1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

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

Discussion in 'Handguns: Revolvers' started by songsofreedom, May 13, 2007.

  1. songsofreedom

    songsofreedom member

    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.
  2. Colt46

    Colt46 Well-Known Member

    Go with the best penetration

    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.
  3. BlkHawk73

    BlkHawk73 Well-Known Member

    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.
  4. pv74

    pv74 Active Member

    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:
  5. Sundles

    Sundles Well-Known Member


    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.
  6. songsofreedom

    songsofreedom member

    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.
  7. tipoc

    tipoc Well-Known Member

    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.

  8. Sundles

    Sundles Well-Known Member


    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.
  9. Vern Humphrey

    Vern Humphrey Well-Known Member

    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.
  10. ChristopherG

    ChristopherG Well-Known Member

    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.
  11. Sundles

    Sundles Well-Known Member

    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.
    Last edited: May 14, 2007
  12. Vern Humphrey

    Vern Humphrey Well-Known Member

    Non-cannistered powers are really not suitable for handloaders, since they are not blended for consistent performance from lot to lot.
  13. Sundles

    Sundles Well-Known Member


    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.
  14. Vern Humphrey

    Vern Humphrey Well-Known Member

    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?
  15. Sundles

    Sundles Well-Known Member


    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?
  16. Vern Humphrey

    Vern Humphrey Well-Known Member

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

    What would you do if you didn't find consistency?

    Would you sell the powder as-is, with no warming?
    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.
  17. Jim March

    Jim March Well-Known Member

    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.
  18. Vern Humphrey

    Vern Humphrey Well-Known Member

    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 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:
    (emphasis added.)
  19. Jim March

    Jim March Well-Known Member

    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.
  20. Sundles

    Sundles Well-Known Member


    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.

Share This Page