I'm considering adding a big bore handgun to my collection. Nit even sure what I want to do with it - just want to feel the power and thump, I guess. Strongly considering a Ruger Redhawk, which can be had in either .45 Colt or .44 Magnum. What are some reasons to consider one over the other? And yes, I do handload, so ammo availability is not a concern.
You will have a much easier time finding loaded ammo for .44 Magnum (I know you reload, but you can find yourself without your supply somewhere, when you need to pick up ammo locally). Also permits the use of .44 Special loads (which, if you handload, can be loaded in .44 Mag cases), of which there are many power levels from very mild to stepping on the heels of Magnum, if you get tired of the hand pounding you get from the full Magnums. Special is pleasant to shoot, and about equals .45 Colt performance.
"Allways speak the truth and you will never have to remember what you said before..." Sam Houston Texans, "We say Grace, We Say Mam, If You Don't Like it, We Don't Give a Damn!"
You will have a much easier time finding loaded ammo for .44 Magnum (I know you reload, but you can find yourself without your supply somewhere, when you need to pick up ammo locally). Also permits the use of .44 Special loads (which, if you handload, can be loaded in .44 Mag cases), of which there are many power levels from very mild to stepping on the heels of Magnum, if you get tired of the hand pounding you get from the full Magnums. Special is pleasant to shoot, and about equals .45 Colt performance.
Can the 45 Colt not be loaded down to 44 special levels?
You will have a much easier time finding loaded ammo for .44 Magnum (I know you reload, but you can find yourself without your supply somewhere, when you need to pick up ammo locally). Also permits the use of .44 Special loads (which, if you handload, can be loaded in .44 Mag cases), of which there are many power levels from very mild to stepping on the heels of Magnum, if you get tired of the hand pounding you get from the full Magnums. Special is pleasant to shoot, and about equals .45 Colt performance.
Can the 45 Colt not be loaded down to 44 special levels?
It's already there at standard pressures. No down loading needed to pretty much duplicate .44 Special. You can also Magnumize .45 Colt. But you will have a hard time finding .45 Colt in local gun stores, but never have any trouble finding .44 Magnum. That's about the only difference. If that's meaningless to you, then flip a coin.
I lived with the 44 Magnum for 30 years- carried it daily, handloaded for it and hunted with it. Fooled with the 44 Special some too. I kept the 45 Colt for its mild manners and ability to handle anything, loaded properly and from the right gun. Even the basic 1870's load, or an equivalent reload, kills all out of proportion to its 'paper ballistics' so long as you use a bullet with a healthy meplat.
I lived with the 44 Magnum for 30 years- carried it daily, handloaded for it and hunted with it. Fooled with the 44 Special some too. I kept the 45 Colt for its mild manners and ability to handle anything, loaded properly and from the right gun. Even the basic 1870's load, or an equivalent reload, kills all out of proportion to its 'paper ballistics' so long as you use a bullet with a healthy meplat.
In a Bisley I went .45 Colt with an extra .45 ACP cylinder for lighter. .45 Colt may not be common in stores, but lots of cheap .45 ACP out there. I'll handload for both, but some of that .45 ACP is really cheap! I might have gone .44 Mag., but 5-1/2" Stainless Bisley .44 Mags are rare and expensive, and that is the configuration I wanted.
In a Redhawk, you might go the .44 Mag. route with the .44 Spl. for lighter. But if you don't handload I don't know how common .44 Spl. is in stores. If you want to load it "balls out", those guys will tell you there is more to be had with the .45 Colt. Both are good. You just need to figure out how all that ammo sources/availability "stuff" works for your situation.
Clinging to guns & religion since 1959
Keyboards make people braver than alcohol
Election Integrity is more important than Election Convenience
Washington Post: "Democracy Dies in Darkness" More correct: "Killing Democracy Faster Than Darkness"
What model fits you the best? Don't worry about ammo, I've never seen anyone run out of ammo & have to run to the store to find more. You're a handloader so you'll have enough ammo with you. In spite of what some will say the 45 will out perform the 44 if you want to go there with heavy bullets....yes it will. That bigger, heavier, wider 45 slug is extra horsepower, take advantage of it if you choose. I personally like the 44 better but not by much. The 45 Colt case has a lot of capacity, volume has to mean something, again some will disagree. Buy what you want & I'm sure you will be happy with it, both are great..
What model fits you the best? Don't worry about ammo, I've never seen anyone run out of ammo & have to run to the store to find more. You're a handloader so you'll have enough ammo with you. In spite of what some will say the 45 will out perform the 44 if you want to go there with heavy bullets....yes it will. That bigger, heavier, wider 45 slug is extra horsepower, take advantage of it if you choose. I personally like the 44 better but not by much. The 45 Colt case has a lot of capacity, volume has to mean something, again some will disagree. Buy what you want & I'm sure you will be happy with it, both are great..
There isn’t a deer in North America that will stop a 250 grain bullet from a 45 Colt at a realistic range. You don’t need jacketed bullets to get the terminal ballistics that will make the Colt a serious killer.
Few people that shoot a 44 magnum can handle the recoil of the 44 mag, then they will shoot a 44 special and defeat the purpose of a magnum. The 45 just seems to be more manageable than the magnum and more versatile than the special...
A 45 Colt with a wide meplat, 300 cast bullet of moderate hardness, trundling along at 1000-1100 fps, will do a lot of heavy lifting. Recoil will be very manageable and if you elect to go with a Redhawk, you can turn up the volume considerably should you desire more thump. The 45 Colt loads down as easily as it loads up. If you go with a Ruger, expect the throats to need to be opened if you're going to use cast bullets. Many, heck, most Rugers in 45 Colt need the throats opened. The three I've had, two Bisleys and Redhawk, all were opened up to .4525 and shoot cast bullets beautifully.
It's an easy and quick job and there are several good guys who do the work. Fermin Garza and Doug Phillips both do the cylinder throat work and both are very reasonable and fast. Doug and Fermin have both done cylinders for me. Doug did my most recent 45 Colt, A Lipsey's color case hardened Bisley 5.5 inch. It was $60 with return shipping and I had it back in two weeks. My Redhawk was done by a guy known as the Cylinder Smith and was the first 45 I had opened but he has since retired. Doug and Fermin both are masters at their craft.
Chronographs, bore scopes and pattern boards have broke a lot of hearts.
A 45 Colt with a wide meplat, 300 cast bullet of moderate hardness, trundling along at 1000-1100 fps, will do a lot of heavy lifting. Recoil will be very manageable and if you elect to go with a Redhawk, you can turn up the volume considerably should you desire more thump. The 45 Colt loads down as easily as it loads up. If you go with a Ruger, expect the throats to need to be opened if you're going to use cast bullets. Many, heck, most Rugers in 45 Colt need the throats opened. The three I've had, two Bisleys and Redhawk, all were opened up to .4525 and shoot cast bullets beautifully.
It's an easy and quick job and there are several good guys who do the work. Fermin Garza and Doug Phillips both do the cylinder throat work and both are very reasonable and fast. Doug and Fermin have both done cylinders for me. Doug did my most recent 45 Colt, A Lipsey's color case hardened Bisley 5.5 inch. It was $60 with return shipping and I had it back in two weeks. My Redhawk was done by a guy known as the Cylinder Smith and was the first 45 I had opened but he has since retired. Doug and Fermin both are masters at their craft.
Doug lives about 20 minutes from where I work and I drove to his house and had him do the throats on my .32 H&R Single Six.
Is this Doug you speak of the guy who runs CylinderHone?
If so, I'll throw a word in for him, he extended the leade in a barrel I use in a .45 Super, allowed a little bit more speed and helped a lot with the accuracy.
Is this Doug you speak of the guy who runs CylinderHone?
If so, I'll throw a word in for him, he extended the leade in a barrel I use in a .45 Super, allowed a little bit more speed and helped a lot with the accuracy.
Same guy.
Chronographs, bore scopes and pattern boards have broke a lot of hearts.
Is this Doug you speak of the guy who runs CylinderHone?
If so, I'll throw a word in for him, he extended the leade in a barrel I use in a .45 Super, allowed a little bit more speed and helped a lot with the accuracy.
Same guy.
Yep. He drinks coffee by the gallon and I don't see how he sits still long enough to do such good work. He also did me a trigger job while I was there and didn't ask for any extra payment, but I slipped in a little "extry" when I handed him the cash.
Four decades ago I asked myself the same question and chose .44 even though I knew I'd be reloading. I've never regretted that decision and would make the same one today.
But a .45 would be fine too.
'Four legs good, two legs baaaad." ---------------------------------------------- "Jimmy, some of it's magic, Some of it's tragic, But I had a good life all the way." (Jimmy Buffett)
There are a lot of good points in this thread in my view. I like both but the 44 is less pleasant to shoot. At least for me.
In Magnum, I agree. I sure don't enjoy shooting full power .44 Magnum. Love shooting .44 Special, though, from something like a Model 29 or a Ruger Vaquero. A real pleasure, and has terminal performance about like a .45 Colt at typical pressure levels.
I have some crop damage permits & the first gun I'm taking is going to be my S&W 45 Mountain Gun with a 260 gr Keith running about 1,000 fps. As mentioned, no deer or antelope can stop one, at least I've never seen it happen yet. Nasty out the front end & easy on the back end.
I have some crop damage permits & the first gun I'm taking is going to be my S&W 45 Mountain Gun with a 260 gr Keith running about 1,000 fps. As mentioned, no deer or antelope can stop one, at least I've never seen it happen yet. Nasty out the front end & easy on the back end.
Dick
Buffalo Bore +P Outdoorsman .45 ACP comes pretty close to that.
I have some crop damage permits & the first gun I'm taking is going to be my S&W 45 Mountain Gun with a 260 gr Keith running about 1,000 fps. As mentioned, no deer or antelope can stop one, at least I've never seen it happen yet. Nasty out the front end & easy on the back end.
Dick
Look anything like this one on the bottom, Dick?
625-2 .45 acp above..
Slaves get what they need. Free men get what they want.
Yup, that's the one & they are dandy six guns! Had one of the model of 1988's also & started out shooting a model of 1989 when I started shooting USPSA a long time ago. I pounded a lot of cast bullets down both of those 625's! You should send that up here to Idaho where I can warm up the barrel.......
45 Colt is mild in most factory loads due to the weakness of old Colt revolvers. Reloads can run safely with 44 Magnum. I certainly don’t see the 44 Magnum as ANY standard of comparison.
45 Colt is quite gentle on recoil, even with a 250 gr load at 1000 fps. It won’t give you the pressure concussion that you get with 357’s & 44 magnums. The 44 Mag offers no benefit over the 45 Colt.
45 Colt ammo is no less available commercially. Don’t buy a 44 just because everybody else has one. My 45 Colt hunting loads run near 1300 fps & are quite comfortable to shoot. Muzzle blast on those loads cannot even come close to the totally obnoxious 44 Magnum.
No reason to forgo a 45 Colt. You’ll be glad you chose it.
"I never thought I'd live to see the day that a U.S. president would raise an army to invade his own country." Robert E. Lee
Yup, that's the one & they are dandy six guns! Had one of the model of 1988's also & started out shooting a model of 1989 when I started shooting USPSA a long time ago. I pounded a lot of cast bullets down both of those 625's! You should send that up here to Idaho where I can warm up the barrel.......
Dick
Slaves get what they need. Free men get what they want.
Yeah, a 44 Magnum would be an alright trot-line anchor.
I'd actually like to own an N frame .45. But I really don't do range guns. I have a couple that I refer to as range guns but only because they've been replaced by smaller and lighter for carry.
Here's my Redhawk 45 Colt. I replaced the Hogue grips with some original Redhawk grips. Holster is a Simply Rugged pancake. Nice set up. A little heavy but I wear suspenders when I have any belt gun on my hip.
Chronographs, bore scopes and pattern boards have broke a lot of hearts.
Sarge, I'm with you! I've owned a lot of Redhawks & Super Redhawks but I've never owned a short one, that gun looks nice & we all know they are built like a......Redhawk!
And those short 45 Redhawks are tempting me something fierce.
You’d be hard pressed to find a much stronger built gun. I had David Clements build me one before they were available from the Factory.
"Allways speak the truth and you will never have to remember what you said before..." Sam Houston Texans, "We say Grace, We Say Mam, If You Don't Like it, We Don't Give a Damn!"
N Frame 45 Colt made out of a Model 58 41 mag by the gentleman in Tennessee. His combat sights and Roper style grips by Keith Brown. One guys version of a great gun in a great round.
You could buy a 454, and shoot 45 Colt in it. Then if you still have the desire to feel more power and thump, the 454 can oblige. The 454 chambering does offer some versatility. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally Posted by Triggernosis
I'm considering adding a big bore handgun to my collection. Nit even sure what I want to do with it - just want to feel the power and thump, I guess. Strongly considering a Ruger Redhawk, which can be had in either .45 Colt or .44 Magnum. What are some reasons to consider one over the other? And yes, I do handload, so ammo availability is not a concern.
I used to have a Ruger Redhawk in 45 Colt ( stainless, 5.5" bbl). Sold it. The problem is with the 45 Colt case. It is tapered.
When you resize, with a carbide sizer, you make a cylindrical case. Then, when you shoot it, the brass expands back to "tapered" shape. Resize back to cylindrical. Fire/expand/resize. Repeat... This works the brass hard, and it is more likely to work harden and split.
44 mag cases and chambers are cylindrical. Less working of the brass. Longer case life. Load the 44 mag from mild to wild. You will get all the "thump" you want with the 44 mag.
I use a S&W 629-3 (44 mag) with 4" barrel. Love it.
I used to have a Ruger Redhawk in 45 Colt ( stainless, 5.5" bbl). Sold it. The problem is with the 45 Colt case. It is tapered.
When you resize, with a carbide sizer, you make a cylindrical case. Then, when you shoot it, the brass expands back to "tapered" shape. Resize back to cylindrical. Fire/expand/resize. Repeat... This works the brass hard, and it is more likely to work harden and split.
44 mag cases and chambers are cylindrical. Less working of the brass. Longer case life. Load the 44 mag from mild to wild. You will get all the "thump" you want with the 44 mag.
I use a S&W 629-3 (44 mag) with 4" barrel. Love it.
I used to have a Ruger Redhawk in 45 Colt ( stainless, 5.5" bbl). Sold it. The problem is with the 45 Colt case. It is tapered.
When you resize, with a carbide sizer, you make a cylindrical case. Then, when you shoot it, the brass expands back to "tapered" shape. Resize back to cylindrical. Fire/expand/resize. Repeat... This works the brass hard, and it is more likely to work harden and split.
44 mag cases and chambers are cylindrical. Less working of the brass. Longer case life. Load the 44 mag from mild to wild. You will get all the "thump" you want with the 44 mag.
I use a S&W 629-3 (44 mag) with 4" barrel. Love it.
That is a real stretch, (stretch as in case and analysis) There are no taper problems with a 45 Colt case. You may prefer the 44 mag, but don't make that up. I have loaded 45 Colt for 40 years, used both standard and carbide dies and they won't stress any more than a 44 mag or a 38 special.
I would still wager in a side by side comparison, most people would feel and react to more recoil from the 44 mag. Choose what you like but don't make that kind of comparison...
I used to have a Ruger Redhawk in 45 Colt ( stainless, 5.5" bbl). Sold it. The problem is with the 45 Colt case. It is tapered.
When you resize, with a carbide sizer, you make a cylindrical case. Then, when you shoot it, the brass expands back to "tapered" shape. Resize back to cylindrical. Fire/expand/resize. Repeat... This works the brass hard, and it is more likely to work harden and split.
44 mag cases and chambers are cylindrical. Less working of the brass. Longer case life. Load the 44 mag from mild to wild. You will get all the "thump" you want with the 44 mag.
I use a S&W 629-3 (44 mag) with 4" barrel. Love it.
It depends on the brass, it depends on the carbide die mouth diameter...how far down you size. Carbide dies aren't generally conducive to fitting many guns with the same cases without dimensionally jacking up most any revolver case.
Case taper on a drawing also means little if the firearm manufacturer doesn't cut the chamber that way, and almost none excepting Colt over recent years has actually done so. Some of my 44 Mags have more taper to the case than some of my 45 Colts once fired. It's actually NOT an argument unless one is using steel dies where in both cases (no pun) the brass is being worked less in both chamberings.
I've had two Redding carbide die sets in 44 that absolutely ruined brass. Even when lubed, they would scrape nickle off of cases.
Over expanding can also ruin brass as well, along with crimping the piss out of stuff.
A good "thump" test, sans ballistic gelatin, is to shoot 44's and 45's at plate steel. Shoot all shapes and bullet weights and it doesn't take even a novice to notice the 45 has more slap and does similar work even with less speed.
Shoot all shapes and bullet weights and it doesn't take even a novice to notice the 45 has more slap and does similar work even with less speed.
Off-topic. but noticed this when shooting a 10" gong at 100 yards with a .30-06, 165 grain bullet at 2800 fps, then doing so with a .45-70 shooting a 436 grain LBT bullet at 1679 fps.
I think I want to try one of those rugers with the two cylinders 45ACP and 45 Colt. A set of cheap Lee carbide reloading dies and I will be all set, I got 5 pounds of Unique to burn so I need something to burn it in. Will never buy another SW revolver as long as I live unless I stumble on an older gun.
I think I want to try one of those rugers with the two cylinders 45ACP and 45 Colt. A set of cheap Lee carbide reloading dies and I will be all set, I got 5 pounds of Unique to burn so I need something to burn it in. Will never buy another SW revolver as long as I live unless I stumble on an older gun.
Why stumble?
They're out there.
Last few months.
Slaves get what they need. Free men get what they want.
Shoot all shapes and bullet weights and it doesn't take even a novice to notice the 45 has more slap and does similar work even with less speed.
Off-topic. but noticed this when shooting a 10" gong at 100 yards with a .30-06, 165 grain bullet at 2800 fps, then doing so with a .45-70 shooting a 436 grain LBT bullet at 1679 fps.
Noticeably more reaction to the big slug.
Without getting too deep into the physics, this is why you observed what you did. Many like to use kinetic energy as a measure of "killing power." Whether you agree with that or not, the .30-06 load you were shooting has about 5% more energy than the .45-70 load. However, momentum is the correct measure of how hard a gong get "slapped." The .45-70 load has about 58% more momentum than the .30-06 load. WHUMP!
Clinging to guns & religion since 1959
Keyboards make people braver than alcohol
Election Integrity is more important than Election Convenience
Washington Post: "Democracy Dies in Darkness" More correct: "Killing Democracy Faster Than Darkness"
I used to have a Ruger Redhawk in 45 Colt ( stainless, 5.5" bbl). Sold it. The problem is with the 45 Colt case. It is tapered.
When you resize, with a carbide sizer, you make a cylindrical case. Then, when you shoot it, the brass expands back to "tapered" shape. Resize back to cylindrical. Fire/expand/resize. Repeat... This works the brass hard, and it is more likely to work harden and split.
44 mag cases and chambers are cylindrical. Less working of the brass. Longer case life. Load the 44 mag from mild to wild. You will get all the "thump" you want with the 44 mag.
I use a S&W 629-3 (44 mag) with 4" barrel. Love it.
That is a real stretch, (stretch as in case and analysis) There are no taper problems with a 45 Colt case. You may prefer the 44 mag, but don't make that up. I have loaded 45 Colt for 40 years, used both standard and carbide dies and they won't stress any more than a 44 mag or a 38 special.
I would still wager in a side by side comparison, most people would feel and react to more recoil from the 44 mag. Choose what you like but don't make that kind of comparison...
Thanks Shrap. You saved me some typing.
I've loaded the same mixed batch 45 Colt for 11 years, for various Ruger SA's and a couple of Rossi 45 Colt carbines. Both are known to have generous chambers and a good number of my reloads are right heavy- 45-70 Lite from the carbine. I full length resize every time, I flare enough for flat-based bullets, I never trim and I run a heavy roll crimp. I might have had a half-dozen split necks in that many years; certainly no more than I was getting loading 44 Magnum.
Direct Impingement is the Fart Joke of military rifle operating systems. ⓒ
i have played with the 44's for years. the 45 colt for quite a few years. it can be loaded in a suitable revolver from light to wild. but moderate loads without the flash and boom work pretty good. compared to a 44magnum. there is a reason why that caliber is still around.
Shoot all shapes and bullet weights and it doesn't take even a novice to notice the 45 has more slap and does similar work even with less speed.
Off-topic. but noticed this when shooting a 10" gong at 100 yards with a .30-06, 165 grain bullet at 2800 fps, then doing so with a .45-70 shooting a 436 grain LBT bullet at 1679 fps.
Noticeably more reaction to the big slug.
Without getting too deep into the physics, this is why you observed what you did. Many like to use kinetic energy as a measure of "killing power." Whether you agree with that or not, the .30-06 load you were shooting has about 5% more energy than the .45-70 load. However, momentum is the correct measure of how hard a gong get "slapped." The .45-70 load has about 58% more momentum than the .30-06 load. WHUMP!
I was aware of that. I don't measure lethality by kinetic energy.
I think I want to try one of those rugers with the two cylinders 45ACP and 45 Colt. A set of cheap Lee carbide reloading dies and I will be all set, I got 5 pounds of Unique to burn so I need something to burn it in. Will never buy another SW revolver as long as I live unless I stumble on an older gun.
I should have picked up one of the round-butt Redhawks that will fire either .45 Colt or .45 ACP with moon clips when I had the chance. Don't "need" one but ... what's "'need" got to do with it?
Tom
Anyone who thinks there's two sides to everything hasn't met a M�bius strip.
Shoot all shapes and bullet weights and it doesn't take even a novice to notice the 45 has more slap and does similar work even with less speed.
Off-topic. but noticed this when shooting a 10" gong at 100 yards with a .30-06, 165 grain bullet at 2800 fps, then doing so with a .45-70 shooting a 436 grain LBT bullet at 1679 fps.
Noticeably more reaction to the big slug.
Without getting too deep into the physics, this is why you observed what you did. Many like to use kinetic energy as a measure of "killing power." Whether you agree with that or not, the .30-06 load you were shooting has about 5% more energy than the .45-70 load. However, momentum is the correct measure of how hard a gong get "slapped." The .45-70 load has about 58% more momentum than the .30-06 load. WHUMP!
I was aware of that. I don't measure lethality by kinetic energy.
I never said you used KE as a measure of lethality, or even how hard a gong gets "slapped." I was attempting to support your observation with some relative numbers. My assumption was if I quoted only the relative difference in momentum, someone was going to post up and tell me I had it all wrong because energy was the important quantity. I was trying to get ahead of that.
Clinging to guns & religion since 1959
Keyboards make people braver than alcohol
Election Integrity is more important than Election Convenience
Washington Post: "Democracy Dies in Darkness" More correct: "Killing Democracy Faster Than Darkness"
I never said you said I used KE as a measure of lethality, I stated that myself. As an engineer, I understand the relative numbers.
I've been using heavy large-caliber cast bullets for years and though they may calculate lower in energy in some instances, depending on the comparison, the figure for energy does not indicate how lethal the projectile will be.
I cannot put any faith in energy, though minimum figures are often stated as needed to kill a certain animal. I'm sure you've seen it stated often.
I used to have a Ruger Redhawk in 45 Colt ( stainless, 5.5" bbl). Sold it. The problem is with the 45 Colt case. It is tapered.
When you resize, with a carbide sizer, you make a cylindrical case. Then, when you shoot it, the brass expands back to "tapered" shape. Resize back to cylindrical. Fire/expand/resize. Repeat... This works the brass hard, and it is more likely to work harden and split.
44 mag cases and chambers are cylindrical. Less working of the brass. Longer case life. Load the 44 mag from mild to wild. You will get all the "thump" you want with the 44 mag.
I use a S&W 629-3 (44 mag) with 4" barrel. Love it.
Boloney! (Bologna) you need to re-read the Linebaugh article posted in this thread.
"I never thought I'd live to see the day that a U.S. president would raise an army to invade his own country." Robert E. Lee
I have the 44 mag, 41, mag and the 45 colt. About all I carry anymore is my 4" mountain gun 45 colt. Low recoil and fun to shoot. My days of proving my manhood are over.
Writing from the gateway to the great BluMtns in southeastern Washington.
Just remember, "You are the trailer park and I am the tornado". Beth Dutton, Yellowstone.
I'm considering adding a big bore handgun to my collection. Nit even sure what I want to do with it - just want to feel the power and thump, I guess. Strongly considering a Ruger Redhawk, which can be had in either .45 Colt or .44 Magnum. What are some reasons to consider one over the other? And yes, I do handload, so ammo availability is not a concern.
I hand load as well, and yet I still like to go buy a few boxes of cheapest 45ACP to burn, the redhawk 45acp/45lc seems more flexible in the ammo department than a 44 special/44magnum.
N Frame 45 Colt made out of a Model 58 41 mag by the gentleman in Tennessee. His combat sights and Roper style grips by Keith Brown. One guys version of a great gun in a great round.
Does anyone have a copy of Linebaugh's article about loading for the S&W Model 25 or know of a link to a copy? It was published on handloads.com but that site is kaput and search results for "Linebaugh Model 25" and similar just point to that old handloads.com article so you get a 404 file not found error.
The loads he published were a good deal less than the Ruger only loads in his "Dissolving the Myth" article but he still got some very impressive velocities, up to 1100 fps IIRC. The article also went into some discussion of the point that you don't need an abundance of velocity with the .45, that at handgun velocities the work comes from bigger holes and the .45 is just a bigger drill, so even a 250 grain bullet at 950 fps will do in a lot of big game.
Gunnery, gunnery, gunnery. Hit the target, all else is twaddle!
Does anyone have a copy of Linebaugh's article about loading for the S&W Model 25 or know of a link to a copy? It was published on handloads.com but that site is kaput and search results for "Linebaugh Model 25" and similar just point to that old handloads.com article so you get a 404 file not found error.
The loads he published were a good deal less than the Ruger only loads in his "Dissolving the Myth" article but he still got some very impressive velocities, up to 1100 fps IIRC. The article also went into some discussion of the point that you don't need an abundance of velocity with the .45, that at handgun velocities the work comes from bigger holes and the .45 is just a bigger drill, so even a 250 grain bullet at 950 fps will do in a lot of big game.
I've looked for it too Jim and run into the same thing. I have used his 255 SWC/13.0 HS6 load in several regular 45 Colts (Astra 45, Ruger NV) and never run into a problem with it.
Direct Impingement is the Fart Joke of military rifle operating systems. ⓒ
That's a good article and is cited earlier in this thread. There was another one where he specifically loads for the Model 25 (25-5 to be exact), that's the one I'm trying to find. This is the link that can be found in threads on other forums but it leads to a 404 error.
In fact one of the places I found this exact same link was where both I and DocRocket posted it in a thread back on 1/25/13 titled "45 LC "heavy" loads in a S&W Model 25."
Gunnery, gunnery, gunnery. Hit the target, all else is twaddle!
I have a couple of Old Bisley Vaqueros, one in 44 Mag and one in 45 Colt and they would be one of the last I would ever sell.
Since the OP stated that he reloads, the whole vista of performance is open to him from mild to wild. I like shooting both but find that after a few gun loads of some of my wilds are enough for the afternoon shoot. I like both shooters and the Bisley frame helps to manage the wild reload recoil. When loaded with mild offerings both are a wee tickle to shoot all day long and brings back a nostalgia for the Old West.
My wild loads with the 44 mag are a 300g slug at 1377fps and the same bullet in the 45 Colt runs at 1250fps. Both loads are maxed out for the respective revolver and in this arena of buffalo loads the edge goes to the 44Mag.
If we are selecting due to all around shooting and not concerned with the buffalo load max, I think either one fills the bag up with fun and great application for both calibers.
If you are looking for the all out velocity champ.....go with the 44Mag. If you end up with either....buy the other one also when the chance comes up. Two great calibers to play around with when reloading.
In truth, if you handload and shoot them in a strong gun, there ain't a lick of difference worth arguing about. Die-hard .45 fans will always quote the +30yr old Linebaugh article but it's outdated. It's 2019 and the .44 will shoot the same weight bullets 50-100fps faster.
The only real difference is in weaker guns like the SAA where the 44Spl is really the better choice for the platform.
Originally Posted by shrapnel
The 45 just seems to be more manageable than the magnum and more versatile than the special...
That makes no sense whatsoever. Either cartridge can be handloaded to deliver the same result with comparable recoil.
In truth, if you handload and shoot them in a strong gun, there ain't a lick of difference worth arguing about. Die-hard .45 fans will always quote the +30yr old Linebaugh article but it's outdated. It's 2019 and the .44 will shoot the same weight bullets 50-100fps faster.
The only real difference is in weaker guns like the SAA where the 44Spl is really the better choice for the platform.
Originally Posted by shrapnel
The 45 just seems to be more manageable than the magnum and more versatile than the special...
That makes no sense whatsoever. Either cartridge can be handloaded to deliver the same result with comparable recoil.
Sorry Craig, I guess the C in your name stands for confused...
Sorry, I understand the truth is confusing for .45 Kool Aid drinkers who think the .45Colt possesses magical traits that defy the laws of physics.
In the real world, there's nothing you can do in a .45Colt that you cannot also do in a .44Mag, given guns of comparable strength. Contrary to popular wishful thinking, comparable loads will have comparable recoil. No .45 magic there either. In the Colt sized guns, the .44Spl is actually more capable with a greater safety margin. This is no revelation. If one can read, handload and chronograph, these facts are readily accessible.
Speaking of Kool-Aid, you drink plenty of the 44 mag type. The original question was about the 45 Colt. It is and remains a fantastic handgun cartridge, the discussion about handloading to improve a 44 special or load down a 44 magnum is a separate debate.
On it’s own merits a 45 Colt has been proving a point for over 140 years that it is a great round and far from obsolete...
Speaking of Kool-Aid, you drink plenty of the 44 mag type. The original question was about the 45 Colt. It is and remains a fantastic handgun cartridge, the discussion about handloading to improve a 44 special or load down a 44 magnum is a separate debate.
On it’s own merits a 45 Colt has been proving a point for over 140 years that it is a great round and far from obsolete...
No Kool Aid here, I probably own more .45's than most .45 Kool Aid drinkers and have a Dillon 650 dedicated to the .45Colt. At last count, 11 .45Colt's, 10 .45ACP's, two .454's and a .450Bushmaster. Sorry but the argument that I'm a .45 hater and .44 Kool Aid drinker just doesn't hold water. You'll have to actually argue based on merit.
You're the one that brought it up, don't whine about it now. The fact remains that contrary to your first response, the .44Mag can be handloaded to anything the .45Colt can do. This idea that the .45Colt is somehow more potent and/or more pleasant is wishful thinking at best.
No Kool Aid required, just the ability to read, handload and chronograph.
You dig and dig, but there is no dirt in a hole that you dig, it is piled up beside it. You are as mixed up as you are illiterate. What I said is only about a vanilla 45 Colt, vs a vanilla 44 special and a vanilla 44 mag. If you are too ignorant to forget your silly bias and just respond to the fact that a 44 special as a factory load and a 45 Colt factory load are not equals, the 45 is better. The 45 Colt is factory loaded with a 250 grain bullet, nowhere near 1266 FPS with a 325 grain bullet.
Where do you come up with this crap?
If you don't think a factory 44 mag has more recoil than a factory 45 Colt, you couldn't be more wrong.
Somewhere, there is a circus looking for a clown, you might want to find it...
You dig and dig, but there is no dirt in a hole that you dig, it is piled up beside it. You are as mixed up as you are illiterate. What I said is only about a vanilla 45 Colt, vs a vanilla 44 special and a vanilla 44 mag. If you are too ignorant to forget your silly bias and just respond to the fact that a 44 special as a factory load and a 45 Colt factory load are not equals, the 45 is better. The 45 Colt is factory loaded with a 250 grain bullet, nowhere near 1266 FPS with a 325 grain bullet.
Where do you come up with this crap?
If you don't think a factory 44 mag has more recoil than a factory 45 Colt, you couldn't be more wrong.
Somewhere, there is a circus looking for a clown, you might want to find it...
How am I biased? If it hadn't been for your misinformation, I might've just sang the praises of the .45Colt.
You're a real special kind of stupid. I guess you didn't read the OP, where he said.....
Originally Posted by Triggernosis
And yes, I do handload, so ammo availability is not a concern.
In your rush to share your infinite wisdom, I reckon you also missed the part where I said, "Either cartridge can be handloaded to deliver the same result with comparable recoil." Rather comical to accuse someone of being "confused, ignorant, illiterate, etc." when you can't even friggin' read. Yeah, I know that factory .45Colt is better than factory .44Spl and less abusive than factory .44Mag. That's why I said HANDLOADED. So the context, through this entire thread, is that of handloaded ammunition. You're the only one who seems to be confused, ignorant and/or illiterate. Got anything else stupid to say?
IMO the .44 Magnum's appeal is that it's "the mos' par'ful hanngun in da worl an will blow yer head clean off." It probably will but it hasn't the soul of the .45 Colt. It's some kind of government run high speed rail compared to a steam locomotive.
Direct Impingement is the Fart Joke of military rifle operating systems. ⓒ
To me it's a question of frame size. In a big Blackhawk or Redhawk frame, the .45 Colt will cut out more metal, making for a (very marginally) lighter gun that will do as much work if not more. It also seems to me, for whatever it's worth, that there is as much difference between the .44 Magnum and the .45 Colt as there is between the .45 Colt and the .480 Ruger in terms of diameter and bullet weight.
In TN, I can't think of anything I'd point a .45 at that I wouldn't point a .44 at, but I can't think of anything that I'd point a .30-06 at that I'd not point my 7mm Mauser at either.
Back to frame sizes, I love my Bisley .45 Colt, doubt I'd ever want one in .44 Magnum, but the new(ish) L Frame .44's seem to answer A LOT of questions about big bore packing guns (a buddy has a 2-3/4" model, and I like it a lot. A 429421 over 8.0 grains of Universal seems about right for it).
FWIW, I don't care for either caliber in most factory loads. Most .45 Colt loads seem anemic (along with the .44 Special) where a .44 Magnum always seems wound too tight. A 270-SAA (286 grains from my mold) at 1,000-1,200 fps seems about right to me.
To me it's a question of frame size. In a big Blackhawk or Redhawk frame, the .45 Colt will cut out more metal, making for a (very marginally) lighter gun that will do as much work if not more. It also seems to me, for whatever it's worth, that there is as much difference between the .44 Magnum and the .45 Colt as there is between the .45 Colt and the .480 Ruger in terms of diameter and bullet weight.
In TN, I can't think of anything I'd point a .45 at that I wouldn't point a .44 at, but I can't think of anything that I'd point a .30-06 at that I'd not point my 7mm Mauser at either.
Back to frame sizes, I love my Bisley .45 Colt, doubt I'd ever want one in .44 Magnum, but the new(ish) L Frame .44's seem to answer A LOT of questions about big bore packing guns (a buddy has a 2-3/4" model, and I like it a lot. A 429421 over 8.0 grains of Universal seems about right for it).
FWIW, I don't care for either caliber in most factory loads. Most .45 Colt loads seem anemic (along with the .44 Special) where a .44 Magnum always seems wound too tight. A 270-SAA (286 grains from my mold) at 1,000-1,200 fps seems about right to me.
i got one of the slovenian molds a few years ago that duplicates the 270-saa. cept it throws solids hollowpoints, and pendad hollowpoints. I fired one of those hollowpoints at about your velocity through a four inch book one time, the expanded diameter of the lead bullet was over .95. I am not knocking the 44, and i do have a number of them, but the 45colt does it without the shock and awe. I do have a number of the old vaquero's, but the new ruger vaquero while it shouldn't be loaded as hot, and you really don't to, as the older ones, it's just a fine carry pistol with a big thump of lead coming out..
I didn't realize you had to dislike the 44 mag in order to like the 45 Colt until I read this thread. I guess y'all feel threatened by it or something.
There is an old saying that has been used for different arguments, so I will pervert here one more time. A 44 bullet can expand but a 45 bullet will never shrink.
Writing from the gateway to the great BluMtns in southeastern Washington.
Just remember, "You are the trailer park and I am the tornado". Beth Dutton, Yellowstone.
There is an old saying that has been used for different arguments, so I will pervert here one more time. A 44 bullet can expand but a 45 bullet will never shrink.
And the 44 doesn't need to expand either so moot point alert.
There is an old saying that has been used for different arguments, so I will pervert here one more time. A 44 bullet can expand but a 45 bullet will never shrink.
And the 44 doesn't need to expand either so moot point alert.
Using your logic the 475 and 500's aren't needed
I got banned on another web site for a debate that happened on this site. That's a first
I like the 44 Magnum. If I had a great 44 or 444 rifle, a 44 mag would absolutely be my heavy revolver.
10-11 years ago I decided I was reloading too many different cartridges that did about the same work. So I sold off my 44's and kept the 45 Colt. A 255 at 900 fps does 90% of what I need from woods gun and 'Ruger Loads' will handle the rest.
Gratuitous 45 Colt pic.
Direct Impingement is the Fart Joke of military rifle operating systems. ⓒ
There is an old saying that has been used for different arguments, so I will pervert here one more time. A 44 bullet can expand but a 45 bullet will never shrink.
And the 44 doesn't need to expand either so moot point alert.
Using your logic the 475 and 500's aren't needed
Only in your world. In mine I want more calibers not less. And I don't have to hate one to like another.
It also seems to me, for whatever it's worth, that there is as much difference between the .44 Magnum and the .45 Colt as there is between the .45 Colt and the .480 Ruger in terms of diameter and bullet weight.
Not even close. The .44 and .45 do their best work with bullets of the same weight. This idea that the .45Colt handles heavier bullets is yet another myth. They both get 330/335's around 1300fps and they both get 355/360's around 1200fps. Neither is optimal with 400's. In truth, the two do the same thing, one with a little more pressure, the other with a little more powder. Net result same/same. The .480 is a significant step up in pressure, diameter and bullet weight. What the .45 does with 360's the .480 does with 430's.
As to diameter, if you actually look at commercial cast bullets, you'll find the difference between the .44 and .45 meplats to be much less than the difference in bullet diameter. In some cases, as little as .005" among manufacturers. In others, they are the same. To see a significant difference, you'd have to compare the smallest .44 LFN to the largest .45 WFN/WLN.
The two cartridges are so close in performance it is hardly worth arguing about but some folks like to perpetuate the myths begun by Linebaugh. Seems that while dissolving some myths, others were created in their place. One uses a little more powder, the other a little more pressure. One has a slightly larger diameter (sometimes), the other is a better penetrator.
The silliest part of this whole argument is that the answer lies right there in Hodgdon's published data and it's been there for years. It's not a crackpot theory that exists only in the abstract or only realized through dangerous handloading practices.
Originally Posted by moosemike
I didn't realize you had to dislike the 44 mag in order to like the 45 Colt until I read this thread. I guess y'all feel threatened by it or something.
I also do not understand why it has to be either/or. Or that you have to choose one and hate the other. I love both but just can't let the myths and legends go unanswered.
I didn't realize you had to dislike the 44 mag in order to like the 45 Colt until I read this thread. I guess y'all feel threatened by it or something.
While the 44/45 debates are entertaining, I never really got the whole controversy. They both work. Well.
I like em all.
When I go to the safe, I pick one based on how I'm feeling that day. "Hey, this feels like a 45 Colt day, or I'm feeling 44ish today." Some days the 41 mag or the 401 Herters gets the nod. Other days the 480 Ruger or 500 Linebaugh. If I'm feeling like going really unique I'll grab the 357 Maximum.
Chronographs, bore scopes and pattern boards have broke a lot of hearts.
I like the 44 Magnum. If I had a great 44 or 444 rifle, a 44 mag would absolutely be my heavy revolver.
10-11 years ago I decided I was reloading too many different cartridges that did about the same work. So I sold off my 44's and kept the 45 Colt. A 255 at 900 fps does 90% of what I need from woods gun and 'Ruger Loads' will handle the rest.
Gratuitous 45 Colt pic.
I’m leaning this way. Have a 625-6 Mtn Gun and a 625-5 Classic 5”. If I sell off the 2 .44’s I own I’ll probably try to source an old 3-screw Blackhawk in .45 Colt.
Stump, you knocked it out of the park with those buddy! Did you have that first S&W when you visited? That one & the last one (color cased) needs to come visit.
Yeah, I had just picked that top one up before the trip and didn't have time to sight it in properly before we left. I have since developed loads for all of them. I think I had the top two and the bottom one with me on that trip. John Linebaugh checked it out and gave it his stamp of approval while we were in Cody. I'll bring all five (and some others) next time I'm up your way (we're thinking next spring if that works for you and the huckleberry shakes).
I am not interested in re-litigating any of this, but I will just say, that if you put both cartridges on equal footing -- same weight bullet, same pressure (this is where load data doesn't make for a compelling argument as the .45 is held to significantly lower pressure levels than the .44), the .45 walks away. It's just physics. I have found (and no, I don't recommend anyone do this) that when the .45 Colt is loaded to the .44's maximum of 36,000 psi, it produces significantly higher velocities than the .44 is capable of with the same weight bullet and pressure. Now as far as 400+ grain bullets are concerned, I had no luck squeezing anything akin to acceptable accuracy (actually they key-holed) out of a 405 grain .44 Mag load, and yet a 405 grain .45 Colt load from Garrett that was designed around a 1:16 twist shoots lights-out from my 1:24 twist Super Blackhawk in .454. Evidently the .45s will support heavy bullets.
That said, why does this discussion have to be an "either or?" They're both great cartridges, I just prefer a .452 bullet over a .429 - call me crazy.
I like the 44 Magnum. If I had a great 44 or 444 rifle, a 44 mag would absolutely be my heavy revolver.
10-11 years ago I decided I was reloading too many different cartridges that did about the same work. So I sold off my 44's and kept the 45 Colt. A 255 at 900 fps does 90% of what I need from woods gun and 'Ruger Loads' will handle the rest.
Gratuitous 45 Colt pic.
SargeMO -- thanks for the beautiful distraction! Very nice piece there!
You nailed it Max, just look at the 2 cases & physics is pretty simple to understand. But to hate one over the other makes no sense at all, owning both makes a lot of sense. Nitpicking over peanuts is crazy, go out & shoot 2 deer or 2 elk & see the difference, you won't, all things being equal. 90% of us own both, we might have a favorite but that's just Ford vs Chevy talk. I've always slightly leaned a little more towards the 44 but a Texas buddy has me using my 45's a bit more & I'm liking it. Bullet integrity & placement trumps caliber anyway.
I am not interested in re-litigating any of this, but I will just say, that if you put both cartridges on equal footing -- same weight bullet, same pressure (this is where load data doesn't make for a compelling argument as the .45 is held to significantly lower pressure levels than the .44), the .45 walks away. It's just physics. I have found (and no, I don't recommend anyone do this) that when the .45 Colt is loaded to the .44's maximum of 36,000 psi, it produces significantly higher velocities than the .44 is capable of with the same weight bullet and pressure. Now as far as 400+ grain bullets are concerned, I had no luck squeezing anything akin to acceptable accuracy (actually they key-holed) out of a 405 grain .44 Mag load, and yet a 405 grain .45 Colt load from Garrett that was designed around a 1:16 twist shoots lights-out from my 1:24 twist Super Blackhawk in .454. Evidently the .45s will support heavy bullets.
That said, why does this discussion have to be an "either or?" They're both great cartridges, I just prefer a .452 bullet over a .429 - call me crazy.
Exactly! Bravo! Spot on!
I got banned on another web site for a debate that happened on this site. That's a first
You nailed it Max, just look at the 2 cases & physics is pretty simple to understand. But to hate one over the other makes no sense at all, owning both makes a lot of sense. Nitpicking over peanuts is crazy, go out & shoot 2 deer or 2 elk & see the difference, you won't, all things being equal. 90% of us own both, we might have a favorite but that's just Ford vs Chevy talk. I've always slightly leaned a little more towards the 44 but a Texas buddy has me using my 45's a bit more & I'm liking it. Bullet integrity & placement trumps caliber anyway.
Dick
Right on!
I got banned on another web site for a debate that happened on this site. That's a first
Of course the .45 walks away at the same pressure, it has more powder capacity. That kinda goes without saying. But in doing so, there is NO data and you've cut your safety margin from 100% to 80%. Which means, in effect, you're cheating just to claim a win and it's not at all a scientific approach. Equal pressure is not an even playing field if the context is standard six-shot Ruger single actions. What happens when we increase the pressure in the .44Mag to 80%? Same thing, it gains the advantage. It's going to go tit for tat until the guns blow. The .45 at 60,000psi, the .45 at 80,000psi.
Run them both at 50,000psi in appropriate guns and the advantage flips from 50-100fps in favor of the .44 to 50-100fps in favor of the .45. Another "BFD" result. I wrote this elsewhere but will post it again here:
"Now we're moving to 50,000psi data suitable only for Ruger Redhawks, Super Redhawks, Dan Wessons, BFR's, Freedom Arms and custom oversized cylinder Ruger single actions. Not for factory Super Blackhawks or any S&W. All the heavyweight Beartooth bullets I've been using in the .44 have two or three crimp grooves but the published Hodgdon data uses the top groove and is standard pressure. Nearly three years ago, I procured a Super Redhawk .44Mag and then a year later had my Bisley Super Blackhawk rebuilt with a linebored, oversized six-shot cylinder for the purpose of utilizing Brian Pearce's 50,000psi "Redhawk only" data. The long, large diameter cylinders of these guns allow us to not only seat the bullet further out but to use heavier powder charges. Loading the 330gr LFN, 355gr WLN and 405gr WLN over H110 at 100% load density I had the following results. I also chronographed the 340gr .44 and 360gr .454 Buffalo Bore loads. Both of which were VERY close to the Pearce "Redhawk only" data and also ~50,000psi. Loads were fired from 7½" Super Redhawks.
330gr at 1442fps 340gr at 1401fps (Buffalo Bore load; Pearce - 1405fps) 355gr at 1346fps 405gr at 1160fps
Compare these to the numbers from Pearce's "Redhawk only" .45Colt data:
335gr at 1511fps 360gr at 1433fps (Buffalo Bore load; Pearce - 1450fps) 400gr at 1314fps
Which pretty much confirms what I've always contended. That only when you reach the absolute potential of both cartridges and load the .45Colt beyond "Ruger only" levels, does the .45 pull ahead. This brings the .44Mag up to levels comparable to the custom .475's and .500's, in terms of sectional density and velocity. Those guns are considered to be at their peak with a sectional density of .25-.27 at 1350fps. We just don't have the diameter. It only lags 100fps behind the custom five-shot .45Colt's. That's a lot of performance for an $800 off the shelf Ruger that can be used effectively with any off the shelf ammo and light .44 Specials."
It's just silly to me that diehard .45 fans will go to such great lengths to keep the myth alive.
It only comes off that way because I have to argue with such indoctrination. I didn't start out trying to prove the .44 was better. I began this journey with the same pre-conceived notions everyone else has, with the intention of finding the truth. It just so happens that the truth is contradictory to popular belief, which is rooted in the writings of John Linebaugh. Inconvenient for those who apparently still NEED to believe in .45Colt magic.
As I said, I probably have more .45's than your average .45 Kool Aid drinker and have a Dillon 650 that's never loaded anything but .45Colt. Would any of that be true if I was a blind .44 fanboy? It doesn't really matter why I believe what I believe anyway. The facts support it. The only "facts" that support these notions about the .45Colt having such a decided advantage over the .44Mag are written in a 30yr old, outdated article which is easily debunked by simply reading the Hodgdon data.
AND I HAVE YET TO ENCOUNTER ANYONE WHO CAN PROVIDE LOAD DATA THAT CONFLICTS WITH MY STATEMENTS. ZERO. ZILCH. NADA.
Perhaps its the arbitrary pressure ceilings. The biggest downfall ive seen with most guys loading the 45 colt is the question of which loads will my gun handle? Is it the ruger six shot, then whats it safe to. How about a 5 shot custom, well what steel is it made from? How about an oversized 6 shot, or an oversized 5 shot? Just gets messy. I just know jack will tell you any ruger will handle 36k psi loads hamdily, but what again are those loads? For me the 44 is less messy per se but i just cut thru the bs and use a 454. Theyre all steong enough. Btw, there arent equivalent loads for a 45 colt, theyre actually sorta almost loads, kinda. Another thing i find interesting is where bullet diameter makes a difference vs speed seems to be an incredibly arbitrary thing.
Actually doing something usually changes a persons previously worthless opinion
Load 255gr 45 colts to 900fps and 240gr 44's to 1000-1100 and they both will do anything you would ever want. If I had to choose one, it would be my convertible bisley. I can plink with cheap 45 acp loads and stoke it with 45 colts for the woods. However, I do love my 7.5" super Blackhawk 44 with 240gr swc at about 1100fps
Something no one has really mentioned, since the arguments have been vs caliber, is that there are really far more and better options in jacketed bullets in standard, light, and heavy weights for the 44 cal. If you don't cast your own, or prefer to shoot easily available jacketed bullets, there are far more out there for the 44.
That said, though I love my 44's, I'm more enamored with the 45 Colt, even at modest pressures and speeds. The bigger bore/bullet diameter makes a difference, both for shooter and for "shootee". Maybe I just got older. The 44's were a younger thing (including the 444). Now I prefer what I can do with the 45 cal (including rifles), and am working on putting together a bolt action Bushmaster that I can REALLY step on, to surpass what a lever 45-70 can do.
Most modern 45 Colts are happy with .451 jacketed or .452 cast bullets, which opens up a wide range of projectiles available for the 45 Auto to the 454/460 S&W.
Direct Impingement is the Fart Joke of military rifle operating systems. ⓒ
Perhaps its the arbitrary pressure ceilings. The biggest downfall ive seen with most guys loading the 45 colt is the question of which loads will my gun handle? Is it the ruger six shot, then whats it safe to. How about a 5 shot custom, well what steel is it made from? How about an oversized 6 shot, or an oversized 5 shot? Just gets messy. I just know jack will tell you any ruger will handle 36k psi loads hamdily, but what again are those loads? For me the 44 is less messy per se but i just cut thru the bs and use a 454. Theyre all steong enough. Btw, there arent equivalent loads for a 45 colt, theyre actually sorta almost loads, kinda. Another thing i find interesting is where bullet diameter makes a difference vs speed seems to be an incredibly arbitrary thing.
The pressure ceiling isn't arbitrary. Through destructive testing, it was found that the Super Blackhawk failed at 80,000, while standard operating pressure was 40,000. A 100% safety margin. The .45's blew at 60,000. So to keep a similar margin of safety with the .45's the accepted maximum for large frame Ruger .45's is 30,000. Now how it was determined that the Redhawk/Super Redhkawk could handle 50,000psi is beyond me.
Sure a large frame Ruger .45 will handle 36,000 but as I said, you're cutting 20% off the safety margin with unknown data and it's no longer an apples to apples comparison.
Knowing what guns can handle what pressure is an issue with the .45Colt and we see questions on that subject constantly. Made even muddier with Ruger introducing mid-frame .45's.
The issue that irritates me and one that is rarely talked about by the Kool Aid Krew, is that of chamber dimensions. The .45Colt is a 150yr old cartridge with somewhat ambiguous dimensions. Some guns have oversized throats, some have undersized. Virtually all have oversized chambers. Rifles are particularly bad. This is why I've always said the best .45's were built from .41's and .44's. Linebaugh has made a career out of building proper .45's out of something else. Other folks have built a lucrative side business reaming the throats of Ruger .45's. These issues don't affect newer cartridges and I never had a .44Mag that wasn't a shooter out of the box.
Perhaps its the arbitrary pressure ceilings. The biggest downfall ive seen with most guys loading the 45 colt is the question of which loads will my gun handle? Is it the ruger six shot, then whats it safe to. How about a 5 shot custom, well what steel is it made from? How about an oversized 6 shot, or an oversized 5 shot? Just gets messy. I just know jack will tell you any ruger will handle 36k psi loads hamdily, but what again are those loads? For me the 44 is less messy per se but i just cut thru the bs and use a 454. Theyre all steong enough. Btw, there arent equivalent loads for a 45 colt, theyre actually sorta almost loads, kinda. Another thing i find interesting is where bullet diameter makes a difference vs speed seems to be an incredibly arbitrary thing.
The pressure ceiling isn't arbitrary. Through destructive testing, it was found that the Super Blackhawk failed at 80,000, while standard operating pressure was 40,000. A 100% safety margin. The .45's blew at 60,000. So to keep a similar margin of safety with the .45's the accepted maximum for large frame Ruger .45's is 30,000. Now how it was determined that the Redhawk/Super Redhkawk could handle 50,000psi is beyond me.
Sure a large frame Ruger .45 will handle 36,000 but as I said, you're cutting 20% off the safety margin with unknown data and it's no longer an apples to apples comparison.
Knowing what guns can handle what pressure is an issue with the .45Colt and we see questions on that subject constantly. Made even muddier with Ruger introducing mid-frame .45's.
The issue that irritates me and one that is rarely talked about by the Kool Aid Krew, is that of chamber dimensions. The .45Colt is a 150yr old cartridge with somewhat ambiguous dimensions. Some guns have oversized throats, some have undersized. Virtually all have oversized chambers. Rifles are particularly bad. This is why I've always said the best .45's were built from .41's and .44's. Linebaugh has made a career out of building proper .45's out of something else. Other folks have built a lucrative side business reaming the throats of Ruger .45's. These issues don't affect newer cartridges and I never had a .44Mag that wasn't a shooter out of the box.
I dont care one if its 80% or 100% or whatever, but that buffalo bore load u referenced above is way beyond standard 36k psi. Just ask sundles. Its ok because its well within safety margins of the guns it was approved for but its nowhere near 100% safety margin unless the gun will handle 100k psi. Bottomline is any ruger large frame, bfr, dan wesson will handle a lifetime of 36k psi loads.
That said craig, theres many ways to win the 44 is better or has advantages over the 45 colt and its good and easy arguments to make but final and absolute terminal performance isnt one of them. I still think its close enough.
Actually doing something usually changes a persons previously worthless opinion
Perhaps its the arbitrary pressure ceilings. The biggest downfall ive seen with most guys loading the 45 colt is the question of which loads will my gun handle? Is it the ruger six shot, then whats it safe to. How about a 5 shot custom, well what steel is it made from? How about an oversized 6 shot, or an oversized 5 shot? Just gets messy. I just know jack will tell you any ruger will handle 36k psi loads hamdily, but what again are those loads? For me the 44 is less messy per se but i just cut thru the bs and use a 454. Theyre all steong enough. Btw, there arent equivalent loads for a 45 colt, theyre actually sorta almost loads, kinda. Another thing i find interesting is where bullet diameter makes a difference vs speed seems to be an incredibly arbitrary thing.
The pressure ceiling isn't arbitrary. Through destructive testing, it was found that the Super Blackhawk failed at 80,000, while standard operating pressure was 40,000. A 100% safety margin. The .45's blew at 60,000. So to keep a similar margin of safety with the .45's the accepted maximum for large frame Ruger .45's is 30,000. Now how it was determined that the Redhawk/Super Redhkawk could handle 50,000psi is beyond me.
Sure a large frame Ruger .45 will handle 36,000 but as I said, you're cutting 20% off the safety margin with unknown data and it's no longer an apples to apples comparison.
Knowing what guns can handle what pressure is an issue with the .45Colt and we see questions on that subject constantly. Made even muddier with Ruger introducing mid-frame .45's.
The issue that irritates me and one that is rarely talked about by the Kool Aid Krew, is that of chamber dimensions. The .45Colt is a 150yr old cartridge with somewhat ambiguous dimensions. Some guns have oversized throats, some have undersized. Virtually all have oversized chambers. Rifles are particularly bad. This is why I've always said the best .45's were built from .41's and .44's. Linebaugh has made a career out of building proper .45's out of something else. Other folks have built a lucrative side business reaming the throats of Ruger .45's. These issues don't affect newer cartridges and I never had a .44Mag that wasn't a shooter out of the box.
I've always heard the Redhawks were stronger than the Blackhawks.
That said craig, theres many ways to win the 44 is better or has advantages over the 45 colt and its good and easy arguments to make but final and absolute terminal performance isnt one of them. I still think its close enough.
I can understand Craig's frustration here. If you actually read what he's been saying, he isn't saying 44 is better. He's saying the two cartridges are close enough that it doesn't matter, and is pointing out a lot of the misinformation that gets regurgitated by the 45 Colt fans. He's completely right, but some of you guys keep acting like we all have to argue for one or the other and can't just enjoy both.
CraigC, your posts on this are reasonable and well thought out, and your square approach without emotional bias or favoritism are refreshing. Hopefully some people can learn from what you've posted here.
Yeah, but the problem is that it's like saying the 41 Mag (with the same weight bullets) is the same thing as a 44, hence the the 357 is too. Granted, discerning a 41 hole from a 44 is much more difficult to find in a critter than a 44 versus 45, or at least that's been my experience with all three.
What gets lost in the very well reasoned arguments is bore size matters to the sedate hangun speed levels; I have LBT OWC 38's that have larger meplats than some 44 designs I have shot game with. Two things: 1. The 44's still make larger wounds at lower velocity, contrary to all the meplat worship. 2. The 38 caliber has to be driven to the gills to maintain the accuracy at hunting ranges and to even get close to the wounding ability of the 44 bullet, even when plodding along and the 38 driven 300-500 fps faster...
Yeah, but the problem is that it's like saying the 41 Mag (with the same weight bullets) is the same thing as a 44, hence the the 357 is too. Granted, discerning a 41 hole from a 44 is much more difficult to find in a critter than a 44 versus 45, or at least that's been my experience with all three.
What gets lost in the very well reasoned arguments is bore size matters to the sedate hangun speed levels; I have LBT OWC 38's that have larger meplats than some 44 designs I have shot game with. Two things: 1. The 44's still make larger wounds at lower velocity, contrary to all the meplat worship. 2. The 38 caliber has to be driven to the gills to maintain the accuracy at hunting ranges and to even get close to the wounding ability of the 44 bullet, even when plodding along and the 38 driven 300-500 fps faster...
Agreed
I got banned on another web site for a debate that happened on this site. That's a first
You going meplat or bore diameter? To get both, you have to go bigger. Sure, you can run larger meplats and up the impact velocity, but the holes in critters don't fool people who have the wares to poke a few animals for the sake of science...
.358 LBT OWC, 41-230 NOE Keith, 429215, H&G 503 44, 45-275 NOE Keith.
Here's the 358 OWC with the 250K, the 503 and a 280 LBT LFN.
FWIW, the .358 has a larger diameter meplat than these 44 bullets listed and is on par(with a 1 inch mic) with the 41. Having seen it used in the field, it still isn't on par for actual damage of any of the larger bullets that follow it, even when driven faster.
For anyone who has used the 429421 or the RCBS 250-K or the 429255 Lyman, the 429215 uses the same/similar top punch....pertaining to meplats.
My only experiences are on deer and hogs; folks who shoot larger stuff generally claim bigger is better too.
I dont care one if its 80% or 100% or whatever, but that buffalo bore load u referenced above is way beyond standard 36k psi. Just ask sundles. Its ok because its well within safety margins of the guns it was approved for but its nowhere near 100% safety margin unless the gun will handle 100k psi. Bottomline is any ruger large frame, bfr, dan wesson will handle a lifetime of 36k psi loads.
True but if we're comparing two cartridges with similar capabilities, you have to minimize variables. If you're gonna load just whatever pressure you want that allows your favorite cartridge to win, that's fine but the data you present won't be worth a puddle of dog piss. Would it be fair to compare the .45Colt at the aforementioned 36,000psi to the Buffalo Bore .44Mag load? No. There has to be a standard, a baseline. For me, that is to compare "Ruger only" .45Colt, which is really the only comparable data range available to standard pressure .44Mag. Just like Linebaugh did, only with no agenda.
Originally Posted by Tradmark
That said craig, theres many ways to win the 44 is better or has advantages over the 45 colt and its good and easy arguments to make but final and absolute terminal performance isnt one of them. I still think its close enough.
Contrary to popular belief, I didn't enter into this with an agenda, except to find the truth. It was never the point to prove that the .44 was better or had advantages over the .45. I grew up reading Seyfried, Taffin, Linebaugh, etc.. I believed all the stuff that people repeat about this subject. That the .45 provided better performance at less pressure. That it handled heavier bullets. Less recoil. Less blast. Better penetration. Blah, blah, blah. I believed it because those who espoused its virtues had credibility and there was no evidence to the contrary. When Hodgdon published their heavy bullet .44 data, they provided evidence to the contrary. I set about to test their loads to see what they did in actual guns. This "argument" is the result of that. I disproved, at least to my own satisfaction, that all of those virtues were non-existent.
The .45Colt does not offer more performance. It offers similar performance.
It does not handle heavier bullets, both do their best work with 355/360gr bullets but the .44 launches them faster.
The less pressure virtue is a requirement and it yields the shooter nothing.
It does not recoil less or have less muzzle blast. According to recoil calculators, it recoils MORE due to greater powder mass. In the hands, there is no difference with comparable loads.
It actually penetrates less using comparable bullet weights.
I always conceded on the diameter. It was only after I was pushed that I started looking at meplat diameters and found that the difference was not as black & white as some would have you believe.
The sad fact is that I have presented all this data. Facts. Not unsubstantiated opinion and it is NEVER countered with anything but indoctrinated nonsense. Like shrapnel's juvenile posts. No substance.
Originally Posted by Yondering
I can understand Craig's frustration here. If you actually read what he's been saying, he isn't saying 44 is better. He's saying the two cartridges are close enough that it doesn't matter, and is pointing out a lot of the misinformation that gets regurgitated by the 45 Colt fans. He's completely right, but some of you guys keep acting like we all have to argue for one or the other and can't just enjoy both.
CraigC, your posts on this are reasonable and well thought out, and your square approach without emotional bias or favoritism are refreshing. Hopefully some people can learn from what you've posted here.
Thank you!!!
Originally Posted by HawkI
Yeah, but the problem is that it's like saying the 41 Mag (with the same weight bullets) is the same thing as a 44, hence the the 357 is too. Granted, discerning a 41 hole from a 44 is much more difficult to find in a critter than a 44 versus 45, or at least that's been my experience with all three.
What gets lost in the very well reasoned arguments is bore size matters to the sedate hangun speed levels; I have LBT OWC 38's that have larger meplats than some 44 designs I have shot game with. Two things: 1. The 44's still make larger wounds at lower velocity, contrary to all the meplat worship. 2. The 38 caliber has to be driven to the gills to maintain the accuracy at hunting ranges and to even get close to the wounding ability of the 44 bullet, even when plodding along and the 38 driven 300-500 fps faster...
No it isn't. The .41 operates at the same pressure as the .44 but has less case capacity. So in the world of physics there's no way it can compete and perform the same tasks, let alone with the same weight bullets. I'm not even going to address the .357 reference.
So you can tell the difference in wounds between a .44 with a .300" meplat and a .45 with a .300" meplat? Wonders never cease. Bore size does not determine wound channel with cast or monometal bullets. In fact, all a larger bullet with the same diameter meplat does is decrease penetration.
Originally Posted by HawkI
My only experiences are on deer and hogs; folks who shoot larger stuff generally claim bigger is better too.
Bigger meplats, yes. Heavier bullets, yes. But we're talking about two cartridges that shoot the same weight bullets within 50-100fps of each other and have a lot of overlap in the meplat department. The two are entirely too close for one to claim advantage over the other. The only true step up from the .44 is the .475. More of everything, pressure, velocity, weight and a bigger meplat.
Yeah, but the problem is that it's like saying the 41 Mag (with the same weight bullets) is the same thing as a 44, hence the the 357 is too. Granted, discerning a 41 hole from a 44 is much more difficult to find in a critter than a 44 versus 45, or at least that's been my experience with all three.
What gets lost in the very well reasoned arguments is bore size matters to the sedate hangun speed levels; I have LBT OWC 38's that have larger meplats than some 44 designs I have shot game with. Two things: 1. The 44's still make larger wounds at lower velocity, contrary to all the meplat worship. 2. The 38 caliber has to be driven to the gills to maintain the accuracy at hunting ranges and to even get close to the wounding ability of the 44 bullet, even when plodding along and the 38 driven 300-500 fps faster...
No it isn't. The .41 operates at the same pressure as the .44 but has less case capacity. So in the world of physics there's no way it can compete and perform the same tasks, let alone with the same weight bullets. I'm not even going to address the .357 reference.
So you can tell the difference in wounds between a .44 with a .300" meplat and a .45 with a .300" meplat? Wonders never cease. Bore size does not determine wound channel with cast or monometal bullets. In fact, all a larger bullet with the same diameter meplat does is decrease penetration.
Originally Posted by HawkI
My only experiences are on deer and hogs; folks who shoot larger stuff generally claim bigger is better too.
Bigger meplats, yes. Heavier bullets, yes. But we're talking about two cartridges that shoot the same weight bullets within 50-100fps of each other and have a lot of overlap in the meplat department. The two are entirely too close for one to claim advantage over the other. The only true step up from the .44 is the .475. More of everything, pressure, velocity, weight and a bigger meplat.
First, historically, bore size determined wound channels and killing power WAY before anyone knew what a meplat was. The pointed/round 22 rimfire, the 44 rimfire and the 56 Spencer rimfire might be the first clue. Throw in the use of roundballs before that. You seem to be really educated on modern theory, but arrive a bit late in the concept of solids. Certainly, wonders do never cease. Perhaps a re-hash of the Philippine Insurrection might be in order, or the decimation of the American Bison. Maybe a few hundred deer shot with slugs, real deer slugs, in 410 bore, 20, 16 and 12 gauge would give one some insight.
Again, I just posted you a picture of a 41 Keith with a larger meplat than any of the 44 bullets I've posted. Since you claim bore size has no determination in wound channel, I'd like you to explain how the 41 doesn't compete, "in the world of physics" with what many feel are inferior 44 bullets. I also posted my experience of a 38, both larger diameter meplat than posted 44's and driven faster on actual animals, not theoretical bullshit. The 38 OWC DOES NOT make a larger wound diameter than simple Keith 44's do. If you've seen this on actual kills, I'd like to hear what you saw that I apparently didn't, then tell me again how bore size doesn't have any determination on wound channel. I'd really like to hear it.
Another note on load data: Speer has had 300gr. 45 loads at 25,000 CUP and 300gr. 44 loads at 40,000 CUP for years in several manual editions. The data was shot from two 7.5 inch production guns. It's worth a note in this argument/dicussion....
I like the 44 Magnum. If I had a great 44 or 444 rifle, a 44 mag would absolutely be my heavy revolver.
10-11 years ago I decided I was reloading too many different cartridges that did about the same work. So I sold off my 44's and kept the 45 Colt. A 255 at 900 fps does 90% of what I need from woods gun and 'Ruger Loads' will handle the rest.
Gratuitous 45 Colt pic.
Sarge, I love the gratuitous picture of your Vaquero. Nicer than mine, for sure. For years, and a lot of miles I've carried a 44 mag in Alaska. As I get older and learn more I have leaned toward the 45 Colt. Recently I got lucky and found a nice Redhawk 4" in 45 Colt, to go with my blackhawk and Vaquero. I also used my other two Vaqueros in 45 Colt in CAS. Just seems more appropriate. Not into popcorn farts. Plus I dearly love the Buffalo Bore 325's for the 45 Colt. What doesn't it do???
NRA LIFE MEMBER GOD BLESS OUR TROOPS ESPECIALLY THE SNIPERS! "Suppose you were an idiot And suppose you were a member of Congress... But I repeat myself." -Mark Twain
Thanks Caribou Jack. That Vaquero's easy life is over LOL. It's been zeroed for my Lee 255RF load, carried continuously, been soaked in sweat & rain and is already showing some holster wear.
That 45 Redhawk will make a kick-ass woods gun for AK. And yes, I gotta get back up there.
Last edited by SargeMO; 08/28/19.
Direct Impingement is the Fart Joke of military rifle operating systems. ⓒ
First, historically, bore size determined wound channels and killing power WAY before anyone knew what a meplat was. The pointed/round 22 rimfire, the 44 rimfire and the 56 Spencer rimfire might be the first clue. Throw in the use of roundballs before that. You seem to be really educated on modern theory, but arrive a bit late in the concept of solids. Certainly, wonders do never cease. Perhaps a re-hash of the Philippine Insurrection might be in order, or the decimation of the American Bison. Maybe a few hundred deer shot with slugs, real deer slugs, in 410 bore, 20, 16 and 12 gauge would give one some insight.
Again, I just posted you a picture of a 41 Keith with a larger meplat than any of the 44 bullets I've posted. Since you claim bore size has no determination in wound channel, I'd like you to explain how the 41 doesn't compete, "in the world of physics" with what many feel are inferior 44 bullets. I also posted my experience of a 38, both larger diameter meplat than posted 44's and driven faster on actual animals, not theoretical bullshit. The 38 OWC DOES NOT make a larger wound diameter than simple Keith 44's do. If you've seen this on actual kills, I'd like to hear what you saw that I apparently didn't, then tell me again how bore size doesn't have any determination on wound channel. I'd really like to hear it.
Another note on load data: Speer has had 300gr. 45 loads at 25,000 CUP and 300gr. 44 loads at 40,000 CUP for years in several manual editions. The data was shot from two 7.5 inch production guns. It's worth a note in this argument/dicussion....
Yeah, bore size was increased and thought to be the best way to gain terminal effect (mostly in the form of mass) for centuries. Long before we had the knowledge we have now of what actually destroys tissue and creates wound channels. I shouldn't have to point out that a flat nosed SWC or LBT creates a MUCH larger wound channel than a roundnose or roundball. Inf act, there is very little difference between the wound channel of a 9mm and .45ACP when using hardball. They both categorically suck. The fact that the bison herds were wiped out (not decimated) with heavy roundnose bullets is really irrelevant. I don't know why people think such vague, 150yr old references have any place in a discussion about terminal ballistics.
I've been hunting with handguns for over 30 friggin' years. So I don't know what you think you know that I do not. I just don't hunt with .357's, never have.
You likened the comparison between the .41 and .44 to that of the .44 and .45 and I was pointing out the flaw in that comparison. The .41 cannot compete in terms of bullet weight. While the .44 and .45 do their best work with the SAME weight bullets, the .41 cannot come close. There are some outdated 300gr SSK's from Beartooth but the 265's and 280's are much more common. That's a long way from 355/360gr.
Old tech 300gr jacketed bullets do not interest me and the loads you mention fall well short of the cartridge's potential, in both cases.
Originally Posted by jwp475
Buffalo with the 44
Are we really gonna do that again?
Originally Posted by EthanEdwards
Originally Posted by CraigC
I disproved, at least to my own satisfaction, that all of those virtues were non-existent.
The .45Colt does not offer more performance. It offers similar performance.
First, historically, bore size determined wound channels and killing power WAY before anyone knew what a meplat was. The pointed/round 22 rimfire, the 44 rimfire and the 56 Spencer rimfire might be the first clue. Throw in the use of roundballs before that. You seem to be really educated on modern theory, but arrive a bit late in the concept of solids. Certainly, wonders do never cease. Perhaps a re-hash of the Philippine Insurrection might be in order, or the decimation of the American Bison. Maybe a few hundred deer shot with slugs, real deer slugs, in 410 bore, 20, 16 and 12 gauge would give one some insight.
Again, I just posted you a picture of a 41 Keith with a larger meplat than any of the 44 bullets I've posted. Since you claim bore size has no determination in wound channel, I'd like you to explain how the 41 doesn't compete, "in the world of physics" with what many feel are inferior 44 bullets. I also posted my experience of a 38, both larger diameter meplat than posted 44's and driven faster on actual animals, not theoretical bullshit. The 38 OWC DOES NOT make a larger wound diameter than simple Keith 44's do. If you've seen this on actual kills, I'd like to hear what you saw that I apparently didn't, then tell me again how bore size doesn't have any determination on wound channel. I'd really like to hear it.
Another note on load data: Speer has had 300gr. 45 loads at 25,000 CUP and 300gr. 44 loads at 40,000 CUP for years in several manual editions. The data was shot from two 7.5 inch production guns. It's worth a note in this argument/dicussion....
Yeah, bore size was increased and thought to be the best way to gain terminal effect (mostly in the form of mass) for centuries. Long before we had the knowledge we have now of what actually destroys tissue and creates wound channels. I shouldn't have to point out that a flat nosed SWC or LBT creates a MUCH larger wound channel than a roundnose or roundball. Inf act, there is very little difference between the wound channel of a 9mm and .45ACP when using hardball. They both categorically suck. The fact that the bison herds were wiped out (not decimated) with heavy roundnose bullets is really irrelevant. I don't know why people think such vague, 150yr old references have any place in a discussion about terminal ballistics.
I've been hunting with handguns for over 30 friggin' years. So I don't know what you think you know that I do not. I just don't hunt with .357's, never have.
You likened the comparison between the .41 and .44 to that of the .44 and .45 and I was pointing out the flaw in that comparison. The .41 cannot compete in terms of bullet weight. While the .44 and .45 do their best work with the SAME weight bullets, the .41 cannot come close. There are some outdated 300gr SSK's from Beartooth but the 265's and 280's are much more common. That's a long way from 355/360gr.
Old tech 300gr jacketed bullets do not interest me and the loads you mention fall well short of the cartridge's potential, in both cases.
Originally Posted by jwp475
Buffalo with the 44
Are we really gonna do that again?
Originally Posted by EthanEdwards
Originally Posted by CraigC
I disproved, at least to my own satisfaction, that all of those virtues were non-existent.
The .45Colt does not offer more performance. It offers similar performance.
You actually just contradicted yourself.
That's all you got, grammar correction?
Dam sure took more than 1 shot
I got banned on another web site for a debate that happened on this site. That's a first
I saw a deer once shot 4 times with a 30/06 before it died. Clearly that wasn't a big enough bore since it took more than one shot; he shoulda used a 375 or stayed home.
How about 10 and then a finisher with a 500. The picture shows the number
Funny, the half dozen people who were actually there don't seem to agree with you. Nor does the video that I guess I need to process and put on YouTube so you'll finally stop spreading lies and falsehoods.
It was on the ground after the first two and about 100yds. As you very well know, our trips to Hondo are not pure hunts but live bullet tests. So we try to get as many bullets into them as possible before they expire. That buffalo was not shot with a .500 until it was already dead. Just stop already.
How about 10 and then a finisher with a 500. The picture shows the number
Funny, the half dozen people who were actually there don't seem to agree with you. Nor does the video that I guess I need to process and put on YouTube so you'll finally stop spreading lies and falsehoods.
It was on the ground after the first two and about 100yds. As you very well know, our trips to Hondo are not pure hunts but live bullet tests. So we try to get as many bullets into them as possible before they expire. That buffalo was not shot with a .500 until it was already dead. Just stop already.
Most they do agree you sjit 10 holes withbtgr 44 to get him on the ground Your claimbtgat the 45 doesn't handle heavy bullets better is laughable. The larger diameter assures that the same weight bullets will be shorter than the .429
HOW MANY HAVE YOU TAKEN WITH THE 45?
Last edited by jwp475; 08/28/19.
I got banned on another web site for a debate that happened on this site. That's a first
I saw a deer once shot 4 times with a 30/06 before it died. Clearly that wasn't a big enough bore since it took more than one shot; he shoulda used a 375 or stayed home.
Did the shooter only claim one or two shots
I got banned on another web site for a debate that happened on this site. That's a first
How about 10 and then a finisher with a 500. The picture shows the number
Funny, the half dozen people who were actually there don't seem to agree with you. Nor does the video that I guess I need to process and put on YouTube so you'll finally stop spreading lies and falsehoods.
It was on the ground after the first two and about 100yds. As you very well know, our trips to Hondo are not pure hunts but live bullet tests. So we try to get as many bullets into them as possible before they expire. That buffalo was not shot with a .500 until it was already dead. Just stop already.
Most they do agree you sjit 10 holes withbtgr 44 to get him on the ground Your claimbtgat the 45 doesn't handle heavy bullets better is laughable. The larger diameter assures that the same weight bullets will be shorter than the .429
First, historically, bore size determined wound channels and killing power WAY before anyone knew what a meplat was. The pointed/round 22 rimfire, the 44 rimfire and the 56 Spencer rimfire might be the first clue. Throw in the use of roundballs before that. You seem to be really educated on modern theory, but arrive a bit late in the concept of solids. Certainly, wonders do never cease. Perhaps a re-hash of the Philippine Insurrection might be in order, or the decimation of the American Bison. Maybe a few hundred deer shot with slugs, real deer slugs, in 410 bore, 20, 16 and 12 gauge would give one some insight.
Again, I just posted you a picture of a 41 Keith with a larger meplat than any of the 44 bullets I've posted. Since you claim bore size has no determination in wound channel, I'd like you to explain how the 41 doesn't compete, "in the world of physics" with what many feel are inferior 44 bullets. I also posted my experience of a 38, both larger diameter meplat than posted 44's and driven faster on actual animals, not theoretical bullshit. The 38 OWC DOES NOT make a larger wound diameter than simple Keith 44's do. If you've seen this on actual kills, I'd like to hear what you saw that I apparently didn't, then tell me again how bore size doesn't have any determination on wound channel. I'd really like to hear it.
Another note on load data: Speer has had 300gr. 45 loads at 25,000 CUP and 300gr. 44 loads at 40,000 CUP for years in several manual editions. The data was shot from two 7.5 inch production guns. It's worth a note in this argument/dicussion....
Yeah, bore size was increased and thought to be the best way to gain terminal effect (mostly in the form of mass) for centuries. Long before we had the knowledge we have now of what actually destroys tissue and creates wound channels. I shouldn't have to point out that a flat nosed SWC or LBT creates a MUCH larger wound channel than a roundnose or roundball. Inf act, there is very little difference between the wound channel of a 9mm and .45ACP when using hardball. They both categorically suck. The fact that the bison herds were wiped out (not decimated) with heavy roundnose bullets is really irrelevant. I don't know why people think such vague, 150yr old references have any place in a discussion about terminal ballistics.
I've been hunting with handguns for over 30 friggin' years. So I don't know what you think you know that I do not. I just don't hunt with .357's, never have.
You likened the comparison between the .41 and .44 to that of the .44 and .45 and I was pointing out the flaw in that comparison. The .41 cannot compete in terms of bullet weight. While the .44 and .45 do their best work with the SAME weight bullets, the .41 cannot come close. There are some outdated 300gr SSK's from Beartooth but the 265's and 280's are much more common. That's a long way from 355/360gr.
Old tech 300gr jacketed bullets do not interest me and the loads you mention fall well short of the cartridge's potential, in both cases.
Originally Posted by jwp475
Buffalo with the 44
Are we really gonna do that again?
Originally Posted by EthanEdwards
Originally Posted by CraigC
I disproved, at least to my own satisfaction, that all of those virtues were non-existent.
The .45Colt does not offer more performance. It offers similar performance.
You actually just contradicted yourself.
That's all you got, grammar correction?
When the grammar is such that it actually contradicts the point you're trying to get across then yeah, that's what I've got. It do make a difference. lol
How about 10 and then a finisher with a 500. The picture shows the number
Funny, the half dozen people who were actually there don't seem to agree with you. Nor does the video that I guess I need to process and put on YouTube so you'll finally stop spreading lies and falsehoods.
It was on the ground after the first two and about 100yds. As you very well know, our trips to Hondo are not pure hunts but live bullet tests. So we try to get as many bullets into them as possible before they expire. That buffalo was not shot with a .500 until it was already dead. Just stop already.
Most they do agree you sjit 10 holes withbtgr 44 to get him on the ground Your claimbtgat the 45 doesn't handle heavy bullets better is laughable. The larger diameter assures that the same weight bullets will be shorter than the .429
HIW NANY HAVE YOU TSKEN WITH THE 45?
This post is unreadable.
Not if you scrunch your eyes up and look at it sideways. That or some of them 3D glasses like the oldsters wore in a theater to see Godzilla.
First, historically, bore size determined wound channels and killing power WAY before anyone knew what a meplat was. The pointed/round 22 rimfire, the 44 rimfire and the 56 Spencer rimfire might be the first clue. Throw in the use of roundballs before that. You seem to be really educated on modern theory, but arrive a bit late in the concept of solids. Certainly, wonders do never cease. Perhaps a re-hash of the Philippine Insurrection might be in order, or the decimation of the American Bison. Maybe a few hundred deer shot with slugs, real deer slugs, in 410 bore, 20, 16 and 12 gauge would give one some insight.
Again, I just posted you a picture of a 41 Keith with a larger meplat than any of the 44 bullets I've posted. Since you claim bore size has no determination in wound channel, I'd like you to explain how the 41 doesn't compete, "in the world of physics" with what many feel are inferior 44 bullets. I also posted my experience of a 38, both larger diameter meplat than posted 44's and driven faster on actual animals, not theoretical bullshit. The 38 OWC DOES NOT make a larger wound diameter than simple Keith 44's do. If you've seen this on actual kills, I'd like to hear what you saw that I apparently didn't, then tell me again how bore size doesn't have any determination on wound channel. I'd really like to hear it.
Another note on load data: Speer has had 300gr. 45 loads at 25,000 CUP and 300gr. 44 loads at 40,000 CUP for years in several manual editions. The data was shot from two 7.5 inch production guns. It's worth a note in this argument/dicussion....
Yeah, bore size was increased and thought to be the best way to gain terminal effect (mostly in the form of mass) for centuries. Long before we had the knowledge we have now of what actually destroys tissue and creates wound channels. I shouldn't have to point out that a flat nosed SWC or LBT creates a MUCH larger wound channel than a roundnose or roundball. Inf act, there is very little difference between the wound channel of a 9mm and .45ACP when using hardball. They both categorically suck. The fact that the bison herds were wiped out (not decimated) with heavy roundnose bullets is really irrelevant. I don't know why people think such vague, 150yr old references have any place in a discussion about terminal ballistics.
I've been hunting with handguns for over 30 friggin' years. So I don't know what you think you know that I do not. I just don't hunt with .357's, never have.
You likened the comparison between the .41 and .44 to that of the .44 and .45 and I was pointing out the flaw in that comparison. The .41 cannot compete in terms of bullet weight. While the .44 and .45 do their best work with the SAME weight bullets, the .41 cannot come close. There are some outdated 300gr SSK's from Beartooth but the 265's and 280's are much more common. That's a long way from 355/360gr.
Old tech 300gr jacketed bullets do not interest me and the loads you mention fall well short of the cartridge's potential, in both cases.
I'll keep it simple so the dodging isn't so overwhelming.
Did the old masters use larger bores to make larger wounds, round nose or round ball. Yes or no. Why or why not?
Little difference in wound channel between 9mm hardball and 45; um, okay.
Don't take my word for it; there are several turn of the century tests and military endeavors to the contrary.
The bison herds weren't wiped out by too many cartridges under 45 caliber; in a world without flatnoses, bores, not meplats, did the killing. It might surprise you, but modern handgunning essentially tries to replicate 150 year old black powder rifle cartridges.
Meplats provide the wound channel; that's your claim, is it not? Bore plays no role. Yes or no is fine.
The 41 can ballistically replicate the 44 easily; throw a bullet of the same S.D. at the same speed. Pretty simple. According to you, a bullet with the same meplat (or larger) makes it the same thing. A 265 .411 has pretty much the same S.D. as a 320 ish 44; since meplat (according to you) is what creates the wound channel, that would essentially make the same load, does it not? I'm sure your first ditch is the bullet weight. Again, same speed, same S.D. and the penetration argument is out the window. The greater weight does nothing. Anyone can cut a mould with greater weight and a nose that replicates the widest, heaviest 44 load, simply by replicating speed and S.D., something the 41 is easily capable of.
FWIW, the Speer data, at least for the 44, exceeds the CUP and PSI standards of every Hodgdon load listed (at 40,000 CUP). The problem you have is that it was actually fired from a production arm.
"AND I HAVE YET TO ENCOUNTER ANYONE WHO CAN PROVIDE LOAD DATA THAT CONFLICTS WITH MY STATEMENTS. ZERO. ZILCH. NADA."
Speer 12, 13 and 14. 300 grain bullets. 44 @ 40,000 CUP fired from a 7.5 Redhawk, 45 Colt @25,000 CUP fired from a 7.5 inch Blackhawk. You may not like the bullets (I've actually used the 45 on several deer), and you won't like the data, but there it is. And before you cry foul, its about the same vintage as the Hodgdon data.....
Most they do agree you sjit 10 holes withbtgr 44 to get him on the ground Your claimbtgat the 45 doesn't handle heavy bullets better is laughable. The larger diameter assures that the same weight bullets will be shorter than the .429
HOW MANY HAVE YOU TAKEN WITH THE 45?
Were you drunk when you posted that?
The buffalo was on the ground after the first two shots. Everything after that was fired after he laid down. Period. End of story. Anyone who says anything different is either lying or misinformed. If you're basing your comments on whatever Richard told you, he wasn't there. So unless you're calling me, Whit, Mark and Jack Huntington all liars, just stop.
Both cartridges peak with 355/360gr bullets. The .44 drives them faster. Neither is particularly useful with ~400gr bullets. So it's YOUR assertion that the .45 magically handles heavier bullets that is laughable. Wishful thinking at its best. Which is pretty much all you have, head buried in sand. Provide data or give it up.
Originally Posted by HawkI
I'll keep it simple so the dodging isn't so overwhelming.
I'm not dodging anything but you are all over the place. You're intermixing different concepts in an effort to win an argument.
Originally Posted by HawkI
Did the old masters use larger bores to make larger wounds, round nose or round ball. Yes or no. Why or why not?
I don't know who the "old masters" were but yes, larger and larger projectiles were used to increase terminal effect. Pretty sure I said that. When the .45Colt was born, it used soft swaged bullets so deformation was expected. I'm sorry but we can't go back in time and compare a bunch of 10th hand anecdotal bullshit to what we KNOW today. So let's at least stay in the 20th century to present.
Originally Posted by HawkI
Little difference in wound channel between 9mm hardball and 45; um, okay.
So what were the details of the loads used? Were they expanding bullets? Do you think all the pathologists today are lying when they report that they cannot detect a difference between them in actual bullet wounds? Did I just imagine that hardball is absolutely DISMAL on living critters when I shot them?
Originally Posted by HawkI
The bison herds weren't wiped out by too many cartridges under 45 caliber; in a world without flatnoses, bores, not meplats, did the killing. It might surprise you, but modern handgunning essentially tries to replicate 150 year old black powder rifle cartridges.
Is that why were' using soft swaged, roundnose bullets? Or have we actually learned a thing or two in the last 150yrs? If you think bore size is what matters, why are you not using roundnose bullets?
Originally Posted by HawkI
Meplats provide the wound channel; that's your claim, is it not? Bore plays no role. Yes or no is fine.
Meplats create wound channels. What happens behind the meplat is inconsequential. However, I do believe that for a given meplat diameter, assuming a proper nose shape (some bullets are just shaped wrong and penetrate poorly), a larger bullet diameter will create more drag and decrease penetration. In my opinion, this is what makes the .44 a better penetrator.
Originally Posted by HawkI
The 41 can ballistically replicate the 44 easily; throw a bullet of the same S.D. at the same speed.
Sure it can, up to a point. The POINT is that the .41 reaches the threshold before the .44. The 355gr .44 has an SD of .274. There are NO 325gr .41 bullets, which is what would be required to match the 355's SD. As I've said multiple times, the .41 cannot compete at the top end. As I said, there are things happening in the .44/.45 comparison that do not apply to the .41. It just doesn't have the capacity.
Further, if we're going to be looking at SD, then the .44 has a strong advantage over the .45 in that the 355gr has an SD equal to a 400gr .45Colt bullet. Which it can hardly get to 1000fps.
Originally Posted by HawkI
FWIW, the Speer data, at least for the 44, exceeds the CUP and PSI standards of every Hodgdon load listed (at 40,000 CUP). The problem you have is that it was actually fired from a production arm.
"AND I HAVE YET TO ENCOUNTER ANYONE WHO CAN PROVIDE LOAD DATA THAT CONFLICTS WITH MY STATEMENTS. ZERO. ZILCH. NADA."
Speer 12, 13 and 14. 300 grain bullets. 44 @ 40,000 CUP fired from a 7.5 Redhawk, 45 Colt @25,000 CUP fired from a 7.5 inch Blackhawk. You may not like the bullets (I've actually used the 45 on several deer), and you won't like the data, but there it is. And before you cry foul, its about the same vintage as the Hodgdon data.....
What's your point? That the two launch the same weight bullet at roughly the same velocity? Ok, so what? How does that conflict with anything I posted. Both cartridges GREATLY exceed that with longer, heavier bullets that do not conform with silly OAL limitations. Sorry but the goal of my testing was to compare TOP loads in both cartridges. Not milquetoast, bullshit old tech jacketed loads. Why would I care about 300gr jacketed bullets at under 1200fps when both cartridges will exceed it with much heavier LBT's? Although I did test the 300gr XTP's for comparison's sake, if you had been paying attention.
Little difference in wound channel between 9mm hardball and 45; um, okay.
Tests show little to no difference so it must be a placebo affect. Both of those round nose FMJs slip through tissues without causing much damage. The 9mm vs 45 Win Mag picture is not comparable because the 45 Win Mag is not only much faster than a .45 ACP (a lot more smack in the clay from a round nose) but also a far more powerful cartridge than 9mm Win Mag (50-80% more power). Whereas the 45 ACP produces about the same energy as a 9mm FMJ (356 vs 333 foot pounds comparing Remington UMC).
Most they do agree you sjit 10 holes withbtgr 44 to get him on the ground Your claimbtgat the 45 doesn't handle heavy bullets better is laughable. The larger diameter assures that the same weight bullets will be shorter than the .429
HOW MANY HAVE YOU TAKEN WITH THE 45?
Were you drunk when you posted that?
The buffalo was on the ground after the first two shots. Everything after that was fired after he laid down. Period. End of story. Anyone who says anything different is either lying or misinformed. If you're basing your comments on whatever Richard told you, he wasn't there. So unless you're calling me, Whit, Mark and Jack Huntington all liars, just stop.
Both cartridges peak with 355/360gr bullets. The .44 drives them faster. Neither is particularly useful with ~400gr bullets. So it's YOUR assertion that the .45 magically handles heavier bullets that is laughable. Wishful thinking at its best. Which is pretty much all you have, head buried in sand. Provide data or give it up.
Originally Posted by HawkI
I'll keep it simple so the dodging isn't so overwhelming.
I'm not dodging anything but you are all over the place. You're intermixing different concepts in an effort to win an argument.
Originally Posted by HawkI
Did the old masters use larger bores to make larger wounds, round nose or round ball. Yes or no. Why or why not?
I don't know who the "old masters" were but yes, larger and larger projectiles were used to increase terminal effect. Pretty sure I said that. When the .45Colt was born, it used soft swaged bullets so deformation was expected. I'm sorry but we can't go back in time and compare a bunch of 10th hand anecdotal bullshit to what we KNOW today. So let's at least stay in the 20th century to present.
Originally Posted by HawkI
Little difference in wound channel between 9mm hardball and 45; um, okay.
So what were the details of the loads used? Were they expanding bullets? Do you think all the pathologists today are lying when they report that they cannot detect a difference between them in actual bullet wounds? Did I just imagine that hardball is absolutely DISMAL on living critters when I shot them?
Originally Posted by HawkI
The bison herds weren't wiped out by too many cartridges under 45 caliber; in a world without flatnoses, bores, not meplats, did the killing. It might surprise you, but modern handgunning essentially tries to replicate 150 year old black powder rifle cartridges.
Is that why were' using soft swaged, roundnose bullets? Or have we actually learned a thing or two in the last 150yrs? If you think bore size is what matters, why are you not using roundnose bullets?
Originally Posted by HawkI
Meplats provide the wound channel; that's your claim, is it not? Bore plays no role. Yes or no is fine.
Meplats create wound channels. What happens behind the meplat is inconsequential. However, I do believe that for a given meplat diameter, assuming a proper nose shape (some bullets are just shaped wrong and penetrate poorly), a larger bullet diameter will create more drag and decrease penetration. In my opinion, this is what makes the .44 a better penetrator.
Originally Posted by HawkI
The 41 can ballistically replicate the 44 easily; throw a bullet of the same S.D. at the same speed.
Sure it can, up to a point. The POINT is that the .41 reaches the threshold before the .44. The 355gr .44 has an SD of .274. There are NO 325gr .41 bullets, which is what would be required to match the 355's SD. As I've said multiple times, the .41 cannot compete at the top end. As I said, there are things happening in the .44/.45 comparison that do not apply to the .41. It just doesn't have the capacity.
Further, if we're going to be looking at SD, then the .44 has a strong advantage over the .45 in that the 355gr has an SD equal to a 400gr .45Colt bullet. Which it can hardly get to 1000fps.
Originally Posted by HawkI
FWIW, the Speer data, at least for the 44, exceeds the CUP and PSI standards of every Hodgdon load listed (at 40,000 CUP). The problem you have is that it was actually fired from a production arm.
"AND I HAVE YET TO ENCOUNTER ANYONE WHO CAN PROVIDE LOAD DATA THAT CONFLICTS WITH MY STATEMENTS. ZERO. ZILCH. NADA."
Speer 12, 13 and 14. 300 grain bullets. 44 @ 40,000 CUP fired from a 7.5 Redhawk, 45 Colt @25,000 CUP fired from a 7.5 inch Blackhawk. You may not like the bullets (I've actually used the 45 on several deer), and you won't like the data, but there it is. And before you cry foul, its about the same vintage as the Hodgdon data.....
What's your point? That the two launch the same weight bullet at roughly the same velocity? Ok, so what? How does that conflict with anything I posted. Both cartridges GREATLY exceed that with longer, heavier bullets that do not conform with silly OAL limitations. Sorry but the goal of my testing was to compare TOP loads in both cartridges. Not milquetoast, bullshit old tech jacketed loads. Why would I care about 300gr jacketed bullets at under 1200fps when both cartridges will exceed it with much heavier LBT's? Although I did test the 300gr XTP's for comparison's sake, if you had been paying attention.
You are a dammed liar the buffalo ran off after the first 2 shots, you then shot him more times to get him on the ground.Then you finished him with a 500
I got banned on another web site for a debate that happened on this site. That's a first
Back to the OP's question: It seems to me that if you care to load equal platforms "hot" to equal levels of safety with a .44 Magnum or a .45 Colt, and you think there is a significant difference that is important to you, then you likely really need something bigger, and "bigger" means larger diameter, as in .475 or .500.
The best advice you have received is to first pick the handgun you want, and buy it in whatever of the two chamberings it comes in. If you want to load it "balls out", pick a strong platform. If it is available in both chamberings, then consider the ammo situation, and possibly alternate "light" chamberings such as .44 Special or .45 ACP. If something about the ammo situation is terribly important to you, then it might be worth it to let that dictate handgun choice. Those are the best reasons to pick one over the other.
Clinging to guns & religion since 1959
Keyboards make people braver than alcohol
Election Integrity is more important than Election Convenience
Washington Post: "Democracy Dies in Darkness" More correct: "Killing Democracy Faster Than Darkness"
Most they do agree you sjit 10 holes withbtgr 44 to get him on the ground Your claimbtgat the 45 doesn't handle heavy bullets better is laughable. The larger diameter assures that the same weight bullets will be shorter than the .429
HOW MANY HAVE YOU TAKEN WITH THE 45?
Were you drunk when you posted that?
The buffalo was on the ground after the first two shots. Everything after that was fired after he laid down. Period. End of story. Anyone who says anything different is either lying or misinformed. If you're basing your comments on whatever Richard told you, he wasn't there. So unless you're calling me, Whit, Mark and Jack Huntington all liars, just stop.
Both cartridges peak with 355/360gr bullets. The .44 drives them faster. Neither is particularly useful with ~400gr bullets. So it's YOUR assertion that the .45 magically handles heavier bullets that is laughable. Wishful thinking at its best. Which is pretty much all you have, head buried in sand. Provide data or give it up.
Originally Posted by HawkI
I'll keep it simple so the dodging isn't so overwhelming.
I'm not dodging anything but you are all over the place. You're intermixing different concepts in an effort to win an argument.
Originally Posted by HawkI
Did the old masters use larger bores to make larger wounds, round nose or round ball. Yes or no. Why or why not?
I don't know who the "old masters" were but yes, larger and larger projectiles were used to increase terminal effect. Pretty sure I said that. When the .45Colt was born, it used soft swaged bullets so deformation was expected. I'm sorry but we can't go back in time and compare a bunch of 10th hand anecdotal bullshit to what we KNOW today. So let's at least stay in the 20th century to present.
Originally Posted by HawkI
Little difference in wound channel between 9mm hardball and 45; um, okay.
So what were the details of the loads used? Were they expanding bullets? Do you think all the pathologists today are lying when they report that they cannot detect a difference between them in actual bullet wounds? Did I just imagine that hardball is absolutely DISMAL on living critters when I shot them?
Originally Posted by HawkI
The bison herds weren't wiped out by too many cartridges under 45 caliber; in a world without flatnoses, bores, not meplats, did the killing. It might surprise you, but modern handgunning essentially tries to replicate 150 year old black powder rifle cartridges.
Is that why were' using soft swaged, roundnose bullets? Or have we actually learned a thing or two in the last 150yrs? If you think bore size is what matters, why are you not using roundnose bullets?
Originally Posted by HawkI
Meplats provide the wound channel; that's your claim, is it not? Bore plays no role. Yes or no is fine.
Meplats create wound channels. What happens behind the meplat is inconsequential. However, I do believe that for a given meplat diameter, assuming a proper nose shape (some bullets are just shaped wrong and penetrate poorly), a larger bullet diameter will create more drag and decrease penetration. In my opinion, this is what makes the .44 a better penetrator.
Originally Posted by HawkI
The 41 can ballistically replicate the 44 easily; throw a bullet of the same S.D. at the same speed.
Sure it can, up to a point. The POINT is that the .41 reaches the threshold before the .44. The 355gr .44 has an SD of .274. There are NO 325gr .41 bullets, which is what would be required to match the 355's SD. As I've said multiple times, the .41 cannot compete at the top end. As I said, there are things happening in the .44/.45 comparison that do not apply to the .41. It just doesn't have the capacity.
Further, if we're going to be looking at SD, then the .44 has a strong advantage over the .45 in that the 355gr has an SD equal to a 400gr .45Colt bullet. Which it can hardly get to 1000fps.
Originally Posted by HawkI
FWIW, the Speer data, at least for the 44, exceeds the CUP and PSI standards of every Hodgdon load listed (at 40,000 CUP). The problem you have is that it was actually fired from a production arm.
"AND I HAVE YET TO ENCOUNTER ANYONE WHO CAN PROVIDE LOAD DATA THAT CONFLICTS WITH MY STATEMENTS. ZERO. ZILCH. NADA."
Speer 12, 13 and 14. 300 grain bullets. 44 @ 40,000 CUP fired from a 7.5 Redhawk, 45 Colt @25,000 CUP fired from a 7.5 inch Blackhawk. You may not like the bullets (I've actually used the 45 on several deer), and you won't like the data, but there it is. And before you cry foul, its about the same vintage as the Hodgdon data.....
What's your point? That the two launch the same weight bullet at roughly the same velocity? Ok, so what? How does that conflict with anything I posted. Both cartridges GREATLY exceed that with longer, heavier bullets that do not conform with silly OAL limitations. Sorry but the goal of my testing was to compare TOP loads in both cartridges. Not milquetoast, bullshit old tech jacketed loads. Why would I care about 300gr jacketed bullets at under 1200fps when both cartridges will exceed it with much heavier LBT's? Although I did test the 300gr XTP's for comparison's sake, if you had been paying attention.
You are a dammed liar the buffalo ran off after the first 2 shots, you then shot him more times to get him on the ground.Then you finished him with a 500
Actually that was a different animal with different bulllets. I habe the original files since im the one that video’d the hunts for the water buffalo. Someone should find a way to host or post the videos. Its easy to see what happened, for real.
Actually doing something usually changes a persons previously worthless opinion
I'll keep it simple so the dodging isn't so overwhelming.
I'm not dodging anything but you are all over the place. You're intermixing different concepts in an effort to win an argument. My concept is pretty simple. Handgun solids revolve (no pun) around the same concept since the beginning of projectiles; larger diameters non-mechanically create larger wounds
Originally Posted by HawkI
Did the old masters use larger bores to make larger wounds, round nose or round ball. Yes or no. Why or why not?
I don't know who the "old masters" were but yes, larger and larger projectiles were used to increase terminal effect. Pretty sure I said that. When the .45Colt was born, it used soft swaged bullets so deformation was expected. I'm sorry but we can't go back in time and compare a bunch of 10th hand anecdotal bullshit to what we KNOW today. So let's at least stay in the 20th century to present. The old masters were those who wiped out the bison, shot unlimited amounts of African and Eurasian fauna; probably more living animals than modern contemporaries shoot jellys and goo. People today still harvest game with bullets, powder and concepts from the 18th and 19th centuries because they work. The old BP 45 Colt load deformed very little; thats 10th hand anectdotal bullshit. The same goes for the BP buffalo rifles. sharpsguy on this forum would be a good person to challenge your flat not knowing anything, at the very least ignoring a lot.
Originally Posted by HawkI
Little difference in wound channel between 9mm hardball and 45; um, okay.
So what were the details of the loads used? Were they expanding bullets? Do you think all the pathologists today are lying when they report that they cannot detect a difference between them in actual bullet wounds? Did I just imagine that hardball is absolutely DISMAL on living critters when I shot them?
The details are in the written test. Being a factory ammo guy, the ballistics of the 9mm and 45 Win. Mags are out there.
Originally Posted by HawkI
The bison herds weren't wiped out by too many cartridges under 45 caliber; in a world without flatnoses, bores, not meplats, did the killing. It might surprise you, but modern handgunning essentially tries to replicate 150 year old black powder rifle cartridges.
Is that why were' using soft swaged, roundnose bullets? Or have we actually learned a thing or two in the last 150yrs? If you think bore size is what matters, why are you not using roundnose bullets? Again, your'e trying to duplicate the results of large bore, black powder rifles, not the other way around. If that pisses you off, who cares? Yes, I do use round nosed bullets. I've actually shot more game with roundnosed projectiles than any flatnosed designs; I don't routinely do so with handguns. What hasn't changed over 150 years is the idea of poking a larger hole to do more damage.
Originally Posted by HawkI
Meplats provide the wound channel; that's your claim, is it not? Bore plays no role. Yes or no is fine.
Meplats create wound channels. What happens behind the meplat is inconsequential. However, I do believe that for a given meplat diameter, assuming a proper nose shape (some bullets are just shaped wrong and penetrate poorly), a larger bullet diameter will create more drag and decrease penetration. In my opinion, this is what makes the .44 a better penetrator. What happens behind the meplat apparently "drags"....or is it inconsequential? Which one is it? What is dragging on? I own and make most 44 and 45 LBT's from 200 grains all the way to 360; they work on the meplat concept, but Smith's detraction of the Keith shapes doesn't relate to my experiences on animals.
Originally Posted by HawkI
The 41 can ballistically replicate the 44 easily; throw a bullet of the same S.D. at the same speed.
Sure it can, up to a point. The POINT is that the .41 reaches the threshold before the .44. The 355gr .44 has an SD of .274. There are NO 325gr .41 bullets, which is what would be required to match the 355's SD. As I've said multiple times, the .41 cannot compete at the top end. As I said, there are things happening in the .44/.45 comparison that do not apply to the .41. It just doesn't have the capacity. There were no 355gr 44's either. The 41 would be totally capable of kicking the appropriate 325 in the same velocity bracket. Heck, the 357 can with a 200. Again, this is a bore size game and going smaller (even with "20th century" guys like yourself) has some historical limits.
Further, if we're going to be looking at SD, then the .44 has a strong advantage over the .45 in that the 355gr has an SD equal to a 400gr .45Colt bullet. Which it can hardly get to 1000fps. Again, the 45 makes a larger hole. That's the crux.
Originally Posted by HawkI
FWIW, the Speer data, at least for the 44, exceeds the CUP and PSI standards of every Hodgdon load listed (at 40,000 CUP). The problem you have is that it was actually fired from a production arm.
"AND I HAVE YET TO ENCOUNTER ANYONE WHO CAN PROVIDE LOAD DATA THAT CONFLICTS WITH MY STATEMENTS. ZERO. ZILCH. NADA."
Speer 12, 13 and 14. 300 grain bullets. 44 @ 40,000 CUP fired from a 7.5 Redhawk, 45 Colt @25,000 CUP fired from a 7.5 inch Blackhawk. You may not like the bullets (I've actually used the 45 on several deer), and you won't like the data, but there it is. And before you cry foul, its about the same vintage as the Hodgdon data.....
What's your point? That the two launch the same weight bullet at roughly the same velocity? Ok, so what? How does that conflict with anything I posted. Both cartridges GREATLY exceed that with longer, heavier bullets that do not conform with silly OAL limitations. Sorry but the goal of my testing was to compare TOP loads in both cartridges. Not milquetoast, bullshit old tech jacketed loads. Why would I care about 300gr jacketed bullets at under 1200fps when both cartridges will exceed it with much heavier LBT's? Although I did test the 300gr XTP's for comparison's sake, if you had been paying attention. The point is you asked for conflicting data; the 45 is loaded to 25,000 CUP and the 44 to 40,000, both shot out of actual firearms and the Colt is getting the same velocity, despite being loaded to 40% less pressure. The 44 load is loaded to greater pressure than ANY load in the Hodgdon manual, but it isn't a "TOP" load?. The material of the bullet isn't the point, it's the fact that both were shot out of actual firearms, not cherry picked for your little diatribe. If you really think Hodgdon and it's OAL's are the cat's meow, it must pain you to still see the 44's OAL advantage in the Speer data, which differs considerably from Hodgdon's results. In fact, most other manuals, even ones with cast loads, are closer to the Speer data than Hodgdons. But no matter, this is more ado about bore and frontal area than it is about speed. Most recognized that over 150 years ago....
A lot of you guys know more about this than me. That said, it's always a wonderment that: 41 Mag. vs. 44 Mag. = 41 Mag. all good or just as good but...44 Mag. vs. 45 Colt = 45 Colt much better than 44 Mag.
44-40 actually has more case capacity than a 44 Mag. In a Super Blackhawk, there is no problem with bore diameter to contend with so why not long, heavy bullets under larger doses of powder than the 44 Mag, in the 44-40? Especially with brand new cases.
Ethan, There's a considerable degree of overlap, no doubt, once handguns get above 40 caliber. The diameters generally don't get appreciably larger like comparing a 30 (32's) to 9mm's, 38's. The 38's to 40's. Going from 41 to 45 is almost at that half caliber mark and the wound diameters reflect that, not that deer sized stuff notices.
That said, handguns work on frontal area and diameter and I believe as the animals get larger, bigger hammers produce quicker results, but I defer to those who have done so.
Yeah, the 44-40 in the right platform would be entirely capable and the 38-40 as well; granted some people might not like them because they are at the 125 plus mark....
Just thinking out load, but I wonder if Craig has used the 45 Colt in the field, the 41. We already know he doesn't use the 38/357 and can't answer why the 38 OWC I posted has a larger meplat than the two 44 bullets posted, was driven 300 fps faster, yet still made a smaller hole than the two "milquetoast" 44 bullets at 1,000 fps..
FWIW, all shots were broadside, so they obviously went clean through.
History and cool factor alone were enough for me, I have my Colt SAA stuffed with as much FFFG blackpowder as I can get a 265gr cast lead bullet seated and crimped over, it's still far from a wimp load, will blow a 6 foot flame out the muzzle and twin 2 footers out the sides at dusk!
You made it extremely difficult to do this one line at a time.
What happened with the buffalo herds is irrelevant. We have ZERO critical details. I prefer to stick what we KNOW, rather than assuming anything.
We have a lot more details on what happened in Africa because people wrote about it in detail. However, most of what we have was done with smokeless cartridge rifles and roundnose bullets. Again, not relevant here.
Bullets deformed very little? That is total nonsense. They absolutely deform. If a modern hardcast deforms in bovines, what do you think swaged bullets did in bison? I've had roundball flatten out to the size of a silver dollar, on deer. Peddle that nonsense somewhere else.
Since you can't be bothered with providing more detail about the Keith article, that YOU provided as contrary evidence, specifically the bullets used, where was it published?
If you can't comprehend, understand or recognize the fact that bullets have changed drastically in their construction and terminal effect; if you think a swaged roundnose is the essential the same as a hardcast LBT, I don't know what else to say.
What happens behind the meplat is inconsequential. I'm pretty sure I was clear on that point. I don't consider a minor reduction in penetration to be significant. No more significant than the minor increase in diameter (.005-.015") with the .45Colt. Two of the reasons why I think the difference between the two is a wash.
No 355's? Are you too stupid to read what you're responding to? I've killed game with them and driven them as fast as 1350fps. There are NO .41 bullets that heavy. If there were, they would be too long to reach any meaningful velocity. If you think differently, have a mold made and prove me wrong.
No, the jacketed 300 loads are not "top loads". You can use a fast powder and hit top pressure but be well below potential. It's about more than pressure. It's about performance. I did not cherry-pick and my research here was thorough. Much more thorough than your triggered responses. You have an agenda, I do not. I simply chose the BEST data to explore the potential of these cartridges. Data that correlated with Linebaugh's own data. Not those that fit a pre-determined narrative. Fact is a 300gr at 1180fps is irrelevant when a 355/360gr cast can be driven the same speed.
You're right though, velocity is not as important as frontal area (meplat diameter, not bullet/bore), mass and nose shape. However, the disconnect here is that while the difference in bullet diameter is .023", the difference in meplat diameter among commercial cast bullets is usually much less. In some cases, such as LFN's, it is the same. So is a given .45 bullet really more effective than a given .44 bullet if the meplat is the same? No.
Furthermore, these loads were tested in near-identical guns. Guns of the same barrel length and given the same treatment by the same gunsmith. In fact, at the same time.
You are a dammed liar the buffalo ran off after the first 2 shots, you then shot him more times to get him on the ground.Then you finished him with a 500
And you are a bitter, jealous old fool clinging to outdated doctrine.
As I said, we were ALL on EVERY kill. So if I am a damned liar, then so is Whit, Mark and Jack. Richard was not present for any of mine and neither were YOU.
That said, it is not purely hunting. It is a live bullet test. We push them and put as many bullets into each critter as possible while it's heart is still pumping. We do not fire one shot and let it do its job. It would be UTTERLY RETARDED to spend $3000 and only fire one shot when your intent is to test bullets. As I have said and the video will prove, I fired two shots as the buffalo ran past. One in the shoulder and one raking shot into the ribcage (the bloody spot on the far right in the pic) as it ran off. It ran about 100yds and laid down. Once it was down, I shot it several more times. Not because it needed that many to kill it but because we're testing bullets. We could've done like everyone else does, fire one shot and wait 30mins to go find the dead critter but our intent is to TEST BULLETS. If that buffalo was ever shot with a .500, it was after it was graveyard dead. I honestly do not remember what all we shot it with after it was dead.
The 300gr .44 Punch loads destroyed heavy shoulder bones, tore through the heart/lungs and penetrated all the way to the hide on the other side. Jack said he's have no hesitation taking a brain shot on elephant with it. Yet you still cling to this idiotic narrative that the .44 is akin to spitwads but the .45Colt is the Hammer of Thor.
I went ahead and finished processing the video that should settle all foolishness about what really happened. (I've been working on that incessant thing I do with my left thumb)
PS, I know this GoPro footage is not that great but I wanted one continuous stream of video from the first shot to the last so the critics can't suggest that I edited a bunch of stuff out. The 2nd video shows all the follow-up shots in detail.
You made it extremely difficult to do this one line at a time.
What happened with the buffalo herds is irrelevant. We have ZERO critical details. I prefer to stick what we KNOW, rather than assuming anything.
We have a lot more details on what happened in Africa because people wrote about it in detail. However, most of what we have was done with smokeless cartridge rifles and roundnose bullets. Again, not relevant here.
Bullets deformed very little? That is total nonsense. They absolutely deform. If a modern hardcast deforms in bovines, what do you think swaged bullets did in bison? I've had roundball flatten out to the size of a silver dollar, on deer. Peddle that nonsense somewhere else.
Since you can't be bothered with providing more detail about the Keith article, that YOU provided as contrary evidence, specifically the bullets used, where was it published?
If you can't comprehend, understand or recognize the fact that bullets have changed drastically in their construction and terminal effect; if you think a swaged roundnose is the essential the same as a hardcast LBT, I don't know what else to say.
What happens behind the meplat is inconsequential. I'm pretty sure I was clear on that point. I don't consider a minor reduction in penetration to be significant. No more significant than the minor increase in diameter (.005-.015") with the .45Colt. Two of the reasons why I think the difference between the two is a wash.
No 355's? Are you too stupid to read what you're responding to? I've killed game with them and driven them as fast as 1350fps. There are NO .41 bullets that heavy. If there were, they would be too long to reach any meaningful velocity. If you think differently, have a mold made and prove me wrong.
No, the jacketed 300 loads are not "top loads". You can use a fast powder and hit top pressure but be well below potential. It's about more than pressure. It's about performance. I did not cherry-pick and my research here was thorough. Much more thorough than your triggered responses. You have an agenda, I do not. I simply chose the BEST data to explore the potential of these cartridges. Data that correlated with Linebaugh's own data. Not those that fit a pre-determined narrative. Fact is a 300gr at 1180fps is irrelevant when a 355/360gr cast can be driven the same speed.
You're right though, velocity is not as important as frontal area (meplat diameter, not bullet/bore), mass and nose shape. However, the disconnect here is that while the difference in bullet diameter is .023", the difference in meplat diameter among commercial cast bullets is usually much less. In some cases, such as LFN's, it is the same. So is a given .45 bullet really more effective than a given .44 bullet if the meplat is the same? No.
Furthermore, these loads were tested in near-identical guns. Guns of the same barrel length and given the same treatment by the same gunsmith. In fact, at the same time.
What happened with the buffalo herds is irrelevant or are you just that close minded to any kind of history? shrapnel, Mike Venturino, Randy Brooks and sharpsguy (and other Campfire members) all have a pretty good details of the buffalo chapter, to the point they have all actually shot buffalo (even the African variety) with rifles duplicating or actually from that era. The handgun, on its best day, is a duplication of what those hunters did with those rifles. You claim to have read all of Seyfried's stuff, but I don't think so.
I think you've wrapped your head around "hard cast" to the point that you've never "sim tested" (because you don't shoot many animals or make any bullets) a period buffalo rifle or a std. 45 blackpowder load. Sure they deform, but within their speed thresholds they don't squish into silver dollars like you think they do on game.
The illustration was from Guns and Ammo, at the Winchester seminar in 1979. It was a clay block penetration test, The 9mm Win. Mag. used a 115 FMJ at 1,475. The 45 Win.Mag used a 230 FMJ at 1,400. It's not hard to find, but you wouldn't look anyway.
Bullets have changed so drastically that Harry Pope put both a flat nose and a full diameter front driving band on a cast bullet prior to the turn of the last century. What is a hardcast LBT? I've never seen one. Can you tell me where you BUY them?
Do they make them in the bullets you buy, like 44 and 45? Do you get a T-shirt for buying these bullets?
"What happens behind the meplat is inconsequential". Okay. So for the third or fourth time, explain to me how a 38 OWC with a LARGER meplat doesn't create as large of diameter wound than the two 44 bullets shown and mentioned with SMALLER meplats driven 300 fps. SLOWER. This isn't a penetration/mass/SD question. All bullets exited on broadside shots on run of the mill deer. Again, for projectiles with a minimal/RN/pointed meplat, what's behind it is what does the work. I'm sorry, I've never seen a 20 gauge Brenneke make as large or larger hole than a 12 gauge. Same for RN Foster slugs, and I've seen a few.
"There were no 355gr 44's either." Are you too stupid to comprehend the meaning of the word "were"? Prior to the 1980's there weren't many 44 bullets at 300grains, let alone 355's. I'm basically stating IF someone made a 320 gr 41 bullet for shooting whatever, it would be the penetration and power of what we're arguing about. The 45 Colt has been fed sized down 45 blackpowder 300 plus bullets at least since Elmer did so in the 1920's
The jacketed loads most certainly are top loads. It doesn't fit your premise of "potential" because you don't like the results when fired from a production gun. As far as agendas go, I'm content with shooting actual animals, looking at the holes, that's my agenda. You on the other hand post tables. What about the critters you've shot? Seems to me we'd be agreeing a lot if we were talking about the size of the holes in critters, but we aren't. We're posting tables, data from a single source (because of "potential"). [bleep] potential, did it go all the way through and how big is the friggin hole? How many with the 45? How many with the 41? Or do you not have to shoot anything with a 45 because you believe the 44 is the same thing and anyone who has shot stuff with both is full of [bleep]?
Since I have never seen an LBT bullet, the manufacturer (Again, I've HEARD) will send you a top punch if you have to resort to an in and out sizer. A WLN, WFN, or LFN top punch in 44 MIGHT get ruined if used with LBT 45's of the same shape. But you obviously know more about that than I do....
I should add my condolences to anyone who has the misfortune of using a CPBC bullet in their arms. The lube is dogschidt and the bullets test below advertised hardness levels; not to mention voids.
I'm curious where you get the idea that I haven't shot anything? I've never shot anything with the .41 because I just got my first one a few months ago. Been shooting .44's and .45's nearly 30yrs.
So I'm lying about reading Seyfried now? Are you and JWP trading notes? I think we've already proven who the liar is. You both seem to think you have a monopoly on shooting critters. Far as I can tell, I have all of Seyfried's work, from G&A to Handloader and DGJ.
Why do you keep bringing up this nonsense about shooting bison 150yrs ago? No, it isn't relevant. Even if you REALLY want it to be.
A 300gr XTP over 9.0gr of AutoComp is a published maximum, is that a "top load"? Even though it's only 927fps??? As I said, I tested 300gr JHP's just for comparison's sake. No, I do not consider them to loads. Since all you hunt is deer, you might, I don't care. I wanted to test the two at their fullest potential and that meant moving beyond old tech jacketed loads. The 300gr Barnes Buster at 1400fps, that is something else entirely.
You can argue theoretical nonsense all you want. All I care about is what is actually available today. If you want to actually prove something, get a 325gr .41 mold made and test it yourself.
No, I don't hunt deer sized game with the .357. I don't have much use for the .357 at all. So I'll let you ponder anything relating to it. Have fun.
Do you really think that you can look at a bullet track in a critter and tell the difference between a .44 and .45 of similar construction?
Yes, I post tables. Tables that contain data. Data gathered from testing. Testing over a chronograph. Testing bullets in SIMTEST. Data gathered with as few variables as possible. Data that actually allows for an accurate comparison. Data you can't get from shooting a few dozen critters. Because as .45 fans prove, people usually see what they want to see. Data is unemotional. Data has no agenda. What's your problem with data? Do you think empirical data from shooting a few deer is more valid? Or is it just because it's data that conflicts with doctrine regarding the .45Colt and all its magic? Personal opinion is exactly what I sought to remove from my testing.
It seems like we're going in circles. I said what I said about flattened roundball because I've dug them out of critters. Critters that I shot. Do you think I make this stuff up?
Oh and I'd rather jerk my fingernails out with pliers than cast bullets. No thanks, I'd rather buy them.
The reference to black powder rifles, large animals and handguns isn't mine.
We'll just call you an unobservant observer.
That's the difference between us; you call it theoretical nonsense, but I'm not the one commenting on "my tables".
Comparing AutoComp to H110 is pretty cute. Using one source of data eliminates a lot of variables, variables a real "tester" might consider. It's obvious you've been totally empirical every time this argument comes up.
Nice ditch on the 357 and "meplat" question. You obviously don't have an answer to my question because you obviously don't have the experience to answer it, which is fine. It's like having 10 sources of published data, but concentrating on one, I get it.
Holes in critters are unemotional and I don't see any "hole" figures in your table. Might be something to take into consideration. Or maybe not. Measure the meplats, call it good and fire away. I don't consider the 45 Colt any more magical than saying the 44 Special makes bigger holes in critters than a 41Mag, even those with a wider meplats. It's pretty simple and its sans theoretical bullshit.
Good deal on the bullet casting; it's best to close your eyes regarding that too. Its so 150 years ago...
History and cool factor alone were enough for me, I have my Colt SAA stuffed with as much FFFG blackpowder as I can get a 265gr cast lead bullet seated and crimped over, it's still far from a wimp load, will blow a 6 foot flame out the muzzle and twin 2 footers out the sides at dusk!
W296 or H110 along with Blue Dot produce a helluva flame also. When I was younger I shot some loads out of my SAA that make me cringe now. I really shouldn't have shot them out of my Blackhawk even.
Ethan, There's a considerable degree of overlap, no doubt, once handguns get above 40 caliber. The diameters generally don't get appreciably larger like comparing a 30 (32's) to 9mm's, 38's. The 38's to 40's. Going from 41 to 45 is almost at that half caliber mark and the wound diameters reflect that, not that deer sized stuff notices.
That said, handguns work on frontal area and diameter and I believe as the animals get larger, bigger hammers produce quicker results, but I defer to those who have done so.
Yeah, the 44-40 in the right platform would be entirely capable and the 38-40 as well; granted some people might not like them because they are at the 125 plus mark....
Just thinking out load, but I wonder if Craig has used the 45 Colt in the field, the 41. We already know he doesn't use the 38/357 and can't answer why the 38 OWC I posted has a larger meplat than the two 44 bullets posted, was driven 300 fps faster, yet still made a smaller hole than the two "milquetoast" 44 bullets at 1,000 fps..
FWIW, all shots were broadside, so they obviously went clean through.
I'm not much of a handgun hunter but I've owned/used all of those calibers at one time or another. Currently I don't have a 41 Mag. and my only 38-40 is a rifle. I like all of them. If I were to go on a specific handgun hunt for anything bigger than a squirrel it would be with my 45 Colt Ruger Bisley. I wouldn't feel undergunned with my 44 Mag. Blackhawk though.
History and cool factor alone were enough for me, I have my Colt SAA stuffed with as much FFFG blackpowder as I can get a 265gr cast lead bullet seated and crimped over, it's still far from a wimp load, will blow a 6 foot flame out the muzzle and twin 2 footers out the sides at dusk!
W296 or H110 along with Blue Dot produce a helluva flame also. When I was younger I shot some loads out of my SAA that make me cringe now. I really shouldn't have shot them out of my Blackhawk even.
LOL EE, I've always took it pretty easy on my old SAA, now, back in the day with Ruger Blackhawks and even a Bisley I leaned on em hard, 296/110 and AA#9 were the powders of choice back then, I even had some of the new at the time Starline brass, I had one of those pos red chronos that all the stars had to align properly for the damn thing to read, but do remember high 1300's for jacketed 300 grain and 300+ grain heavy hardcast bullets, fun times and I never blew anything up.
A perfectly legit question by the OP tarnished by the personal bitching and infighting. Really it should just stop.
I couldn't agree more.
To answer the OP's question, you cannot go wrong with either the 44 or the 45 in a Redhawk. Both will drive a heavy bullet hard enough to take anything North America and most of what Africa has to offer. Either, coupled with a wide meplat bullet will kill well and either can be made to give a good thump on both ends. If you reload the options for either are virtually limitless. We are living in what I would consider the golden age of bullet mold manufacturing. There is no shortage of good mold makers and some who will let you design your own bullet to your personal specifications. Top quality jacketed bullets abound in both calibers and factory ammo covers the whole spectrum in both chamberings.
So is there a good reason to chose the 45 Colt? Sure. Because you want one. You don't need another reason.
Chronographs, bore scopes and pattern boards have broke a lot of hearts.
A perfectly legit question by the OP tarnished by the personal bitching and infighting. Really it should just stop.
I couldn't agree more.
To answer the OP's question, you cannot go wrong with either the 44 or the 45 in a Redhawk. Both will drive a heavy bullet hard enough to take anything North America and most of what Africa has to offer. Either, coupled with a wide meplat bullet will kill well and either can be made to give a good thump on both ends. If you reload the options for either are virtually limitless. We are living in what I would consider the golden age of bullet mold manufacturing. There is no shortage of good mold makers and some who will let you design your own bullet to your personal specifications. Top quality jacketed bullets abound in both calibers and factory ammo covers the whole spectrum in both chamberings.
So is there a good reason to chose the 45 Colt? Sure. Because you want one. You don't need another reason.
I will take this opportunity to apologize to the forum. For in my defense, I have encouraged the troll in the room. I have never misrepresented what happened, in the least. I wouldn't have posted the video if I had.
The bit about aiming at the big black thing was a joke.
Parker, since you constantly question my experience (based on what I have no idea, I guess it sounds good in your head), how many head of big game have you taken with a handgun, other than the four or five pictures you've been repeatedly posting over the last 15yrs? Wasn't your grizzly shot with a rifle first?
As I've said a million times, the buffalo was down in two shots. Rather than waiting around for the critter to expire, like everybody does in a hunting situation, we pushed it to get more bullets in it before it died. Once blood pressure is lost, things change. A dead critter is much more dense than a live one. We don't go to Hondo and chase bovines to pretend we're great white hunters stalking Cape buffalo. We're there to test bullets so that when we do hunt Cape buffalo and other large game, we know we're using the best tool for the job. Which is why we get as many bullets into the test medium as possible. It makes for a more comprehensive test than one or two. Especially wise when you're paying $3000 apiece for the privilege. This endeavor has sparked some revelations about what bullets work and which don't do quite as good as 'some' would leave you to believe. For me, it was the final chapter in the .44 vs .45 story.
Of course, people with an agenda will always be critics. We see it in the news every day. It only matters if you let it. I don't care what people who have their head buried in the sand think or say. I don't care that diehard .45Colt fans still believe the Linebaugh myths. I don't care if cast bullet fans still believe their pet projectiles are indestructible and equivalent to the Hammer of Thor. I know the truth and that is all that matters. The problem with JWP is multi-faceted. First and foremost, he believes the Linebaugh myths, he's opinionated and will beat you over the head with his opinions if you let him. His mind was made up decades ago and there's no confusing him with the facts. The worst part is that once he feels slighted, there is no limit to the destruction he will lay upon his friends in effort to win the argument. This really goes back three years ago to an argument right here in the "ask the gunwriters" forum. John, the truth is right there in the Hodgdon data and my penetration testing. It will be there waiting for you when you decide to open your eyes. With all that said, I am no longer going to engage in this nonsense. Life is too short to argue with fools.
As far as reasons to choose the .45Colt, there are plenty. Either cartridge will do 99.99% of what needs doing. There are little idiosyncrasies unique to each and they seem to appeal to different people for different reasons. Personally, I choose both. Contrary to what has been posted here, I have done extensive handloading, shooting and hunting with both.
knowing that we saw the video I would think that you would not show your face again and to still claim 2 shots to put him down is a lie and perhaps means you have no concept of reality. The video was sickening to watch.
Last edited by jwp475; 09/02/19.
I got banned on another web site for a debate that happened on this site. That's a first
To answer the OP's question, you cannot go wrong with either the 44 or the 45 in a Redhawk. Both will drive a heavy bullet hard enough to take anything North America and most of what Africa has to offer. Either, coupled with a wide meplat bullet will kill well and either can be made to give a good thump on both ends. If you reload the options for either are virtually limitless. We are living in what I would consider the golden age of bullet mold manufacturing. There is no shortage of good mold makers and some who will let you design your own bullet to your personal specifications. Top quality jacketed bullets abound in both calibers and factory ammo covers the whole spectrum in both chamberings.
So is there a good reason to chose the 45 Colt? Sure. Because you want one. You don't need another reason.
Well said. This is the golden age of bullets period.
NRA LIFE MEMBER GOD BLESS OUR TROOPS ESPECIALLY THE SNIPERS! "Suppose you were an idiot And suppose you were a member of Congress... But I repeat myself." -Mark Twain
Mart speaks truth from experience. I still maintain one might choose between the two based on the lower power "understudy" cartridge one might prefer, i.e. .44 Special or .45 ACP. I believe I have read where someone had trouble with the Ruger moon clips for .45 ACP in the .45 Colt Redhawk. I picked a .45 Colt Ruger Bisley with an extra .45 ACP cylinder, but that doesn't apply if the OP is primarily interested in a Redhawk.
Clinging to guns & religion since 1959
Keyboards make people braver than alcohol
Election Integrity is more important than Election Convenience
Washington Post: "Democracy Dies in Darkness" More correct: "Killing Democracy Faster Than Darkness"
![[Linked Image]](https://www.24hourcampfire.com/ubbthreads/gallery/80/full/104969.jpeg)
![[Linked Image from i.postimg.cc]](https://i.postimg.cc/G9RDVKXr/DSCN4329.jpg)
![[Linked Image]](https://i.imgur.com/7rmOsJ1.jpg)
![[Linked Image]](https://i.imgur.com/8vBjJFm.jpg)
![[Linked Image]](https://photos.smugmug.com/Redhawk/i-XJhxdKh/0/f28f27d4/L/IMG_1331-L.jpg)
![[Linked Image]](https://i.imgur.com/bsqaDjE.jpg)
![[Linked Image]](https://i.imgur.com/FVggGmn.jpg)
![[Linked Image]](https://i.imgur.com/u5NAaxN.jpg)
![[Linked Image]](http://i.imgur.com/RUW0qWy.jpg)
![[Linked Image]](http://i.imgur.com/EFdfpPO.jpg)
![[Linked Image]](https://i.imgur.com/Do5rV2i.jpg)
![[Linked Image]](https://i.imgur.com/fGC3QyZ.jpg)
![[Linked Image]](https://i.imgur.com/ZHyz6NF.jpg)
![[Linked Image]](https://i.imgur.com/zMnQwOm.jpg)
![[Linked Image]](https://www.24hourcampfire.com/ubbthreads/tmp/105123.jpg)
![[Linked Image]](https://i.imgur.com/ndSOwGE.jpg)
![[Linked Image]](https://photos.imageevent.com/newfrontier45/miscellaneous/websize/Hodgdon%20data-b.jpg)
![[Linked Image]](https://media.giphy.com/media/H4zeDO4ocDYqY/giphy.gif)
![[Linked Image]](http://www.thesixgunjournal.net/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/20190816_141210.jpg)
![[Linked Image]](https://i.imgur.com/9Qzq1md.jpg)
![[Linked Image]](https://i.imgur.com/SoN8hlq.jpg)
![[Linked Image]](https://i.imgur.com/p3CtMAr.jpg)
![[Linked Image]](https://i.imgur.com/fomlDxX.jpg)
![[Linked Image]](https://i.imgur.com/FOMWeQp.jpg)
![[Linked Image]](https://photos.imageevent.com/newfrontier45/miscellaneous/Hodgdon%20data-b.jpg)
![[Linked Image]](https://i.imgur.com/C2oXVkd.jpg)
![[Linked Image]](https://i.imgur.com/KAvDyuQ.jpg)
![[Linked Image]](https://i.imgur.com/ItK8Dsa.jpg)
![[Linked Image]](https://i.imgur.com/3twtZtw.jpg)
![[Linked Image]](http://www.brassfetcher.com/images/simulant%20target%20chart.png)
![[Linked Image]](http://www.brassfetcher.com/images/9x19mm%20penetrating%20heart.png)
![[Linked Image]](http://www.brassfetcher.com/images/45ACP%20Win%20penetrating%20heart.png)
![[Linked Image]](http://www.brassfetcher.com/images/KE%20Femur%20simulant%20target.png)
![[Linked Image]](http://www.brassfetcher.com/images/9x19mm%20impacting%20Femur.png)
![[Linked Image]](http://www.brassfetcher.com/images/45ACP%20impacting%20Femur.png)
![[Linked Image]](http://www.brassfetcher.com/images/KE%20Pelvic%20Girdle.png)
![[Linked Image]](http://www.brassfetcher.com/images/9x19mm%20impacting%20Pelvic%20Girdle.png)
![[Linked Image]](http://www.brassfetcher.com/images/45ACP%20impacting%20Pelvic%20Girdle.png)
![[Linked Image]](http://www.brassfetcher.com/images/M882%20Leg%201%20gelatin.png)
![[Linked Image]](http://www.brassfetcher.com/images/45ACP%20230gr%20FMJ%20Leg%201%20gelatin.png)
![[Linked Image]](https://photos.imageevent.com/newfrontier45/penetrationtesting/large/Penetration%20test%20chart.jpg)
![[Linked Image]](https://i.imgur.com/KWP2lIR.jpg)
![[Linked Image]](https://i.imgur.com/O3gZaRi.jpg)
![[Linked Image]](https://i.imgur.com/E2XytBp.jpg)
