45 colt vs 44 spcl

[Prosser]

I liked the idea of the .44 Special, loaded over max pressure, inbetween .44 special and .44 magnum. Keith loads.
Problem is finding a gun to shoot it in.
The .44 fits in smaller frames, and smaller cylinders then the .45 Colt. My problem when I looked at the .44 was finding a gun small enough to conceal that didn't shoot apart. Went through one Bulldog already.
I went with .451 Detonics instead. Flatter gun, nearly the same sized bullet.
Still, I remember loading 240 grain JHP's, at about 950-1000 fps, for the bulldog, and,
I felt just fine about carrying that.

 

[DocCasualty]

from CraigC

I mention the .44Mag because the .45 has such a broad spectrum of relative strength levels. You can't say that one is more versatile than the other without any regard for the platform. Because, one more time, in platforms of appropriate size for the .44Spl, such as the late model Colt or USFA SAA and mid-frame Rugers, it has the advantage. For in these guns the 1200fps Keith load can be utilized, while the .45Colt is limited to around 1000fps. It is silly to compare the .44Spl to the .45Colt with regards to large frame Rugers because they are not made in .44Spl, nor is a .44Mag-sized Ruger appropriate for the .44Spl. If you're gonna compare large frames, assuming 32,000psi loads in the .45Colt, then it is only logical and fair to compare it to the .44Mag. Apples to apples and oranges to oranges. The .454 is irrelevant.

While I follow your logic in comparing the two loads, I'm not sure what you're trying to say by "nor is a .44Mag-sized Ruger appropriate for the .44Spl". In what way is it not appropriate?

I've been shooting an "old" Vaquero .44Mag with my .44Spl Cowboy loads for years. It's certainly more gun than I need for that purpose but at the time it was a logical purchase for me and one I have no regrets about. I don't doubt it will outlast my Cimarron. If there were "New" Vaqueros available at the time in .44Spl, I may well have gone that route but don't find the "old" Vaquero overly large for my hands. I've never actually fired it with .44Mags but like having that option as a trail gun. I do regret dumping my M29 at the time but liked keeping a .44Mag option around.

 

[DocCasualty]

from Cosmoline:

What's lacking are SP-101 size five shot "bulldog" style revolvers from Ruger or Smith. The ones out there are from outfits with a more questionable quality control record. So some work great, others not so great. Not acceptable in a carry piece as far as I'm concerned. And I have no idea why the big guys never revived the concept of the bulldog. While the .45 Colt truly shines as a beefed up hunting round, the .44 Special is at its best as a self defense round in soft lead with a hollow point.

Spot on. I recently started looking for just such an animal. Best I can tell is that everytime the big guys do this, they don't sell like one would expect, they end up selling them at "firesale" prices, then their prices climb in the after market. I'm keeping my eyes out for one and won't exclude Taurus from that group either.

The Charter Arms Bulldog seems to be a hit or miss proposition from what I can tell. Over time there have apparently been some quality eras of production. At other times, not so much. I just don't know what to make of internet banter about current QC but it's not encouraging, so I'm keeping my eyes out for a used one that looks well made and has a track record of being fired some, as opposed to a current NIB as another option.

 

[Prosser]

The issue with the .44 Special was in 1980 that you HAD to handload for it. Remington 44 special ammo at that time was 22-25 dollars for 20 rounds. That's in 1980, when a full house Detonics or Colt was 500-700 dollars, and AR 15's over priced at 700 dollars.
That was the WORST ammunition I have EVER shot. At 7 yards it was less accurate
then the worst shotgun you've ever fired. Huge blast and flame, and the bullets going so slow you could see them with the naked eye, along with horrible recoil. Reloads, slightly over .44 special limits were MUCH more accurate, read 3" at 7 yards, recoiled less, and,
probably in the 950 fps range, 240 grain bullets. Only problem was shooting the heck out of the gun, it shot loose, and, at that point, I moved on to the .451 Detonics. Near the same ballistics, or better.

I had hopes the .44 magnum 329 would be small enough to be what the bulldog was, with quality. No such luck.

My point in all this is the ammo companies never did the .44 Special any favorites, and, they have been just a hair kinder to the .45 Colt, but only due to competition, and
large demand forcing the prices into the semi-reasonable level.

Anyone priced .44 special ammo lately, or .45 Colt?

 

[CraigC]

I beg to differ. The .44 Magnum was developed by increasing the pressure and velocity of the .44 Special much in the way the .454 Casull was developed by pushing the pressure and velocity of the .45 Colt. Both stories are very similar. One difference is Dick Casull chose to name the new cartridge after himself instead of calling it a .45 Magnum or .45 Colt Magnum. (or something similar)

I'm well aware of the lineage of all the cartridges in question. It is irrelevant to this discussion.

In what way is it not appropriate?

I'm talking about the "mid-frame" guns like the Colt SAA, its replicas, custom Ruger Old Model Blackhawks and the new flat-tops & New Vaqueros chambered in the cartridge. These guns are all smaller, lighter and handier than the large frame, .44Mag-based sixguns. These guns are the perfect vessel for the .44Spl as they are imminently more packable but still offer sufficient strength to handle heavier loads. Up to and including Elmer Keith's 250gr@1200fps load. In these same guns, the .45Colt, with its thinner chamber walls, must be kept to around 1000fps.

In the larger Blackhawks, where the .45 begins to come into its own, we're talking about .44Mag-sized sixguns so it only makes sense to compare them to .44Mag's.

My main point is that you cannot discuss the capability of the cartridges, nor compare them, without regard for the sixguns in which they are chambered.

 

[natman]

You might say the .454 is a 45 Colt Magnum, but it's not in my opinion as only three or four revolvers were ever built around it. It's a wildcat with factory support and considering those mfg's were garbage like taurus and ruger I don't consider it worth mentioning and certainly not on the same plane as the 45LC and 44 rounds.

Here in the real world, the 454 Casull is a factory round with factory guns and factory ammo.

http://www.hornady.com/store/454-Casull/

If you have to resort to non sequiturs like "wildcat with factory support" or ego trips like "You might say the .454 is a 45 Colt Magnum, but it's not in my opinion", in order to make your argument, it's a poor one.

So Taurus and Ruger aren't good enough for your lofty tastes? Does Freedom Arms meet your standards?

 

[Prosser]

One might argue with their gun production, what 2000 a year in 454, that they are not a factory gun, or chambering. FA stuff is certainly not priced like it.

 

[natman]

One might argue with their gun production, what 2000 a year in 454, that they are not a factory gun, or chambering. FA stuff is certainly not priced like it.

Sorry, but you can't have it both ways. If quantity produced is your criteria, then Taurus and Ruger meet it. If quality is your criteria, then Freedom Arms meets it.

The 454 Casull is a factory round by any real world definition.

 

[DocCasualty]

CraigC:

My main point is that you cannot discuss the capability of the cartridges, nor compare them, without regard for the sixguns in which they are chambered.

Not appropriate for comparison purposes. Now I understand your point. Thanks!

 

[Arkansas Paul]

I liked the idea of the .44 Special, loaded over max pressure, inbetween .44 special and .44 magnum. Keith loads.
Problem is finding a gun to shoot it in.

That shouldn't be a problem. I just got the new Ruger catalouge in and they're offering the Blackhawk in .44 Special again.

 

[CraigC]

Not appropriate for comparison purposes. Now I understand your point. Thanks!

My point was that the large frame Ruger single action is not appropriate for the .44Spl. Too much meat and that extra meat gains you nothing but weight. Sure, you can build one, but there is no reason to have a .44Spl on the same frame as the .44mag.

 

[MCgunner]

I like the 45 colt, but it does have a large case with a small powder charge. What are your thoughts?

Oh, I don't know, 20 grains of 2400 pushes a 300 grain pill pretty well in the Colt and it's not exactly a small powder charge. I do shoot mostly 8.3 grains of Unique under a 255 flat nose cast bullet, though. I like the Colt over the Special. It's a .45, not a .42.

 

[BCRider]

Posted by McGunner-I like the Colt over the Special. It's a .45, not a .42

From what I can see of the charts that's pretty much what it comes down to. I've been checking the loading tables for .44Mag and .44Spl and even .45Colt because I just put my money down on a .44Magnum but I'd like to play with it at my club's Speed Steel matches where I have to shoot milder Special rated loads from my .44Mag brass. And I know that there are lots of softer loads for .45Colt thanks to the CAS folks and they are dealing with the volume to powder issue as well.

In looking over the tables there is a huge overlap in bullet weight options and load to speed results with the different powders. And where .45Colt edges past the .44Spl surpasses the .44Spl there's always the milder Magnum loads that continue the spectrum on up so there's pretty much a tit for tat comparison on all fronts. So in the end I have to agree with McGunner that it comes down to which number rolls off your tongue easier.

 

[RidgwayCO]

I enjoy these philosophical discussions, and thought I'd add my 2 bits. I look at the .44 Special and .45 Colt as complements, not competitors. Both are "big bore" revolver cartridges with different uses, at least in my opinion.

The .44 Special does 95% of what I need a handgun to do with a 250gr Keith bullet at 900 fps (450 ft-lbs of energy). A "shoot all day" load that is efficient because it fills the case well, and most if not all of the powder burns completely before the bullet leaves the barrel. Also, my S&W M396 Mountain Lite Ti sports a 3-3/8" barrel and weighs 18 oz empty. It carries like a dream, handles recoil better than it has any right to, and is my first choice for woods walking. I'm unaware of any 18 oz weapons in .44 Magnum or .45 Colt... Also, it's amazing to me the number of .44 Magnum owners who shoot only (or predominantly) .44 Special-level loads in their .44 Magnum revolvers. Obviously most people don't appreciate the levels of recoil provided by "full power" .44 Magnum loadings.

Conversely, the .45 Colt can also be loaded to the 450 ft-lb performance level, but not as efficiently as the .44 Special. For me, the .45 Colt shines in my Ruger Bisley Blackhawk convertible with its 5-1/2" barrel. Using equivalent bullet weights and "Ruger-only" loading data, it can provide higher performance than the .44 Magnum at lower pressures. Having an extra cylinder is .45 Auto is just icing on the cake.

I no longer own any .44 Magnums, because the .44 Special handles the 450 ft-lb loads more efficiently, and the .45 Colt is capable of higher performance at lower pressures.

If I could own only one revolver however, it would be a .44 Magnum. But since I'm not constrained by such foolishness, the .44 Special and .45 Colt can do anything I'll ever want a handgun to do, and do it efficiently.

 

[Prosser]

I've got this bug to handle a .44 Special/Magnum FA 97. I can't help but think it might be the perfect carry gun, with a shroud length barrel. Wonder if the 97 comes in .45, and if so, if the cylinders are different diameters?
That would take the worry out of heavy 44 special/44 magnum loads in a .44 special gun.

 

[Hammerdown77]

Oh, I don't know, 20 grains of 2400 pushes a 300 grain pill pretty well in the Colt and it's not exactly a small powder charge. I do shoot mostly 8.3 grains of Unique under a 255 flat nose cast bullet, though. I like the Colt over the Special. It's a .45, not a .42.

I'll beg your pardon sir, it's a .43, not a .42! Not gonna let you get away with shorting us that .01"

 

[MCgunner]

Well, it ain't no .45!

 

[MCgunner]

From what I can see of the charts that's pretty much what it comes down to. I've been checking the loading tables for .44Mag and .44Spl and even .45Colt because I just put my money down on a .44Magnum but I'd like to play with it at my club's Speed Steel matches where I have to shoot milder Special rated loads from my .44Mag brass. And I know that there are lots of softer loads for .45Colt thanks to the CAS folks and they are dealing with the volume to powder issue as well.

It's the CAS guys that they invented Trail Boss for.

http://www.imrpowder.com/trailboss.html

 

[Onmilo]

Even though I own more .45 Colt caliber guns than .44 Special, My nod goes to the Special.
Longer case life and all around more accurate make the .44 Special the winner of this debate.

 

[Magnumite]

Actually, the 454 is in a class of its own when referenced to the 44 Magnum and 44 Magnum class pressures used in strong 45 Colt guns. That's comparing 50,000 psi loads to 38,000 psi loads respectively. Those are working pressures.

The pressure of the 454 is considerably higher than the 44 Magnum. Considering early in its history triplex loadings using 3 different powders were in the same case gave cause to raise a few eyebrows.

Sorry, the 454 Casull is in the same class as the 475 and 500 Linbaugh cartridges.

 

[Prosser]

Buffalobore and another guy have some 44 mag loads that put it in the Casull class.
The Casull tops out really with 350 grain bullets. The .475 and .500 will push that grain bullet over 1500 fps, with minimum pressure, or less. The .454
is not in the same class, since it cannot handle the same weight bullets the Linebaugh's and S&W .500/.500JRH can.

 

[MCgunner]

Even though I own more .45 Colt caliber guns than .44 Special, My nod goes to the Special.
Longer case life and all around more accurate make the .44 Special the winner of this debate.

Zat so? My 4 5/8" stainless .45 Blackhawk will put 6 rounds into an inch at 25 yards from sandbags. I'd love to see what it'd do from a ransom rest, probably one little ragged hole. I doubt any .44 could top that, maybe equal it, but top it? Nah.

 

[Onmilo]

Forgive me, but I find ANY Ruger centerfire handgun that is capable of keeping loads in an inch or less all day every day, I would be hanging onto it too, regardless of the caliber!

 

[Vern Humphrey]

I never put my Blackhawk on a Ransom rest, but I can punish a 5-gallon bucket at 135 yards (from my garden wall to the far side of my pond) all day long with my handloads.

 

[thewilbur]

Yes sir, that is correct. Trail Boss has very low density.

The 6.7 grains of Trail Boss is a little much for the 270 grain bullet but it still works well. The "rule" is to fill the case to 90% of capacity, with a bullet in place.