.44 vs .454
- Thread starter KYregular
- Start date
- Status
maxxhavoc
Member
I don't have a Redhawk, but I have both 44 and 454 revolvers.
No comparison. 45 bullets are easier to find if you reload, and the "lite" cartridge is 45 Colt. If recoil doesn't bother you, the 454 is more fun to shoot.
No comparison. 45 bullets are easier to find if you reload, and the "lite" cartridge is 45 Colt. If recoil doesn't bother you, the 454 is more fun to shoot.
Varminterror
Member
- Joined
- Jul 17, 2016
- Messages
- 14,969
Get the 454C. The Super Redhawk wants for more cartridge than the 44mag. The 454C won't do anything the 44mag won't, except recoil harder, bark louder, and burn more powder - it really doesn't kill anything bigger than 44mag, only can do it farther away. I love the SRH and the 44mag is my favorite cartridge, but the SRH really is a 454 platform. My wife runs a 44mag SRH 7.5", my favorite is a 454 5.5" Tolkat, but I have the 7.5" 454 and 480 also. The Redhawk and the 629 are my home for the 44mag, even though the Redhawk shares such similar dimensions.
I would go with the 454 if the recoil doesn't bother you. If you load your own you have a huge range to play in. I cannot take any great amount of recoil from a handgun any more, so, the 44 with moderate loads would be my choice. I have never been a great handgun shot anyway and would not be able to take advantage of the longer range capability. Any game I bring home with a handgun should be checked for powder burns to see how close I was lol!
js8588
Member
What is your planned use?
OP
OP
KYregular
Member
- Joined
- Jan 4, 2018
- Messages
- 760
Just a fun gun for target use. Maybe a bear gun if I ever get the chance LOL
CraigC
Sixgun Nut
How much fun are you looking for? Depends on whether you handload or not. If you don't, the .44 is going to be cheaper to shoot. If you do, it doesn't matter. Or how much recoil you're accustomed to. If you've never shot a .44 or anything bigger, the .454 may be a bit much. You say it doesn't matter but it always matters.
Comparing the .454 to the .44 in standard loadings, the .44 gets a 300gr to 1400fps, the .454 gets it to 1700fps. The gets a 355gr to 1250fps and the .454 gets a 360gr to 1500fps. However, for a Redhawk one can utilize Brian Pearce's +P+ .44Mag data where we get the same 300gr to 1500fps and a 340gr to 1400fps. All the added velocity gains you is range. Either chambering will be accurate and either will take the biggest bears with the right bullet.
Comparing the .454 to the .44 in standard loadings, the .44 gets a 300gr to 1400fps, the .454 gets it to 1700fps. The gets a 355gr to 1250fps and the .454 gets a 360gr to 1500fps. However, for a Redhawk one can utilize Brian Pearce's +P+ .44Mag data where we get the same 300gr to 1500fps and a 340gr to 1400fps. All the added velocity gains you is range. Either chambering will be accurate and either will take the biggest bears with the right bullet.
OP
OP
KYregular
Member
- Joined
- Jan 4, 2018
- Messages
- 760
I've shot both, I have actually shot .44's with more recoil than some .454's. Weight/barrel length make some big differences. I do reload or I wouldn't even think about a .454. Just more or less looking for a big gun to play with, or use if I ever go into bear country as a backup. Not a big pistol hunter either, or snubby big bore guns. I do know that smaller .454's like the Alaskan do tend to be more problematic with bullet creep anyways. Thanks
js8588
Member
Just for fun?
Then https://ruger.com/products/redhawk/specSheets/5032.html
You can shoot cheap, available 45acp to plink with, 45 Colt when you want a bit more "fun", then Underwood/Buffalo Bore/HSM if you ever need Grizz defense.
Wild to mild, you're covered. If you want a 454 just because, nobody can fault you for that.
CraigC
Sixgun Nut
Then I'd pick the one that called to me the loudest.
Intox
Member
Granted, I am in no way a ballistics expert.....but this is something that has always confused me (speaking to the bold). So, understand that I'm sincerely asking trying to understand and not trying to dispute or argue.
Something that always stuck in my memory from physics class was Mass + Velocity = Energy. Meaning, the faster you can propel an object, the more kinetic energy it imparts on impact. For example,it's why a .357 Magnum hits "harder" than a much larger .45 ACP round (provided the round stops inside the target and not pass through) following this logic.
Am I wrong? Or are you just not trying to get "to technical" with your description of the .44 vs. .454 round?
Varminterror
Member
- Joined
- Jul 17, 2016
- Messages
- 14,969
Part of what you're describing IS wrong, and the rest of what you're describing isn't technical enough... Kinda ironic...
If this is what sticks out in your memory, you either have a terrible memory, or had a terrible physics teacher. Kinetic Energy = 1/2 Mass * Velocity ^2... Maybe it was your gym coach?
This part is true at least, as velocity increases, kinetic energy increases as a power factor - V doubles, KE quadruples. This relationship unfairly favors high velocity cartridges. There are a lot of other things going on there too, however, the sectional densities are very different, so how the momentum is transferred to the recipient is very different. The 243win has a pretty similar Kinetic Energy to the 454 Casull because of its blistering speed - even slightly more than 454 when comparing some loads. However, one is a viable choice for hunting ANY game on the face of the planet, while one struggles to manage ethical kills on anything over about 400lbs. Kinetic Energy doesn't tell the whole story.
The reason the .357mag "hits harder" is that it also has more momentum - not just more KE - and generally has better built bullets, meant for taking game larger than 2 legged perpetrators. Newton's law isn't about conservation of energy, it's conservation of momentum, and for good reason...
In terms of the 44mag vs. 454 - you're talking about similarly constructed bullets of similar weights and relatively similar Sectional Densities, so you're really only talking about a difference in speed. So the only difference in performance upon impact is speed... If I shoot a block of gelatin with a 243win and a 454C, there's no combination of impact ranges which produce the same results on impact. I can never make the 243win produce the same wound channel as the 454, and vice versa. Similarly, you can never really get the 45acp and the 357mag to match up - they're too dissimilar from a ballistic standpoint. The 454C and 44mag are not so - a guy can shoot a block at 50yrds with the 44mag and ~225yrds with the 454C, which matches the impact velocity and bullet weight together, so the only difference is a slight shift in SD, which is a difference in 0.23 vs. 0.21... The visual and objective differences between the two impacts and the two wounds will be similar to the difference between two shots of each... Almost identical, as much as two wound cavities can be identical... So the 44mag and 454C are more like the 30-30 vs. 308win, or 30-06 vs. 300win mag - give the slower one a shorter range than the longer one and the results on target will be identical...
As I said in my first post, my 454's won't kill any animal my 44's can't kill, but the 454's can do it from farther away.
If this is what sticks out in your memory, you either have a terrible memory, or had a terrible physics teacher. Kinetic Energy = 1/2 Mass * Velocity ^2... Maybe it was your gym coach?
This part is true at least, as velocity increases, kinetic energy increases as a power factor - V doubles, KE quadruples. This relationship unfairly favors high velocity cartridges. There are a lot of other things going on there too, however, the sectional densities are very different, so how the momentum is transferred to the recipient is very different. The 243win has a pretty similar Kinetic Energy to the 454 Casull because of its blistering speed - even slightly more than 454 when comparing some loads. However, one is a viable choice for hunting ANY game on the face of the planet, while one struggles to manage ethical kills on anything over about 400lbs. Kinetic Energy doesn't tell the whole story.
The reason the .357mag "hits harder" is that it also has more momentum - not just more KE - and generally has better built bullets, meant for taking game larger than 2 legged perpetrators. Newton's law isn't about conservation of energy, it's conservation of momentum, and for good reason...
In terms of the 44mag vs. 454 - you're talking about similarly constructed bullets of similar weights and relatively similar Sectional Densities, so you're really only talking about a difference in speed. So the only difference in performance upon impact is speed... If I shoot a block of gelatin with a 243win and a 454C, there's no combination of impact ranges which produce the same results on impact. I can never make the 243win produce the same wound channel as the 454, and vice versa. Similarly, you can never really get the 45acp and the 357mag to match up - they're too dissimilar from a ballistic standpoint. The 454C and 44mag are not so - a guy can shoot a block at 50yrds with the 44mag and ~225yrds with the 454C, which matches the impact velocity and bullet weight together, so the only difference is a slight shift in SD, which is a difference in 0.23 vs. 0.21... The visual and objective differences between the two impacts and the two wounds will be similar to the difference between two shots of each... Almost identical, as much as two wound cavities can be identical... So the 44mag and 454C are more like the 30-30 vs. 308win, or 30-06 vs. 300win mag - give the slower one a shorter range than the longer one and the results on target will be identical...
As I said in my first post, my 454's won't kill any animal my 44's can't kill, but the 454's can do it from farther away.
Zaydok Allen
Member
- Joined
- Feb 12, 2011
- Messages
- 13,274
Strictly speaking, in terms of energy, you are correct. However, if shooting similar weight bullets in two different cartridges, where they both pass completely through your intended target, where does that extra energy go? It goes into displacing air and hitting whatever is behind the target.
A 44 and 454 will both make large wound channels, and pass through large and dangerous animals. The 44 will kill NA animals dead. Will the 454 kill them deader? No. But the added velocity means flatter shooting and more range capabilities for down range velocities.
I think there is merit to the notion that increased velocity could mean less bullet deflection with heavy bone, but the sectional density on the same weight bullet in a 44 verses a 454 will be higher in the 44. So momentum and penetration will likely be a wash in both, and becomes irrelevant when the bullet passes completely through.
As far as temporary cavitation, well faster and bigger may increase that............ but will that kill? Most of the hunters I've spoken to state that permanent wound cavity and penetration are what matters. So the bottom line is that energy becomes pretty irrelevant when it comes to killing power. If a 44 will kill efficiently with heavy bullets, what will a 454 get you? More range is the answer in practical terms.
Craig made this assertion to me several years ago regarding the 460 Magnum. The more I've studied ballistics and the more I talk to folks like him and other handgun hunters, the more I see the merit of their assertion.
Riomouse911
Member
Owning a .454 SRH and a couple of .44 Smiths myself, the only major practical difference between the calibers is factory ammo availability. .44 is everywhere. .454 isn't... and where it can be found it's pretty pricy.
Yes, the .454 has more horsepower (and the resulting recoil) but at any range I can hit stuff with I'm not all that sure the critter would feel the difference.
Both have the luxury of the .44 Spl and .45 Colt as viable options for lower recoil loads.
It really boils down to what price you are willing to pay for the gun, and for the ammo to feed it.
Yes, the .454 has more horsepower (and the resulting recoil) but at any range I can hit stuff with I'm not all that sure the critter would feel the difference.
Both have the luxury of the .44 Spl and .45 Colt as viable options for lower recoil loads.
It really boils down to what price you are willing to pay for the gun, and for the ammo to feed it.
Intox
Member
Intox
Member
Well, granted it's been around 35 years ago (junior high). I do appreciate you educating me more on the topic since, as I said, I am in no way well versed on the topic and was sincerely asking for clarification and help.
farm23
Member
I have 'all of the above' but only use the 454C if I am hunting were I expect to shoot over 100 yards. Now days I enjoy the tracking to get closer and I do not hunt out west. I can take anything here in the east with 44 spl or 45lc. If I was going for larger game I would use my one of my 454's for the extra insurance. I have not used a rifle for 40 years and have taken most everything including brown bear and most were taken with a 44 or 45. CraigC and Verminaterror are correct and from what you originally asked I would suggest the 454 and reload. It can go down to very comfortable levels and up to suit any cravings. If a Ruger it can shoot 45 but keep it clean.
WELL, shooting DG with both over the years the only way one doesnt see the difference bw the two in killing power and wound channel etc is 1) using crappy bullets in the 454 or 2) not wanting too, i mean really not wanting too. Not sure what the discussion of the 460 was about but its even more of a good thing. The 44 isnt even in the same power realm. Ive taken cape buff with aframe expandables out of a 454. One shot kill with a pass through. I wouldnt even begin to try that in a 44 mag. The damage is far beyond what a 44 will do and the biggest reason is it will push expandables to an adequate penetration on 2klb animals and do far far more damage than a solid out of a 44 mag. Lotsa myths out there. Very few have shot the large dangerous game to truly see the difference. I have and actually have the video evidence to provenit as well.
Fyi, on penetration testing on that cape buff, my friends 420gr hc bullets out if a 475 linebaugh didnt go as deep as my 325 aframes and nothing resembling close to the depth my barnes busters penetrated too.
Fyi, on penetration testing on that cape buff, my friends 420gr hc bullets out if a 475 linebaugh didnt go as deep as my 325 aframes and nothing resembling close to the depth my barnes busters penetrated too.
Last edited:
CraigC
Sixgun Nut
Energy doesn't really tell the story, especially with handguns. Hydrostatic shock, or whatever you want to call it, does not begin to appear until somewhere over 2000fps. With hardcast bullets or non-expanding solids, you will see little to no difference in wound channels above 1300fps. So all you really gain with velocity above that is a flatter trajectory. You can actually begin to lose penetration if the added velocity starts to overtax the bullet, which happens often with cast bullets. More deformation = less penetration.
It's a little different with expanding bullets because they require velocity to work properly. Just as with rifles, the more you have, the easier it is to get the desired result.
Sorry to disagree thats an old wives tale. The only reason the progenitors of the myth that theres really no difference bw 1300 and 1700 fps quite honestly didnt use the right bullets and its all based off of hardcast lead where velocity gains are not shown to enhance wounf channel much just deform the nose profile. With solid copper slugs the wound channels open up from the start of the increase of velocity and continue on up. There is no dead zone as some have postulated. Get into the chest cavity of a human hit with a 357 and then with a 9mm and tell me theres no gain in wound channel. There is a huge difference i can assure you and both are well below the threshold of 2000fps. To make the example
More extreme take a solid copper solid of the same type and run it out of a 45 colt at 1100 fps and then a 454 at 1725 fps and then again at 2000fps out of a 460 and tell me theres no difference. This is one of the biggest myths with nooooo truth behind it.
More extreme take a solid copper solid of the same type and run it out of a 45 colt at 1100 fps and then a 454 at 1725 fps and then again at 2000fps out of a 460 and tell me theres no difference. This is one of the biggest myths with nooooo truth behind it.
d2wing
Member
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2008
- Messages
- 6,431
No velocity and energy do make a difference. The faster the bullet is the greater the resistance in flesh, the more resistance, the more energy is transferred into the flesh causing greater wounding by expanding the temporary cavity. Expanding bullets also increase resistance, energy transfer and wounding but it makes a greater difference at higher velocity. it is the reason why a .357 is much more effective than a .38 Special or 9 MM. Energy along with bullet construction are the most accurate measurement of bullet effectiveness. Ballistic engineers established this over a hundred years ago and ongoing research and study supports it.
That said, I recently had to chose between a 44 mag and 454. I chose the 44 because I figured I did not need the extra power. But now I wish I had bought both or given the 454 more thought.
That said, I recently had to chose between a 44 mag and 454. I chose the 44 because I figured I did not need the extra power. But now I wish I had bought both or given the 454 more thought.
d2wing
Member
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2008
- Messages
- 6,431
I agree completely. Too many momentum crackpots with no science behind them.
- Status
