hey guys, quick question... ya know how they have special .45 LC T/C and RUGER loads in reloading manuals, well, i was wondering if these loads would be considered safe in the taurus line of large frame revolvers or not. Taurus says that all there pistols are safe for plus loads, so this is why i was wondering im just trying to make up my mind between the taurus raging bull, and the ruger blackhawk (in 45 LC). thanks guys, brian
large frame taurus revolvers and ruger loads?
- Thread starter brian923
- Start date
- Status
rcmodel
Member in memoriam
Bryan Pearce just answered a similiar question in the June 2009 Handloader concerning a Taurus .44 Special and Ruger loads.
He has refused to say what pressure a Taurus .44 Spl. was suitable for, because:
1. They will not divelge what steel they use.
2. There have been no known scientific destruction tests done on them.
3. He further stated that in measureing chamber wall thickness on a number of them, he found they were not even all the same.
The Ruger is a known quantity.
The Taurus isn't.
rc
He has refused to say what pressure a Taurus .44 Spl. was suitable for, because:
1. They will not divelge what steel they use.
2. There have been no known scientific destruction tests done on them.
3. He further stated that in measureing chamber wall thickness on a number of them, he found they were not even all the same.
The Ruger is a known quantity.
The Taurus isn't.
rc
ugaarguy
Member
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2006
- Messages
- 13,828
There is no industry standard for 45 Colt +P: It's essentially the same as 9mm +P+ in that regard. However, the Raging Bull was chambered in .454 Casull. The question then becomes "Is Taurus heat treating all their cylinders as magnum cylinders, regardless of chambering, as Ruger does?". Taurus won't say, so who knows. As rcmodel has already stated, Ruger revolvers are a known quantity, and Taurus revolvers aren't. I'd not take chances on an unknown quanity when dealing with ammo which can turn a gun into a hand grenade.
Also, why are you comparing a Raging Bull, which is DA, to a Blackhawk, which is SA? A Redhawk or Super Redhawk would be a more apples to apples comparison. In that scenario, I'll take a standard Redhawk in 45 Colt. I know it'll handle Ruger only loads, and it's much easier handling than a Raging Bull. If I wanted something as big as a Raging Bull, I'd take the much stronger SRH handsdown.
Fumbler
Member
This is just my opinion, but I never load past published data or shoot ammunition unless the manufacturer specifically states that the ammo is ok.
Play it on the safe side. If you want to shoot Ruger-T/C 45LC loads then get the Ruger or get a Raging bull in 454 Casull.
Play it on the safe side. If you want to shoot Ruger-T/C 45LC loads then get the Ruger or get a Raging bull in 454 Casull.
Nicodemus38
Member
- Joined
- May 11, 2009
- Messages
- 583
for most purposes, a 45 colt +P load is considered to be in a maximum load in 44 mag or a very low end load in .454 casull.
Since the Raging Bull comes in 44 magnum, 41 magnum?, 454 casull, and was inn .500 sw magnum, and 460 sw the frame cannot be considered weak at all.
The OP is wondering of the Ruger and TC only loads in 45 colt would be safe, well the load he wants to use is increadably safe to use in ANY .454 casull chambered gun.
The real guestion he should be asking is
1. what handles better during a range session as far as recoil and intuitive aiming is concerned?
2. can he find a Raging Bull in the desired caliber in the same price range as a ruger?
Sadly, number 2 is hard as most raging bulls in 454 casull sell for at least 6-700. and i can get a ruger in 45 colt +p for 500 or slightly less at buds.
Since the Raging Bull comes in 44 magnum, 41 magnum?, 454 casull, and was inn .500 sw magnum, and 460 sw the frame cannot be considered weak at all.
The OP is wondering of the Ruger and TC only loads in 45 colt would be safe, well the load he wants to use is increadably safe to use in ANY .454 casull chambered gun.
The real guestion he should be asking is
1. what handles better during a range session as far as recoil and intuitive aiming is concerned?
2. can he find a Raging Bull in the desired caliber in the same price range as a ruger?
Sadly, number 2 is hard as most raging bulls in 454 casull sell for at least 6-700. and i can get a ruger in 45 colt +p for 500 or slightly less at buds.
mgkdrgn
Member
Similar dilemma when looking to buy a 45 Colt lever gun. Wanted to be able to shoot "heavy" Colt 45 loads, but knew most of the 45 lever guns were more in the "cowboy round" range.
Solved the problem by getting a 454 lever gun. Will still shoot 45 Colt just fine and I don't have to worry about the loading.
The Rugers are way over built ... hence the Ruger ONLY loads. Use those loads in other guns at your own risk.
Solved the problem by getting a 454 lever gun. Will still shoot 45 Colt just fine and I don't have to worry about the loading.
The Rugers are way over built ... hence the Ruger ONLY loads. Use those loads in other guns at your own risk.
Fumbler
Member
Nicod, the problem is nobody knows if the cylinders are manufactured the same accross different calibers. They could be different steel or different heat treating leading to different levels of safety.
The frames may all be the same, but maybe not the cylinders.
Take for instance the Ruger Super Redhawk. The 454 and 480 versions have unfluted cylinders vs the fluted cylinder on the 44 mag version. The steel itself in the 454 and 480 is also capable of handling higher pressures.
If you had a SRH in 44 mag then you'd have a frame as strong as the 454 or 480 models...but you would be horribly wrong to load anywhere near 480Ruger pressures (and that's still 17000psi short of the 454)
EnsignJimmy
Member
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2009
- Messages
- 122
For Taurus large-frame .45 Colt revolvers, assume that these guns are safe for SAAMI-spec loads only, since Taurus isn't talking, and the tolerance in dimensions is apparently loose enough that I wouldn't be willing to trust a Taurus past 14,000 CUP.
- Winchester 1866 and 1873 clones, Uberti 1860 Henry clones, Colt Lightning pump-rifle clones and look-alikes, and probably any rifle with dual-purpose .45 Colt/.410 bore barrel: Strictly SAAMI-spec loads only.
- Marlin 1894 and Winchester 94 rifles. Henry Big Boy rifles. H&R .45 Colt single-shot (the one patterned on the .45/70 Buffalo Classic target rifle) and Browning Low-Wall .45 Colt rifles: Hotter than SAAMI-spec loads, but not as hot as the top-end Ruger-only loads. I don't like exceeding 27,000 CUP of pressure here.
- Winchester 1892 clone rifles such as the Rossi/Legacy Puma (not rebarreled original Winchester 1892s!): Ruger-only top loads, and beyond. These are the only .45 Colt rifles I'd even think about developing stupendously heavy loads in.
* - Only a (semi)-informed opinion. Use at your own risk!
Whoa pardner! Before you go shooting off your '+P' loads, let me go hide behind this here barn, in the next county. A typical maximum Ruger-only .45 Colt +P load should only develop 80% of the pressure of a maximum .44 Magnum load since, all things being equal, the typical Ruger .45 Colt cylinder is a .44 Magnum cylinder with bigger holes bored in it. Ergo, less metal to contain the pressure. Rugers have been scientifically tested to destruction, and the cylinders gave way at 80% the pressure that .44 Magnum cylinders gave way at.
A quick guideline(*) here is:
- Winchester 1866 and 1873 clones, Uberti 1860 Henry clones, Colt Lightning pump-rifle clones and look-alikes, and probably any rifle with dual-purpose .45 Colt/.410 bore barrel: Strictly SAAMI-spec loads only.
- Marlin 1894 and Winchester 94 rifles. Henry Big Boy rifles. H&R .45 Colt single-shot (the one patterned on the .45/70 Buffalo Classic target rifle) and Browning Low-Wall .45 Colt rifles: Hotter than SAAMI-spec loads, but not as hot as the top-end Ruger-only loads. I don't like exceeding 27,000 CUP of pressure here.
- Winchester 1892 clone rifles such as the Rossi/Legacy Puma (not rebarreled original Winchester 1892s!): Ruger-only top loads, and beyond. These are the only .45 Colt rifles I'd even think about developing stupendously heavy loads in.
* - Only a (semi)-informed opinion. Use at your own risk!
unspellable
Member
45 loads
Both the Super Blackhawk and S&W M29 have been tested to destruction and both cylinders let go at 80,000. Both the Blackhawk 45 and S&W 45 have been tested to destruction and both cylinders let go at 60,000. Now Ruger only 45 loads are not recommended for the S&W. It's not because of pressure but because the yoke tail in the S&W 45 doesn't get the same heat treatment as in the 44 and the revolver will shoot loose under such abuse. The Blackhawk has a large area on the cylinder neck that bears against the frame and that's why it will stand up to such loads.
I have a Raging Bull in 454 and one in 45. The 45 is a six holer, making for thinner walls between chambers. It's this area that usually lets go first, hence the five hole cylinders in the really heavy stuff. (It's not due to cylinder notches as is popularly supposed, if it were, it's easy to relocate them ala Dan Wesson and others.) So right off the bat, we know the Raging Bull in 45 isn't going to safely take 454 pressures. I'd bet a lot that the Raging Bull in 45 Colt or a number of other modern 45 Colt revolvers would take more pressure than the factory loads, just because they are set for the old BP Colts. You can't hardly help making a cylinder stronger than that with modern steel. And the Raging Bull walls are thicker than the BP Colt.
Bottom line, we just don't know how much more pressure various revolvers would take. And, pressure is not the only question, note that the S&W is limited by factors other than pressure.
I used to baby my S&W M29 by running 240 grain cast semi-wadcutters at 1000 fps. On the other hand I ran the same semi-wadcutters out of my 44 Special at 1200 fps. Of late, I've decided that's sort of silly. I'm not putting up any more Elmer Keith loads for the 44 Special. I'll throttle it back to 1000 fps.
Both the Super Blackhawk and S&W M29 have been tested to destruction and both cylinders let go at 80,000. Both the Blackhawk 45 and S&W 45 have been tested to destruction and both cylinders let go at 60,000. Now Ruger only 45 loads are not recommended for the S&W. It's not because of pressure but because the yoke tail in the S&W 45 doesn't get the same heat treatment as in the 44 and the revolver will shoot loose under such abuse. The Blackhawk has a large area on the cylinder neck that bears against the frame and that's why it will stand up to such loads.
I have a Raging Bull in 454 and one in 45. The 45 is a six holer, making for thinner walls between chambers. It's this area that usually lets go first, hence the five hole cylinders in the really heavy stuff. (It's not due to cylinder notches as is popularly supposed, if it were, it's easy to relocate them ala Dan Wesson and others.) So right off the bat, we know the Raging Bull in 45 isn't going to safely take 454 pressures. I'd bet a lot that the Raging Bull in 45 Colt or a number of other modern 45 Colt revolvers would take more pressure than the factory loads, just because they are set for the old BP Colts. You can't hardly help making a cylinder stronger than that with modern steel. And the Raging Bull walls are thicker than the BP Colt.
Bottom line, we just don't know how much more pressure various revolvers would take. And, pressure is not the only question, note that the S&W is limited by factors other than pressure.
I used to baby my S&W M29 by running 240 grain cast semi-wadcutters at 1000 fps. On the other hand I ran the same semi-wadcutters out of my 44 Special at 1200 fps. Of late, I've decided that's sort of silly. I'm not putting up any more Elmer Keith loads for the 44 Special. I'll throttle it back to 1000 fps.
- Status