Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Handguns Any reason to choose .45 Colt?

No, it isn't like saying that. The 44 and 45 are pretty close. The other two you mentioned are different enough to matter.

The 44 is actually closer to the 41 than it is the 45. I even used a calculator so as not to be called a liar.

Plus, someone mentions meplats every time this argument arises.

Agreed

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.

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.



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.



Thank you!!!



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.



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.

Can a Freedom Arms 97 handle 44 mag pressures in 45 Colt? They don't make a 44 mag, just a 44 special and 45 Colt.

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....

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???

Buffalo with the 44


[img] []http://i47.photobucket.com/albums/f196/MarkoR/IMG_0303.jpg[/img]

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.

You actually just contradicted yourself.

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.



Are we really gonna do that again?



That's all you got, grammar correction?

It can handle Ruger only pressures but is limited in overall cartridge length due to the relatively short cylinder.

Dam sure took more than 1 shot

Yeah, it took all of two.

How about 10 and then a finisher with a
500. The picture shows the number

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.

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?

Did the shooter only claim one or two shots