Quantcast
  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

45LC in 410 Pardner shotgun?

Discussion in 'Rifle Country' started by berettaprofessor, Feb 24, 2013.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. goon

    goon Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2003
    Messages:
    7,251
    Depending on your .45, a mistake like that could very well catastrophically damage it... And you. Or an innocent bystander, perhaps your wife or kid. If you're the type of guy who habitually accidentally shoots .44 Magnum loads out of a .45 Colt, I'd respectfully suggest you set aside a little of your ammo budget for some new bifocals. Or learn to read with Braille... And your weak hand. But I think new glasses and a little prudence would be better.

    As for your assertions on the safety of modern guns, doubtless you are right that quality construction prevents a lot of accidents from causing serious injury or fatalities.
    Having said that, you won't find me risking my health or that of my loved ones, or my valuable guns proving it.

    But you gents can continue this conversation without me. I feel at this point that even though some of us have actually slugged .410 chokes to determine the feasibility of shooting different projectiles through them, anyone who is hellbent on stuffing a .454 in the chamber and just letting 'er rip is going to do it anyhow. The luck of some of these other guys notwithstanding, We warned them. My conscience is clear.
    And please, learn to use a lanyard and a tire to hold long guns while doing testing.
     
  2. Sport45

    Sport45 Member

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2004
    Messages:
    2,783
    Location:
    Houston, TX
    Don't get me wrong. I've never dropped a .44mag in a .45 Colt revolver and don't intend to.

    But there's a lot of room for pressure to escape around a .429" bullet in that case and I've never read an account of it causing damage. Certainly never heard of someone losing a hand to it.
     
  3. Pete D.

    Pete D. Member

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2010
    Messages:
    2,132
    Yah

    Yah, that is exactly correct. I did want to note that as a possibility. Do we know for sure, every time for every gun for every .45 Colt load, that that won't happen?
    Pete
     
  4. willypete

    willypete Member

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2008
    Messages:
    418
    I don't think you understand what I'm saying, especially regarding your phrasing. Thank you for your response, though. If you would examine evidence, rather than look to the worst possible (and least likely) outcome, you'd realize that the potential for failure, disastrous or not, is incredibly low.
     
  5. MCgunner

    MCgunner Member

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2005
    Messages:
    25,318
    Location:
    The end of the road between Sodom and Gomorrah Tex
    May I suggest number 4 shot loads for raccoons? They'll kill the critter without killing you. You ain't gonna hit the side of the barn from inside the barn with a .45 Colt in a smooth bore anyway, even IF it didn't hurt the gun. :rolleyes: If you need a solid projectile, that's what foster slugs are for.
     
  6. RetiredUSNChief

    RetiredUSNChief Member

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2012
    Messages:
    7,250
    Location:
    SC (Home), VA (Work)
    Me thinks that the very notion that deliberately firing a round through a gun which was not designed for it, and most especially one that will eventually (by your own words) cause damage to it, is the height of insanity.

    I should think that "disregard[ing] preconceived notions" in such a case would be foolish.

    :scrutiny:
     
  7. willypete

    willypete Member

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2008
    Messages:
    418
    A) Don't put words in my mouth. I said "probably," which is not an assurance. Also, that "probably" involves many, many rounds. I have to date fired several dozen .45 Colt rounds through my .410 with no damage whatsoever.

    B) Call me craaaaaaazzzzyyyy then. :rolleyes:

    Actually, insinuating that I'm nuts does nothing but diminish the impact of real insanity or mental instability. What you "probably" mean (see, there's that word again!) is that you think this activity is too dangerous for you to partake in and that you'd rather dismiss it out of hand.

    If you'd bother to look around, you'd realize there's plenty of evidence that contraindicates your (and a few other individuals') positions. I'm coming to the realization that several people don't really give a damn about facts and would rather repeat "the sky is falling, you'll put your eye out!"

    But hey, exaggeration is more fun than acknowledging reality.

    For those of you who are interested, there are several videos on youtube which can be found by searching for combinations of ".45 Colt in a .410." While some methods are suspect, results all tend to be similar: no damage occurs to the gun.
     
  8. RetiredUSNChief

    RetiredUSNChief Member

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2012
    Messages:
    7,250
    Location:
    SC (Home), VA (Work)

    I concede the "probably".

    ;)

    However, saying that "several people don't really give a damn about facts..." is not really true.

    It is a fact that the .45 Colt bullet diameter exceeds the diameter of the .410 shotgun bore. The bullet diameter is 0.452 inches, shotgun bore is 0.410 inches, and the choke narrows down to 0.392 inches.

    It is also a fact that the shotgun bore is not rifled...it's a smooth bore. This means there is no allowance to be had for bullet deformation around barrel riflings as there would be in a rifle or pistol.

    It is also a fact that dedicated .410 shotguns are NOT designed to fire .45 Colt cartridges. Shotguns like the H&R Survivor ARE, and their bore's are rifled for the .45 caliber.

    It is also a fact that 410 shotguns were not designed for the cyclic tensile stresses that repeated firings of .45 Colt rounds through an undersized barrel produces.

    Just because you or someone else can say "well, I've put X number of rounds through my 410 with no problems" doesn't mean it's safe to do so. It simply means that you've put X number of rounds of oversized ammunition though a smooth bore shotgun with an undersized diameter with no visible adverse effects YET.

    Even allowing for the excessive cyclic tensile stress loads, all it takes is one time for that oversized bullet NOT to completely swage down to allow it to pass entirely through that undersized smooth bore unnoticed to make the reason why this is not a smart thing vividly evident.

    My assertation isn't a dismissal out of hand. It's a well thought out, logical deduction based on facts. Just because someone can hammer a square peg into a round hole doesn't make it a smart act to commit.


    If someone wants a 410 shotgun with the intent to also fire .45 Colt through it, then the SMART thing to do is to buy one that's DESIGNED to do this.

    Risking the material condition of the firearm, or the health of the people in the vicinity of the firearm, by intentionally abusing it is foolish.
     
  9. willypete

    willypete Member

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2008
    Messages:
    418
    While it is, in fact, a true statement, you are again misquoting me. The full quote is "I'm coming to the realization that several people don't really give a damn about facts and would rather repeat 'the sky is falling, you'll put your eye out!'" There are numerous instances in this thread alone of that behavior.

    All true. However, just because something is not designed with a certain use in mind does not mean that it is not capable of performing that task to a lesser degree than a more appropriate tool. That lesser degree may still be sufficient to complete the task. A previous example I tendered was using a flat-bladed screwdriver as a chisel, scraper, prybar, etc. All of those activities are expressly prohibited by every manufacturer I have seen, yet flat-bladed screwdrivers continue to be used in those roles without injury or mishap. That is merely an example.

    Quite correct. Also why I include my caveat.

    One should always be on the lookout for squibs, yes. Especially when engaging in unorthodox behavior.

    Much in the same fashion, my continuing use of .45 Colt in my .410 shotgun is based on a combination of evidence and theory. The .410 tends to be massively overbuilt and well able to withstand the similar (if not lower, allowing for freebore) pressures of the .45 Colt round, despite discrepancies in bore diameter.

    "Foolish" would be engaging in dangerous activity without understanding the risks. That description does not apply.

    By all means, firing ONLY the ammunition listed on a firearm is the pragmatic choice, unless and until you understand risks inherent in any divergent practice and are willing to accept them.
     
  10. RetiredUSNChief

    RetiredUSNChief Member

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2012
    Messages:
    7,250
    Location:
    SC (Home), VA (Work)
    Sorry dude...not a misquote. I deliberately left that open ended with the inclusion of "...", indicating there was more that people could easily reference for full context.

    :):)


    I submit that the example the use of a flat-bladed screwdriver for alternate means is not entirely analogous to this situation. This example does not relate in any reasonable fashion to a tool which has an explosive component to it, to wit the use of ammunition, to which human reaction time is completely overwhelmed once the trigger is pulled. Your own example here of using a screwdriver as a chisel ignores the damage to the tool, such as handle damage and blade deformation/breakage which degrades it's original intended use as a screwdriver and may lead to personal injury or equipment damage.

    No, it is not. It's based solely on the happenstance of your practical experience and anecdotal evidence of other people who have also made such claims. Your claim that the 410 tends to be "massively overbuilt" fails because it is not based on the differences in design criteria and completely ignores the actual mechanical differences between the solid .45 Colt bullet dimensions and the .410 shotgun barrel design, down to and including such things as barrel thickness along the entire length of the barrel. Nor is your claim based on fatigue analysis or any other practical application of Fracture Mechanics.

    Your claim also ignores the fact that not all 410 shotguns are manufactured the same. Some are quite old, harking back to the days when steel alloy manufacturing wasn't nearly as advanced or consistent with modern alloys. Some have quite massive breech construction compared to others. Choke design varies.


    Foolish is as foolish does. The fact that lady luck, in combination with a variety of other factors, does not change that.


    Firing ONLY the ammunition for which a weapon is designed is not just the pragmatic choice, it's a wise decision because it's following the designed intent of the people who manufactured the weapon.

    I submit to you that what you have presented here is not, by any means, representative of an understanding of the risks inherent in any divergent practice. At best, it can be said that it's a partial understanding based on the "it ain't broke yet, so it must be OK" line of practice that some like to follow. This is, at best, a shallow way of performing a risk assessment, especially when touting the use of this philosophy with respect to firearms. It does not take into account any other form of reasoning.


    By all means, continue to shoot .45 colt in your shotgun if you wish. That's a personal decision. However, you cannot accurately and truthfully say that this is a "safe" thing to do for a firearm designed solely to be a shotgun. You can say "I've been doing this with my (fill in the blank model) shotgun for a long time and have yet to have anything bad happen", but that's about the extent of it.

    ;)
     
  11. willypete

    willypete Member

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2008
    Messages:
    418
    Still a misquote since you based your response on only the portion that you misquoted.

    But it is. An analogy is a comparison between two similar ideas, objects, or practices. In this case, it's the use of a tool which is not specifically designed to complete the task and could result in personal injury, but does not because of an understanding of risks entailed. It simply has fewer moving parts than a shotgun, and no expanding gas.

    Again, incorrect. Clark has even posted how he achieved the mathematical proofs by which he arrived at his basis for using .45 Colt in a .410 shotgun. You're throwing out "cyclic tensile stress" and then ignoring previous posts about calculations to prove what pressures the shotgun can actually handle? Weak.

    Huh? Pretty sure you left something out there, chief.

    Look up "pragmatic" and get back to me ;).

    Then you either haven't been paying attention, or have been deliberately misreading posts. I've indicated factors besides "it ain't broke yet" which lead me to believe that shooting .45 Colt in .410 is a reasonably safe practice. So has at least one other poster.

    You, on the other hand, along with others, have repeated the analogy of square peg, round hole (round peg, round hole would be more appropriate) with no real examination or calculation of stresses involved. Nor has anyone from your side of the argument addressed either the actual stresses and forces involved on the shotgun, especially with regard to the very similar pressures of the loaded cartridges (difference of 500 psi, max, which as we all know is less than the variation one might receive in a lot of ammunition) which will actually diminish when using .45 Colt due to two factors. 1) No rifling, thus no engraving force or axial spin to increase pressure. 2) Nearly 2" of freebore in a chamber roughly 0.03" larger than the cartridge, which will allow substantial blow-by of gas and thus reduction of pressure.

    Unless and until you come up with something better than "square peg, round hole" and "it says you can't do it on the barrel" and "it's not designed for it!" (which is certainly no hindrance to actual use; I'm sure in your Naval career you've had to adapt tools and equipment), I'm afraid your arguments don't hold much water.
     
  12. RetiredUSNChief

    RetiredUSNChief Member

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2012
    Messages:
    7,250
    Location:
    SC (Home), VA (Work)
    Oh, I understand perfectly.

    However, nothing you've posted here is anything which can be considered at "proof" that this is a safe practice. All you've got going for you is exactly as I've said: "It ain't broke yet, so it must be OK".

    You claim that I, and others, have made no real examination or calculation of stresses involved. Yet this is exactly the type of information you yourself are lacking.

    You are the one who positing this is a safe practice. Therefore the burden of proof is upon you when challenged.

    And there is more to this than as simple matter of "500 psi" max difference. I submit to you that there is a whole world of fracture mechanics that you are completely missing out on here. Tensile stress, compressive stress, thermal stress, cyclic stress, fracture toughness, crack propagation, elastic deformation, inelastic deformation, and more.

    Your assumptions are quite lacking and naive in nature when viewed in context with this. There is MORE to this than what you're trying to put across and THAT is my point.

    I'd rebut that your own arguments don't hold much water, but the fact is that they aren't holding any water at all.

    A 410 is NOT designed to shoot a solid slug bullet with a diameter greater than that of the bore. PERIOD. The fact that you, or anybody else, have done this without any ill result does not make this a safe practice for the weapon, the user, or anybody around.

    If you wish to do so, then have at it. That's a personal choice. However, you cannot accurately and truthfully say that it's a safe practice.
     
  13. Robert

    Robert Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2006
    Messages:
    10,419
    Location:
    Texan by birth, in Colorado cause I hate humidity
    Oh enough. As others have pointed out it may not be the smartest thing to do.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page