.44 vs .45 ballistically speaking

I think you have a wider range of factory loads that will be easier to find in 44 than 45. But that is about it. If you have a gun that will handle the pressures 45 can always be loaded a little more potent than 44 mag.

I actually like 41 mag. It's a neat round that in the real world does pretty much anything you can do with 44 if you don't mind marching to the beat of a different drummer.

My sense of it is that when you get to the rarified extremes of possibilities that the LC is where you want to be.

I don't play in that end of the pool but friends and family that do tend to lean towards the LC since they prefer to reload.

As to the .41. I learned both re-loading and handgun hunting on one and stayed with it exclusively until confidence allowed me to roll my Dan Wesson .357 into both activities.

I never felt that I gave anything up on the .41 other than projectile selection from manufacturers. In point of fact, my best hunting loads were fairly significantly down from maximum-magnum loadings anyhow.

Todd

Henry makes/made the .41 in their rifles. I like it but is a handloader's round in my mind.

As above, the .44 has better factory support.

I belive @CraigC has broken it down to "same diff" in similar guns before regarding 44 v 45.

The thing is 44 rifle v handgun has different barrel specs, so finding bullets appropriate for the rifle will be a little more challenging.

You won't gain much, if anything with the 44. I'd just stick with the 45.

IN GENERAL, the 45colt is handicapped in factory ammunition much moreso than is the 44mag. Both are shooting the same weight class of bullets, 240/250-300, which means the 44mag has the edge for BC and SD. Given a proportionately heavier bullet, the 45 colt catches up. Equally, the 45colt is typically loaded to considerably lower pressure standards, which simply aren’t apt when you’re talking about a comparison between two of the same model in a strong action - the 45colt can be loaded at commensurate pressure to meet and slightly exceed the performance of the 44mag...

So IN GENERAL, factory 45colt falls about half a length behind factory 44mag in a horserace, but when both are hand loaded to their pinnacle performance, the two become neck and neck, with the 45colt winning by a nose...

HOWEVER...

If anyone in the world can actually prove a true demarcation between the two in real performance in the field, for ANY functional application beyond on-paper ballistics... well... I’ve been hotrodding both for 25 years myself, and further studying those which blow up guns in pursuit of knowledge to gift the rest of us, and I’ve yet to see a substantial difference. I own both, but I prefer 44mag, typically, largely because I own more of them, and started with 44’s first - and because I accumu-collect 44mag original Vaqueros. But it’s a pretty soft bias when you own and use (discounting my Warthog Vaquero collection) nine 44mags and five 45colts (plus four 454’s which also eat 45colt).

If you handload, no. Factory, as jmr40 said, there's more choice in .44 Mag. (& Spl.) loads.

I had a Rossi 44 mag for a while and had a hard time with it. It would only shoot 240 grn factory ammo well, didn't like cast lead 200 grn at all, and wouldn't cycle buffalo bore 310 grn stuff. So if limited to one load I'd much rather have the 45lc.

I’d go 41, 45,44 in order of which I’d purchase

more or less a wash as others have said, if you don’t reload 44 might be the way

It's been a good while since I was looking at the two as a short range hunting rifle, so things might have changed or Im remembering wrong.... but on the top ragged edge I do believe the 44 mag has better SD than the 45 Colt. However both cartridges are shooting completely through every game in North American before you get there so it's more "on paper" difference than reality.

If you plan to use the same loads in both handgun and rifle platforms, and provided both types of arms are made using modern materials and methods, and assuming modern solid-head brass (remember. the .45 Colt started back in the balloon-head era), then I can't see any obvious difficulties loading the .45 Colt up to the same ballistic and pressure levels as a .44 Magnum. The .45 Colt actually has slightly more case volume than the .44 Magnum (41.6 vs. 37.9 grains H2O), and there are plenty of modern firearms that will shrug off higher pressure .45 loadings.

However I would personally follow this road with an additional degree of caution. As another poster recently implied during a 30-30 thread, I'm evidently a scaredy cat -- so be it! Both when originally introduced and officially today, the .45 Colt has a designed pressure ceiling of less than half the .44 Magnum's, 14K vs. 36K psi. Because the .45 Colt is strongly linked with the 19th-Century 'cowboy' arsenal, I would be concerned about mixing a high-pressure loadings with arms (especially revolvers) that are unable to safely handle higher, magnum-level pressures. I have an old Lyman loading manual from 1978 with a separate section for .45 Colt loads marked "for Ruger and TC Contender only".

If I was to choose this route, I think one of my precautions would be using .45 Colt brass headstamped either +P (rare stuff) or cut-down .454 Casull cases. Or perhaps loading the hotter stuff in nickel-plated cases and keeping them in clearly-labeled ammo boxes of a different color from any lighter stuff.

Mind you, I'm not so much talking here about getting your own ammo mixed up. I believe as a community we have to consider what might happen if someone else tried shooting a box of our handloads unaware -- in my case, I'm thinking about the possibility of my departing this world ahead of my wife, and my shooting stuff getting into the food chain posthumously.

I don't actually own anything right now chambered in .45 Colt, but I do own and handload for a 1911 and a Webley MkVI revolver that will both chamber the same .45 ACP cartridges. Since the Webley wasn't engineered to handle standard .45 ACP pressure levels, I use it with reduced-pressure .45 Auto Rim ammo exclusively to prevent any potential for mix-ups. I have a similar problem with .38 ACP (Astra M400) and .38 Super +P (another 1911) -- I handle that by loading for both using the lower ACP pressure levels.

Back to the original question: I think I would be inclined to go the .44 Magnum route for reasons of simplicity. It isn't backward compatible with .44 S&W, Russian or Special in the sense that you could accidentally fit the hot stuff in any of the older, weaker platforms. The Magnum's performance in carbine-length barrels is well-documented. The larger diameter rim on the .44 Magnum case would provide a theoretical extraction advantage over the skimpy rim on the .45 in lever action rifles, though whether that is ever a real world advantage I cannot attest.

This is my long-winded way of rationalizing the addition of some new irons for your arsenal.

FWIW, my .44 handguns are a Ruger Super Blackhawk and TC Encore with an 8" barrel, and their carbine companions are a bolt-action 77/44 and a Martini-Henry conversion.

It depends. Academically speaking, if you handload and agree with 'some' experts that the modern 1892 is strong enough for 50,000psi loads then the .45Colt will have an advantage. If you stick to "Ruger only" data in the .45, then the two are ballistic twins with only slight differences that don't add up to much. Closer to earth, the limitation is going to be the twist rate, which is unnecessarily slow in most of these guns. Usually 1-30" for the various 92's. This coupled with COAL limitations, means you're stuck with bullets up to 300gr. Taylor's lists their current guns as 1-16" for the .45 and 1-20" for the .44, which makes things more interesting.

I will say this, the Puma .454 feeds and fires 360gr .454 and 405gr .45Colt and that makes things mighty interesting, although I have yet to test it on paper.

I personally would go for the .44 over the .45. Mainly because I handload and feel that I could cover the full spectrum from mild to wild. I know that this is not the question, but .41 mag is my first choice to. Whomever makes the first side gate loading .41 will sell me one. I don't care if it is Henry or Marlin/Ruger.

bernie said:

Whomever makes the first side gate loading .41 will sell me one. I don't care if it is Henry or Marlin/Ruger.

Click to expand...

I recall that Marlin once did a limited run of their Model 1894 in .41 Magnum, but they are about as hard to find as this model in .32 H&R:

https://www.cheaperthandirt.com/mar...ds-black-walnut-stock-blued-barrel/41300.html

I went with 44 Mag to pair a Rossi M92 with a S&W M29. I think if I was more of a single action revolver shooter I probably would have gone 45 Colt. As others have already stated if you're a hand-loader there is not much separating the two cartridges ballistically, not enough for the target to tell you.

adcoch1 said:

I had a Rossi 44 mag for a while and had a hard time with it. It would only shoot 240 grn factory ammo well, didn't like cast lead 200 grn at all, and wouldn't cycle buffalo bore 310 grn stuff. So if limited to one load I'd much rather have the 45lc.

Click to expand...

I've read, tho have no experience for myself, that 44 chambered rifles often/usually have .430 bore, and can have difficulty shooting the common 430 lead bullets accurately.

Again that's just what I've read though. I've not yet picked up a 44 caliber gun, and if the email that my FFL buddy just got is correct then I'll be picking up a 454 Citadel in the next few months..... After that I may look at a 44 as I do like the cartridge and have more 44 stuff than 45.

They're similar enough reloaded in the same platform that I'd go with whatever you're already invested in. If you don't reload, the .44 has hotter commercial ammo if that's what you're looking for. I think either 92 is a serviceable gun.

NorthBorder said:

y'all are persuading me not to get a 44 mag rifle. That's weird.

Click to expand...

I agree, and would like to save what grace we have left with this observation.

You will never know if the slight differences between the two are enough to make it interesting for you, if you never buy the rifle.
Some won’t have a preference, but you’ll not know if you do or not without seeing for yourself.
Buy the rifle. You won’t regret having too many rifles when you think back on all the fun you had.

Whew! Saved it!

LoonWulf said:

I've read, tho have no experience for myself, that 44 chambered rifles often/usually have .430 bore, and can have difficulty shooting the common 430 lead bullets accurately.

Again that's just what I've read though. I've not yet picked up a 44 caliber gun, and if the email that my FFL buddy just got is correct then I'll be picking up a 454 Citadel in the next few months..... After that I may look at a 44 as I do like the cartridge and have more 44 stuff than 45.

Click to expand...

It's true. The .430 bore was more like .431 in mine and it didn't like cast lead. My cva single shot really likes my 200 grn plinker level 44 mag with cast bullets. So I have a 44 mag rifle and love it, but it isn't the Rossi. Now a 357 rossi is awesome, and I have heard nothing but good about the 45lc rossi.

You said you’re heavily invested in 45LC rifles but looking for something new. Loaded to their hottest points with heaviest bullets, the 45, on paper, wins when compared 44. But if you’re just looking for something different, why not go up in power instead of down? Why not a 444 or 45-70? Or go much lower to the 357/38.

I only mention this because neither animal nor paper will know the difference between a 44 and 45.

Dave DeLaurant said:

I recall that Marlin once did a limited run of their Model 1894 in .41 Magnum,

Click to expand...

Actually 2... the original 1894C in .41 back in the '80's or 90's, and then the pistol-gripped 1894FG around 2003. I scored an FG when they were released, and changed it over to a straight grip, which I prefer. I don't care about destroying the value, it's a forever gun.

The original C is scarce as hen's teeth, the FG not nearly so... but the usual going rate for one suggests it's getting there. Here's to hoping Ruger releases some .41 1894's to go with their revolver offerings. It would make sense.

OP, as far as it goes... a 45 Colt rifle is nearly as capable as a .44, but as others mentioned, if you are stuck with factory ammos, the .44 would be the way to go. If you are a handloader... then pick the one you want, all 3 can be loaded for a rifle to nearly the same levels.

One caveat, however... someone mentioned instability of .45 Colt bullets. This can be very true depending on the barrel twist. I owned a Marlin 1894 in .45 Colt for a while... it's lazy 1:38" rifling would only stabilize lighter bullets going quite fast, I had terrible trouble with 255's and 270's pushed by Unique. Had I substituted IMR4227 or 2400 things might have been different, or gone to 200grn'ish bullets.

One plus point for the .41MAG... the bore size is standardized across everything that shoots it... .410" Period. None of this .452" or .454" with the Colt, or .429" or .432" mix-n-match with the .44's

My keeper set... Marlin 1894(FG) and Dan Wesson 741 6" in .41. The .44's and .45's have come and gone, but the .41's remain...

Charlie98 said:

One plus point for the .41MAG... the bore size is standardized across everything that shoots it... .410" Period.

Click to expand...

Hadn't thought of that, but you are right, mostly.
Standards are a .410" bullet shot through a .411" cylinder throat into a .409" groove diameter barrel.
Unfortunately the usual generous SAAMI tolerances apply.

My only input into this, because the points I was going to make have already been covered, is that I had a Rossi 92 in .45 Colt. I bought it for Cowboy Action, but also planned to hunt Blacktail deer with it. I found the Rossi 92 to be cartridge length finicky. Cartridges at SAAMI lengths of 1.600” would sometimes get hung up when entering the carrier exiting the magazine. In my testing if I adjusted OAL to 1.550 my cartridges fed reliably.
I found this to be the case with that rifle when operating the action fast or slow. The longer cartridges would sometimes hang up.
Now, this may have been an issue with the gun that I had and not the norm, but it’s something to verify in your gun, if you have or wish to purchase one.

My wife has a Marlin that slugs .432. I have it shooting good now but I never would have bought it had I known "normal" ammo would key hole.