[SlamFire1]

I was reading in this months Handloader, Mike Venturino was testing S&W classic revolvers. He had the choice of a M24 (44 Spl) or a M25 (45LC). He said he did not like 45LC in double action revolvers, and tested the 44 Spl.

What would you prefer?

[gizamo]

In a Ruger, 45 Long Colt...

In a S&W, 44 Special....Venturino got this one right...

Giz

[.38 Special]

I prefer the .44 in a DA. The single action is the "natural home" of the Colt -- although there's nothing, of course, wrong with it in a DA!

[jibjab]

A 3 or 4" S&W M-24

[Jim K]

The .45 Colt was fine with the Single Action Army because the SAA has a rod ejector.

But when the Army adopted the Colt New Service as the Model 1909, they found that the tiny rim of the .45 Colt tended to slip past the extractor and hang up the gun. They ended up making their own .45 ammo with a larger rim.

That problem has not gone away. Go with the .44 Special.

Jim

[orionengnr]

Well, I currently own two older Model 25s (4" and 6") in 45LC (not those faux-antique, ILS-equipped abominations they sell these days).
I used to own two S&Ws (a 396 and a 696) in 44 Spl. The older 24s and 624s are attractive, but I have enough calibers already. :)

Does that tell you where I come down in this debate?

[gizamo]

I'm not sure, but wasn't there some issues with the cylinder bore size versus the forcing cone to barrel bore on some S&W's chambered in .45LC...Have they corrected that with the newer guns?

giz

[highlander 5]

the rim diameter of the 45 Colt is .512 the 44 mag is.514 don't understand the big deal. I have a Ruger Redhawk in 45 Colt and the extractor is a different design than the 44 and I keep asking ,WHY? I love my DA 45 Colt.

[Jim K]

It is not the actual rim diameter, it is the effective rim diameter, the part that is larger than the cartridge base. If that is too small, there is not much for an extractor to work with, whether it is a DA revolver extractor or the extractor of a rifle.* That small rim, and the consequent extraction problem, is the reason no one in the old days ever made a rifle in .45 Colt.

Now rifles are made in .45 Colt and owners are complaining about extraction trouble. The more we forget, the more we have to re-learn.

*The reason the .45 Colt has a small rim is because Colt wanted to keep close to the same cylinder diameter in the SAA that was used in the .44 Army percussion revolver. That meant that the chambers were too close together to fit in cartridges of a normal rim diameter and still go with the .45 caliber the Army wanted. The only choice was to reduce the rim to the point where it would be just enough to support the case; in the SAA no larger rim was needed.

Jim

[Guillermo]

If you reload, 45 long colt. It is a VERY versatile round.

If not I prefer the 44 Special

Under no circumstances would I purchase a Smith with an internal lock. I would rather send money to Sarah Brady.

Have fun.

[krs]

.4570 case body of .44 Spec. but has a .5120 rim
The case diameter of the .44 is smaller making the rim difference larger
.4800 case body of .45 Colt and the rim is only .5140 rim.

No shelf for the .45 extrractor to grab onto. Any rock climber understands that problem.

[FoMoGo]

One of my EDC guns is a S&W M21 Thunder Ranch.
The gun is a shooter.
I am down to only .45 acp and .44 special.
I reload for both.
I am picking up my S&W M22 .45 cap Thunder Ranch next week.
I would suggest the M21 to anyone thinking about a .44 special.
Mine is delocked.


Jim

[.38 Special]

Under no circumstances would I purchase a Smith with an internal lock.

I call Correia rule (http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=262780) violation.

[420Stainless]

I bought a .45 Colt Model 25 Mountain gun since I already had a single action in .45 Colt. Haven't had any functional problems yet; performs and ejects just fine through a thousand rounds or so with several diffent label brass.

[Stainz]

Since getting my first IL-equipped revolver 9/02, I have shot tens of thousands of rounds through a myriad of them, from the 642 I carry in my pocket to my .44 Magnums to my competition .45 ACPs. I only notice them when I clean the revolvers - and, of course, would never buy a revover because it had one any more than I would exclude one from purchase due to it's prescence.

The large rimmed/short cased variant of the .45 Colt came about in the Colonel Schofield adaptations to the S&W Model 3, originally of .44 Russian fame (1871). The enlarged rim was needed for the Model 3's extractor, as it was a top-break SA that emptied it's chambers when 'broken', permitting rapid reloading. While the '.44 Russian' variant had quite a following, selling more examples in it's first decade than Colt's .45 Colt would sell into the next century, it was not adopted by the US Calvary. The shortened .45 round - the .45 S&W/Schofield of 1875 - was, to a limited extent. It's ammo would fit the Peacemaker, but the Peacemaker's was too long to fit the Schofield, thus the label of short and long Colt rounds - and a logistics nightmare, resulting in the Schofields little use. You can still buy specialty .45 Schofield loaded ammo - and buy the brass (Starline). It works great in a .45 Colt Redhawk for reliable ejecting, otherwise care must be used - the drooping ejector rod can skim over the .45 Colt's rim.

I tired of SA revolvers and both the .454 SRH and .45 RH DAs I had, preferring the dependability of the S&W 625 Mountain Gun that started my S&W collection 8/02. I added an older variant - and, besides my Rossi/Puma SS 24" M1892 levergun in .45 Colt, they are it now for .45 Colt. They shoot tighter groups at 25-50 yd with .45 Colt-ish loads (Recall the .45 Colt is a 14kpsi round.) than any of my Rugers would, although the .454 SRH, admittedly scoped and from bags, outgroupped it at 50 yd - with real .454 Casulls. As to 'power level', I stay within SAAMI specs - if I need more, I get a hotter caliber. The S&W SS 625 series - like the CS 25 series - is built on a frame, barrel, & cylinder forged & heat-treated for the .45 ACP - which is a 22kpsi round, so one could go '+P' with some assurance of longevity - not me, of course. Besides, their is something neat about a S&W revolver with 'Colt' emblazoned on it's barrel.

Now, if you like .44 Special - and reload - get a 629! Yes, I know it's a .44 Magnum - but it will chamber poppers in .44 Russian, the whole range of mild to Keith-level .44 Specials, and even real .44 Magnums. Be sure to clean the crud from the short cased rounds before chambering Magnums. Oh, I like my limited diet AirLite/Ti 296 - it is one of my pocket protectors. I also like my 696 - a fun popper with .44 Russians. Both have a minimalist's interpretation of a forcing cone, dictated by the thin front frame of the L-frame. The N-frame, like the 29/629 employs, is considerably thicker there. The 3" 696 has a cult following that has made it's used price soar - you can buy a new 4" 629 for less - and be happier - at only six more ounces, too.

Both calibers are reloaders dreams - and non-reloader nightmares. Poor availability of ammo and high cost isn't fun - the .45 Colt is why I started reloading. If I could decide which was better, I wouldn't have both. If I didn't reload, I'd consider curtain #3 - the .45 ACP - a S&W 625JM, for example. You have a large bore that is frugal - both in ammo cost and recoil - yet effective. No worry about bullet shapes - or power levels - no action, a la a 1911, to work. Ammo is everywhere - WallyWorld had, before the mad ammo gluttony attacks, UMC 230gr ball for <$82/250 rounds - that's hard to beat.

Any of the three will be fun - you'll love the big old bullets lumbering along, too. Big boom and push, not a raucious ear-splitting crack and a snap, a la with Magnums. Enjoy!!

Stainz

[Master Blaster]

Neither One.

Get a .44 magnum, a S&W 629 or get a .44 magnum super blackhawk.
That way you have a very versatile gun that can shoot .44 special or .44 magnum, and you can load the magnum down to special level, if you reload.

If you dont reload its still versatile, because there are lots of factory loads for .44 magnum and .44 special, and they are not as pricey as those fancy high powered .45 Colt loads.

[.38 Special]

What if I want a lightweight and compact .44, and am not ever going to need the Magnum power level??

[calaverasslim]

I own both, M21 and M625. I prefer the M21, 44 special, about 99% of the time. I also own the M22, 45acp and love that one almost as much.. I thought I wanted a 625 but have been dissapointed.

[wheelgunslinger]

45 long colt.

I like it better than the 44 spl. for most any task.

[1858]

But when the Army adopted the Colt New Service as the Model 1909, they found that the tiny rim of the .45 Colt tended to slip past the extractor and hang up the gun. They ended up making their own .45 ammo with a larger rim.

That problem has not gone away.

I've now shot in excess of 200 rounds out of my Ruger KRH-45-4 (.45 Colt with 4" barrel) without ANY trouble ejecting the empty cases and no FTFs ... another supposed problem with the Rugers. If I believed every post on this board I'd never buy anything. :confused:

I have a S&W 629 which is a perfectly fine revolver. If I had to give up one though it'd be the S&W but since I don't I'm keeping both.

http://thr.hawthorn-engineering.com/RRH_45C.jpg

:)

[1858]

Now rifles are made in .45 Colt and owners are complaining about extraction trouble. The more we forget, the more we have to re-learn.


What extraction trouble? :confused: I have a Marlin 1894 in .45 Colt and haven't had a single problem with it, either loading it, firing it or ejecting fired cases and I've shot about 200 rounds through that too. I've tried Trail Boss loads, W231 loads and H110 loads with 200gr and 250 gr bullets without any problems.

I will admit I had some "teething" trouble when I started loading for the .45 Colt but those issues are behind me now. As for shooting a rifle, SA or DA revolver in .45 Colt ... it's way too much fun with loads all the way from mild to wild.

:)

[Jim K]

I am glad no one here has ever had any problems with the .45 Colt in a rifle or a swing cylinder revolver. But just because you didn't have a problem doesn't mean no one else ever has or that the problem never occurs.

Jim

[Stainz]

Winchester didn't make an 1892 lever gun until well into this century due to extraction problems. That said, my Rossi/Puma 24" SS octagon barrel M1892 has been flawless in it's performance. It won't pass the wide rimmed .45 Schofields through it's gate, of course, making their use only possible as a single shot!

My 5.5" SS Redhawk would jam if you quickly ejected the empties holding the revolver horizontally. Held vertically - or even at a steep angle, and ejection became 100% reliable, especially if 'Hollywood' raps were avoided. Generally, the .45 Colt empties would almost fall out anyway, whether a Ruger or S&W DA. This is due to the infamous 'black powder chamber' standards everyone but Freedom Arms and some custom makers still employ. Chambers are reamed to the largest SAAMI spec ID to permit more blackpowder fouling between cleanings, something not necessary today with smokeless propellants. Note the smoke trail along what was the top of the spent cases. Many assume that the case didn't obturate to the proper diameter to seal the chamber... they won't at .45 Colt 14 kpsi levels. The cases clean easily - and the loose cartridges don't affect accuracy - much.

I see S&W has the 625MG in .45 Colt on their site again - fun shooter. I guess I know what I am taking to the range this AM. Below are my 625MGs in .45 Colt - my current entire .45 Colt handgun collection! My first-ever S&W, the 625-7 MG ('01) with the Ahrends square conversion and a LN no box 625-6 ('96) with S&W Dymondwood Combats as a shooter. I keep Speer #4484 250gr Gold Dots for protection - some 255gr LSWCs, too - both at ~880 fps from that 4" barrel. The shorty is a 200gr LRNFP at 700 fps in a Starline Schofield case - a real mild popper.

http://s171.photobucket.com/albums/u307/Stainz_2007/IMG_0211.jpg

I remember Venturino's mag dialogue with Taffin over the .45 ACP/AR negating the need for the .45 Colt a few years back. I have to agree - I regularly shoot .45 Colt bullets loaded faster (hotter) in .45 Auto Rim cases from my 4" 625 than I ever do standard .45 Colts in one of my MGs. The .45 Auto Rims don't need a moonclip in the .45 ACP 625s, their thick full rim making ejection simple. Plus, they are kind of neat looking - especially with a 255gr LSWC loaded! The .45 ACP 625 is a viable alternative for those who don't reload.

Stainz

[chriske]

I do enjoy my S&W 624 (.44 Sp) but -even owning two .45 Colt SA revolvers- would love a .45 Colt equivalent . A blue 25 would be nice, regardless of barrel length (4" or 6") .

[Walkalong]

RP brass has a tendency to slip under the ejector if I am not carefull in my 25-2, but the other brass I have has not caused a problem. (A few CBC, a few Top Brass, Win, Starline) The rims on the RP brass are slightly less in diameter as well as rounded at the edge, which does not help either.

[SlamFire1]

I cannot think of an single time where the extractor star missed a 45 LC case rim on my M25-7 or M625-9.

Still, I eject most of my rounds with the muzzle up. I found that reduces the chance for unburnt powder to get under the extractor star.


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v479/SlamFire/Smith%20and%20Wesson%20Pistols/ReducedM25-7rightsideDSCN2028.jpg


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v479/SlamFire/Smith%20and%20Wesson%20Pistols/M62545LCReduced.jpg

[Brian Williams]

45 Colt works very well in a 5 shot Taurus Tracker. I wish I had the one I sold to fund another project gun.

[Vern Humphrey]

The .45 Colt was fine with the Single Action Army because the SAA has a rod ejector.

But when the Army adopted the Colt New Service as the Model 1909, they found that the tiny rim of the .45 Colt tended to slip past the extractor and hang up the gun. They ended up making their own .45 ammo with a larger rim.

That problem has not gone away. Go with the .44 Special.

The problem has gone away -- in fact, it was solved by widening the rim way back in the late 1800s. Narrow rimmed .45 Colt cases have not been made for a hundred years.

My Colt New Service was built in 1906 (and the model came out in 1898.) These fine double action revolvers were designed for the .45 Colt and work as well as any S&W .44 Special.

Note Winchester and other rifle manufacturers did not build rifles in .45 Colt because of the narrow rims in those days. But nowadays several manufacturers offer carbines in .45 Colt -- the wider rims that have been around for more than a century work well in carbines.

[FoMoGo]

When I am teaching someone on the use of a revolver, I always show them to eject it muzzle up.
For right handed shooters...
Push cyl release.
Use left hand... push cyl open with fingers of left hand.
Grip cyl with fingers and thumb of left hand.
Turn pistol muzzle up and eject cases using right hand... or left thumb if their particular pistol ejects the empties easily.
Tilt barrel downward at appx 45* angle.
Reload cyl.
Grasp grip in right hand as you rotate the cyl into the frame... push solidly to lock it in.
Use left hand to rotate cyl till it catches.

Works very well.


Jim

[Oro]

But I have had no ejection problems with .45 Long Colt in N frame S&W's. They work fine in that revolver design. But the fact is, the .44 S&W Special was designed for the N-frame, and vice versa...

Both were introduced in 1909 as a matched pair, and they work together beautifully, just like the .38 S&W Special and the K frame (1899) and the .45 ACP and the 1911 (1910). There is a trend for guns and cartridges designed around each other to just fit right unlike later cartridges adapted to that frame.

Now, the argument that the .45LC works as well in the N frame is valid; the two cartridges are very similar in their SAAMI loadings of pressure and projectile weight. I do not find a major difference between .44 Special, .45LC, and .45 acp when shooting them from an N-frame S&W. All three rounds are very similar in pressure, projectile weight, diameter, and velocity. Within the loading range of each caliber, they overlap so much as to be indistinguishable in most cases if the shooter is blindfolded.

So I do not accept the fact that one is "vastly" superior in a large double action revolver at all - that's nonsense and could only be based on a lack of experience with the different calibers.

1) DA S&W large frame revolver in .45 Long Colt, shoots just as sweet as a .44 or .45acp:
http://i225.photobucket.com/albums/dd275/kamerer/S-W/455%20HE/IMGP3202-1.jpg

[EnsignJimmy]

I've had no problems with ejecting .45 Colt rounds in my double-action revolvers, and I've owned a S&W 25-5, a Ruger Redhawk, and three Colt New Services . . . two of which are over a century old. I've also not had problems ejecting them from my Marlin rifle.

They're also the finest guns I've owned. (Okay, not so much the S&W. That one was a bit of a dog.) My Redhawk handles moose-stompers with aplomb, and my "old model" New Service (made in 1902) shoots like a laser beam.

Though if you absolutely must have 100% reliable ejection in a .45 Colt DA revolver (using ancient balloon-head narrow-rimmed cases no less,) you could always ask to borrow one of my 1878s. :D

http://i295.photobucket.com/albums/mm144/froobas/Colt_1878_Mfg1892th.jpg (http://i295.photobucket.com/albums/mm144/froobas/Colt_1878_Mfg1892.jpg)

[High Desert Hunter]

Well I must say that in over 5000 rounds of 45 Colt in DA revolvers, many loaded to 454 levels (in my Ruger 454), I have never had the extractor slip over the rim. Most of my 45 Colt loads are assembled in Starline brass, but I do have some mixed brass as well. Of course I have never had a problem in any of my SA revolvers. Not saying it couldn't happen, but I haven't seen it.

Dave

[VINTAGE-SLOTCARS]

I own a S&W 25-5 and a m-29 in 44mag both w/4" barrels. I enjoy both just as much. The m25 was not designed to handle magmum loads. Since I also reload the 44mag, can be down loaded to a mild shooter. I shoot magnum loads with jacked bullets and lighter loads w/case slugs. I would get the m29 as suggested by others as you would have the option of differant loads at any time.

[High Desert Hunter]

I seriously doubt that there is anything in North America that wouldn't fall to a well placed 285gr cast bullet at 900-1100fps from my M25-13, at 1000fps that bullet will penetrate 24" of wet news print. I don't load mine to anymore than a 45 ACP+P, and I am sure it will stand up to them for a long time to come. I really like the accuracy my 45 gives me as well.

[goodtime]

Wouldn't it be nice if a gun manufacturer developed a double action revolver with a crane and cylinder assembly that allowed easy removal of the cylinder? I love my Ruger .45 lc/45.acp convertible. I dont think it would be too difficult to create such a DA. If one existed, I'd take it over the .44 spl for the versatility alone.
Even in the present reality, I like the 45 lc because of the wide range of different loadings, even within SAAMI specs.

[JImbothefiveth]

In a Ruger, 45 Long Colt...
I thought the "ruger only" loads were for the blackhawks.

[Meeteetse]

Either one. I have DA guns in each caliber and they perform and function perfectly. Never had a problem with either. They are both accurate, and they both hit hard at moderate velocities.

I have had more problems trying to quickly unload/load a .38 than I have ever had with my DA .45Colt. All DA guns will hang up during ejection if you don't do it properly.

If I had to choose, I would not pick either of my caliber specific guns. I 'd go with a .44 mag to have more choices.

[EnsignJimmy]

I thought the "ruger only" loads were for the blackhawks.

Not so. The Redhawk's frame and cylinder are definitely beefier than the Blackhawk's. The new Redhawks also have huge, recoil-soaking Hogue grips. John Taffin loads his somewhat hotter than he does his Blackhawks, and I know mine comfortably eats up 300 to 335 grain loads . . . both handloads and Cor-Bon fire-breathers.

Mind you, such stuff makes shooting an N-frame S&W .44 Magnum seem like a relaxing day of shooting 9mm out of a steel-frame semiauto, so most of the shooting I do with the Redhawk involves plain, standard-pressure 250 grain loads. But the Ruger Redhawk definitely has it where it counts.

[1858]

I find the Ruger Redhawk (KRH-45-4) more pleasant to shoot with hot loads than my 629 (with factory, Hogue or Pachmayr grips) with equivalent hot loads. They weigh about the same when loaded but the Ruger does a better job of reducing "felt" recoil. In fact, I'll admit that I had a certain amount of trepidation when I shot 250 grain and 300 grain bullets with WELL over 20 grains of H110. To my surprise, the recoil is VERY manageable.

:)

[Black Dime]

Love my twin Colt SAA 45Colt.

[Gryffydd]

Love my twin Colt SAA 45Colt.
Those are very nice...but you did notice that this thread relates to double action revolvers, right?

[Johnboy53]

I have a new 25 Smith and it shoots great. After a trigger job the double action is about 6 lbs.

[Revolver Ocelot]

I'd have to go with 44spl when chosing between the 2, however had venturiono been comparing the larger counterparts of these 2 rounds (the 44 mag and 454 cassul) I think the testing may have gone differently.

[mavracer]

I currently own only DA 44 specials and SA 45 Colts.I wouldn't be opposed to changing this anybody got a 45Colt Mountain gun to donate?

[Moonclip]

I have seen the .45lc problem in long guns but never in my 25-5 or another I fired but I eject the brass properly. I no longer use the 25-5 for home defense but I probably would again.

I have a CA bulldog in .44spl, all I have had were marginal quality, as well as a Taurus mod 431 which is the best Taurus revolver I have ever owned. Extremely accurate.

I have wanted a S&W pre lock N frame in .44spl for some reasosn, maybe home defense. And I have owned .45acp DA revolvers sine 1997 and have yet to try auto rim i them!

Anyone know much anout the discontinued smalled framed Taurus 5 shot revolvers in .45lc and .44spl, the mod 445 and 450?

I have decided I need one. Are they as small as a bulldog? Which caliber should I get it in?

[FoMoGo]

We have a Taurus 445 and I just bought another one... waiting for it to ship.
They are more the size of a S&W K frame than a charter bulldog.
For a .44 snubby they are a dream to shoot.
I have shot all the loads I make for my S&W M21 Thunder Ranch thru the taurus... and I am amazed to say, it handled them as wel as the big smith.
It may be that I have a wooden hogue monogrip on the smith and the taurus has the factory rubber grips.
The snubby, of course, has more muzzle flip... but it actually easier on the hand.
It is one of my wifes carry guns, and the last family trip to the range the 11 year old was shooting it with full strength .44 special loads in it.
This is how it compares, size wise, to her other carry pistol... High Standard 1911 compact.
http://www.turbopinto.com/images/guns/caryncarry1.jpg
http://www.turbopinto.com/images/guns/caryncarry.jpg
Hope this helps some.


Jim

[Stainz]

Below are my '.44 Specials - a 296, 696, 4" 629, & 6" 629. The L-frame 296 & 696 take the same HKS Speedloader as the CA and Taurus - HKS #CA44. They have a small forcing cone edge, limiting their use to medium .44 Specials max for longevity. The Speer #4427 loaded by GA Arms as a .44 Special protective round is kept loaded for all four (HKS #29 for the 629s). To be honest, I cannot reccommend the 696 for a lot of wide range .44 Special shooting. The 4" 629 weighs only six ounces more - and what a stout revolver! Seriously, do not lament the missing 5-banger Taurus .44 Specials - just get their short barrel .44 Magnums, you'll be happier.

http://s171.photobucket.com/albums/u307/Stainz_2007/IMG_0712.jpg

One final caveat re the Taurus snubby .44 Special - the all-titanium (#445?) version. We had two come through the public range during my tenure as an RO there. Neither would shoot more than a couple of cylinders full before the cylinder would drag on it's yoke axle to the point where the revolver was useless. A 50 round box of the 200gr CCI Blazers was an all-day shooting event. It was a thermal & rough reamed problem - admittedly, titanium is an easily galled metal. The S&W 296/396, like my 296, is alloy framed - and you can shoot whatever your mitts can stand.

Of course, if you don't reload, .44 Specials can be hard to find and expensive. That .45 ACP suggestion I made looks better, if you don't reload.

Stainz

[FoMoGo]

Agreed, I have heard of a few titanium 445s hanging up.
The 455 .45 acp is an extreme rarity, I am looking for one myself.
I have located a 450 lightweight in .45 colt, that I am seriously considering.
The main issue I have with the taurus .44 magnum 5 shot is they are 3" barrels and ported.
The barrel is advertised as 2.5" but the ported length is not counted since it isnt rifled.
I looked HARD at the taurus .44 magnum, but its extra height and length... and grip bulk, but that is easily solved... limited its usefulness for concealing.
I am VERY pleased with our 445s.


Jim

[Biker]

FoMoGo...

I've been carrying a 450 for years now. It is a pleasure to shoot and I've had no problems with it.

Biker

[Moonclip]

I like and own various Taurus firearms but I feel leery of the .44mag models and any of the exotic titanium/lightweight versions.

If I can come across any of the smaller 5 shot .44spl/.45acp/.45lc versions in all steel at a good price I might go for it.

A CA bulldog sized and weight gun with better quality is a dream gun of mine I'd like to see.

[cprher]

Well, I've had all the large bore cartridges in S&W N frames over the years and have come down to two: 41 Mag and 45 Colt. I just got my latest project from Bowen, a combination of both I suppose...a Model 58 converted to 45 Colt using a Model 1955 barrel shortened to 4" and the rib recontoured to match the original 58 rib. As I hoped, Bowen did a spectacular job building this gun. I have him working on another just like it except using a Model 28 cylinder and chambered in 45 S&W (Schofield).
Keith

http://i568.photobucket.com/albums/ss127/cprher/th_Bowen45Colt003.jpg (http://s568.photobucket.com/albums/ss127/cprher/?action=view&current=Bowen45Colt003.jpg)
http://i568.photobucket.com/albums/ss127/cprher/th_Bowen45Colt002.jpg (http://s568.photobucket.com/albums/ss127/cprher/?action=view&current=Bowen45Colt002.jpg)
http://i568.photobucket.com/albums/ss127/cprher/th_Bowen45Colt001.jpg (http://s568.photobucket.com/albums/ss127/cprher/?action=view&current=Bowen45Colt001.jpg)

[Sport45]

Wouldn't it be nice if a gun manufacturer developed a double action revolver with a crane and cylinder assembly that allowed easy removal of the cylinder? I love my Ruger .45 lc/45.acp convertible. I dont think it would be too difficult to create such a DA. If one existed, I'd take it over the .44 spl for the versatility alone.
Even in the present reality, I like the 45 lc because of the wide range of different loadings, even within SAAMI specs.

Sounds like you need a moonclip conversion. For about $100 Pinnacle (http://www.pinnacle-guns.com/revolver.asp) will machine the cylinder of a .45Colt DA revolver to accept clipped .45acp.

[Vern Humphrey]

Sounds like you need a moonclip conversion. For about $100 Pinnacle will machine the cylinder of a .45Colt DA revolver to accept clipped .45acp.

Why on earth would I ruin a perfectly good New Service revolver?

[goodtime]

Sport45 --
What a great idea! you learn something new everyday. I was ignorant to this. I looked at the pictures of the work done; it's so simple, and unobtrusive to shooting the original cartridge. I just might send in a cylinder or two . . .

[Sport45]

Sounds like you need a moonclip conversion. For about $100 Pinnacle will machine the cylinder of a .45Colt DA revolver to accept clipped .45acp.

Why on earth would I ruin a perfectly good New Service revolver?

I wouldn't. I thought about this conversion for a while after buying my .45 Redhawk, but decided against it. I didn't think it would ruin the revolver in any way. Just figured it's easy enough to reload for the .45colt and too much hassle to clip and unclip acp brass.

That said, I still believe it is a viable option for someone that wants to shoot .45acp and .45Colt in the same revolver. From what I read back then the conversions work reasonably well.

[Vern Humphrey]

If it's done right, you can convert a .45 Colt DA to a .45 ACP -- but it's permanent. Once the cylinder face is shaved, you have too much headspace to shoot .45 Colt anymore.

And if it isn't done right, the revolver can be ruined.

[Anyname]

I prefer the 625 in 45ACP to both. The ammunition is less expensive and essentially as potent. Get a mooner/demooner and have a time. If it works for Jerry Miculek, how can you go wrong...

[Sport45]

Once the cylinder face is shaved, you have too much headspace to shoot .45 Colt anymore.

I believe they only mill out the area where the full-moon clip fits. This leaves the outside of the cylinder at the original length. The .45C will still work, but the rim is only supported over about a third of its circumference. The case is unsupported near the base where it is very thick. No problem with .45C pressure, but possibley a concern with "Ruger Only" loads.

If the back of the cylinder is shaved al the way to the OD you can shoot .45acp or .45AR but you cannot shoot .45C. I suppose you could with a special moon clip but can't imagine wanting to bother with it at that point.

At least that's how they were doing the conversion several years ago when I was looking into this.