.44 vs .454
- Thread starter KYregular
- Start date
- Status
CraigC
Sixgun Nut
Point clearly missed, thanks for playing.
Varminterror
Member
- Joined
- Jul 17, 2016
- Messages
- 14,883
I fully admit I know virtually nothing about ballistics. But I have both 44 and 454 guns. They are both great fun, but as a reloader I control the charge, and find the 454 to be great fun! (Curious as to why it uses small primer however...)
this discussion should be easy. we are all talking about mass, distance and time here. maybe we need a kinetic energy/momentum interpreter to make sense of all this.
alas, too many variables make this thing complex, i think. maybe data (or detailed anecdotal evidence) on animals killed would be better in this scenario. may cut down on the arguing and be a better answer for the op.
just a thought. (no, i don't have any anecdotal evidence on large animals to share).
murf
alas, too many variables make this thing complex, i think. maybe data (or detailed anecdotal evidence) on animals killed would be better in this scenario. may cut down on the arguing and be a better answer for the op.
just a thought. (no, i don't have any anecdotal evidence on large animals to share).
murf
The Evangelist Cowboy
Member
I'd choose the .44 magnum, ammo is easier to find, however the main reason I'd go with the .44 over the .454 is that .45 caliber revolvers generally speaking have their measurements ranging across the board from .452-.456 depending on make and model, the .44 (.429-.43) really doesnt deviate that much.
Demi-human
maybe likes firearms a little bit…
I know more about wood than weapons, so I don't argue with men who pistol shoot Longhorn steer.
Just like beautiful women, choose the one who speaks most sweetly to you.
Just like beautiful women, choose the one who speaks most sweetly to you.
RecoilRob
Member
454 uses Small Rifle primers to deal with the very high pressures it can generate. The smaller primer leaves more case head material to better deal with the beatdown it gets with every shot.
The discussion here is about handgun cartridges and NOT rifles...which are an entirely different kettle of fish when it comes to how the projectile behaves on/in an animal. Pistol bullets being relatively low velocity rely more on diameter and momentum to bore a deep hole which is why the inclusion of KE numbers plays very little part in how well they'll work and can be confusing if someone is trying to compare one with the other. Energy is stored in any moving object...but that of and by itself doesn't tell you anything about how deep something will penetrate as there's lots more involved. If you are trying to compare armor penetration by a kinetic projectile....then by all means calculate up the KE as it plays a major part in that exercise, but in a pistol...not so much.
CraigC
Sixgun Nut
That's definitely true of .45's but the .454's seem to be built right.
Sistema1927
Member
I like bigger holes. The .44 Magnum is really a .42 caliber, while the .454 is a real .45. I have several .45 Colts, and in the right guns I can push the same weight bullet faster with less pressure in the .45 than in the .44 and make a bigger hole.
CraigC
Sixgun Nut
No, it's a .43 caliber and most bullets are .430". The .45Colt never outruns the .44 unless you're running them at 50,000psi.
No critter will ever know the difference.
That said, if what I wanted was a good .45 caliber hunting sixgun, I'd order a Ruger Toklat, slap an Ultradot30 on it and never look back. The SRH is the best bang for the buck there is.
Sistema1927
Member
Yeah, I guess that .43 Magnum doesn't have the same panache. At the same time, you might want to check your pressures, and you will see that the .45 Colt will run the same as the .44 Magnum, for the same weight, at lower pressure.
However, the whole thing comes down to the fact that I said "I like". Personal preference. I didn't intend to start an argument, even though that has been the norm on this thread. Peace, out.
CraigC
Sixgun Nut
You have to know the history behind the cartridge and its predecessors to understand why it's a .44 and not a .43. The early .45's were .44's and the early .44's were .45's.
No, it doesn't. It comes close but averages 100fps less. Personal preference is what it is but so are the facts. Since everybody seems to think I make this stuff up:
https://www.loaddata.com/Cartridge/45-Colt-for-Ruger-Redhawk-Revolvers-ONLY/7793
https://www.loaddata.com/Cartridge/44-Remington-Magnum-P-44-Magnum-P-Handloading-Data/5501
It actually will at lower pressures. Popular published load data doesn't run the .45 Colt up to the same pressure levels as the .44 Mag, usually topping out around the 30,000 psi mark, as "Ruger-only" is a rather gray area. The .44 Mag load data will touch upon the SAAMI maximum of 36,000 psi. In order to truly make an apples to apples comparison, they need to be loaded to the same pressure. That said, I had some loads in .45 Colt created and pressure tested by Grizzly Cartridge to 36,000 psi, to test this theory. With 335 grain bullets and a not-so-tight Super Redhawk, they chronographed over 1,400 fps. It's just physics.
CraigC
Sixgun Nut
Yes, the .44 uses more pressure to do what it does. So what??? Comparing "Ruger only" loads to full pressure .44 loads, it is as I said, the .44 maintains a slight velocity advantage. Comparing the .45Colt at the same pressure is the BS Linebaugh argument. If the .45's are 80% as strong, then it's only comparable at 80% the pressure. It is only when the guns are loaded to 50,000psi, as in the two links I posted above, that the .45 begins to pull away. I don't place any importance on 100fps in either direction.
No, you said the following: "The .45Colt never outruns the .44 unless you're running them at 50,000psi." It will in fact outrun the .44 at the same pressures. Again, just physics. I just like making comparisons that are fair. So when folks declare that the .44 can throw equal weight bullets as the .45 faster, it's just not true when you load them to the same level. I'm not leaning on anyone else's argument just my own testing. Nothing more, nothing less.
Many 44’s and 45’s are strong enough to jam whatever amount of h110 will fit in the case. The strength isnt an issue. I had a friend who had sw mountain guns in each caliber. The 44 was imminently more useable than the 45 just due to the strength of the gun. Ive seen the 36k psi compari and the colt runs faster. I would say the discussion and interest in test is whether that difference actually matters. Running the same speed at a slightly lower pressure means nothing to me. It just shows that when the pressure goes up i go faster. Thats what im interested in. I have 45 colt cylinders in my fa guns and i never use em. The ruger 454’s are built with a seemingly higher build quAlity and so i dont even care about the 45 colts. Craig, i agree about the toklat. Just an awesome gun and an awesome value as well. More oomph is more oomph but i think all concerned would do better discussing what bullet is better. That is where the rubber hits the road and the determining factor in a guns performance no matter the caliber.
CraigC
Sixgun Nut
I agree, 100fps in either direction makes no difference whatsoever. It's the bullet that does the job and I'm glad we have such a good selection available to us.
If pressures are equal, the .45 wins, I think I said that. The point I'm trying to make is that what the two cartridges do at the same pressure is only "apples to apples" if the guns are equivalent strength. In most cases, they are not. To me, this is the dumbest part of the Linebaugh articles to first establish that the .45's are 80% as strong as the .44's but then test them at the same pressure. It should be stupidly obvious that the cartridge with the greater case capacity is going to yield more velocity but the whole exercise is irrelevant. If you are going to run the .45 at 36,000psi, you're eating into that 100% safety margin but retaining it with the .44. It's just not a valid comparison unless the guns are equal. IMHO, the two cartridges accomplish the same basic task, one does it with slightly higher pressure, the other with slightly more powder. One is slightly larger in diameter, the other gets slightly higher velocity and penetrates slightly better. End result is a wash.
It's only when they are used in guns of equal strength, like the Redhawk/Super Redhawk that can both be run at 50-55,000psi that the .45 gains the advantage. When the guns and pressures are equal, the .45's case capacity wins the velocity race. When the guns and pressures are not equal, the .44's pressure wins. The difference either way is a wash.
If pressures are equal, the .45 wins, I think I said that. The point I'm trying to make is that what the two cartridges do at the same pressure is only "apples to apples" if the guns are equivalent strength. In most cases, they are not. To me, this is the dumbest part of the Linebaugh articles to first establish that the .45's are 80% as strong as the .44's but then test them at the same pressure. It should be stupidly obvious that the cartridge with the greater case capacity is going to yield more velocity but the whole exercise is irrelevant. If you are going to run the .45 at 36,000psi, you're eating into that 100% safety margin but retaining it with the .44. It's just not a valid comparison unless the guns are equal. IMHO, the two cartridges accomplish the same basic task, one does it with slightly higher pressure, the other with slightly more powder. One is slightly larger in diameter, the other gets slightly higher velocity and penetrates slightly better. End result is a wash.
It's only when they are used in guns of equal strength, like the Redhawk/Super Redhawk that can both be run at 50-55,000psi that the .45 gains the advantage. When the guns and pressures are equal, the .45's case capacity wins the velocity race. When the guns and pressures are not equal, the .44's pressure wins. The difference either way is a wash.
Last edited:
farm23
Member
I am getting a lot out of this discussion and in a revolver the bullet design makes all the difference. I like the Toklat for what it is but I think it may be the ugliest gun Ruger makes. The OP is deciding between a 44 and a 454 and the 45 comes in as a secondary role maybe like the 44 special to the 44mag. I like them all.
KYregular said:
This sure turned into a fascinating discussion. The only thing I'll add at this stage (before thoroughly digesting many of the posts here) is that I would advise against the Super Redhawk Alaskan if you're leaning in that direction. I have an Alaskan and also have a Redhawk in .45 Colt with the 4.2" barrel. The general theory is that the SRH is a better platform than the RH which I won't argue with, but the short barrel on the Alaskan is a major handicap for the .454 Casull cartridge. For that reason I carry the RH while hunting/hiking/camping up here. I use 340gr to 360gr hardcast bullets in front of H110 powder and they're a manageable handful. If you opt for a SRH in .454 Casull the Toklat does make a lot of sense if you can get past the hideous appearance.
https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...alaskan-454-casull-among-other-things.822582/
I'm seriously considering selling my two GP100s and one SP101 to fund my "ultimate" .454 revolver which would be an Alaskan with a 4" barrel. I have no use for the GP100s or SP101 and I'm over having guns in my safe that I don't use. I would have a harder time parting with two sequentially numbered Bisley Blackhawks but I don't use those either. Maybe Mr. Bowen could make me an offer that I couldn't refuse.
farm23
Member
I have 2 FA 454's but a 4" Ruger Alaskan would really peak my interest.
This sure turned into a fascinating discussion. The only thing I'll add at this stage (before thoroughly digesting many of the posts here) is that I would advise against the Super Redhawk Alaskan if you're leaning in that direction. I have an Alaskan and also have a Redhawk in .45 Colt with the 4.2" barrel. The general theory is that the SRH is a better platform than the RH which I won't argue with, but the short barrel on the Alaskan is a major handicap for the .454 Casull cartridge. For that reason I carry the RH while hunting/hiking/camping up here. I use 340gr to 360gr hardcast bullets in front of H110 powder and they're a manageable handful. If you opt for a SRH in .454 Casull the Toklat does make a lot of sense if you can get past the hideous appearance.
https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...alaskan-454-casull-among-other-things.822582/
I'm seriously considering selling my two GP100s and one SP101 to fund my "ultimate" .454 revolver which would be an Alaskan with a 4" barrel. I have no use for the GP100s or SP101 and I'm over having guns in my safe that I don't use. I would have a harder time parting with two sequentially numbered Bisley Blackhawks but I don't use those either. Maybe Mr. Bowen could make me an offer that I couldn't refuse.
Seriously call jack huntington. He does all my revolver work and is tops imho. He wouldnt charge much to cut it down to 4” from a standard 7.5” and tune it and whatnot. He has turned my srh’s from the clunky back ups to my fa’s to the top flight first choice revolvers they are now. I think thats what i would do since if u start w the 7.5” u keep the integral ring groove if ya ever wanted a scope or reddot. I always add meprolight night sights. Better in day and night. Jack has created a screw in base that the front mounts in and i have the night sights on my srh 480 as well as my older 454.
CraigC
Sixgun Nut
If you can source a Redhawk .45 barrel, might see about putting one of these together.
Varminterror
Member
- Joined
- Jul 17, 2016
- Messages
- 14,883
I agree with @Tradmark, I'd start with a regular Super Redhawk frame if I were wanting to cut down to a 4" barrel, to keep the option of mounting optics. I'd honestly prefer a Bowen GP44 with a Redhawk barrel, and would still keep the single receiver cut on the top strap to mount a red dot while leaving the sights in place (although I am a big fan of the JPoint mount for Rugers). I'm not old enough I should be saying this, but my eyes ain't what they used to be, so I'm expecting I'll have all of my open sighted field firearms converted over to red dots before I turn 40 in a few years...
@CraigC was posting the same type I was typing - so I ALSO agree with Craig - the GP44 is a slick piece.
I'd be interested to take measurements sometime to see if there's a happy coincidence where the Redhawk's barrel rib is at the appropriate height to use both the SRH style receiver cut and a RH Hunter style barrel cut together. Not ideal, of course, but would be rigid enough for the work needing done.
@CraigC was posting the same type I was typing - so I ALSO agree with Craig - the GP44 is a slick piece.
I'd be interested to take measurements sometime to see if there's a happy coincidence where the Redhawk's barrel rib is at the appropriate height to use both the SRH style receiver cut and a RH Hunter style barrel cut together. Not ideal, of course, but would be rigid enough for the work needing done.
Last edited:
- Status
