as the 10mm Special known as the .40 S&W. A rimmed version, the .41 Mag perhaps, in a Carbine lever action as companion to a 5 shot 586 or GP100 as medium weight carry carry pistol would be a great set.

There are undoubtedly a few others who were Wildcatting along the same pathways which led to the .44 Magnum and the .41 Magnum. Not everyone gets credit for their research. Unfortunately, it happens.