Another 44 vs 45 thread

[tek4260]

http://www.riflemagazine.com/magazine/a ... 1&magid=24

I had never read this one before. I am sure others will like it as well

 

[dougader]

Great article. Thanks for posting this.

 

[G2]

I enjoyed reading this too, Thanks!

This one is good too;

http://www.realguns.com/archives/159.htm

 

[CraigC]

It's an excellent article and one that I link to often. Although in practical, modern terms, the only real advantage a standard six-shot .45 has over the .44Mag is 0.025". It is worthy of note that current Hodgdon data gives a 100fps advantage to the .44 across the board, all the way to 355gr. Where the .45 really shines is in the custom five-shot conversions or FA 83's.

 

[gunslinger_h]

Having fired thousands of rounds of both, I see great things about both. The .44 is flatter, and if in the special caliber, will do the job. The .45 is slower, but much better second and third shot, and it battle proven. I am speaking not about single actions. Personally Ibelieve that controlability under fire is more important than power. Just my opinion, Hank.

 

[yankee7809]

I believe at sub magnum velocities the .45 is a better cartridge.That to me is where the extra diameter proves most useful. To equal the .45 Colt or ACP you have to choose .44 special components carefully. I admit I love the .44 Magnum better than any other cartridge. I own both .45s and .44s and don't compare them that closely. While those loads in the articles about the two four inch Redhawks were very entertaining they might not tell the whole story.
I take more stock in the wealth of published reloading manuals and none That I am aware of will put loads for the Colt round in writing that really shows an advantage over the .44 Magnum. I really thought that when the Casull became available in the Redhawk and folks had access to .45 power levels like that in a popular priced revolver maybe the .45 Colt vs .44 Magnum wars would end... Guess not! :wink:

 

[Jayhawkhuntclub]

It's an excellent article and one that I link to often. Although in practical, modern terms, the only real advantage a standard six-shot .45 has over the .44Mag is 0.025". It is worthy of note that current Hodgdon data gives a 100fps advantage to the .44 across the board, all the way to 355gr. Where the .45 really shines is in the custom five-shot conversions or FA 83's.

True, but it's amazing to me how big that 0.025" difference looks when you compare the bullets side by side. And while I'd love a 5 shot 45 Colt, there isn't much walking this planet that can't be had with a 6 shot Blackhawk

 

[tom black]

I think one one have to kill a heck of a lot of animals with both before ever noticing any practical difference.
Tom Black

 

[Rclark]

.45 Colt.... there isn't much walking this planet that can't be had with a 6 shot Blackhawk

+1.

The obligatory link:

http://www.customsixguns.com/writings/d ... e_myth.htm

 

[gunslinger_h]

It makes a lot of difference if you are hunting an animal or defending yourself against a person who is shooting back. I prefer the second and third shot capability of the .45 in defense. Hank.

 

[Rclark]

I prefer the second and third shot capability of the .45 in defense.

Loaded down to .45 Colt 'normal' power levels (as apposed to Ruger Only Loads) . Works for me too. The o' Ruger Vaquero .45 Colt is my bedside revolver in case something goes bump in the night (or day). A .44Spec Bulldog is the backup gun.

 

[gotcha]

Good reading I am in the slight dilema Old model Vaquero 44mag?
or old model bisley Vaquero 45 colt these S/As are addictive. Both SS
hope this will not side track this thread
Carl

 

[Yosemite Sam]

Good reading I am in the slight dilema Old model Vaquero 44mag?
or old model bisley Vaquero 45 colt these S/As are addictive. Both SS
hope this will not side track this thread
Carl

Do you shoot one of the calibers already, and/or load for it? I might suggest getting the new gun in the same caliber. If one represents a "new" caliber for you, that can mean a bigger investment. Especially if it's a CAS/target/"fun" gun rather than a hunting piece that you're trying to obtain maximum power from.

-- Sam

 

[CraigC]

Similar thoughts apply to the Linebaugh article as apply to the Seyfried article. Much as I respect them both, each make a great case for the .45 while ommitting certain things about the .44. As I said before, the only real, quantifiable difference is .025" in diameter. Meanwhile, the .44's tend to be more accurate and suffer FAR less from poor chamber/mouth/bore dimensions.

Before anybody parrots the "same performance at less pressure", first explain exactly what that yields you in practical terms.

I take more stock in the wealth of published reloading manuals and none That I am aware of will put loads for the Colt round in writing that really shows an advantage over the .44 Magnum.

The loads listed in the Hodgdon manual run at similar pressures and velocities as Linebaugh's own data. It's interesting and worthy of note that Linebaugh offers a 310gr .45 at 1316fps and 32,000CUP and Hodgdon lists a 325gr .44 at 1368fps at 38,000CUP.

I'm sorry but it's just not as cut and dry as .45 fans would indicate. I'll give you the 0.025" in diameter and keep my snugger chambers, properly sized chamber mouths and better accuracy. The .44Mag also uses less powder and the .44Spl is FAR more efficient than the .45 at comparable strength levels.

 

[BlackEye]

Isn't this where the 41 Mag comes in? There is only 0.019" dia difference between it and the 44. The same case could be made for picking the 41 over the 44 then?

 

[Jayhawkhuntclub]

I think the issues with sloppy chambers in 45 Colts have been corrected in the more recent Rugers. The one I bought last fall, did not have anywhere near the oversized chambers that Linebaugh talks about. The throats are better too, but still not what they should be. I've been a 44 mag guy for a while, but I'm starting to slide towards the 45 Colt. Ultimately, it's irrelevant in the real world as far as I can tell. They'll both do about the same thing.

 

[CraigC]

The same case could be made for picking the 41 over the 44 then?

Pretty much. Personally, there's no good reason for me not to have a .41Mag. I just don't. Some day I'll add a couple to the stable.

I think the issues with sloppy chambers in 45 Colts have been corrected in the more recent Rugers.

With 40yrs of production behind them, I really don't think that helps much.

 

[tek4260]

Gotta love this debate. The only reason to own a 44 is that an OMSBH wasn't offered in 45. :wink:

 

[Jayhawkhuntclub]

I think the issues with sloppy chambers in 45 Colts have been corrected in the more recent Rugers.

With 40yrs of production behind them, I really don't think that helps much.

I'm not sure what you mean. You don't think it helps that the latest Ruger BHs don't have the problem in question? It helps me, because I have one.

 

[CraigC]

My point is that the .44Mag has nearly sixty years of production with proper dimensions so it's perfectly safe to assume that any of those guns from myriad manufacturers will be properly dimensioned. Not so with the .45Colt with anything but a custom or FA. Old Rugers have oversized chamber mouths, new Rugers have undersized chamber mouths, they all have oversized chambers and rifles are even worse.

 

[Ale-8(1)]

I choose . . . Mary Ann!

 

[TRanger]

I'm a great fan of the .44. Having said that, I doubt anyone on this board can equal the hunting experience Ross has. I give great weight to his opinions.

 

[flatgate]

The only answer to the debate is "One of Each"....

And, who said the Super Blackhawk wasn't available in .45 Colt?

One OM .45 Blackhawk and one NM .45 Blackhawk. They both sure do feel like Supers to me.....

flatgate

 

[tek4260]

Semi Super OM 45

NM Semi Super 45's

OM 44 awaiting rechamber and rebarrel to 45

 

[SargeMO]

They're both great cartridges and I can't imagine life without one of them... these days I prefer the .45 Colt but Elmer's Baby served me well over the years, too.

 

[DanChamberlain]

After shooting and reloading the .44 Mag and .45 Colt for the last 30 years, I no longer have a .45 Colt in the stable. Not saying they aren't wonderful performers, but I couldn't personally wring out any added advantage to make it worth the time at the reloading bench.

Dan

 

[maxpress]

i really dont think the critter on the recieving end will know the difference if it is hit by the same weight bullet at the same speed. the difference in diameter is slight at best.

 

[Bisley Bud]

It was that magazine article that got me to take a look at the 45 colt cartridge. It was other articles from Mr. Seyfried and the Linebaugh web site that got me to try the bisley grip. He once wrote that if Ruger would make a 5 1/2" Bisley in stainless steel, it would be the ultimate off the shelf revolver. Acusport must have read that article too.

With a 44 special for 99%, the 45 colt does the 1% nicely.

 

[yankee7809]

The articles, particularly the Linebaugh ones are really good reads. Certainly for anyone who loves big bore revolvers. As one of the most quoted articles, not only on this site but many others as well, they must have done wonders for his business. :wink:

 

[WESHOOT2]

My 45 Colt Redhawk had pefect dimensions.
I sold it.
I kept my 44 Redhawk.

Any manufacturer can offer up a 44 (or ANY machine) with less-than-perfect dimensions. All too often......