45lc to powerful?


PDA






Revolver Ocelot
December 26, 2006, 12:19 AM
I was considering buying a 4410 and loading it with 410 shells with a bit of rock salt but I don't see any point in owning one if you don't give the 45s a try sooner or later, I'm relatively new to revolvers and I was wondering if this might be a bit to much for me to handle.

If you enjoyed reading about "45lc to powerful?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
dtalley
December 26, 2006, 12:30 AM
Why do you think it might be to powerfull? if you reload you can tame them down to 38spcl or less. I don't think mine is any harder to handle than my 1911. 2 cents deposited.

Revolver Ocelot
December 26, 2006, 01:27 AM
never fired any 45 just 9mm and 357s, I just hear they are a little harder to handle. I'm new to this and wouldn't want to get over my head

Bob R
December 26, 2006, 01:52 AM
I have a S&W model 25-5, (45Colt) that is a dream to shoot. Not real snappy, more of a pushing recoil. Mine is magna ported though.

It is my wife's favorite gun to shoot, if that gives you any idea of what a pussycat this round can be.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/0603/Bob8251/100_0476.jpg

bob

wildburp
December 26, 2006, 03:17 AM
Sorry, but you boys are making my teeth squeek. We can go from here TO there, but get there TOO soon if we hurry. The latter means too much, as in an excess of; the former means go to Jail Without Passing Go, or bring that bottle of over here TO me.

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year TO all, I just can't say this TOO many times :)

wb

Monkeybear
December 26, 2006, 03:26 AM
Ehh, I dont think its to much. My friend thought my .357 was to much but for me it was real nice to shoot, not anywhere near to much. I guess its all subjective.

Antihero
December 26, 2006, 03:31 AM
I was considering buying a 4410 and loading it with 410 shells with a bit of rock salt but I don't see any point in owning one if you don't give the 45s a try sooner or later, I'm relatively new to revolvers and I was wondering if this might be a bit to much for me to handle.

If its standard loads there isnt much in the way of recoil, but if you get into the so called +p's they're is a quite a bit. I wouldnt fire the +ps in your Taurus though.

BTW Metal Gear Solid rocks:D

MikeWSC
December 26, 2006, 07:45 AM
Revolver Ocelot,

The .45 LC should'nt be a problem. You can shoot "cowboy" loads in it and still
have the option of running a hotter load if you'd like to hunt with it.
If you reload or know someone who does you can load it with a "shot capsule"
and it make a close range snake shooter.

By the by, when my son was 16 he tried out my S&W 500 Mag. loaded with a 350g.
Hornady XTP/Mag sittin' on 39.6g of H110. He had a smile from ear to ear :D .

Best..........Mike

dracphelan
December 26, 2006, 09:28 AM
I just reveived a Blackhawk in 45 Colt/45 ACP. Shooting Winchester Cowboy loads in it were a breeze. They kicked less than the 230 grain hollow point 45 ACP rounds I was shooting.

MCgunner
December 26, 2006, 10:08 AM
Sorry, but you boys are making my teeth squeek. We can go from here TO there, but get there TOO soon if we hurry. The latter means too much, as in an excess of; the former means go to Jail Without Passing Go, or bring that bottle of over here TO me.

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year TO all, I just can't say this TOO many times

Always an English teacher in the crowd. :rolleyes: :D :D :D :D BTW, I believe "squeek is actually spelled "squeak". ;)

The cowboy loads are mild. Shoot those for economy, too, if you don't reload. I'd not shoot anything that's +P or anything close to hot out of the Taurus. The +P stuff in .45 is rip roarin' hot and designed for guns like a Ruger Blackhawk or a TC Contender, STRONG guns IOW. They're not even recommended for the SAA, much less a smaller gun.

There are appropriate, effective .45 Colt self defense rounds available, too, but anything with a bullet that big is going to work pretty well at mild velocities. My mild reload I shoot in my Ruger is a 255 grain flat point at onl 900 fps, but due to bullet weight, energies are over 400 ft lbs. :what: And, at least you won't have to worry much about penetration. 255 grains of lead with a flat point at 800 fps is going to work pretty well. Don't have to worry much about bullet construction.:D I see that as a big advantage in the caliber. You really don't have to shoot a rip roarin' fast load for it to work on human attackers. The +P stuff is more appropriate for hunting and bear defense afield and such.

McCall911
December 26, 2006, 10:42 AM
Poncelet's formula gives the .45 Long Colt (255 grain bullet at 820 fps) a penetration depth of 8.8 inches in soft tissue. Compared to the .38 Special FBI load, it has a bit less penetration. 158 grain .357 inch bullet at 880 fps: 9.2 inches. To get the same amount of penetration from the .45 Colt, you would have to bump up the velocity to 880 fps. No surprises here because Poncelet's formula hinges on sectional density, which is practically the same for the 158 grain .38/.357 bullet and the 255 grain .45 Colt.
So, no. IMO there's no reason to think that the .45 Colt is overly powerful in its standard factory loadings. However, the .45 Colt will probably have a bit of "kick" to it if you're not used to it.

MCgunner
December 26, 2006, 10:54 AM
This formula sounds suspicious. Me thinks there's more to penetration than SD, though I know SD is important.:scrutiny: I'm no expert on the subject, though, so I'm probably wrong, but I'd think momentum would be a factor and a 255 grain bullet at over 800 fps has one heck of a lot of ol' mo. :D I know it can clear a pin off a table post haste. :D Whether it has anything to do with penetration, I confess I really don't know, just seems like it would.

mainmech48
December 26, 2006, 10:59 AM
In the 'standard' factory load with lead bullets the .45 Colt isn't anything the average handgunner can't learn to handle. Most published data for that lists a 250-255 gr. bullet at a velocity of 860 f/s, but this is a bit misleading, IMO, as the figures are usually generated from an unvented pressure fixture with a barrel length exceeding that of most conventional revolvers.

As has been pointed out, the factory 'Cowboy' loads are generally even milder. Some say this is in deference to the genuine antiques out there in that game, and some that it's a concession to the large element of that market more concerned with the 'authenticity' of their costumes than of their skills.

There are also several manufacturers with .45 S&W 'Schofield' loads that're even milder, and will function perfectly well in almost any .45 Colt revolver. It won't be tough to find a load level you can be comfortable with, even if you don't roll your own.

If you really want to trash a perfectly nice firearm, revolver or what-have-you, in short order I can't think of a better or faster way than to shoot rock salt through it. If you want 'less-than-lethal' defense or pest control, there are better options. In most jurisdictions you'd face the same liabilities and consequences, should you actually use them on either a stray animal or intruder, with those rock salt loads as you would had it been pellets or slugs.

Somebody's anecdotal grandpaw might've gotten by with it back in 1907, but I wouldn't bet your future on it in 2007 IIWY.

Jim March
December 26, 2006, 11:26 AM
The reason the 45LC shell is so big is that the design pre-dates the modern smokeless powder era. Other such holdovers are the 45-70 and the last pre-smokeless cartridge designed, the 38Spl.

Smokeless powders are on average six times more potent than "black powder" (the mixture of charcoal, potassium nitrate and sulpher the Chinese brewed up 1,000+ years ago). The transition from black powder to smokeless occured over a period of about 15 years starting around 1888 if I recall right. Might have been '86. Whatever. It affected rifles first, handguns last, shotguns I have no clue.

This is why the shorter 9mm round designed in 1907(?) is more powerful than the 38Spl designed in 1895. It's also why the 45LC is NOT more powerful than the 44Mag even though it looks bigger...unless of course we're talking about some of the specialty 45LC+P monster loads brewed up for very strong 45LC guns...a few of which do exceed many 44Mags in overall performance.

McCall911
December 26, 2006, 02:35 PM
This formula sounds suspicious. Me thinks there's more to penetration than SD, though I know SD is important. I'm no expert on the subject, though, so I'm probably wrong, but I'd think momentum would be a factor and a 255 grain bullet at over 800 fps has one heck of a lot of ol' mo. I know it can clear a pin off a table post haste. Whether it has anything to do with penetration, I confess I really don't know, just seems like it would.

Oh, I'm no expert on this stuff either, MC. Just a student.
The momentum formula that I have gives the penetration of the same .45 Long Colt load as 12.4 inches and the .38 158-grain at 13.2 ins. To get the same penetration as the 38 +P to satisfy this formula, the velocity of the .45 Colt would have to be upped to about 875 fps. The reason that the .45 round gets less penetration than the .38, according to the formula at least, is because of the larger surface area of the bigger bullet. Makes sense, but like many things that make sense, it doesn't necessarily mean that it's always right.

MCgunner
December 26, 2006, 03:14 PM
mainmech48, I kinda figured those cowboy loads were weak because of the fast shooting in the action stuff, less recoil, quicker times. I'm sure the local boys ain't as good, but I saw some kid on outdoor channel shooting a national match and that kid (21 years old) was cock and releasing he hammer without using the trigger, thumb fanning you might say, and knockin' down plates way faster than I can do with a semi auto. :what: Wow, that kid's GOOD! Without having to reload, I bet he could go toe to toe with a lot of the top IPSC/IDPA action type shooters in the country. Sure impressed me anyway.

The reason that the .45 round gets less penetration than the .38, according to the formula at least, is because of the larger surface area of the bigger bullet. Makes sense, but like many things that make sense, it doesn't necessarily mean that it's always right.

Yeah, that makes sense. Maybe one of these days I'll spend some time researching this penetration thing. I know rifle types spend a lot of time cussing and discussing sectional density. I just ASSUMED (we all know what that means) that the big, heavy Colt bullet would beat up on a scrawny .38, but heck, sometimes the little guy wins. LOL!:D I wouldn't wanna be shot with either, myself.

McCall911
December 26, 2006, 04:00 PM
I wouldn't wanna be shot with either, myself.

Nope, I ain't gonna volunteer for a real-world test either. :eek:

Well, if it makes .45 Colt fans (and I'm one too) feel better, there's this from the physics book:

That 255 grain .45 bullet at 820 fps has a kinetic energy of 381 foot pounds.
So if it penetrates 8.8 ins, the retarding force would have to be the energy divided by the distance travelled. So 381 x 12 / 8.8 = 520 pounds.

The 158 grain .38 +P bullet at 880 fps has a KE of 272 foot pounds. Penetrating 9.2 ins, the force would be 272 x 12/ 9.2 = 354 pounds.

I don't have many conclusions to draw from this, or jump to because of this, just that the .45 Colt appears to have the potential of doing more internal damage than the .38 Special +P. Maybe someone who slept less in physics class than I did can tell us what that means, if anything.

Baba Louie
December 26, 2006, 05:17 PM
...with a bit of rock salt... gonna season your game or you just want to pay for your attorney's Mercedes? (j/k)

One of John Browning's tasks when designing the .45acp was to match the ballistics of the .45 Colt, which he did. So the felt recoil of each "should" be about the same from a 5" barrel. BUT, grip design being what it is, handgun mass, relationship of bore axis to support hand, etc will all have some play in actual felt recoil.

Doesn't that 4410 thingie come with Taurus' ribber grips?

And wouldn't the large (relatively speaking) distance from the .45 case mouth to forcing cone bleed off some energy?

And why would anyone want to own one of those ungainly proportion challenged revolvers anyway? :D (Sorry, got carried away)

Traditional Factory loads of the .45 should not be too (or to) powerful in
such a homely gun (oops, sorry, I can't help myself today).

Plus you might be able to load up some super duper paper patch rock salt round using the .45 Colt shell to fill the entire chamber... if ya wanted. :evil: (There I go again... sick humor today)

Cosmoline
December 26, 2006, 05:20 PM
Ditto on wondering about that rock salt comment. What are you planning?

MCgunner
December 26, 2006, 06:17 PM
I don't have many conclusions to draw from this, or jump to because of this, just that the .45 Colt appears to have the potential of doing more internal damage than the .38 Special +P. Maybe someone who slept less in physics class than I did can tell us what that means, if anything.
__________________

Well, the tie breaker in my Ruger is a 300 grain bullet at 1150 fps. :D Game, set, match. But, of course, my .38 fits my pocket better. DOH!

dracphelan
December 26, 2006, 06:56 PM
But, of course, my .38 fits my pocket better.

You need bigger pockets. :evil:

McCall911
December 26, 2006, 09:01 PM
Well, the tie breaker in my Ruger is a 300 grain bullet at 1150 fps.

Hey, no fair cheating! :D

Regardless of what values the formulas give it, this page suggests that such a load would penetrate about 38 inches, as long as it's a flat-point bullet with about a .32-inch meplat:

http://www.rathcoombe.net/sci-tech/ballistics/methods.html

I'm funny like that, but I tend to believe real-world results instead of formulas anyway.

By the way, Poncelet's formula gives a mere 12.8 inches for your loading and momentum penetration gives 20.5 ins.

Revolver Ocelot
December 26, 2006, 09:18 PM
I've done a little looking around and I think I might just get a derringer for the defensive and nuy a black hawk for a new toy.

Bob R
December 26, 2006, 10:01 PM
I think I might just get a derringer for the defensive


Sure won't be worrying about "too powerful" with that choice. :rolleyes:


bob

McCall911
December 26, 2006, 10:11 PM
I've done a little looking around and I think I might just get a derringer for the defensive and nuy a black hawk for a new toy.

Oh, a derringer! I'm pretty sure you'll find that the .45 Colt derringer will have some noticeable recoil, to say the least. (I thought the .38 Special derringer I shot was rough!) And I've heard horror stories about shooting .410s out of these babies, too. But it's good snake medicine, so they say.

Revolver Ocelot
December 27, 2006, 07:35 AM
I just need a backup that can fire .410s, in a life or death situation recoil would be least of my worries.I still plan on getting a 45lc though just not necissarily a taurus, has anyone here ever tried out a bfr?

MCgunner
December 27, 2006, 10:22 AM
Yeah, .410s in my Contender have a pretty good recoil, not real bad, but noticable. That's a HEAVY hunting handgun. I can imagine in a derringer. :what: :D Derringers in .410 tend to be on the big side of the derringer spectrum, too.

They had a kinda cool cheap one at a gun show recently, about $150. It was a side by side. Looked like a little sawed off english double ..:D I thought about buying it just for a curio, but there was a Taurus 3" 66 there I wanted more. I don't know what that little double would have been good for other than conversation. It was neat to look at, though.:D I gotta have more'n 2 shots for defense. But, if limited to 2 shots, I can't think of a better caliber than .45 Colt. :D

Buckles
December 27, 2006, 12:59 PM
I have a Leinad (Cobray) 410-45LC derringer. It kicks but is not bad at all. After 3-4 rounds, the factory shot or round nose will feel comfortable. However, I don't recommend the Leinad as there is no trigger guard. Very basic, dangerous and the manufacturer is no longer in business.

Buckles

Vern Humphrey
December 27, 2006, 02:36 PM
"I had no shoes and complained, until I saw a man who had no feet."--old proverb from India
"I had no shoes and complained, until I saw a man who had no feet, and I said, 'Hey, I bet you got a pair of shoes you don't need!" --old proverb from Arkansas
Ditto on wondering about that rock salt comment. What are you planning?

The use of rocksalt is a definite no-no. If you mean it for self-defense (what other use could it have?) you'll go to jail if you ever use it.

When you fire a shot, you're using deadly force -- regardless of what's in your gun. Using rock salt is an admission you were not justified in using deadly force.

Revolver Ocelot
December 27, 2006, 04:44 PM
its more of an if some one tried to kill me I would use it, just being its very painful and less deadly, I read up on it and its discouraged but not illeagal in the situation where someone wants you dead, besides if I killed the person in self defense I'd have many more questions to answer then if they had survived.

Vern Humphrey
December 27, 2006, 04:52 PM
its more of an if some one tried to kill me I would use it, just being its very painful and less deadly, I read up on it and its discouraged but not illeagal in the situation where someone wants you dead, besides if I killed the person in self defense I'd have many more questions to answer then if they had survived.

Don't believe it! First of all, you would have used deadly force without justification. Secondly, you would face one hell of a lawsuit. Finally, your opponent just might not be incapacited, and you might wind up dead.

MCgunner
December 27, 2006, 04:53 PM
I read up on it and its discouraged but not illeagal in the situation where someone wants you dead, besides if I killed the person in self defense I'd have many more questions to answer then if they had survived.

I'd much rather kill the guy. Dead men can't sue. His survivors can, but if they aren't there, how can they know what happened or spin it in their direction? If it comes to the point I need to shoot, I'm going to be justified and I'm going to use deadly force. You would learn these lessons in the Texas CCW class.

McCall911
December 27, 2006, 04:56 PM
"I had no shoes and complained, until I saw a man who had no feet, and I said, 'Hey, I bet you got a pair of shoes you don't need!" --old proverb from Arkansas

LOL, Vern.
Yeah, my sig line is starting to get on my own nerves. It's time I changed it!

The use of rocksalt is a definite no-no. If you mean it for self-defense (what other use could it have?) you'll go to jail if you ever use it.

When you fire a shot, you're using deadly force -- regardless of what's in your gun. Using rock salt is an admission you were not justified in using deadly force.

What Vern said, plus you might face civil liability.

Revolver Ocelot
December 27, 2006, 05:23 PM
hmmm, point made, no rock salt it is, maybe a 22 dixie then? what would you guys use as far as revolvers and derringers go for ccw/backup?

Vern Humphrey
December 27, 2006, 05:33 PM
It's been a long time since I owned a derringer -- I never found them useful. My backup, when I carry one, is a Colt Detective Special.

Baba Louie
December 27, 2006, 05:39 PM
what would you guys use as far as revolvers and derringers go for ccw/backup? S&W J-frame in .38 spl for CCW or .32 mag (if I could find one) for BUG.
Derringer? .22 mag or (again) .38 spl as a BUG only. But to depend on a derringer is to let someone get too close (IMO). While they're cute, they're not much fun to shoot (again IMO).

rc135
December 27, 2006, 06:38 PM
Before you try rocksalt in anything, check out what the Box o' Truth has to say (www.TheBoxOTruth.com). They found it be, well, pretty much worthless.

MCgunner
December 27, 2006, 07:53 PM
Most times the only backup I have is a NAA mini .22 revolver in a "holster grip". But, when I want backup, serious back up, I just add a primary IWB and use my Taurus .38 snub or Kel Tec 9mm as back up. Most times around here I've got one of the "back ups" in a pocket as primary and my NAA mini is so easy to carry it's there just because I can so easily carry it. I've used it afield, but you never know, it might come in handy someday. It ain't much, but it could save your bacon.

tomhorn
December 27, 2006, 07:58 PM
If its for snakes or varmints you can use snake shot (#9)shotgun pellets if its for 2 legged varmint use a heavy load 250 gr only if your life or somebodys elses life is in danger , becareful if you pull that hog leg pistols arent to scare people . get your concealed permit if your state has one (hopefully) .goodluck colt mustang is a great backup.

Revolver Ocelot
December 28, 2006, 02:51 AM
well the rock salt is good for nothing more then bringing your attacker pain but we've already ruled that one out, I was considering a fmj just being they're cheap but if I'm not gonna need the .410 on it then what about an ruger sp101?

mainmech48
December 29, 2006, 03:50 PM
MCgunner: One of the things that stick in my craw, as it were, from an admittedly limited and disappointing flirtation with the Cowboy Costume Show is that the 'gamesman' and 'costume authenticity police' elements seem to rule the roost there, making it more a 'poseurfest' than an authentic test of period skills.

Not to say that the kid you mentioned isn't fast, but it's a bit of a stretch to compare his speed to an IPSC shooter, IMO, when one examines what's being delivered on-target in that time frame.

In every division of IPSC your ammo is tested and must meet or exceed a 'power' standard to qualify for full point values. At the very least, this goes a long way toward ensuring that every competitor has to demonstrate mastery of the same control factors at the same level as everyone else. If your ammo doesn't make that cut you're actually penalized, so there's no advantage to be had by using lighter-than-standard loads.

To me, it takes a great deal more skill to reach a given score when both time and accuracy are factors using even factory 158 gr. .38 Spl. loads at a nominal 850 f/s than 148 gr. WCs at 700. And that difference is even more pronounced when comparing 250-255 gr. .45 Colt at 800 vs 160 gr. at 500.

I have personally fired 'competition' handloads from avid CASS players in my area in both .45 Colt and .44-40 which wouldn't carry to the berm from the 75 yd. line. Recoil and report from 7 1/2 SAA clones weren't even up to .38 Spl. PPC levels.

I tend to have more respect for John Taffin and his cohorts who resolved that they would not compete with any ammo they wouldn't be willing to go into actual battle with. 'Authenticity', indeed.

Cosmoline
December 29, 2006, 04:08 PM
Rocksalt loads are fine for smacking the hind end of a dog or pig at some distance to keep them away. It's horrific for self defense from every possible point of view. It won't stop the attack, yet at close enough range the pressure from the round may be enough to kill, so it's no good as a less than lethal weapon against people.

For self defense the .45 Colt is perfectly fine. The biggest drawback is the lack of good self defense loads for it, though this is getting better. And and old-school soft lead SWC keith style will also work just fine as long as it's not cranked up too much. It's a wide enough round you don't really need much expansion, but stay clear of hardcast loads for defense against people as these will give you more penetration than you really need.

The SP101 is a great CCW, but of course it's not going to be in .45 Colt. It would be cool if it *WAS* offered in .44 Special or .45 Colt, but sadly that's not an option. The closest would be one of the old Taurus .45 Colt snubs or the Charter Arms .44 Special bulldogs.

MCgunner
December 29, 2006, 04:24 PM
mainmech48, well, real world shooting is different from both CAS and IPSC, of course, and I totally agree that kid couldn't do that with hotter loads. The way he was thumbin' that thing, it had absolutely NO apparent recoil. However, the speed and accuracy with when he was able to shoot that way was astounding! I found it hard to believe my eyes, amazing. I've seen IDPA master class shooters, I know how good they are. I have total respect for that kind of skill. IDPA has a minimum power factor, too, but it's a little more realistic and liberal toward the smaller calibers IMHO. I enjoyed shooting IDPA. I should maybe get back over there for a shoot. I'm so out of practice compared to when I was doing it, I probably would struggle, but it's all about the practice to me anyway. I was never an avid competitor at it, just struggled against myself trying to improve. Some of those guys are real serious about the actual competition. I wasn't, was just having fun trying to improve my own skills.

I cannot really get into the CAS stuff. I don't care a nit about taking a pseudonym, "Black Jack" or something...:rolleyes:...and I'd prefer to wear my T shirt, thanks. LOL! IDPA seems more useful as practice, too. I don't carry single action revolvers so I don't care to practice with speed with 'em that much. I have actually shot my little Kel Tec P11 in IDPA and didn't do too bad with it, either. I turned some heads who scoffed at me to begin with. I prefer to play with guns I actually carry, though I never used a revolver. There were a couple of die hard revolver guys over there. I was about the only guy who shot a Ruger P gun, though. 99 percent Glocks in "service gun" class.

NORTEXED
December 29, 2006, 09:47 PM
The great thing about the .45 L.C. is also the versatility if you handload. below left to right are:

(1) 285 gr. long meplat at about 875 that thumps stuff real good
(2) My "Duplex Load" of 2 .454 round balls at about 775 fps that strike about 2" apart at 50' reliably.
(3) My .444 Marlins cut to cylinder length and loaded with #12 shot to the case mouth (.444 is real close to .45 L.C. head dimensions and carries almost as much shot as a 2 3/4" .410)

That's versatility:what:


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v368/NORTEXED/P1010001-1.jpg

If you enjoyed reading about "45lc to powerful?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!