44 Magnum vs. 45 Colt (Hot-Loading)

[Funshooter45]

I can say without a doubt that the .45 Colt brass is not the weak link. I have a Magnum Research BFR in .454 Casull. After reading all about John Linebaugh's work, I just had to go try some super high pressure 45 Colt rounds. Sure enough, you can do it just fine. Basically, you can get performance equal to the .454 out of a .45 Colt case if your gun is up to it.

Now there's an idea for you fellers who want a single action revolver that looks like a Blackhawk but has a 5 shot cylinder capable of handling loads that can kill dinosaurs. They are much higher quality than Blackhawks, yet they cost only half what a Freedom Arms does.

Once I had satisfied my curiosity regarding ultra high pressure 45 Colt loads though, I decided to restrict the .45 Colt cases to normal 45 Colt loads. I was afraid somoeone (me for instance) would inadvertently put one of those beasts into a normal revolver and blow it up.

Incidentally, I also have another BFR in .480 Ruger. After examining the way it performs on wood and other materials, I have decided that indeed, it makes the .454 seem kind of puny. If a feller really wants to be loaded for bear with a handgun, forget about the measly .44 mag or 45 Colt. Get yourself a .480 and go out buffalo hunting.

 

[Kevin Rohrer]

Bluntly, Ken Waters is wrong. The .45Colt is PROVEN to be plenty strong for loads up to 55,000psi.

It may be possible given a particular cylinder and frame, but I hope your blanket statement doesn't mean that ANY handgun chambered in .45LC will handle those pressures.

The variants of frame, cylinder, and brass insert too many variables that keep your statement from being correct in all circumstances.

I will read that article asap.

 

[USSR]

Quote:
Bluntly, Ken Waters is wrong. The .45Colt is PROVEN to be plenty strong for loads up to 55,000psi.

It may be possible given a particular cylinder and frame, but I hope your blanket statement doesn't mean that ANY handgun chambered in .45LC will handle those pressures.

I believe that statement by CraigC was quite obviously a reference to the strength of the current .45 Colt case, and irrespective of the firearm used.

Don

 

[Kevin Rohrer]

I weighed the following cases:

Western .45LC of indeterminant age: 79-84gr
New Starline .45LC: 107-109gr
Winchester .44mag: 120-122gr

Waters states that the pressures the cartridge will handle is partly determined by the brand of brass used. His assertion is certainly reasonable. I don't recall if Seyfried talked about the differences in brass, and haven't gotten to the Linebaugh article.

 

[CraigC]

We're talking about cases, so my statement was about cases, not the guns.

Seyfried certainly does talk about cases. At the time he penned the article, Federal made the best .45Colt case. It is widely accepted that Starline makes the best now. However, in this case, "best" indicates longest life. It is not as if the cases at the bottom of that list will cause catastrophic failures. I would suggest further educating yourself before quoting Ken Waters on this subject again.

 

[Kevin Rohrer]

SAAMI Pressures:

.45LC 14,000 PSI (original)
.45LC 30,000 (possible new listing quoted in an article Handloader's Digest 18th Edition)
.44mag 36,000 PSI

As a new .45LC owner, this topic has been an eye-opener for me. I now know not to try full-power loads w/certain brass (e.g. Western) and will stick to Starline for stiff loads. I am also amazed at how pompous some people are who take one gunwriter's information as Gospel while looking down their noses at everyone else.

Here is an article for those considering exceeding SAAMI specs that should give wise reloaders pause:

http://www.chuckhawks.com/high-pressure45.htm

Consider me educated

 

[USSR]

I disagree with most of Mr. Linebaugh's assertions about very high pressure .45 Colt loads and the strength of the .45 Colt case...

Hmm, Hawks or Linebaugh, who ya gonna believe? Well, since John Linebaugh has done the hands on testing of the .45 Colt, has built numerous .45 Colts, and has a successful business selling .45 Colts, I think he has a leg up on a hack like Chuck Hawks who simply takes what some others have said and regurgitates it.

Consider me educated

You really should consider your teachers better.

Don

 

[Missionary]

Good morning
This is like comparing the 44 Mag (.43 actual ) to the .41. No criter is ever going to know the difference when popped with the same bullet weight at near the same FPS when calibers are that close in diameter. But when given the option a bigger hole is always better when all else is =.
But compare the .41 to the 45 colt and that is a jump in smackability. Both calibers I shoot alot when up north there. Sold all my 44´s (except the 44 Russians) when I got into 41 mag & 45 Colt.
Mike in Peru

 

[CraigC]

I am also amazed at how pompous some people are who take one gunwriter's information as Gospel while looking down their noses at everyone else.

Pompous??? Mr. Rohrer, this is not a newly blazed trail. You are contradicting long-time accepted and PROVEN fact. This trail was blazed by people like Elmer Keith, Dick Casull, John Linebaugh and Ross Seyfried, perpetuated by folks like John Taffin, Brian Pearce and Dave Scovill. Have you even read any of the work of those folks I just listed before posting in this thread? Probably not. As I said before, your problem is a lack of knowledge on this subject, yet you speak with authority as if you actually know what the hell you're talking about. You clearly do not. Then, armed with this ignorance, you rebutt statements by those who have actually been there and done that with ZERO behind you but some BS that Ken Waters wrote and now an article by the much-disrespected Chuck Hawks.

Consider me educated

Hardly. Some of us have been doing this for many years. I consider you just educated enough to get your tail in a crack. Which you've done with aplomb. The fact that you have ZERO posts in the revolver forum tells, well, everything.


Here's an article that will really get your panties in a bunch.

http://www.singleactions.com/files/FiveShot45Colts.pdf

 

[Old Fuff]

In Colt Single Action Army revolvers (both pre and post war) and the various clones/replicas thereof, only cylinders made and chambered in .357 Magnum were (and still are) made of an alloy steel that's especially heat treated to take elevated pressures. Firing handloads with substantially elevated pressures risks at the least, ruining the cylinder by expanding a chamber or chambers. Users that are aware of this sometimes would buy a .357 cylinder and have it rechambered to .44 Special or .45 Colt. In doing so they got a little extra insurance.

It is well known (or should be) that Elmer Keith switched from .45 Colt to .44 Special in his Colt's to gain that little-but-important extra thickness in the chamber walls. His loads (modified for use in solid-head cases) are safe, but exceeding them may not be.

Some folks think that any load that doesn't blow up the gun is safe. They are flat out wrong! Anyone who disagrees has the option of asking the gun manufacture (who of course don't know anything either). Be aware that Colt, Smith & Wesson and Ruger will not repair a revolver under warrantee if they find the cylinder has one or more expanded chambers.

 

[RalphS]

Starline states on their website that their 45 Colt brass has been tested to 44 Magnum pressures. I shoot hot 45LC loads all the time and, although I mostly use Starline brass, have had no problems with any brass in my Redhawk.

The real issue, I think, is that with 44 Magnum you can follow published reloading recipes without giving it much thought and you should live happily ever after.

With 45LC reloading, it takes a little thinking, some research and the ability to filter out bad advice, a bit of caution and a lot of common sense. Not everyone qualifies. Some should just stick to 44 Magnum.

My Redhawk is shooting 300 grain hardcast at 1250 fps out of a 4 inch barrel. Not bad for a non-magnumized, 100 year old cartridge design with thin and weak brass.

I just wish that Ruger would start making the 5.5 inch 45LC Redhawk again. Or maybe a 454 with a 5.5 inch barrel. That would make me happy.