CraigC
Sixgun Nut
Uh, where's the straw man (a hugely overused internet term)???
by EVERGREEN : 45LC is better because you can shoot it interchangeably with .454 and .460 loads in the same gun.. Ok, some may think that is not a big deal, but I just bought a S&W 460 and thought it was a major benefit; well, at least for me. I personally like that I can shoot hot loads from a X-frame gun and have minimal recoil. The hot 44 loads kick hard in my S&W 629 w/ 4" barrel. I suppose it has the benefit of being a lighter weight N-frame, but it beats up the center of my hand after about 30 or 40 rds.
Oh please, it happens in practically every discussion on the subject. Folks read the article, drink the .45Colt Kool Aid and look no further. I can't count the times I've heard the BS about "more performance at less pressure" or "the .45Colt is better with heavy bullets" (seen right here in post #129). Despite the fact that in the real world, with real world comparable loads, there is no distinct advantage either way.What we don't agree on is people quoting Linebaugh's article to prove the .45 Colt is more effective.
Fact, to be repeated once again, is that the .44 retains at least a 100fps advantage across the board for all bullet weights. For comparable section densities, it can be as much as 200fps. For example, 330gr .44 at 1350fps vs. 360gr .45 at 1150fps or a 355gr .44 at 1250fps vs. a 395gr .45 at 1050fps.IMO, for a (cautious) handloader, the 45LC can be a better choice than the 44 Mag if you want to shoot 300-335 grain bullets in a proper (Ruger, Colt Anaconda) revolver.
Oh please, it happens in practically every discussion on the subject. Folks read the article, drink the .45Colt Kool Aid and look no further. I can't count the times I've heard the BS about "more performance at less pressure"...
So what is it exactly that I'm saying that you think is untrue??? It's all right there in Hodgdon's data. I'm not making it up. The data is all right there for all to see, I'm just pointing at it.When you start designing, building, and writing about high performance .45 Colt's, perhaps (and this is a stretch due to your pugnacious nature) then we will take what you have to say seriously.
I'm not saying that at all. Or that one is better than the other in any way. What I'm saying is that the .45 has a slight diameter advantage, the .44 has a slight velocity and sectional density advantage. In other words, it's a wash. That the critters who are typically hunted with either cartridge will never know the difference. It's very similar to the .475 vs. .500's. The .475, due to its thicker walls, can be loaded to higher pressures and utilizes bullets of higher sectional density. Which is why the .475 is usually recommended over the .500's for dangerous game, because it tends to penetrate deeper. Linebaugh's own penetration tests bear this out.With your logic, there is little difference between the .452 and the .475, or
from .475 to .510.
Nor am I calling out Linebaugh's work as false. I'm just saying that the article in question is almost 30yrs old and things 'may' have changed. Which they have.
Very little. That's kind of my point.As to the slight difference in velocity and the slight increase in sectional density for the .44, what does that do for you when you can already drive a bullet from stem to stern through most animals found here?
I'm not saying that at all. Or that one is better than the other in any way. What I'm saying is that the .45 has a slight diameter advantage, the .44 has a slight velocity and sectional density advantage. In other words, it's a wash. That the critters who are typically hunted with either cartridge will never know the difference. It's very similar to the .475 vs. .500's. The .475, due to its thicker walls, can be loaded to higher pressures and utilizes bullets of higher sectional density. Which is why the .475 is usually recommended over the .500's for dangerous game, because it tends to penetrate deeper. Linebaugh's own penetration tests bear this out.
Apparently it works for some folks but I'm not one of them. IMHO, nothing was particularly suitable for heavy loads until Ruger's Bisley came forth in the mid-`80's (1986?).That's something I never understood. Why make a gun especially for shooting a powerful, hard-kicking cartridge, and then put a trigger guard on it that hurts even when you shoot middling loads?
I have never, EVER, had my knuckles rapped by the square back trigger guard on a Ruger Super Blackhawk. Or ANY trigger guard for that matter. Even with the craziest of loads. My brother has similar sized hands and his are whacked mercilessly. What works for one might not work for another. I like the Dragoon grip frame, it has a certain "style" to it that appeals to me.That's something I never understood. Why make a gun especially for shooting a powerful, hard-kicking cartridge, and then put a trigger guard on it that hurts even when you shoot middling loads?