Ballistics questions --- .44 vs .45 LC

[Sonnytoo]

I have to learn about Linebaugh, because I am just not familiar.

Here's a link for you, friend.
http://www.customsixguns.com/writings.htm
sonnytoo

 

[Bucks Owin]

But I don't see how the ".43 mag" can top a 325 gr .45 bullet at "Linebaugh speed" in a .45 BH without running excessive pressures.

That's the mystery of ballistics tables.... The Hodgdon tables are great references, but they do not list firearm used in tests, just barrel length (might even be that they are test barrels). The .44RM tests are from longer barrels than the .45C. Also, those big heavy 44RM loads are what I used to see referenced as "Ruger Only" loads and some are nearly 10% longer than Max Cartridge Length to get more powder and lower pressures. But just looking at the Hodgdon table and a Speer manual which uses a 7.5" Redhawk, Speer actually uses more powder in some cases with much slower velocities.
Soooo.... who knows what it actually will do in your revolver...

Linebaugh has some interesting thoughts regarding barrel length too and contends that the .45 can get away with much shorter length (eg "packable") than the .44 can. In this case 10" vs 5.5" http://www.customsixguns.com/writings/h ... ullets.htm

 

[Yosemite Sam]

Owin I'm refering to having to fix the cylinder. Not so much strength. But I keep reading that you need to have the cylinder reamed? In order to fire all bullets and have accuracy? I believe cast bullets in particular.

It's not really a big deal. The problem is that Ruger seems incapable of shipping a .45 Colt gun with appropriately-sized (or even equally sized, consistent) chambers. So the solution is to buy one, take the cylinder out, pop it in the mail to Cylindersmith.com (cas), and in about a week you'll get your cylinder back all nicely reamed. You don't need to involve an FFL, ship the gun, or anything like that. Perfectly painless.

-- Sam

 

[Bucks Owin]

Owin I'm refering to having to fix the cylinder. Not so much strength. But I keep reading that you need to have the cylinder reamed? In order to fire all bullets and have accuracy? I believe cast bullets in particular.

Oh, now I getcha.....sorry. Yes, that's a "fly in the ointment" regarding the .45 Colt. Chamber/throat/barrel dimensions vary widely. However, that's not just a "Ruger problem". Seems like a "SAAMI problem".But it is said that every gun is a law unto itself and the only way to tell with certainty how accurate a certain sixgun may be is to shoot it. I doubt many .45 Blackhawks are wildly inaccurate, just some are better than others. The .45 Colt is inherently accurate*. My .45 has large chambers and .456" throats, .452" barrel but shoots certain combinations with great accuracy. Some not so good. Actually, it's the cast bullets that do the best usually, in my case .454" with a fairly stiff charge. Jacketed .4515" and .452" bullets offered by Sierra, Hornady, Speer etc won't do as well. "Someday" I'll have another cylinder fitted that isn't so finicky but I can't seem to bear sending it away for that amount of time. It's too much fun to shoot. My 12 yr old son thinks so too! Best, Dennis............................*Skeeter Skelton

 

[c.r.]

="Bucks Owin Linebaugh has some interesting thoughts regarding barrel length too and contends that the .45 can get away with much shorter length (eg "packable") than the .44 can. In this case 10" vs 5.5" http://www.customsixguns.com/writings/h ... ullets.htm

Let me begin by saying I like the 45 Colt so much that I took a perfectly good SBH and had it converted to a tight chamber 45 Colt w/ a slow twist barrel.

while the 10" vs. 5 1/2" barrel at first thought might make us believe the 45 Colt is more efficient.........what about the 45 Colt needing the add'l grains of powder to achieve those velocities?

~c.r.

 

[Bucks Owin]

="Bucks Owin Linebaugh has some interesting thoughts regarding barrel length too and contends that the .45 can get away with much shorter length (eg "packable") than the .44 can. In this case 10" vs 5.5" http://www.customsixguns.com/writings/h ... ullets.htm

Let me begin by saying I like the 45 Colt so much that I took a perfectly good SBH and had it converted to a tight chamber 45 Colt w/ a slow twist barrel.

while the 10" vs. 5 1/2" barrel at first thought might make us believe the 45 Colt is more efficient.........what about the 45 Colt needing the add'l grains of powder to achieve those velocities?

~c.r.

.45 Colt case has more capacity than the .44 mag. The same loading density requires more powder. It's the bore size (.452" vs .430") that enables more "push" on the bullet base....(or "efficiency") IMHO, Dennis (BTW, I'd love to go the route you did with a SBH or at least a .44 cylinder. Bet your's is a shooter! Who made the barrel? Did Linebaugh build the gun? Seems to me that he likes to change barrels to a slower twist too....)

 

[hutchman]

the Fatman, pm sent.

 

[Dale53]

There is no animal on earth that can tell the difference between a Ruger .44 magnum or a properly loaded large frame Ruger .45 Colt.

The available bullets are about the same weight and there is only .022" difference in their diameters.

Either revolver (which ever you champion) is within 100 fps of each other.

The .44 Magnum has greater sectional density so should be marginally better at penetration and the .45 Colt has a miniscule difference in diameter in it's favor.

Samo, samo, in my carefully considered opinion.

I have both and have NO axe to grind. Use whichever appeals to you and KNOW that either choice is a good one.

By far, the most important thing is to be able to shoot well, whichever you choose - GOOD hits are FAR more important than which of the two calibers you prefer.

To the OP - all of my deer have been taken with a .44 magnum and cast bullets. A 250 gr Keith will shoot clear through a LARGE deer end for end at 100 yards if driven at 1200 fps or faster. 1400 fps is safely reachable with a long barrel. Power enough is enough...

Dale53

 

[batmann]

This almost like a which is better a S&W or Ruger. They are both great cartridges. I happen to be a .44 guy, but I can't deny the appeal of the .45 Colt.

 

[CraigC]

There is no animal on earth that can tell the difference between a Ruger .44 magnum or a properly loaded large frame Ruger .45 Colt.

Exactly!

However, I do lean towards the .44Mag for a few reasons. Firstly, the .44 is not plagued by ambiguous chamber/bore dimensions that are present with the .45Colt. Out of the box they typically are better and more consistent shooters. No oversized chambers, mismatched chamber mouths or the need for oversized cast bullets.

Lastly, there's nothing magical about the .45Colt but all the true-believer talk (won't mention names), quite frankly, turns me off. :roll:

 

[the fatman]

Sorry Rugerhunter just read your original post again I've screwed it up sorry for getting off topic. My mind wanders off on me once in awhile.

 

[c.r.]

Bucks Owin, you have a pm.

~c.r.

 

[Redhawk4]

This topic seems to keep coming up, probably because there is no answer that can satisfy everyone.

I think as others have said that the two calibers are so similar that for all practical purposes, there is no difference. If you think that a cartridge is just a brass case with a primer and some powder in it with a bullet crimped in the end, it's not surprizing that two similar sized cartridges can perform in a similar fashion from the same gun, there's not a lot to be different. As Scotty said on Star Trek "you cannie change the laws of physics".

As I've said before I like 44 mag, for the price, availability, and performance of factory ammo. It also occurs to me that 44 mag is what it is straight out of the box, whereas Colt 45 requires more modification to it's ammo spec and possibly the revolver to achieve it's performance potential. So it's a bit like saying a Dodge can be made to go faster than a Ferrari, some people want to do that, others would rather just buy the Ferrari, and use it as intended. Spare time is also a factor, I'm lucky to find much time to go shooting, or to pursue the outdoor activities that my Redhawk was bought for, so I'm trying to keep things as simple as possible.

So it's "Prancing Horses for Courses", I think it's two different routes to the same destination. Take the one that you will gain the most personal satisfaction from and don't worry about whose taking the other path. How can you go wrong with either? or like Rugerhunter mentioned you can always get both over time, if you really can't decide.

 

[DGW1949]

Just curious about hunting.

Where is the best place to compare ballistics among cartridges?

I have shot pigs with .357 before and recently got a .44 SBH for hunting.

I am just not that familiar with the 45LC. Where is the handiest, best organized comparison chart of ballistics?


I am taking the 44SBH hunting in November when I am whitetail hunting. would love to get a close shot and test it out.

OK, I think I got all that....except the "test it out" part.
I have a bit of trouble understanding exactly what it is you are wanting to "test" there. The 44M caliber?, the gun itself?...or maybe, your skill as a hunter?...dunno.

Try compareing ballistics by studying a few loading manuals.
Comparing ballistics bewteen this or that cartridge won't tell you much about on-game performance but if you are dazzeled by numbers and enjoy all the "foot pounds" type of comparisons, there'll be plenty enough info there to keep you entertained for a long time. But if at some point, you get bored with reading through it all, there's always the writings of this or that expert to sort through.....any/all of which can be very entertaing too.

In the end though, I suspect that you'll come to the same conclusions about the 45LC that many of us came to long ago.
Namely.....

In it's original configuration, the 45LC was/is packaged inside a very handy-sized gun. And....it exhibits far more stopping power than it's paper-ballistics suggest.....Meaning that it's standard service-load of a big fat 250-255 grain bullet moving along at 850-900 FPS does a very remarkable job at taking down dern-near anything it encounters. And that the SAA sized revolver and/or the little lever action carbines which chamber it are a joy to carry and shoot.
No big boom, no excessive kick or muzzel blast, and no +P stuff needed here....because it does very well as is, thank you.

On the other hand, folks being folks, we sometimes can't leave well enough alone....so we set about trying to improve things. And it seems that when it comes to the lowly 45LC service revolver, well....good enough just aint good enough. So we start jazzing things up, playing with heavy bullets, this or that powder, various primers, and in general seeing just how far we can push the poor thing....untill soon, we are faced with the situation where-in is not only the 45LC cartridge no longer recognizable....but the monster we created is no longer safe to fire in our handy-sized gun. So we get a bigger gun, which in turn lets us push things even further...untill, in the end, we find ourselves using a big, heavy, massive 44-Mag sized gun (sometimes with a 5-shot cylinder for even more safety-margin) to fire our big ole fire-breathing, punishing to shoot, super-loaded, anti-tank 45's. At that point, the question no longer concerns the 44 VS 45 because as a practical matter, it just simply don't matter. One is as good as the other and in fact, have become almost indistinguishable from each other anyway.
Might make for interesting chat between the numbers guys, but the deer don't care.
And just so you'll know.... most factory 44Mag and/or 45LC+P loads have the same (or more) recoil energy as the 30-06 service cartridge. Not much fun to shoot out of a small levergun, even less fun out of a revolver, and quite a step up from the 357 you have had experience with.

So all that said.....
I aint no expert on these matters. All I know for sure is that I've yet to put a good hit on anything using a 45LC service load that didn't put the critter down (and keep it down). So that being the case, I find it much preferable to just let the 45LC be what it is....And let the 44Mag be what it is.

Just something to chew on.
No disrespect to anyone intended.

DGW

 

[Redhawk4]

DGW, you make some good points. There are many who load and fire heavy loads in either caliber, that are not particularly of interest to me personally, or necessary for my purposes.

But it seems for a lot of others, it's two sides of the same coin. Quite a few folks seem to end up either loading the 45 Colt up a bit, or loading 44 mag down towards 44 spl, to get a decent bullet weight moving at around 950-1000 fps, because as you say, they have found it will get most things done with out too much noise and recoil and will be accurate and fun too shoot.

I think many of us need to bare this in mind and avoid getting too caught up in the need to "hot "rod everything, just because we can. Unless we really want to or have to, then it's fine - each to their own.

 

[Bucks Owin]

Well now DGW, that big breakfast the other day made ya fiesty huh? :wink: Just kidding and hope you're still feeling better after the flu thing...Know what I would do if I was in charge at Ruger? Build both .45 Colts! A trim little number like the .44 Spl Lipsey built for "SAAMI .45" and a SBH chambered in ".45 Linebaugh". Case closed....:shock: But here's something for us to ponder in the "never ending saga" of .44 mag vs .45 Ruger. Seems to me that Ruger's four cornerstones as a giant in the firearms industry have been the Mark I, the Single Six, the 10/22 and the SBH. I'll bet we can agree that those four launched Ruger's expansion into shotguns and centerfire rifles. Now imagine the SBH built in the same "haphazard" way in regard to tolerances that the .45 BH was for decades. How many would have been sold? Would Ruger have even survived to this point if the SBH had "flopped" from bad press instead of being one of Ruger's best sellers year in, year out? (At least I imagine it is, there are no shortage of them!) I'm just glad that there are enough stubborn fans of the .45 Colt to have kept this fine old cartridge alive in the Ruger lineup no matter the hassles. I'm thankful that Ruger gave us the platform to let the .45 Colt reach it's potential but they should hang their corporate heads when they think of how good the .45 BH "could" have been all this time, perhaps as a .45 SBH....JMO, Dennis

 

[DGW1949]

Well now DGW, that big breakfast the other day made ya fiesty huh? :wink: Just kidding and hope you're still feeling better after the flu thing...Know what I would do if I was in charge at Ruger? Build both .45 Colts! A trim little number like the .44 Spl Lipsey built for "SAAMI .45" and a SBH chambered in ".45 Linebaugh". Case closed....:shock: But here's something for us to ponder in the "never ending saga" of .44 mag vs .45 Ruger. Seems to me that Ruger's four cornerstones as a giant in the firearms industry have been the Mark I, the Single Six, the 10/22 and the SBH. I'll bet we can agree that those four launched Ruger's expansion into shotguns and centerfire rifles. Now imagine the SBH built in the same "haphazard" way in regard to tolerances that the .45 BH was for decades. How many would have been sold? Would Ruger have even survived to this point if the SBH had "flopped" from bad press instead of being one of Ruger's best sellers year in, year out? (At least I imagine it is, there are no shortage of them!) I'm just glad that there are enough stubborn fans of the .45 Colt to have kept this fine old cartridge alive in the Ruger lineup no matter the hassles. I'm thankful that Ruger gave us the platform to let the .45 Colt reach it's potential but they should hang their corporate heads when they think of how good the .45 BH "could" have been all this time, perhaps as a .45 SBH....JMO, Dennis

I'm hearing ya. And yeah, I'm also with you on the "hap hazard" approach that most gun makers use to build their 45LC's. And just for the sake of conversating on that particular aspect....just imagine paying 2-1/2X the price of a Blackhawk for a Colt SAA....and then finding out that a reamer won't help you because they all gots oversized/missmatched chambers and bores, and have had for what?...over 150 years now?
So much for Colt's famous fit and finish.....Wow, what a crock!

At any rate, I get your drift. There's enough different 45LC's available these days that a guy can pick the apropriate tool for just about any task....Except for....aint no SAA-sized gun out there which comes with adjustable sights.
I personaly think that Ruger has missed the boat on that one because if they were to market say, a 50th-357 FT, only in 45LC....they'd perty-much have that market cornered. But they don't, so they don't.

In the mean time though, I'll just keep my stinkin' Uberti SAA and my old Rossi '92 Carbine. They are both real-handy guns, and they both work just fine for the uses I put a 45LC to....and being's how I'm a one-gun, one-load type of guy, I don't need adjustable sights anyhow.
That, and like I said before....Down is down, and dead is dead.
No +P stuff needed here.

DGW

 

[Rugerhunter]

Well, let's see here:

"Test it out" means exactly that. I haven't shot a .44 at a deer before and I want to see some meat hit the ground. I have shot a running hog before with the 357. We finished that one off with a knife and dogs. I did hit the running pig though. Bullet stopped in the front leg.

If I get a 50 yard shot at a deer I will use the 44. Otherwise I will use my 270WSM. My SBH doesn't have a scope so I am pretty comfortable shooting 50 yards with the iron sights. As I get more and more proficient my range will expand, but I would just as soon shoot one with my new rifle as with my SBH. By the way I will be "testing out my 270 on Whitetail also" even though I did bag a pronghorn with it this year. I just got that gun this year.

Back on topic.

Sorry for bringing up this topic, but I just haven't ever had any experience with the 45 LC.

For deer hunting I am planning on using 240 gr stock Winchester ammo. Jacketed soft point (blunt/flat nose). Standard hunting round.

From reading the stuff about the 45LC - it seems people like the bullet 800-900 fps instead of faster and cast bullets. I also don't know much about cast bullets as I have never done any hand loading. My dad never did any hand loading, and I have just never been around it. But I would like to learn about that one day.

I do think this is a most interesting thread.

 

[REP1954]

For thin skin medium sized game the ammo of your choice should work excellent.

 

[c.r.]

aint no SAA-sized gun out there which comes with adjustable sights.
DGW

Freedom Arms mdl 97 is a SAA sized gun w/ adjustable sights..........and it's available in 45 Colt. It will also handle any reasonable load we want to stuff in it. Up to and including Ruger only loads.

the ONLY problem is the max. OAL allowed by the cylinder, but we'd run into the same OAL problem with any SAA sized platform.

and folks find ways around the OAL by crimping over the driving bands or trimming brass.