Let's be honest... as much as I respect many of the opinions here, none of you have enough experience to definitively say that one is better than the other. If someone can definitely say that a heavy 44 Mag is better than a heavy 45 Colt, or vice versa, let's hear it. You guys are just relating anecdotal stories about two peas-in-a-pod.
The only time the 44 fans and 45 fans agree is when they team-up to put down the 357 shooters. It's really funny when you think about it.
I like the 44 and 45, and find the whole argument amusing. But.. am willing to be educated with something more than anecdotal evidence
And yet, I'm completely prepared for nobody to come forth with any objective evidence that sways the argument one way or the other.
My take:
I have a 41 magnum and 3 45 Colts. Meplat, velocity, energy and all other factors have me convinced the difference in .41 and .429 isn't enough for me to own a .44 and the Colt is undeniably a proven round...
Well, I don't know that it's factual to say that "none of us" have the experience to definitively say the .45 Colt is better than the .44 Magnum (or vice versa), but it's certainly true that I don't.
Since Shrap has cited his heavy handgun inventory, I'll cite mine: I have seven .357 Magnums, three .44 Magnums, and six .45 Colts. I've had a notion to acquire a Linebaugh Custom SA revolver in .475 Linebaugh and a Bowen Alaskan DA (Redhawk) in .50 AE, but have no desire for a .500 S&W or .500 Linebaugh (see my previous comments about my aging wrist and thumb. I've killed deer with all 3 of the calibers I own now, and they all worked fine. I wouldn't care to "do without" any of these pistolas, irrespective of caliber.
I'm as likely to go hunting with a .45 Colt sidearm on my hip as any other, these days, and I'll freely admit that has much less to do with my whim on that day as as it does to do with the testing and practice I've put in with it. Because all of my hunting handguns have been extensively tested
by me, I'm comfortable with any/all of them.
I've read here that somebody found his .44 Magnum loads penetrated deeper than .45 Colt loads. Well, that's cool. Myself, I've found that the heavy .45 Colt loads I developed 15 years ago out-penetrated anything I'd ever fired before (approximately 65" of recently deceased horse), and that gives me confidence to carry that load whenever I go dead horse hunting. But I'm not gonna recommend that load to anyone else, other than Jake, the idiot-like-me who did that testing with me, because I doubt 99% of the guys who hang out here would care to shoot 300-400 325 gr LFN bullets at 1325 fps out of a Ruger Bisley to thoroughly prove the worth of that load, and until you do that testing yourself, you're likely an idiot worse than me to take that recommendation as anything of worth. I'm not White Laboratories, y'all.
Nowadays I test loads for expansion (if applicable) and penetration with 1 gallon plastic water jugs. For one thing, they're easier to acquire than freshly killed Clydesdales. For another, they're easier to move around. And most important, the results are more or less reproducible, which means I can shoot enough jugs with one load/bullet to prove to myself that they will perform as intended when I shoot game with them.
Couple random points on testing bullets/loads:
1) My .357 Magnum hunting loads using the 158 gr and 180 gr Remington scalloped SJHP bullet. These bullets are devastating hunting loads, at the right velocity. But if you drive them too fast, they'll disintegrate on impact and penetrate 1-1/2 water jugs. But performance is inconsistent enough that I've had to "kill" water jugs a dozen times or more to satisfy myself that the load will work. And BTW, all bets are off if I fire that 180 gr load in a pistola rather than out of the 20" Rossi lever rifle I developed it for. A bullet that blows up on impact makes a lousy animal-killing load. But these bullets will kill deer and hogs very nicely indeed, and are cheap enough and easy enough to shoot that I'm as likely to shoot tin cans, rabbits, or rocks with them. And that is worth a very great deal to me as a practical handgunner/handgun hunter.
2) Even in my gelatin-shooting days, I found that you had to shoot at least 5 gelatin blocks to get a reliable average for bullet performance. And if you apply standard statistical tools to your tests--which you really need to if you're going to say bullet/caliber A is a better penatrator than bullet/caliber B, you need to shoot a LOT of gelatin blocks to come up with statistically significant differences. And even then, the difference may be academic at best. A .44 Magnum bullet that truly penetrates 24" vs a .45 Magnum that truly penetrates 22" is a distinction that his little or no real-world value. Both of them will overpenetrate deer or people. Both of them will penetrate adequately on grizzlies. Neither of them will penetrate enough to stop an Orca attack. If you don't apply some real-world applicability to the discussion, you're arguing over the modern-day equivalent of "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin".
3) The 260 gr Lee RNFP (LBT-lookalike) hardcast bullet and the 325 gr Beartooth LFN bullet that I've driven lengthwise through a Clydesdale are also consistent performers in water jugs, tree stumps, engine blocks, and other penetration testing mediums. But since I've yet to find a deer that is wider than about 14" (broadside shot) or longer than about 40" (Texas heart shot), I don't have much use for 65" of horse-penetrating power. Which goes a long way to explaining why I tend to shoot moderately warm loads in my .44's and .45's nowadays rather than the big thumpers I used to shoot. If I was hunting moose or grizzly with my handguns, though, I'd be inclined to use the heaviest and largest bullets I can run with, though, because in that case having more than 45" of penetrating power may make a big and very real difference. Which narrows it down to .45 and up, in my view.
Hope that contributes to the discussion without raising any more hackles.
