45acp Super BH Hunter
- Thread starter SHOOTER
- Start date
contender
Ruger Guru
If you find one that properly fits the OAL, yes, it should.
Hondo44
Hawkeye
Sure it will work fine. Ruger makes 45 Colt/ACP convertibles. Your biggest challenge will be finding a 45 ACP Ruger cylinder unless you spend the big bucks to have a custom one made. There are plenty of Ruger 44 Mag cyls around, not as many in stainless, but you can have one reamed to 45 ACP for a lot less than a custom cyl.
Justice B. Swift
Single-Sixer
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2014
- Messages
- 314
- City & State/Province
- N.W. Oregon, The Big Valley & Now S.W. Idaho also.
I believe you can have one fitted to your gun at Ruger for a nominal fee. I had one fitted some years back for $150 (included cylinder and fitting). Give them a call. May prove cheaper than finding a used one and paying a smith to set it up. If you can find one that measures same or slightly longer Overall length as yours, then fitting simple and timing is rarely far off. Measure your OAL and put out a WTB and see where it goes.
contender
Ruger Guru
Ruger will not add a cylinder to any model that isn't already offered as a convertible.
Chuck 100 yd
Hunter
contender is correct about the extra cylinder for a gun that was not offered as a convertible.
Chuck 100 yd
Hunter
contender is correct about the extra cylinder for a gun that was not offered as a convertible.
bisleyfan41
Blackhawk
You can't ream a 44 cylinder to 45 acp. The 44 case is larger in diameter than the 45 acp projectile. And with the 44 obviously being longer than the 45 acp, that portion of the chamber forward of where the acp would end to where the 44 ended would be oversize. Hamilton Bowen enlightened me on this.
You could use a SS 357 cylinder (or a SS 41 cylinder if you can find one), but you'd have to set the barrel back to close the b/c gap. Stainless 45 acp cylinders aren't growing on trees, but can be found.
You could use a SS 357 cylinder (or a SS 41 cylinder if you can find one), but you'd have to set the barrel back to close the b/c gap. Stainless 45 acp cylinders aren't growing on trees, but can be found.
Cylinders from 5.5" Bisley Convertables show up here and there, usually run $100-150.
Or I have bought the entire package 5.5 Bisley Convertable 45/45ACP, then just sell off the gun, keeping the ACP Cylinder. This is getting a little harder to do as they have slowed down in production numbers and availability, but it can be done. Usually ~$100
Or have a friend send his 5.5" Bisley Convertable in and have a replacement cylinder fitted. You would want to make sure your existing cylinder is the same or shorter (OAL) than the one you send in. I think with shipping it's running ~$180
Or I have bought the entire package 5.5 Bisley Convertable 45/45ACP, then just sell off the gun, keeping the ACP Cylinder. This is getting a little harder to do as they have slowed down in production numbers and availability, but it can be done. Usually ~$100
Or have a friend send his 5.5" Bisley Convertable in and have a replacement cylinder fitted. You would want to make sure your existing cylinder is the same or shorter (OAL) than the one you send in. I think with shipping it's running ~$180
BPGuy
Single-Sixer
bisleyfan41 said:
Ok, I must be missing something here. Ruger sells a Redhawk with one cylinder that works for both .45 LC and .45 ACP.
The cylinder is big enough to accept .45 LC ammo, which is bigger than .44 mag (diameter); yet, one can quite successfully chamber and fire .45 ACP in the same cylinder (with moon-clips, of course). The portion of the chamber forward of where the ACP ammo ends would therefore be even more "oversize" than a .44 cal chambered cylinder, would it not? Yet it works just fine with either .45 LC or .45 ACP ammution.
Why wouldn't the .44 cal chambered cylinders work just as well, properly re-chambered of course? As I said, I must be missing something.
NikA
Hunter
BPguy,
The case diameter of a .44 is .457", so presumably the chamber is at least that large. That'd be a very generous throat for a .45 cartridge. All that was being said was that one cannot take a cylinder already chambered in a .44 cartridge and chamber it in .45ACP and expect the throats to end up the correct diameter. Less accuracy and velocity would be the expected result.
The case diameter of a .44 is .457", so presumably the chamber is at least that large. That'd be a very generous throat for a .45 cartridge. All that was being said was that one cannot take a cylinder already chambered in a .44 cartridge and chamber it in .45ACP and expect the throats to end up the correct diameter. Less accuracy and velocity would be the expected result.
bisleyfan41
Blackhawk
BPGuy said:
The OD of a 44 mag case is ~.458" which is larger than the diameter of a .452" ACP bullet. Since the 44 case is longer than the ACP case, there would be a section of the rebored chamber (from where the ACP chamber ends to where the 44 chamber end was) that would be oversize for a .452" bullet. Not by much, .458 vs. .452. But enough that Bowen for sure won't use a 44 cylinder for a 45 ACP rechamber and probably other smiths as well. This would not apply to the throat as it could be properly sized; just the chamber area immediately before the throat. In the end, don't take my word for it; call up one of the smiths that do these conversions and they'll explain it to you.
BPGuy
Single-Sixer
bisleyfan41 said:
So: the 44 case is longer than the ACP case; the LC case is longer, too
The rebored chamber would be .458", "oversize" for a .452" bullet; the LC OD is .480", yet the .452" ACP bullet does just fine. Why would .458", less 'oversize', be a problem?
s4s4u said:
Again, the freebore wouldn't be any different in a .44 mag cylinder than it is in the .45 LC cylinder.
I'm not going to call a gunsmith and waste his time asking him to explain something to me when I have no intention of buying something from him. I am just saying that the none of the explanations given thus far would prima facia prevent the .44 cylinder from working. Every "bad" thing would seem to be even worse in the .45 LC cylinder, yet the ACP works just fine there.
The only possible reason I can imagine is that perhaps there wouldn't be enough "meat" in the rebored cylinder to mouth of the case to "headspace" on.
NikA
Hunter
The old quote is "Only accurate guns are interesting." People have noted a decrease in accuracy with the .45ACP in the newer RH convertibles. The question is, "Would it be worth your money to pay to have a cylinder converted when it would likely be less accurate then one that was properly sized?" If the answer is, "I don't care!" feel free to do what you will. Many gunsmiths will not touch this because they do not care to have their name associated with the diminished performance that may result.
BPGuy
Single-Sixer
s4s4u said:
Not sure if you're saying it doesn't work at all, or if it doesn't work to your satisfaction. It does work (see the new .45 LC/.45 ACP Redhawk); I guess it's up to you to decide if the way it fires is "fine" or not. I find that it works perfectly well for my needs.
First, thank you for acknowledging that there doesn't seem to be any reason the OP could have a .44 cylinder rechambered and rebored to fire .45 ACP. We have transitioned from "you can't do that" to "why bother".
Why bother?
1. So he can shoot the same ammo out of both revolvers and, for example, a 1911. Less ammo to buy/load, store and tote to the range.
2. So he can shoot cheaper, more common ammo (i.e. shoot more!)
3. More shooting with any gun will help to develop all shooting skills.
4. Because he wants to!
If your goal is "utmost accuracy at any cost", then I agree that the .45 ACP in a longer cylinder isn't the way to go. However, I don't believe that most shooters are interested in getting the absolute smallest group possible every time we go to the range; we quite often shoot to have fun! If you can shoot a more common and less expensive round for fun in the same gun you shoot a more expensive round for "serious" shooting, why the heck not? I really don't understand why some of us seem to look down our noses at others because they have the audacity to dare fire a short cartridge in a long cylinder. Sure, accuracy will probably suffer. So what? Why do you find it necessary to cast aspersions at shooters whose desires and goals are different from yours?
NikA
Hunter
I think you're missing the point here. The problem is not having a cylinder chambered in .45ACP. The problem is having one made from a cylinder already chambered in .44. There are at least 3 cylinders that can be easily chambered in .45ACP that won't have this accuracy problem: a factory .45ACP cylinder, a .357M cylinder, and a 9mm cylinder. Why, given similar cost and availability, would you go with something that is likely to produce results that are less good? Rechambering a cylinder from .357M to .45ACP shouldn't be significantly more expensive than what you're proposing, but it definitely won't have the freebore/throat issue.
Chuck 100 yd
Hunter
NikA said:
+1 ^^^^ !!!
bisleyfan41
Blackhawk
Nobody said you "can't" do it. I said that Bowen WON'T do it. Nor will most other smiths who stake their reputations on producing a quality product. I was just trying to help the OP out by recommending he NOT acquire a 44 cylinder to do a rechamber THAT NO REPUTABLE SMITH WILL DO and be out the money he spent on a useless cylinder. There are other cylinders that can be rechambered just fine. Damn, I give up, just go argue with yourself. Seems you get a pleasure out of it. I'm done.
