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

Here's a better view of the approach where it is very obvious that the buffalo is already down when shooting commences.

VIDEO REMOVED BY REQUEST

Similar result with the 2nd buffalo only it was down in one shot.

VIDEO REMOVED BY REQUEST

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...

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.

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.

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.

...and I'm done.

Why did you take the video down that clearly showed you shooting the buffalo 14 or more times down?

A perfectly legit question by the OP tarnished by the personal bitching and infighting. Really it should just stop.

"Where are you aiming" Craig in the video "the big black spot". The problem is an inexperienced liar that spews BS

He shot that animal so many times it is difficult to count them. Then he comes on here and claims 2 shots.

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.

Finally, some common sense.

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.

Well said. This is the golden age of bullets period.

Yes it is.

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.