.45 Colt vs .44 Mag

Status
Not open for further replies.
CraigC
Quote:
Ross Seyfried and others wrote as much. Not so.
I think you'll find that Seyfried is a very, very strong proponent of the .45Colt in strong guns. He penned an article on his trip to Africa after Cape buffalo with his Linebaugh custom Abilene slinging big 360gr LBT's. He might even be more responsible than most for getting the results of Linebaugh's work with the cartridge and its potential out to the masses.

I don't think Ross S. ever had an Abilene. Linebaugh built his first 6 shot guns
on Sevilles. I posted a picture of my Seville, converted by John Linebaugh, finished by Jack Huntington.

Linebaugh told me that my gun was one of two Sevilles owned by Ross Seyfried, and, it was the sister gun to Ross's used to kill the cape buffalo in this article:
ACFFED6.gif
Notice the resemblance?
Sevillebarrel2copy-1.gif
Ross was smart enough to put a barrel band on to get the ejector housing from ejecting, even though mine never did.

That said, I spent nearly an hour on the phone with Mr. Seyfried, listening to him tell his cape buffalo story, and, there is a reason he pushed for the .475 Linebaugh. That buffalo nearly got him.
He also designed the .585 Nyati right after that, to have a bolt action stopping rifle for cape buffalo who weren't smart enough to know they should be dead.

IIRC, the load was 27.5 grains of H110, under a 360 grain bullet, and, he was nice enough to send me 12 rounds. Without custom grips, they recoil a bit too much for a normal human, but, they did go 1550 fps, at nearly 60k pressure. OK for a few rounds in those tight fit, 17-4 solid cylinders.

Linebaugh later changed his story, saying my gun, number 25, was not Ross Seyfrieds, but from a customer in Alaska who had traded it or some such story. I have all of this in writing, by the way.

The way I see it is you are at the mercy of Rugers cylinder reamers on the .45 Colt. Early in the run, you get nice tight 45 Colt chambers, if not proper throats. Late in the run the cutting is not so percise.

The best way to do a .45 Colt is to start with a .44 magnum, bore out the cylinder to .45 Colt, and have it done by Linebaugh, Bowen, Huntington, etc. Isn't cheap. Or, find a .454 FA 83, used, and buy a .45 Colt cylinder, or, use the .454 cylinder for nothing but .45 Colt.

I haven't run across a .45 Colt BFR without the long cylinder, but, if and when you find one, the BFR's are FA quality, nearly, at half the price, with ruger parts for swapping.
 
Heavier bullets are available for it, right?

There's more room in the case for powder when these super-heavy bullets are loaded, right?

Therefore, it can handle heavier bullets. It's time to put aside your bias and accept the facts.
 
Heavier bullets are available for it, right?

There's more room in the case for powder when these super-heavy bullets are loaded, right?

Therefore, it can handle heavier bullets. It's time to put aside your bias and accept the facts.
Have you read this thread? Did you see my statements about 360's in the .45 and 355's in the .44???

I put aside my bias when I realized that a lot of the crap we had been fed about the advantages of the .45Colt over the .44Mag was no longer true.....or never was. Of course, that was only after I had a near matched pair of custom Rugers built. Both 4 5/8", both with adjustable sights, both Bisleys, one a .44, the other a .45. Unlike a lot of folks with an opinion on this matter, like yourself, I own and use several examples of each.

The .44Mag Super Blackhawk:
P1010059.jpg

The .45Colt Bisley Vaquero:
IMG_0548.jpg
 
Last edited:
Have you read this thread? Did you see my statements about 360's in the .45 and 355's in the .44???
I'm not precisely sure what you're arguing here. There are gun writers who assert the heaviest bullet that is practical for a "Ruger-only" .45 Colt to shoot is 360 grains, and there's "Ruger-only" load data for bullets of this weight that doesn't involve pushing the pressures beyond 80% of .44 Magnum.

So there's no question that the "Ruger-only" .45 Colt can handle heavy bullets.

And then you went off on some tangent about sectional density, by which, yes, all things being equal, the .44 Magnum will always hold an edge over the .45 Colt on the account of being 0.023" narrower. And yes, all things being equal, the .44 Magnum will consistently drive a bullet of identical weight faster than the .45 Colt will.

So the .44 Magnum handles heavy bullets better than the "Ruger-only" .45 Colt does. However, I'm not sure how this translates into "The .45 Colt can't handle heavy bullets."
 
Hogdon lists 395 grain bullet loads, from 1100-1200 fps, for the .454 Casull.
No reason, with a properly designed bullet, you can't get this kind of velocity out of the .45 Colt, with this bullet, Ruger only, since the pressures are .45 Colt pressures, pretty much, on the lowend.

That said, getting the bullet stabilized takes a different from normal twist, IIRC.

Practically, the 360's are max for the 45, and the 340s are max for the .44.

If you look at buffalobore loadings for both, they are so close only a ballistic table can tell the difference.

Hogs? Seyfried took a cape buffalo with the 360 load, but, it was really a 454 Casull pressure load, or higher.
 
.44 mag vs .45 colt

I bought a Super Blackhawk about 1978 but I have no idea if it was an old or new model or whatever. The thing I know is that it was the most fun non full automatic gun I ever shot. I agree about the strenght and reliability. I will not tell you how strong of handloads I shot through it with no apparent damage. It is also a lot easier to shoot, IMHO, than the Smith 29 or the Redhawk. I stupidly sold it to a friend and rue the day cause it was just so much fun.
 
So the .44 Magnum handles heavy bullets better than the "Ruger-only" .45 Colt does. However, I'm not sure how this translates into "The .45 Colt can't handle heavy bullets."
Exactly! What I'm taking issue with is the statement that the .45Colt handles "heavier" bullets than the .44Mag. Stated here:
45 Colt can handle heavier bullets.
and here
Therefore, it can handle heavier bullets.
My point is that this is not true. The 360gr is the heaviest the .45Colt can handle efficiently, as stated by 99% of your authorities. 355's work just fine in the .44Mag and run 100fps faster with excellent accuracy. Or are we quibbling over 5gr???


I don't think Ross S. ever had an Abilene. Linebaugh built his first 6 shot guns
on Sevilles.
I was remembering the #2 Abilene Linebaugh mentioned in his "Dissolving the Myth..." article. Which is pretty much academic because they're basically the same gun.


Hogdon lists 395 grain bullet loads, from 1100-1200 fps, for the .454 Casull.
And John Taffin has a new article on how silly that is. Beartooth has a 405gr .44 but who cares???
 
Last edited:
hey prosser,

the cast performance 395gn wlngc works just fine in my blackhawk. my RUGER ONLY load uses h110 and pushes em out the barrel at just under 1000fps. the 1:16 twist spins em just fine. needs a very heavy crimp, though. kicks like a mule in that little gun.

murf
 
OK Craig, let me get this straight. You're saying "Who cares" for bullet weights greater than 355 gr.?

Why are you discounting the heaviest bullets? Are they not practical for some reason or other? What I was getting at was that:

a) Heavier bullets are available for .45 Colt than .44 Magnum. (regardless of whether you consider them useful), and

b) A bullet of a given weight is going to be longer in .44 Magnum than in .45 Colt. Therefore, the .45 Colt can handle a heavier bullet before it gets so long it can't be stabilized or before there's not enough room for powder to get the bullet going at least 800 fps.

Am I wrong?

I will add that just because you have owned a matched set of revolvers in each caliber, it doesn't necessarily make you the world's leading expert on the subject. I'm referring to your putting down of Ross Seyfried and myself because we are either not imaginative enough or not experienced enough.

You should try to stay civil. It is not that your comments are falling on deaf ears, (at least not in my case) it's just that we're going from different assumptions. (i.e. bullet weights over 360 gr. are useless or something) I was just not so quick to rule out heavy bullets for the purpose of this discussion.

240 gr. bullets are already pretty big. I suspect that 260 gr. would take down just about any animal out there, including elephants and cape buffalo. (and especially hogs)
 
You should try to stay civil.
I am being civil. I'm not getting personal, I'm politely telling you that you are wrong and exactly why.


If you think I'm putting Ross Seyfried down, you are definitely taking what I've stated wrong. Period. I have the utmost respect for Seyfried, he is one of my favorite writers. Nowhere have I discounted anything he has said. My only point is that much of what we have been told about the .44Mag vs. the .45Colt is either no longer true or never was. IMHO, this is due mainly to bullet selection, which has improved immensely since Linebaugh's article was written.

At these pressure levels, every authority on the subject will agree that 360gr is the heaviest practical bullet to be used in the .45Colt. Through extensive testing, it has been found that bullets with a sectional density around .270 driven at 1200-1300fps offer the best balance of penetration and manageable recoil. At these levels, going heavier does not gain any performance, powder capacity suffers, reducing velocity and you will find that a 360gr at 1100fps penetrates better and destroys more tissue than a 395gr at 900fps. Same for those ridiculous 405gr slugs for the .44Mag. So IMHO, while heavier slugs are on the market, the 360gr .45Colt is the load to beat. In that context, the .44Mag pushes a 355gr slug (five grains lighter, higher sectional density) 100fps faster. Telling me that no, the .45Colt does not have an advantage in heavier bullets.


I suspect that 260 gr. would take down just about any animal out there, including elephants and cape buffalo.
I would not agree with that assessment at all. Standard weight bullets (250-260gr) for game up to mule deer, 300gr for game the size of elk or moose and heavier for anything bigger and/or meaner. Seyfried's choice of 360's for Cape buffalo was the right one.
 
Well most of us boys ain't going to Africa at least in the near future!

The .44 Mag, is the choice, if you don't handload, and the .45 COLT
CAN BE LOADED TO 44 MAGNUM PERFORMANCE ON GAME ANIMALS !

" ANY ANIMAL SHOT WITH THE .41 MAGNUM WILL NOT KNOW THE DIFFERENCE IF IT WAS SHOT WITH A .44 MAGNUM !"

That has become a standard quote, ( I read it first in print from Skeeter Skelton), between those two cartridges.

So why can't those standards be applied to the +P+.45Colt, and the .44 Magnum cartridges?

Pigs are supposed to be smart right? Betcha they can't tell the difference!
 
CraigC:

That Cape buffalo almost killed Seyfried. He then wanted more gun, and got it with the .475 and .500. Now, why would you discount the heavier bullets, since that is exactly what the big guns work best with?

You sound like Gary Reeder, in that your choices are pretty much what he's had good luck with, and so has his possee, though some of them think he's full of it on this.

On the otherhand, I've 'discussed' this issue with some real jerks, but, still real hunters, that SWEAR the 525 grain LFN's at 1100 fps kill like the Hammer of Thor on pig or bigger animals.

This is really a chevy vs. Ford argument, with a bunch of guys that swear the other group is nuts, and, both with lots of experience, that supports their position, and, if they don't have it, they make stuff up.

So, I'll acknowledge that there are two, or three different schools of thought
on what is the most effective, and, I'll also acknowledge that the camps support their position with the zeal that matches any Obama zealot.

NOT our finest hour as gun folks.
 
Now, why would you discount the heavier bullets, since that is exactly what the big guns work best with?
Who's discounting the heavier bullets??? I'm simply discounting those that are overly heavy, as John Taffin has done in the latest American Handgunner, because you can't drive them fast enough to be effective. Are you telling me that a .45cal 395gr at 900fps is more effective than a 360gr at 1150fps or a 335gr at 1250fps, simply because it's heavier? Funny how John Taffin, Brian Pearce and Ross Seyfried will tell you the same thing but if I say it, I've somehow gored the sacred goat? Give me a break. If you have evidence to the contrary, let's see it.


You sound like Gary Reeder...with the zeal that matches any Obama zealot.
Now those are fighting words, Gregg.


This wasn't supposed to be a "Ford vs. Chevy" brawl. I don't see it as a difference of opinion. You just have some folks who are still convinced that the .45Colt tramples the .44Mag because of something they read. When it clearly is not true. I'm not doggin anyone's choice of either cartridge, I'm just not gonna sit here and read regurgitated nonsense that I know isn't true. The bottom line is that either cartridge will kill a hog graveyard dead and there is very, very little difference between the two.

The bottom line is that the only difference in capability, in these guns (six shot Rugers) is the slight advantage in diameter the .45Colt has. Both cartridges handle the heaviest of practical, usable cast bullets with ease and that is in the 355-360gr class. That while the .45 has a slightly larger diameter, the .44Mag maintains 100fps over it in any bullet weight and has a slight edge in sectional density. In other words, no critter will ever notice the difference.


NOT our finest hour as gun folks.
This is a discussion about sixgun cartridges, nothing more. Why is everybody so insistent on making it personal???
 
Last edited:
CraigC, from reading through this entire thread, I believe the initial references to handling "heavier bullets" in .45LC meant heavier than typical bullets for that caliber. Not heavier than what .44 Magnum can handle. At least, that's what made sense in my head when I read it.
 
My back-up and dense-cover hog hunting gun is a Ruger Blackhawk .45 Colt with 7 1/2 inch barrel. When out for business, and not just hacking around, I shoot hardened 22Saeco hard 255 grain SWC slugs going 1050-1100 fps by chronograph. I've never failed to hit with the first shot, nor has a hog failed to drop with that hit.
 
My guess is only those that cast, reload and shoot both really understand how real world effectively similar both are, IMO.
 
Smaug is right about the heavy bullets. As for opinions of how effective they are, and for what, my point is there are varying points of view on this subject.
(the following is concerning LFN, non, or little expanding cast bullets)
If you say "heavy bullets" around Gary Reeder, he sees red, and the discussion ends. He is convinced, as are you Craig, that the 350 grain, 1350 fps load, with an LFN is the Holy Grail, and, he even pushes that in his .500GR, or whatever he calls it, a short, .510. I mention that, in that the reason for his belief, besides selling guns, is he claims some heavy for caliber bullets were ineffective against a bear he allegedly shot. Since he's using a short .500 Linebaugh case, Reeder has a vested interest in using a lighter bullet, 350 grains, that he seats out so it looks really stupid. Go figure, at 1350 fps. I have little doubt that round is adequate for everything but the largest animals.

I'm not going with the 360 as the ideal 45 colt load either. Pig guys I knew in Hawaii swore by the 325 grain LFN's at 1350 fps. Never recovered one from a hog, and, blew a nice big hole, and two vents through every pig they shot.
OldCavSoldier brings up a good point, that perhaps a 255-300 grain bullet at 1100-1350 fps might well be plenty for just about anything in the 48.

The 360's recoil so much I'm not convinced they are worth it, unless you are trying to take down a big bear, or, something in Africa.
Course when I shot those Seyfried loads, they were really .454 level, about 60k pressure, and, with the standard Seville grips, and my hands, I didn't have a chance.

As for current handgun hunting in Africa, one of the net guys, SK, and Otto Candies have been over there a lot, and, their experiences make great reading. Google search.

Seyfried's 360 grain bullets were NOT the right choice, he just made them work, with nerves of steel, fantastic shooting, and a large bit of luck.

What I remember from that conversation was his gun was the same as mine:
When you used extra heavy bullets, and max loads, the gun would be knocked out of time on every shot. John Linebaugh called it a 'safety feature'
since the gun would go out of time, and, that would tell you the loads you were using were too heavy.

When shooting, and the gun went out of time, you had to use a finger to rotate the cylinder back in line for the next shot, before cocking the hammer,
and pulling the trigger.

So, Seyfried crawled under heavy thorn bushes, so heavy he couldn't reach his rifle, and hit the buffalo. It charged, probably thinking to stomp the source of those annoying little bullets, that, on an average only penetrated 38" of buffalo. It took 2 seconds for the buffalo to cover the 25 yards to Seyfried's nose. As the buffalo came, he aimed, shot, rotated the cylinder back in place, and shot again, 5 times, with the buffalo dieing a couple feet from his shooting position. Ross had trained quite a bit, and, at the time, or near it, was a world competition shooting champion.
Anyone else would have been DEAD.

Now you wonder why Seyfried wanted a bigger revolver?, and, no, it wasn't the right choice, it was the ONLY choice at the time in a revolver, and this was a circus stunt, that only Seyfried could have pulled off.

325's are PLENTY in LFN's in the 45 Colt, and, I'm sure 300-320's are plenty in the .44.

The place where super heavy bullets have merit is when you start using something like Hawk Hollowpoints, or any hollowpoint. AT pistol velocities
they want 1200 fps, and, they need to be very heavy or you sacrifice penetration, since they blow up like parachutes.

So, for that fringe, the .45 Colt does have an advantage, since it could, if you wanted, push a 360-395 grain HP, near fast enough for reliable expansion, i.e. about 1100-1200 fps.

If I was carrying in bear country, I might think about that, but, with the bigger guns, why bother? Just get a .475 or .500.

OldCavSoldier:
Do the 255's always exit? What's the biggest hog you've shot with that load?
Thanks
 
I am not "convinced" the 360gr is the most effective. Is it the best for every situation? No. Is it the only way to fly? Hell no. Because personally, I have absolutely no use for bullets that heavy. Very, very few do. It is simply the heaviest practical bullet usable in the .45Colt and if that is true, then NO the .45Colt does not have an advantage over the .44Mag with heavier slugs. Not in application or availability. I'm not here to argue over which cartridge is the most effective. I'm only in this to correct the erroneous information floating around about the two cartridges in question, when compared to each other. That either will do the job, recoil and performance are comparable. That there is NO advantage of one over the other. Contrary to the .45Colt, heavy bullet crap that gets regurigitated because somebody read it in a Linebaugh article written over 20yrs ago.

I don't even want to get into Gary Reeder. Yes, I know his story about the bear and the 265gr .44Mag. Who said anything about a 350gr .500, which has the sectional density and obvious propensity to penetrate as the 250gr .44 Keith bullet??? Have you managed to alienate yourself over on his forum yet?

So for those who say that the .45Colt has an advantage over the .44Mag with heavy bullets, what exactly are you referring to?
 
Everybody take a time out

Easy gents. Remember the original post. We are talking about dispatching hogs, not defeating the reactive armor on an Abrams tank. Sounds like either caliber is more than sufficient for pigs. Let's all move along. There's nothing more to see here.


murf,

I haven't decided yet. A number of people have provided compelling arguments on both sides. I think I might be leaning towards a Ruger Super Blackhawk Hunter in .45 at this time. The lower recoil has its appeal. If I ever find myself hunting something larger than pigs I will likely be using a rifle. But that purchase is on the back burner right now. I have a few other gun purchases in the works so I'll see what my cash situation is when I have that finalized.
 
Last edited:
Colt Smith.
I'd get the .44 Magnum, or consider a BFR 454

If you buy a .45 Colt, and, the chambers are oversized, you can't make them smaller.
You can take a .44, bore out the cylinder, and, rebarrel and have a tight 45 Colt.

I'd save a few pennies and get the BFR. 17-4 Stainless, ruger parts, great gun.
 
I've been reading this with a lot of interest since I have been asking some of the same questions. I think they are both great cartridges. I want to point out one thing that I have noticed recently when comparing data and that is it is sometimes hard to get a true apples to apples comparison. For example, I saw a couple of postings above regarding comparing the two cartridges. One mentioned the Hodgdon website data gave the 44 and edge and another posting said something to the effect that the 44 had about a 100fps advantage with the same bullet weight. I thought this too at first. Then I noticed that the 45 colt data was with a 7.25" barrel and the 44 Mag data was with an 8.275" barrel. So I guess the question is how much velocity does a little over an inch of extra barrel give. I looked in an older Speer manual I have. The barrel lengths were the same but the only bullet where you could do an apples to apples was a 300gr. jacketed. In this case the velocities were nearly equal. The exact pressure was not listed for the loads but the text stated that the 45 colt loads did not exceed 25,000cup which seems to be a bit on the conservative side compared to the 30-32k used elsewhere. This leads me to believe that the 45 colt really may have an edge with the heavier bullets (although not in BC or sectional density) but this is only one data point.
 
colt smith, the reason i carry my rbh in 45lc with a 4 5/8" barrel is convenience. at 36 oz. empty or 42oz. loaded, it's not too heavy. the short barrel allows me to carry it in the pickup, around elk camp, hiking, collecting firewood, etc. when i'm hunting elk it's from sunup to sundown. can't always carry a rifle, but you can always carry a pistol.

for recreational hiking it is loaded with 265gn lead flatpoints at 1100fps. for the elk hunt it's loaded with 325gn lfn at 1275fps.

i guess the reason i use this gun so much, instead of my 7 1/2" ruger sbh, is because the sbh is bigger, heavier and a bit awkward around camp. both get the job done, but i like the little 45lc better. fwiw

murf
 
This leads me to believe that the 45 colt really may have an edge with the heavier bullets (although not in BC or sectional density) but this is only one data point.
No such luck. The Hodgdon data is accurate as verified over my chronograph and correlates nicely with Linebaugh's data.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top