Why did .45 Colt go into decline?

[Patrick Henry]

I think the most usual answer is that it was replaced by .45 ACP. But history shows that explanation to be false. .45 ACP handguns never replaced the revolver in police service, which continued to be the standard sidearm until the very late 20th century.

Instead there was a trend at the beginning of the 20th century toward small caliber guns which I have never been able to understand or heard explained. As an example, Theodore Roosevelt in his tenure as commissioner of the NYPD (1895-1897) adopted the .32 caliber revolver as standard. I understand this to be typical of US law enforcement at that time.

One possible explanation I can think of is that .45 colt was never as universal or as widely acknowledged as a "man stopper" as modern legend says. In fact the first assertion is definitely true, because historians say the .44-40 was always more popular than .45 colt in the "old west". But I still don't understand the trend toward small calibers.

It is even more baffling to me why, once it began to be generally recognized that small caliber revolvers were not as effective, police (and gun makers) did not simply return to an already existing and outstanding cartridge, namely .45 colt. Instead they developed the .38 special, and it became the standard for over half a century. But while the .38 special is a undoubtedly a fine cartridge, I have to wonder again, what was the problem with the ol' forty-five?

With good loads the .45 colt is ballistically superior to the .45 acp. It ought to be at least as effective as a "man stopper." The closest thing to it in modern revolvers is I suppose the .44 special. But the .44 special is much weaker ballistically.

I ardently wish a gun maker (S&W, Ruger, Taurus, etc.) would produce a new modern double-action revolver chambered specifically for .45 Colt. Yes, I'm aware .454 Casull revolvers can fire the .45 Colt, but due to their power these guns are all very large and not really suitable for everyday carry. What I would like to see is a medium-size revolver chambered specifically for the .45. I think defensive-wise there is a gap in the modern revolver line-up if you want a caliber larger than .38/.357 and it seems to me the proven .45 Colt would fill that gap nicely.

 

[Majic]

The .45 Colt was considered the magnum of it's day. The .44-40 was more popular because it was also chambered in rifles and carbines. The .45 had such a small rim it wouldn't work reliably in lever guns. Because of the massive size of the cartridge only large frame guns could handle 6 rounds and people began wanting something lighter to carry around. S&W made the M25 and the M625 in .45 Colt and Ruger makes the Redhawk in .45 Colt. I don't know about Taurus. A medium size revolver chambered in .45 Colt would have to be a 5 shooter. The case is just too big to fit 6 of them in the cylinders. S&W made a medium frame revolver chambered for the .44 and it really has a thin forcing cone. Can you imagine what the forcing cone for a .45 bore would look like? Paper thin.

 

[AJMBLAZER]

As far as the police departments go it was probably along the line of the .30 cal --> .223 and .45-->9mm switch. Easier to shoot and train with and ideally a smaller weapon.

 

[Patrick Henry]

S&W made the M25 and the M625 in .45 Colt and Ruger makes the Redhawk in .45 Colt.

According to S&W's website the M25 is chambered in .45 acp. That's not quite the same. It says .45 colt is one of the chamberings offered for the M625 -- I wonder how common those are? As for the Redhawk I believe that is a single action. I mean I could just get a single action army but that doesn't really meet my requirement that the gun be "modern" (i.e., double action, swing out cylinder).

I get your point about the .45 colt needing a large frame. However, I don't think such a gun would have to be as large as most .454 casull revolvers seem to be.

 

[420Stainless]

Smith & Wesson periodically makes a run of the 25 Mountain Gun in .45 Colt. I bought a new one last year and have seen pictures from several members here at the THR.

http://www.gunblast.com/SW-25Mountain.htm

 

[Redhawk1]

I don't know why there are not more handguns chambered for the 45 Colt, I can reload them to do anything a 44 Mag will do. I have a Blackhawk single action, I would love to add a Redhawk 45 Colt double action to my collection.

 

[Jimmie]

Search no further, my friend.

http://ruger.com/Firearms/FAProdView?model=5027&return=Y

4" Ruger double action Redhawk, 45 Colt, adjustable sights, Hogue grips.

They don't last long in stocks, though.

Google for KRH-45-4 to find one in stock. Bud's is out. He was selling it for $609 shipped.

 

[Z71]

I have two .45 Colt guns. A 4 3/4" Stoeger/Uberti old model(blackpowder style frame) Colt clone, and a Marlin Cowboy short rifle/carbine.

The old .45 Colt round seems to be reviving from it's slump!

 

[Richmond]

45 Colt

I am fairly new to 45 Colt, having just added a Ruger (original) Vaquero to my collection - I have my eye on a couple of more in the caliber - including a Redhawk. The Redhawk is DA, as is the Super Redhawk in 454 Casull, which fires 45 Colt as well.

I think Colt made the Anaconda in 45 Colt at some point, but good luck finding one.

IIRC, 45 Colt was a blackpowder cartridge from the 1860s. I think that the case was pretty long when smokeless powder came on board, and smaller, shorter cartridges allowed for more compact revolvers. Then, of course, autoloaders came along and the 45 ACP entered the picture. I am not really that knowledgeable on this stuff, however, and will be interested in what some more experienced members say on this point.

One of the reasons I wanted an original Vaquero may show one of the current issues with the 45 Colt - there is a pretty clear line between guns that can handle hot loads (original Vaquero, Blackhawk, Redhawk, etc.) and guns that can't (SAA and clones, new model Vaquero). I shoot everything from the soft Cowboy action loads to some fairly stout heavy loads, and I like the flexibility to do so. If fact, I expect the Vaquero may fit in nicely for a hiking companion where there are medium sized animals - black bear, moose, etc. I currently carry a .44 mag in that role.

As I said, I am just learning about 45 Colt, but I think that flexibility is intriguing.

 

[Jim March]

Up through at LEAST the 1930s, 45LC brass was junk. It was the old "balloon head" design, with major problems in DA wheelguns and leverguns. The 44Spl could fill the same role but with a wider solid rim that worked much better in DAs. If you needed more horsepower on tap, in 1937 the 357 came along to fill that niche.

This incompatibility with leverguns AND double action revolvers hurt the 45LC bigtime. 45LC brass today is solid-head just like everything else; despite being a smaller rim it does work in DAs and leverguns.

That and the popularity of CAS/SASS has led to a revival in the 45LC.

 

[Moonclip]

The vast majority of handgunners are better served with a .44mag for heavy loads especially if one doesn't reload and I feel a moonclip equiped .45acp revolver let alone one with .45auto rim ammo if desired is superior for defensive use than say DA revolvers in .45lc due to ammo costs/availability and small rim issue.

That being said I like the .45LC cartridge and own a S&W 4" 25-5 that sees occasional home defense duty. In a rifle no way, theres a reason no one in the old west times marketed a levergun in this caliber while .44/40s were common. Hot .45lc loads in my Ruger "old" vaquero? Sure. For fun with standard loads in my EAA bounty hunter, yes. I wouldn't mind a .44-40 revolver but that ammo is even harder to find in my area especially with devensive type bullets.

 

[tipoc]

Patrick Henry, you've asked a very good question. The .45 Colt and the .44-40 were neck and neck the dominate cartridges from the 1870s till the turn of the century. With, as folks have said an edge to the 44-40 because it could be had in a levergun. The 38-40 was also popular along with a few others. A couple of things began to knock the big bore revolvers off their perch in the U.S.

One was that many towns, cities and states began to pass laws against open carry in the U.S. Most cities and states east of the Missisipispi did and Texas banned open carry in any town or city in the 1880s. So smaller caliber pocket guns became popular. The big bore revolvers began to be thought of as Western guns.

The next big blow came when law enforcement agencies began to use the .38 calibers and then the .38 Spl. and later the .357 Magnum. The latter helped to revive the bigger calibers again, but slowly.

Unlike most of Europe the U.S. was largely a nation of wheelgunners till the late 1970s or so so the pistol rounds like the .32 acp, .380acp and the 9mm did effect the big bore revolvers some but not as much as in Europe. They, the big bore wheelguns, have experienced a revival in the U.S. and Europe in the last 20 or so years.

The .45 Colt, like the .44 Special, has always been a popular round in the U.S. but it's popularity has surged and waned. It's been on the upswing the last 15 years. Some very good handguns chambered in it now days and improvements in case design have allowed Winchester, Rossi, Marlin and other to offer it in leverguns.

tipoc

 

[tipoc]

I oughta add something. When the .45 Colt was introduced in the Colt SAA in 1873 and adopted by the U.S. calvary it was sending a 255 gr. lead bullet down range at about 900 fps or a bit more. This is about all the SAA can handle. Now S&W talked the army into adopting their gun in .45 Schofield which was a shorter version of the .45 Colt. It sent a 255 gr. bullet out at about 750-800 fps. That round, the shorter .45 Schofield could also be used in the Colt but not vice versa. This is where the .45 short Colt and the .45 Long Colt talk comes from. At any rate it led the army to download the .45 Colt to about 850 fps.

I either variant the .45 Colt was a proven stopper. The calvary liked it because it stopped not only men but horses. At 850 fps more soldiers could handle the recoil and the guns lasted longer than at 900 + fps. So when the army went to the .45 acp they kept that at 850 fps. This also earned a rep as a stopper.

So any idea that the .45 Colt fell out of favor because it was over rated as a man stopper is, well, incorrect.

Elmer Keith once said that if the only single action gun he had was a Colt in .45 he'd be happy.

He also said that if he had only one gun to choose from he'd have a S&W in .44 Spl. because it could do all he'd want a handgun to do and was a better stopper than the .357. This was after he helped develop the .44 Magnum and the .41 Magnum. Said it in his book "Sixguns".

tipoc

 

[Socrates]

It's a huge case, and, with modern powders, much of that case capacity is wasted. If the case isn't filled, you can have velocity fluctuations, or kabooms.

 

[MCgunner]

I've heard that a lot, but never had a kaboom with 2.3 grains B'eye in a .38 case with a 105 SWC over it, one of my more fun uber-light loads. I think there's an element of wife's tail to that. Maybe mythbusters can do a show on it.

8.3 grains Unique don't take up a whole lot of room in the old .45 case with a 255 flat nose over it, but it's a super accurate round and very consistent, good light medium load in the Ruger. You could probably fit 40 grains of the stuff or more in there, then you'd have a kaboom.

I don't care a whole lot for big bore in a revolver. The .38 will do the job just fine in a much easier to carry weapon. And, yes, Taurus made a very nice little small frame 5 shot .45 Colt for a while. I can carry my SP101 about as easily as any .45 colt chambered small frame gun, more power there if a bit more gun to manage on recoil. From a larger frame gun, I'll take my Blackhawk in .45 Colt, though, 300 grain bullet at 1200 fps. Can't match THAT with a .357!

BTW, standard loads, .45 Colt, 255 grain bullet at 850 fps, ACP, 230 grain bullet at 850 fps. Colt wins.

 

[Redhawk1]

Jimmie, I should of added a 6 inch barrel is what I want.

 

[Stainz]

The .45 Colt propellant load started at 40gr fff bp, was reduced to 32gr. The 'AS' round specification, which became the .45 ACP, was .45 Caliber and enough power to efficiently dispatch the calvaryman's ride. Always a smokeless round, like the German 9mm Luger round which preceded it, it could have a small case - like the Luger. While the version of Browning's semi-auto that the government adopted came out in 1911, it was only a few years until S&W was producing a revolver for the Brits in WWI for the round - 1917.

Certainly, the original loading of 40gr fff and a 250gr bullet made the .45 Colt hot for it's day - approaching 1,000 fps from a 7.5" barrel. It's predecesor in the American market by two years was the S&W Model 3 in .44 Russian in 1871, an off shoot of their adaptation of the original .44 American round for the Russian Army's needs. The international sales kept S&W solvent - and provided fast reloading SA's for bad guys and western lawmen alike (The .44 Russian S&W #3 could be reloaded & shot several times in the time it took to to punch out & reload the .45 Colt SAA.). It took Colt until into the 20th century to surpass S&W's production numbers of the .44 Russian with their .45 Colt SAA. That .44 Russian cartridge was lengthened in 1907 and termed 'Special', just like the .38 Special was in 1898, indicating that while firearms for it had to withstand smokeless propellant pressures, blackpowder cartridges could still be used. Folks were slow to change!

So, if nostalgia guides your choice - just get a .44M revolver - and shoot .44 Russians. If you do choose the .45 Colt, remember - 'Cowboy' ammo is milder than the detuned round of the pre-AS round - may as well load .45 ACPs in a revolver - a la 'Indiana Jones' and his old 1917 (S&W helps here - they re-released a new version of the 1917 again last year. I like my later SS design - a 625JM.). If you want something hotter than .45 Colt, get a .454 Casull - no worry about whether it'll handle the 'power'.

For the most fun in .45 Colt SAAMI-spec'd loads, the S&W 25 & 625 Mountain Guns so-chambered can't be beat. My 5.5" .45 Redhawk was not as accurate - or as dependable, it's droopy/sloppy ejector often rode over the dimunitive rims of the Colt round, rendering the revolver useless until you manually unloaded it. BTW, the ultimate pistol-round levergun, the 1892 Winchester, would be the first .45 Colt levergun - many years after it's introduction. My Puma M1892 has been totally dependable.



Stainz

 

[wheelgunslinger]

Ruger previously made a Redhawk in 45 colt with a longer barrel.
They're hard to find. But, they're worth the money.

 

[gus3836]

There is another reason they did not make lever guns in 45 colt in the 1800's straight wall cartridge. The gases from a straight wall cartridge would blow back and muck up the guts of the lever gun. I have a 45 colt Henry and after about 30 rounds of black powder I need to quick clean the elevator because it will stick. My 32-20 can shoot all day no problems but that is a bottleneck cartridge. So back in the 1800's they knew something that we did not straight walls do not work well in a lever guns. I had a S&W mountain gun in 45 colt nice gun but did not shoot it enough sold it probably and do regret it every so often. Gus

 

[Ash]

As to police, traditionally police never went around blatantly armed in the 1800's. The populace did not wish to be menaced by their police needlessly and would not put up with the very militaristic nature of many police forces around today. Civilians would not, indeed did not, tolerate police going about armed like Dirty Harry. Police carried concealed in many places for a long time. When they open-carried, they were not expected to carry hand-cannons. The 32 or 38 sized revolvers were not as menacing as something bigger.

Frankly, I like the idea of our police not being para-military and lament that so many are becoming so. Combat-style fatigue pants with combat boots might be tactical and useful should a foot-pursuit occur, but they also guide the officer into an us-vs-them mentality. A few weeks ago I actually rebuked a police officer who was being pretty menacing after he thought I ran a stop sign. I did not think I had and, as he was being NYPD Blue on me I told him he could be civil. We could be polite to each other, I could provide him with all information he required and he could be nice about asking for it. No sugar needed, but treating me the way he was was not necessary. I knew for sure I would get a ticket in any case, but this guy had no reason to be a jerk. Oddly enough, he gave me a warning. (If air traffic controllers and pilots could be so polite and courteous to each other over the radio, the police and other government folks can be polite, too.) BUT, I digress.

In the end, police were never expected to be uber-armed. The concept of shooting a "man stopper" was pretty foreign at that time. Drawing and blowing a man off his feet was something police were not supposed to consider. Shooting a civilian - nay, a CITIZEN, was something that was not to happen unless absolutely warranted. And, at the time, getting shot was a dicey thing no matter what. Nobody wanted to get shot and most citizens did not want to be bullied by the police. Governing powers respected the citizens' concerns regarding this. The 45LC was just not suitable for police carry.

Today, we would feel the same way if all cops decided to carry subguns slung over their shoulders. It happens in Europe but the US Citizen would have a cow if all the guards at the airports, if all state troopers, and if all sheriffs approached them with an Uzi or MP-5 hanging off their shoulder. Yet, these would be more effective than the Glock. Ditto, of course, for walking the streets with a shotgun slung, or perhaps the AR-15's that they keep in the trunk. Yet these are doubtlessly more effective than the side-arm.

Ash

 

[Master Blaster]

So back in the 1800's they knew something that we did not straight walls do not work well in a lever guns.

.45-70 was the military cartridge for a long time, until it was replaced by smokeless, and the govt. didnt like leverguns becuase they got mucked up too easily in battle???

.45 Colt is a blackpowder cartridge, and it probably didnt work real well with the early smokeless powders, accuracy wise due to large case volume and small charge weight.

The newer smokeless cartridges were all the rage, and you didnt have to clean your gun right away with them. Gun makers always want to sell new products, keeps them in business.

 

[tipoc]

Well we come to another reason.

The .44 mag and the .357 became hunting loads. The .45 Colt was bypassed as a hunting load (by some folks any way) in part because there were no guns in production that could handle much more than the standard velocity loads or loads up to 900-950 fps. This was due to cylinder wall thickness. It wasn't until the late 60s that Colt came out with the New Frontier which had a thicker topstrap than the Colt SAA and can handle slightly stronger loads than the S&W double actions or the Colt SAA. IN Dec. of 1970 Ruger rolled out the BlackHawk in .45 Colt. For the first time you had a factory production gun that could truly handle a 255 gr. or 300 gr. bullet at 1200 fps.

Both Cowboy Action Shooting and stronger gun design have led to a resurgence of the .45 Colt. It is a good and accurate cartridge.

tipoc

 

[Brian Williams]

A Taurus Tracker in 45 colt is a nice gun, the one gun I regret selling. It was a taurus after all but it handled nice and shot well. It needed to be modified for me, If I had trimmed the barrel to 3" and put a nicer front sight it along with some nicer grips(I hate the "Gripper" grips that came on it) becauue the grips were too sticky and grabbed at your clothing. If Taurus made a tracker in 45 Colt with a 3" unported barrel and nice Ahrends grips it would make for a great carry gun.
Winchester Silvertips worked very well in this gun both accuracy wise and the few slugs I was able to pull out of the dirt backstop had expanded well.

 

[Shawnee]

Hi Ash...

You wrote...

As to police, traditionally police never went around blatantly armed in the 1800's. The populace did not wish to be menaced by their police needlessly and would not put up with the very militaristic nature of many police forces around today. Civilians would not, indeed did not, tolerate police going about armed like Dirty Harry. Police carried concealed in many places for a long time. When they open-carried, they were not expected to carry hand-cannons. The 32 or 38 sized revolvers were not as menacing as something bigger.

Frankly, I like the idea of our police not being para-military and lament that so many are becoming so. Combat-style fatigue pants with combat boots might be tactical and useful should a foot-pursuit occur, but they also guide the officer into an us-vs-them mentality. A few weeks ago I actually rebuked a police officer who was being pretty menacing after he thought I ran a stop sign. I did not think I had and, as he was being NYPD Blue on me I told him he could be civil. We could be polite to each other, I could provide him with all information he required and he could be nice about asking for it. No sugar needed, but treating me the way he was was not necessary. I knew for sure I would get a ticket in any case, but this guy had no reason to be a jerk. Oddly enough, he gave me a warning. (If air traffic controllers and pilots could be so polite and courteous to each other over the radio, the police and other government folks can be polite, too.) BUT, I digress.


High-5 to Ya, Ash !!!

Personally, I think today's American Public desperately needs to make the removal of lethal weapons from our assorted police forces and government S.W.A.T.zies a top political priority for our legislatures. There is no reason they need to be armed to eat breakfast in McDonald's anymore than the rest of us do. And since I can read about all manner of crimes committed by LEOs in every edition of the newspaper I think that dramatically underscores the need for that priority.
Issuing officers firearms ONLY IF, and WHEN, there is a legally-obtained warrant for someone's arrest would be a perfectly fine way to address the occassional (and seriously overrated) police need of firearms yet jerk a well-deserved knot in the tail of this nation's out-of-control Gestapo.

Local opinion may vary.

 

[tallpaul]

I believe the colt was pushed aside because the newer powders and gun strengths would have made more modern loads way to dangerous to have with all the old guns in circulation. Even today the ammo is kept down to lower levels other than the specialty "ruger only" types that "true believers" understand.

a good round with modern cases and second to none in the right guns for most uses that don't need "small"