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

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?

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 There are some outdated 300gr SSK's from Beartooth but the 265's and 280's are much more common.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?

This post is unreadable.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.....

Little difference in wound channel between 9mm hardball and 45; um, okay.

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.



I'm not dodging anything but you are all over the place. You're intermixing different concepts in an effort to win an argument.



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.



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?



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?



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.



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.



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'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



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.


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.



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.



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.


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.




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....

.....

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