Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Handguns 44 mag or colt 45?

When one bullet is wider and heavier than another, energy figures are pretty safe bet. Velocity is the variable that is squared in the energy calculation, so the wider and heavier bullet also has to be going faster, or dang close.

As for the Ruger Alaskan, not for me. It's definitely a try before you buy handgun. Or, do what I did and just watch someone touch one off.

In that way of thinking you would need a 41Mag cause it will shadow the 44(42mag)! Bob

Yes I think a 45colt buffalo bore 300 grain bullet in the right pistol or lever carbine would work,but the Alaska Indians go out to take out a problem polar bear with a .223(m-16)and the bear always loses.

Bob

That's true, there are .41 Mag loads that outperform the .44 Mag. I reconcile all the trivia by not limiting myself to one revolver and focusing on each revolvers' sweet spot.

I have a 45 Colt single action that belonged to my Texas Ranger grandad, and it shoots really well..I also have a S&W mod. 29 44 magnum..I have also used the 41 mag. a lot over the years...

Of the 3, I have not been able to tell any difference at all on deer, and that is all that I have shot with them..I would put more emphasis on the gun and how it felt than the caliber between the 3....My choice is the double action S&W 6 inch in each case. You can pick up a 45-5 S&W for less than you can a 29 or 57 btw..I just looked into that on Guns America..Those 45 Smiths are bring about $599 average, thats a buy for sure.

If I want a defence gun then I will opt for a 45 auto, Browning HP 9mm or a combat magnum 357 Smith with a 4 inch barrel.

There's nothing like walking in the dark by yourself, smelling like dead elk with a hunk of meat strapped to your back in an area where you've seen griz and wolves to make you want a cannon strapped to your hip.

We ain't got grizzlies around here but the pissed off hogs have me wanting a cannon.

If you've made your mind up on the Ruger Alaskan or something else, more power to you. As for me, I don't live in Grizzly country but I chose my general all-around outdoor gun as if that were a strong consideration... because it was. I really wanted a custom .475 Linebaugh or a .454 Casull based on a Ruger Super BlackHawk, but after owning 2 or 3 SBH's, they just don't feel right to me, although I love their looks, stoutness, etc. Bristoe's Birdhawk version makes me drool though!

I grew up reading a lot of Keith, and that had a big influence on me, so I finally decided that I didn't really need the recoil and muzzle blast of the .454 or .475 and bought a S&W 629 with 4" barrel which by that time (15 years or so ago) came with a Houge grip which fit my hand perfectly. I still love that gun.

I shoot it 98.5% of the time with 7.5 grains of Unique under a 240 grain SWC and enjoy the heck out of it. Not only do I shoot this gun better than any other hangun I own, so have 3 or 4 other non-handgun-shooter-type family members and friends that I've had try a Walther P22 (.22 LR), Kel-Tec P-32 (.32 ACP), Kahr P9 (9mm), and the 4" 629. Funny thing is, the bigger the cartridge, the better they shot! (Yeah I know it probably has something to do with the platform rather than the cartridge).

The only thing I'd change if I were to do it all over again would be to buy the Scandium 329 instead.

Behemry, are you using 7.5 grs Unique & a 240gr slug in 44 special brass or 44 magnum? If its 44 special brass that load will run right at 900 fps, if its magnum brass it will be a fair bit slower, still a good load. I used that load in 44 special brass last fall to take a Montana whitetail, worked great. One through the lungs, one through both shoulders, both shots exited, down & out in 5-6 seconds.
You need to shoot someone's 329 S&W before wishing you had one, a cylinder full might change your mind, they are great packing guns, but if you wind them up a little bit they can be brutal. I'm guessing if you shoot one 6 times you'll run home & kiss that 4" model 29.

Dick

Idaho1945,

I didn't note which brass I was using at the time , I used to use a lot of 44 special brass, but have since converted to all magnum brass. I get 860 fps with that load and whichever brass I was using when I ran it through the chrono.

Idaho495 said

I owned two Scandium .357's at one time. Sold the 3" version, lost the 2" in a divorce (actually she hocked it for $250 before the divorce .) Those were by far the hardest kicking guns I've ever shot in my life, and I've shot my share of guns. Cylinder latch would rip the inside of my thumb open on the first shot with full power .357's and it felt like someone took a ping pong paddle and hit the palm of my hand as hard as they could on each shot. But dang, it was accurate! And you forgot you were even carrying it because it was so light.

From what I've read, the gunwriters that have shot both the .357 and the .44 mag scandiums say the .44 isn't as brutal. I'd load it down for "plinking" and carry it with the serious stuff (after checking point-of-impact) in bear country. But, you may be right!

I just got my Ruger Redhawk 44 mag. 5.5 stainless, I am still working on loads for it. I am mainly interested in loads for Bear and Hogs... any suggestions?

I have shot enough game with both calibers and I can say with a reasonable amount of certainty that the .45 Colt is higher up on the food chain. Your sectional density argument notwithstanding, in all of the penetration testing I have performed, my large handguns (.45, .475 Linebaugh, .500 Linebaugh, .50 Alaskan, etc.) penetrate all out of proportion to their paper ballistics and yes, really poor sectional density relative to rifle bullets. For example, my .416 Remington, loaded with 400 grain solids has a great sectional density of .330, whereas my .475 Linebaugh loaded with my 420 grain WFNs has a not so stellar sectional density of .265. Yet, despite this huge "disadvantage," it never fails to out-penetrate my .416....... Nose profile is the most important factor in penetration (how big is the meplat?), but weight carries momentum. All else being equal, the .45 has a distinct size advantage over the .429.

Like I said, "lots of angels".

It used to be the .44 Mag vs. .45 Colt debate had merit - the two cartridges were vying for the King of the Hill. Nowadays neither is even close. In your post you listed the .475 Linebaugh, .500 Linebaugh, and .50 Alaskan, but we can easily add in a bunch more that thoroughly thrash the old standards. The debate is moot.

A regular ol' .45 Colt in a medium weight and barrel length revolver is already perfect and I don't mess with it. I can trump the best .45 Colt handloader in the world by spending 20-minutes at the gun store and picking up, oh joy, another revolver. Part of me finds that fact depressing - some of the art of guns and handloading gone and any dork with the latest whiz-bang can smirk at my sweat-stained handloads. The better part of me now enjoys a cartridge for what the inventor intended.

Sorry for the dose of 'JOG Philosophy' with your morning coffee.

Then you must love the .500 Linebaugh because it is pretty much perfect on all counts (save for recoil!)!

Whitworth is right on! The .45 Colt handloaded, wins hands down. I use a 300 gr. LBT WFN PB in Rugers and Marlin 94s.
In my old Freedom Arms revolvers, the 340 gr LBT got the nod.

For defense against a grizzly both can get the job done and I doubt the griz would ever know the difference. I think I'd choose the extra frontal diameter and bullet weight of the .45 Colt over the extra velocity of the .44 mag. But if you're being charged, you're going to have to make a head shot, and at that point as long as you crack the skull, both rounds will give you the exact same result.

If you're not a handloader, then go for the .44 mag. If you're a handlaoder, then I'd recommend the .45 Colt.

Personally, I'd take a 5" Taurus Raging Bull in .480 Ruger, loaded with an LBT WFN bullet.

how about a glock 10mm? 15 rounds of 200grain hard cast bullets at 1375fps. Its the next handgun i'm going to get followed by a redhawk 4"