Buffalo Bore .45 colt standard ammo good for deer hunting??


PDA






songsofreedom
May 13, 2007, 05:50 AM
Hi Guys, I would like to know- Is buffalo bore's standard .45 colt load sufficient for deer hunting? And between the two, there was a 200gr gold dot load, and 255gr keith style gas check load. Which would be better?

200 gr speer gold dot - 1100 fps

255 gr keith style gas check-1000 fps

This is from Buffalo Bore's website.

I plan to use this in a ruger old army with Kirst conversion cylinder.

If you enjoyed reading about "Buffalo Bore .45 colt standard ammo good for deer hunting??" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Colt46
May 13, 2007, 06:45 AM
the 255 will be more than enough for what you need. Buffalo bore might be a little warm for BP conversions. They warn about using 'cowboy' pressures only for their 1858 Remington and other civil war era percussion revolvers. I'm not certain how they view the Old Army though. Knowing Ruger's penchant for over engineering it probably is strong enough, but double check with a reliable source.

BlkHawk73
May 13, 2007, 11:21 AM
I gotta agree with using any over SAAMI spec loads in that conversion. It's a Ruger by frame but that cylinder isn't. Dopn't nned hot loads for deer anyways. They've been taken easily for a LONG time with regualr loads and they haven't gotten tougher skins. The regular Remingon, Federal or Winchester loads should be quite adequate.

pv74
May 13, 2007, 12:53 PM
If it is anything like thier 45-70 magnum loads, I would be cautious. You could always call them and ask what they recomend.

Of course, this could be your excuse to buy a nice .44 magnum, like a S&W 629:evil:

Sundles
May 13, 2007, 09:53 PM
Folks,

The OP was about Buffalo Bore "standard" 45 colt loads. Since we dont make a "standard" load, I have to assume that the poster meant "Standard Pressure".

Yes we do make two standard pressure loads in the bullet weights and velocities he outlines in the original post.

These are indeed standard pressure loads and yes he can shoot them in ANY 45 colt that is in normal operating condition. We made these loads for all those more fragile 45 colt revolvers. Yes these are heavy loads, but not as heavy as our +p 45 colts loads, not even close.

Standard Pressure means that they are within the SAAMI specs.

songsofreedom
May 14, 2007, 12:29 AM
Hi Sundles- Yes, you are correct, I meant "standard pressure".

Is the brass from that particular 255gr keith gas check reloadable?

I plan to use that ammo to hunt, I hope it is accurate=

thanks, guys.

tipoc
May 14, 2007, 09:36 AM
BBs 255 gr. Keith style loads at about 1000 fps is a rather mild load by .45 Colt standards and would be safe for about any .45 Colt handgun in good condition. I would avoid useing it in a 100 year old gun but anything in good shape from the last 50 years or so it will do fine in. It will take a deer provided the shooter does his part and makes a clean shot, something that is true for all hunting calibers.

BB makes good accurate ammo. But like all ammo alot depends on the gun and the shooter. If you can keep all your shots inside a standard size paper plate at 50 yards your good to go.

tipoc

Sundles
May 14, 2007, 11:27 AM
SOngs,

Yes the brass is reloadeable. It is brass that Starline makes for us on contract with our head stamp. It is the same brass we load our +p 45 colt ammo in. Depending on the crimp you use, you'll easily get ten reloads, perhaps three times that many, on that brass.

Have fun and good shooting to you.

Vern Humphrey
May 14, 2007, 02:01 PM
My experience is that with the .45 Colt, the limiting factor is the shooter, not the ammo. I personally would go with a cast bullet -- that's all I shoot in my .45s -- and at 1000 fps, a 255 grain cast bullet will shoot through any white tail, regardless of the angle of the shot.

ChristopherG
May 14, 2007, 02:49 PM
That's very close to the load--it's a little hotter, and improved by a softer casting and a gas-check--that Elmer Keith said he would settle on if he had to settle for one commercially loaded handgun round for the rest of his life--and that was when .357's were 158 gr. lead SWC's screaming at over 1,400 fps. In Sixguns, Keith praised the reliable penetration of the 255 SWC, which he had shot or seen shot (I forget which) lengthwise though a bear.

I load something very much like it in a .45 AutoRim, and it's one of my favorite shooting rounds. Wouldn't have the slightest hesitation taking a clean shot on a deer with it.

Sundles
May 14, 2007, 03:41 PM
The good news is that with modern non canister powders, we can get that 255 gr. bullet to 1000 fps out of a six inch tube and do it at the old black powder pressures, which is 15,000 CUP. This means that load can be fired in ANY 45 colt that has modern metalurgy and is in decent shooting condition.

It is my understanding that the original black powder 45 colt load was a 250gr. lead bullet @ 1000 fps out of the 7.5 inch Colt SAA revolver. This load was known for killing horses and game animals even with the old round nosed bullet. Apparantly the calvary complained about the load having too much recoil and eventually the ammo was loaded lighter, much to the disatisfaction of many frontiersmen who had come to love the power of the original 1000 fps load.

I'm not a firearms historian, but hose who are have related much of this information to me, so please forgive me where I may be in error.

Vern Humphrey
May 14, 2007, 03:49 PM
The good news is that with modern non canister powders, we can get that 255 gr. bullet to 1000 fps out of a six inch tube and do it at the old black powder pressures
Non-cannistered powers are really not suitable for handloaders, since they are not blended for consistent performance from lot to lot.

Sundles
May 14, 2007, 06:18 PM
Vern,

Who in the world told you that non-canister powders are not consistant from lot# to lot#? We use a lot of non-canister powders and we retest EVERY lot# and the ones we are using are amazingly accurate from lot# to lot#.

I agree that non-canister powders are not suitable for reloaders, because reloaders cant get ahold of them from normal outlets, but this has nothing to do with lot# to lot# consistancy.

Vern Humphrey
May 14, 2007, 06:26 PM
Who in the world told you that non-canister powders are not consistant from lot# to lot#? We use a lot of non-canister powders and we retest EVERY lot# and the ones we are using are amazingly accurate from lot# to lot#.
Do you guarentee I can develop a max hot load using yhour non-canister powder, then switch to a different lot number and use that load safely without futher testing?

Sundles
May 14, 2007, 07:16 PM
Vern,

Uuuh, I guarantee that what I said in my last post is true.

Obviously we retest EACH AND EVERY lot# because we want a consistant product. So we retest. To date, we have found amazing consistancy in the particular non-canister powders we are using. Further, I have found greater inconsistancies in some canister powders from lot# to lot#, than the non-canister powders. We purchase these powders by the ton at times and we deal with these powders nearly every day. Some non-canister powders are used for military applications and undergo much more stringent mil spec requirements.

I continue to be amazed at the "STUFF" folks come up with. As I asked before, where did you get this notion?

Vern Humphrey
May 14, 2007, 07:34 PM
Obviously we retest EACH AND EVERY lot# because we want a consistant product. So we retest.

How does that testing differ from the testing cannistered powder undergoes?

To date, we have found amazing consistancy in the particular non-canister powders we are using.
What would you do if you didn't find consistency?

Would you sell the powder as-is, with no warming?

Further, I have found greater inconsistancies in some canister powders from lot# to lot#, than the non-canister powders. We purchase these powders by the ton at times and we deal with these powders nearly every day. Some non-canister powders are used for military applications and undergo much more stringent mil spec requirements.

All that may well be true -- but how do I as a handloader know the un-cannistered powder I am buying has been tested to your standards?

If the manufacturer guarentees consistency, I will buy his powder. But if not, I will shy away from un-cannistered powders except in large lots with tested reloading data accompaning the keg.

Jim March
May 14, 2007, 07:50 PM
Vern, with all due respect, I would imagine if they found a power difference in a given lot Tim would alter the charge and deliver the same performance and pressure in his loads as the last batch. It's certainly what I'd do.

I have NOT heard stories of Buffbore ammo blowing up guns. Not when used properly and loaded in the guns they say will take it. Put the 45LC+P super-hot stuff in a cheap Italian reproduction and you've got a problem on your hands, that's a given. Ditto any situation where Tim's website specifies particular guns for particular loads.

Back to the original question: remember that there are really two kinds of gun strength: "blowup resistance" and "long term health".

Will the cartridge conversion cylinder cope with the Buffalo Bore STANDARD PRESSURE loads without blowing up? Very likely. Call the maker of the cylinder to confirm. But if Tim says the 255gr is developing 1,000fps with 15,000psi, I believe him and if you run those specs past the cylinder maker, they will likely be OK with it.

Long term health of the gun, the frame and action parts on the Old Army are as good as any Ruger of similar size, definitely as strong as the New Vaquero which can take these loads all day long, so you're OK there.

Assuming the cylinder maker signs off, both of Tim's standard pressure 45LCs will do for most deer, and I defer to the experts who favor the 255 over the 200.

Vern Humphrey
May 14, 2007, 08:04 PM
Vern, with all due respect, I would imagine if they found a power difference in a given lot Tim would alter the charge and deliver the same performance and pressure in his loads as the last batch. It's certainly what I'd do.

That's his loads. All ammunition manufacturers do that -- they buy large lots of powder, test them, and develop safe loads for that particular lot.

What about non-canistered powder sold to handloaders, which is what I'm addressing? A handloader who buys a pound of powder at a time typically doesn't have pressure-testing equipment and relies on published data.
I have NOT heard stories of Buffbore ammo blowing up guns. Not when used properly and loaded in the guns they say will take it. Put the 45LC+P super-hot stuff in a cheap Italian reproduction and you've got a problem on your hands, that's a given. Ditto any situation where Tim's website specifies particular guns for particular loads.
I don't say Buffalobore ammo is dangerous. I say advising the average handloader to use non-canistered powder is not good practice.

For reference, here is my original comment:
Non-cannistered powers are really not suitable for handloaders, since they are not blended for consistent performance from lot to lot.
(emphasis added.)

Jim March
May 14, 2007, 08:46 PM
Ah. OK. Well since Buffbore isn't selling powder :) it's not an issue in this case, BUT yeah, I see your point, it's something we ought to have mentally filed one way or the other.

If you're right, it's yet another good reason not to try hand-loading to get BB-level power yourself.

Sundles
May 14, 2007, 08:49 PM
Vern,

Im lost here. Since we are talking about NON-CANISTER powders, how in the heck is the reloading public going to get those powders?

So, do you know what "NON-CANISTER" means? In case you dont, it generally means that it is a powder not sold in to the public. It is not available to the public Vern. So, how in the heck is the public going to get it?

Jim March is correct that if we retest each lot# of powder and find a variation from the last lot# we used, we adjust the powder charge accordingly. Each handloader should be doing the same thing each time he changes ANY COMPONENT lot#. If you change bullet lot#'s or brass lot#'s or primer lot#'s, you should retest, especially if you are using max. type loads.

Now, this is my third request and you refuse to answer, so here goes again. Where in the heck did you get the notion (albeit inaccurate) that non-canister powders vary in consistancy, from lot to lot, more so than canister powders--especially since the opposite is true?????

People repeat these type of rumors over and over till folks start thinnking they are true--that is how so much BS gets started in any industry, but especially the gun industry.

Vern Humphrey
May 14, 2007, 08:56 PM
Im lost here. Since we are talking about NON-CANISTER powders, how in the heck is the reloading public going to get those powders?

Check the ads in Shotgun News -- you will find several for "surplus" uncannistered powders.
So, do you know what "NON-CANISTER" means? In case you dont, it generally means that it is a powder not sold in to the public. It is not available to the public Vern. So, how in the heck is the public going to get it?
By checking the ads in Shotgun News and other shooting publications, of course. I've bought kegs of non-canistered powders from those ads -- but only with tested reloading data.

Now, this is my third request and you refuse to answer, so here goes again. Where in the heck did you get the notion (albeit inaccurate) that non-canister powders vary in consistancy, from lot to lot, more so than canister powders--especially since the opposite is true?????

By using non-canistered powders, of course!

I've bought a keg of "surplus" powder, shot it up, bought another and found significantly different loading data with the second keg.

Jim March is correct that if we retest each lot# of powder and find a variation from the last lot# we used, we adjust the powder charge accordingly. Each handloader should be doing the same thing each time he changes ANY COMPONENT lot#. If you change bullet lot#'s or brass lot#'s or primer lot#'s, you should retest, especially if you are using max. type loads.
Good advice, but you'll seldom find a warning in reloading manuals that tell you not to trust the consistency of canistered powders.

Vern Humphrey
May 14, 2007, 09:12 PM
In response to the question;
Since we are talking about NON-CANISTER powders, how in the heck is the reloading public going to get those powders?

This is from Bartlett Reloading https://www.gibrass.com/gunpowder.html


All powders are either new (never loaded) or pulldown (recovered from pulldown ammo).

Surplus powders can vary greatly in burning rate from lot to lot.
Always begin with starting loads and work from there.

HAZ MAT fee of $20.00 added to all orders.
Can ship up to 6 jugs on one HAZ MAT fee.
ID required for purchase



Listed in order of approximate burning rate (slowest to fastest).
Propellant Description
Name

WC872(n) Original application is U.S. 20mm Vulcan ammo. A ball powder which
can be loaded using Hodgdon H870 or AA8700 data.
This is new ball powder.
$40/8# jug.

WC860 Original application is U.S. .50 Cal. BMG ammo, used for the Ball
M33 and API M8 projectile. A ball powder which can be loaded using
Hodgdon H870 or AA8700 data.
This is pulldown ball powder.
$40/8# jug.

4895 Ideal powder for any .30-06 Cal. Ball M2, AP M2, Tracer M25, or
Match M72 milspec ammo. Considered to be a "one size fits all" type
powder that has loading data for most all cartridges. Testing has
proven this powder very accurate. However, this lot burns slightly
slower than IMR4895, closer to IMR4064.
This is new powder, not pulldown.
HAZMAT fee waived on 6-jug orders.
$100/8# jug.

WC680(n) Original application is for the 7.62x39mm "AK-47" round. This is a ball
powder, which can be loaded using AA1680 data.
This is new ball powder.
$80/8# jug.

SR4759 This powder is non-canister, known as SR7641. It is a bulky, very fine,
clone extruded/flake type powder, that meters great. Has a burning rate very
similar to SR4759. Uses the same data as SR4759.
This is pulldown powder.
$60/6# jug.

WC820(n) Orignal application is for the U.S. Cal. .30 Carbine Ball M1 round. This
lot loads at 14gr with 110gr FMJ projectile. This is a ball powder which
can be loaded using Accurate Arms #9 (AA#9) data.
Perfect for .410 shotgun loads.
This is new ball powder.
$80/8# jug.

WC820 Orignal application is for the U.S. Cal. .30 Carbine Ball M1 round. This
lot loads at 13.5gr with 110gr FMJ projectile. This is a ball powder
which can be loaded using Accurate Arms #9 (AA#9) data.
Perfect for .410 shotgun loads.
This is pulldown ball powder.
$72/8# jug.

#102 This is similar to Accurate Arms #2 in burning rate. Same loading data
applies. A very bulky flake type powder, ideal for 12 Ga. target loads.
This is new flake powder.
$45/4# jug.
(Emphasis in original)

Sundles
May 15, 2007, 01:58 AM
Vern,

I am not talking about SURPLUS non-canister powders. Im talking about CURRENT PRODUCTION non-canister powders. I'm afraid we've been talking apples and Oranges from the beginning.

I know nothing about the properties of surplus powders. Never used it and never had a need for it. If it is surplus, there is most likely a good reason it is surplus.

Ive got to be careful about what I write on this message board. I had no idea that I was saying non-canister and people were reading SURPLUS non-canister.

songsofreedom
May 15, 2007, 04:59 AM
Hey tim, thanks for all the advice, tomato, tomaato, potato, potaato- same...
ha! I can't wait to try out your buffalo ammo! Thanks for the advice, Tim.

Songs of Freedom

Sundles
May 15, 2007, 10:17 AM
Songs,

Any time. Have fun.

Tim

Vern Humphrey
May 15, 2007, 02:07 PM
Years ago I had a project to help a company in trouble. This company made high-tech machinery for the timber industry, including something called the Long Log Flaker. The Long Log Flaker resembles a locomotive and runs on tracks. On the front of the "locomotive" is a huge spinning disk. Bolted to the face of the disk are knives, and there is a hole (called a "pocket") behind each knife.

The "locomotive" moves down the track and a huge hydraulic ram feeds about 60 logs at a time into its path. The spinning disk and blades chew these logs into flakes about the size of a playing card, and those flakes are used to make Oriented Strand Board (OSB).

The problem was, sometimes the locomotive would jump the track and wind up in the basement -- can you imagine trying to get it back out, repaired and back on the track?

On investigation, I found that wood fibers would get behind the blades. The enormous pressure would force the blades outward, jam the disk, and the torque would turn the "locomotive" over. Further research showed that maintenance personnel were putting a 5-degree back grind on the blades -- which kept the cutting edge from being flush with the disk. And that was the problem.

I showed the President of the company the maintenance manual -- in the instructions on sharpening the blades, it said to put a 5-degree back hone on the blades.

The President objected, "A hone is not the same thing as a grind!" Yep -- but people who read what he wrote seemed to think it was. And his company was going bankrupt as a result.

Sundles
May 15, 2007, 06:33 PM
Vern,

Perfect example.

If you enjoyed reading about "Buffalo Bore .45 colt standard ammo good for deer hunting??" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!