Heavy 454 velocity data

Help Support Ruger Forum:

wheatsnackbread

Bearcat
Joined
Mar 29, 2018
Messages
6
Hey all,

I’ve been trying to find some real life velocity data on the various heavy hitter 454 rounds without much luck. I just picked up my first revolver (super redhawk 454 7.5”) so instead of begging for someone to go out and test all the ammo, I took a trip to the interweb store and picked up what looked to be the top contenders.

All data was acquired using a lab radar chronograph and my 7.5” super redhawk. Loads tested were:

Garrett H454 360 gr
Hornady 300 gr xtp
HSM 325 gr bear loads
HSM 45 Colt +P 325 gr bear loads
Buffalo Bore 360 gr
Double Tap 400 gr

I also have some grizzly 360s and some Underwood 360s that I was planning on testing, but unfortunately my chronograph chewed through its 6 AA batteries, and the range I was using was just too tacticool to carry batteries other than CR123s.

The main focus of my testing was to gather velocity data, and test for crimp jump. All velocity data was acquired over a 6 shot spread.

I did not do any significant accuracy testing, although at 25 yards, my grouping was pretty much the same as when I’m shooting my glock 21 or 19. I like to think I’m not a terrible shot, and I think I can confidently tell everyone that from the standing at 25 yards, all rounds tested were plenty accurate for defense use. Energy was calculated using the standard kinetic energy formula of bullet weight in grains multiplied by the square of the velocity in feet per second, and dividing that number by 450,435.

For the crimp testing, I took 4 rounds of each brand and subjected them to 20 recoil impulses, or until they failed. The only ones I documented the crimp testing on were the double tap 400 gr, because it did eventually give, and the hsm 454 since a lot of people seem to claim they jump crimp, which they didn’t. All other brands held up.

One thing to keep in consideration about crimp jump, is just because “Brand X” didn’t jump crimp in my pistol, does not mean that it wouldn’t in a smaller variant like the toklat or the Alaskan. The super redhawk owners manual has a warning specific to the Alaskan about muzzle flip and recoil. That extra muzzle flip and recoil could certainly cause crimp jump in an Alaskan with a brand that did fine out of my 7.5”, so if you own an Alaskan or Toklat and plan on using it for defense against something toothy and fussy, buy a couple boxes of ammo and some icy-hots and go do the crimp jump test in your gun before picking a fight with a polar bear, cape buffalo, triceratops, mammoth, or whatever other ill tempered beasts live in your lovely slice of heaven.

So without further rambling, here is all the data, and here’s to my first post being something useful. Stay tuned for Underwood and grizzly data next week. Also for anyone interested, my new charity, the Fix My Bloody Broken Hand Foundation, is now accepting donations of ice bags and Motrin.




Garrett H454 365gr

Advertised velocity- 1500 FPS
Actual velocity- 1360 FPS

Advertised energy- 1798 ft lbs
Actual energy- 1478 ft lbs

Extreme spread- 33 FPS
Standard deviation- 13 FPS

Highest- 1377 FPS
Lowest- 1344 FPS

Notes

Hardest recoiling by far, but also the most consistent. I was disappointed that a company like Garrett that is held in very high regard was not closer to its advertised velocity. While I don’t worship velocity, kinetic energy, or various other paper statistics, they do count for something, and coming in 140 FPS below the advertised velocity could be significant to a handgun hunter that has to shoot through brush or wishes to maintain a minimum impact velocity; lower starting velocity equals less effective range. The box did state that a freedom arms 7.5”barrel was used. I understand that freedom arms are some of the finest revolvers in the world, but a 140 FPS velocity difference between manufacturers seems a bit extreme. Extraction was smooth and stickieness free though.

I’m aware of the many things that Garrett has written about velocity in relation to penetration, and how you eventually get to a point of diminishing return after a certain speed, and also can cause catastrophic deceleration in cast lead bullets by pushing them too fast, but to many, having those extra few hundred FPS can be worth a bit more recoil.

Of the 20 rounds I fired, I did have one failure to fire, but it looked like a light primer hit, so I’m willing to give the ammo a pass on that one. I have about 30 more left to shoot, so I will update this if there are any more.

For what it’s worth, I think the Garrett bullets also looked the best of all the ones I tested. One can easily tell that a lot of attention to detail goes into Garrett’s casting process. And the packaging is good too; a nice reusable plastic box beats cheap cardboard any day.



Hornady 300gr

Advertised velocity 1650 FPS
Actual velocity 1548 FPS

Advertised energy 1813 ft lbs
Actual energy- 1596 ft lbs

Extreme spread- 47 FPS
Standard deviation- 25 FPS

Highest- 1566 FPS
Lowest- 1519 FPS

Notes

The hornadys probably had the sharpest recoil impulse, but not the most felt recoil. Kind of like shooting a 40 compared to a 45. It was definitely snappy and probably the least pleasant to shoot, but I’m sure those 300 gr hollow points moving as fast as they do would do a number on thin skinned game or 2 legged predators. I can only imagine the cleaning one would have to do if they used one of these to the T box to stop a home invasion. Hopefully the whole house would be tile and have no furniture or curtains.

I was not too surprised by the actual velocity and the difference in what was advertised; hornady is a big company and thus has to compete with other big companies, so their use of “marketing ballistics” was somewhat expected. Extraction was smooth and did not stick.


HSM Bear Load 325gr
Advertised velocity- 1330 FPS
Actual velocity- 1114 FPS

Advertised energy- 1277 ft lbs
Actual energy- 895 ft lbs

Extreme spread- 81 FPS
Standard deviation- 30 FPS

Highest- 1160 FPS
Lowest- 1079 FPS

Notes

The HSM Bear loads were very pleasant to shoot (as pleasant as a 454 can be), which is not surprising considering it was the lightest and slowest moving bullet of all that I tested. They also have the biggest deficit in advertised velocity vs actual velocity, at a whopping 216 FPS. While they didn’t specify the barrel length used in testing, all other manufacturers specified a 7.5”, so that seems pretty standard for a test barrel. I would be curious to hear from HSM why their numbers are so inflated for this round.

These rounds were a bit on the dirty side... a bit more smoke and slightly sticky extraction, but these were also the cheapest 454 rounds I’ve seen in a store, at about $40 per 50, so I suppose you get what you pay for. Good round to use as a stepping stone for new shooters building up their recoil tolerance.

I also did a crimp jump test with these because of what various other people had to say about them jumping crimp. I exposed 4 rounds to 20 recoil impulses, and they held in place. There was a growth of about .002 across the 4 I tested, but the crimps seemed to hold up. Not the most extensive test, but based on the results, I would be willing to bet they fixed their crimp jumping issues.


HSM Bear Load 325gr 45 colt +P

Advertised velocity- 1155 FPS
Actual velocity- 1126 FPS

Advertised energy- 963 ft lbs
Actual energy- 914 ft lbs

Extreme spread- 39 FPS
Standard deviation- 14 FPS

Highest- 1144 FPS
Lowest-1104 FPS

Notes

I found it funny that these rounds in 45 colt actually averaged a few FPS faster than their 454 counterparts. And at about $9 cheaper per box of 50, it seems like a no brainer. Recoil was easy on the hand, but like the hsm 454 it was slightly sticky and slightly more smoke than the other brands.



Buffalo bore 360 gr

Advertised velocity- 1425 FPS
Actual velocity- 1368 FPS

Advertised energy- 1622 ft lbs
Actual energy- 1495 ft lbs

Extreme spread- 91 FPS
Standard deviation- 29 FPS

Highest- 1410 FPS
Lowest- 1320 FPS

Notes

Felt recoil was about the same as the hornadys but not as sharp. For some reason, these also kicked noticeably less than the Garrett rounds. I guess that extra 8 FPS and 5 grains of bullet make quite a difference in the Garretts.

Extraction was a tiny bit sticky, but not overly sticky. I probably had to tap the rod an extra one or two times. To be fair, this was one of the last rounds I tested so it could have been a dirty cylinder.

Double tap 400 gr

Advertised velocity- 1400 FPS
Actual velocity- 1272 FPS

Advertised energy- 1740 ft lbs
Actual energy- 1436 ft lbs

Extreme spread- 91 FPS
Standard deviation- 25 FPS

Highest- 1322 FPS
Lowest- 1231 FPS

Notes

These ones I bought just to see if I could get them to jump crimp. There are enough reviews of this round to make me not want to trust my life to it if Im getting mugged in a dark alley by a costal brown bear, but I was glad they didn’t jump crimp immediately like they apparently have for some.

I did the same test with these that I did with the other rounds, but these did eventually fail. I had two jump to the point of cylinder lockup after being exposed to 12 recoil impulses, and the other two gave out after 16. Still, that’s better than failing after two or 3 rounds, but I still wouldn’t carry these as bear defense rounds.

Recoil wasn’t noticeably different than the buffalo bores. Big and heavy but not snappy and violent like the hornady 454s were. One thing I will say is that these rounds were dirtier than the most filthy of skid row homeless folk. There was noticeably more smoke, and quite a bit of carbon fouling... I was half expecting my gun to smell like urine, b.o. and crushed dreams when I popped the cylinder open. Very rough and sticky extraction too.

I may be overly critical about this, but the bullets were also just ugly. Lots of casting marks... like to the point of them looking like they were tumbled using lawn mower blades as media. These are definitely the rounds you take home because the bar is about to close and they’re just all that’s left... and sure, they’ll probably get the job done, but you don’t tell your pals you used them, you would rather not look at them and you best better clean up real good afterwards and set your standards higher next time.

Muzzle flash
https://i.imgur.com/5fLAYSl.png

Jump in cylinder
https://i.imgur.com/mj0TG2f.jpg

Crimp jump line up. Numbers on brass are how many shots to failure
https://i.imgur.com/ZcPus6M.jpg

Before firing
https://i.imgur.com/tpu4h90.jpg

After firing
https://i.imgur.com/wfL3UIS.jpg


Left: Garrett right: double tap
https://i.imgur.com/xyYS50J.jpg

Buffalo Bore’s comically big boxes
https://i.imgur.com/uBx6cD0.jpg


Double tap 400s looking fugly
https://i.imgur.com/IBvWV2F.jpg

What shooting that much 454 in one session did to my hands
https://i.imgur.com/ajHcFCv.jpg
 

contender

Ruger Guru
Joined
Sep 18, 2002
Messages
21,427
Location
Lake Lure NC USA
Welcome to the Forum!

Wow,,, a lot of info in your first one. Very interesting.
I will admit that when I read your title I was expecting for someone to be ASKING for data,,, not providing it.
As we all know,,, each & every gun is a creature unto itself. And results will vary somewhat. Your data is an excellent presentation of a good reference of what to expect in a similar situation using a similar handgun.
Thanks for the post.
(PS; I'd donate to the "Fix my bloody hand foundation" but my own foundation the "Oh crap that hurt's a lot" is broke right now!) :D
 

Mus408

Hunter
Joined
Apr 30, 2011
Messages
2,273
Location
Va.
Welcome to the forum and YES you posted a well detailed .454 test !
Do you reload by any chance?

I have the Alaskan and my purpose for it was to have an anvil strong short barrel DA revolver
for hot .45 Colt loads.
I wish Ruger had made one just for .45 Colt and had the cylinder throats the correct size for .45 Colt.
The .454 cylinder,at least the one in the Alaskan, has .456 throats which cause leading when shooting
hardcast lead bullets. However when using powder coated bullets not so much leading.

Thanks for the .454 tests !
 

wheatsnackbread

Bearcat
Joined
Mar 29, 2018
Messages
6
I do a bit of reloading but just for my bolt gun.... honestly it feels like more of a chore than a hobby to me, so I try to stick to factory.

And I know that there is a redhawk in 45 colt with a barrel length similar to the alaskan... it might have been like an inch or so longer but it was still pretty comparable. and as far as I know, the regular redhawk will handle any 45 colt ammo you can throw at it. I think the super redhawk was specifically made for the 454 as a 6 shot, so they beefed up the design a bit and used 465 carpenter steel for the cylinder
 

5of7

Hunter
Joined
Sep 22, 2010
Messages
2,296
Location
SW. LOWER MICHIGAN
Energy was calculated using the standard kinetic energy formula of bullet weight in grains multiplied by the square of the velocity in feet per second, and dividing that number by 450,435.

Not to be a nit picker here, but I have always used 450240 as the figure to divide by.

Years ago it was explained in the Lyman manual as being derived as twice the acceleration due to gravity 32.16 x 2= 64.32 fps and that multiplied by 7000, the number of grains in a pound. That checks out in all the published KE data I have seen over the years.

Not a big deal certainly, but it did make me check my so use of that number. ?

And yes, welcome to the forum. 8)
 

wheatsnackbread

Bearcat
Joined
Mar 29, 2018
Messages
6
I think I've seen a variation or two of that number floating around... I've always used the 450435 to verify kinetic energy claims against velocity claims and gotten answers within 1 ft lb, so maybe that's just the most recent number. I know numbers like that can change depending on who you ask if they round up or down with decimals, and multiplying by 7000 can definitely magnify the rounding errors.

The HSM bear loads 45 colt list a velocity of 1155 fps and a kinetic energy of 963 with their 325gr bullet. When I did the math I got 962.532 ft lbs using 450435. Using 450420 would give 962.564, so it probably doesn't matter too much. You could even use a nice round 450000 and be within 1 ft lb if you had to do the math by hand I suppose.
 

5of7

Hunter
Joined
Sep 22, 2010
Messages
2,296
Location
SW. LOWER MICHIGAN
wheatsnackbread said:
I think I've seen a variation or two of that number floating around... I've always used the 450435 to verify kinetic energy claims against velocity claims and gotten answers within 1 ft lb, so maybe that's just the most recent number. I know numbers like that can change depending on who you ask if they round up or down with decimals, and multiplying by 7000 can definitely magnify the rounding errors.

The HSM bear loads 45 colt list a velocity of 1155 fps and a kinetic energy of 963 with their 325gr bullet. When I did the math I got 962.532 ft lbs using 450435. Using 450420 would give 962.564, so it probably doesn't matter too much. You could even use a nice round 450000 and be within 1 ft lb if you had to do the math by hand I suppose.

I agree that it doesn't make enough difference to be concerned about, but I just wondered about the difference as an academic matter, more than anything else.

After I posted yesterday I did some research and I found that the acceleration factor due to gravity varies slightly depending, among other things, upon one's latitude and elevation.
https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acceleration_due_to_gravity#Why_heavier_objects_do_not_fall_faster_than_lighter_objects

I suppose that explains the slight difference in numbers. 8)
 

wheatsnackbread

Bearcat
Joined
Mar 29, 2018
Messages
6
Update

Finally got around to testing the grizzly and underwood 360 grainers, see data below. I also got a chance to chrono buffalo bore 44 mag 340 gr +P+ out of an Alaskan. Data for that is also below. Enjoy.

Underwood 360 gr

Advertised velocity- 1425 FPS
Actual velocity- 1330 FPS

Advertised energy- 1623 ft lbs
Actual energy- 1413 ft lbs

Extreme spread- 44 FPS
Standard deviation- 18 FPS

Highest- 1353 FPS
Lowest- 1309 FPS

Notes

I wouldn’t say anything particularly stood out about these rounds; recoil wasn’t overly rude by 454 standards, they clocked in right around where I figured they would, extraction was a bit sticky but not unacceptable, had to tap the rod a bit hard, but all casings extracted after the second tap. They weren’t overly dirty either; no excessive smoke or carbon in the cylinder. Pricing isn’t too bad either, at about $34 plus shipping for a box of 20 directly from Underwood, so I’m sure some of the major online ammo retailers will have them slightly cheaper.


Grizzly 360 gr

Advertised velocity- 1450 FPS
Actual velocity- 1404 FPS

Advertised energy- 1680 ft lbs
Actual energy- 1575 ft lbs

Extreme spread- 51 FPS
Standard deviation- 19 FPS

Highest- 1421 FPS
Lowest- 1370 FPS

Notes

For as good as these rounds seemed on paper, I would not buy them again. Recoil was harder than all the other rounds I’ve tested so far, including the garretts which were previously the hardest recoiling. I didn’t buy a 454 to complain about recoil, but for the small gain in velocity, the recoil seemed to increase by an order of magnitude.

These rounds also stuck worse than any previously tested rounds. I will be fully transparent and disclose that I shot exactly 6 rounds of 45 colt through my SRH before testing these, but that was the first rounds it had through it after being cleaned, so I can’t honestly attribute the stickiness of these rounds to having shot 1 cylinder of 45 colt through it before testing them. Also all the rounds I shot after these, which were the Underwood 360s and a few hornady 300 gr XTPs extracted fine. These were so sticky that I had to tap a few of the casings out, as I could not get them out through normal means.

On top of the excessive recoil and extraction failures, the 4 rounds I used in the crimp jump test failed after 13 recoil impulses and caused cylinder lockup. Considering the double tap 400s took 12 recoil impulses to make 2 fail, and 16 recoil impulses to make 2 more fail, I am just very unimpressed with these rounds and cannot recommend them as seriously defense rounds. In an Alaskan, I could see these rounds jumping sooner than 13 impulses. They may still hold up after 6, but I just wouldn’t chance it. I am also of the mindset that after engaging a threat and stopping it, you should top off your gun if you’ve expended more than 2 or 3 rounds in your revolver. There are simply too many cases of people downing an animal, and it getting up and ruining their day when they thought they had killed it and let their guard down. With the extremely sticky extraction, I cannot say that I could confidently extract spent casings without tools, so that would make these a no go.

I’m sure there are plenty of people who have had positive experiences with grizzly ammo, and I don’t doubt that they can make some quality products, it I would not count their heavy 454 ammo among them.


Buffalo Bore 44 magnum 340 gr +P+ (2.5” Alaskan barrel)

Advertised velocity- 1425 FPS
Actual velocity- 1231 FPS

Advertised energy- 1532 ft lbs
Actual energy- 1143 ft lbs

Extreme spread- 16 FPS
Standard deviation- 7 FPS

Highest- 1237 FPS
Lowest- 1221 FPS

Notes

Recoil, recoil, recoil, and more recoil with a side of muzzle flip. This round is an absolute powerhouse that takes the 44 magnum well into 454 territory and proudly plants its flag there.

I would put this round right on the brink of controllable for most people, as the muzzle flip is something of legends. I was very impressed with the velocity of these rounds out of the little 2.5 inch barrel. It was faster than the HSM bet loads by over 100 FPS in a barrel 5” shorter pushing a bullet 15 grains heavier.

This is listed as a top tier revolver (Ruger, Dan Wesson, Freedom Arms, etc) load by buffalo bore, and I can see why. The amount of power packed into this round is beyond the wildest dreams of the original developers of the 44 magnum cartridge. I think Buffalo Bore hit a home run with this round.

Extraction was a bit sticky at first; this round was initially test fired and was extremely sticky, but the cylinders of the test weapon were then polished with a chamber hone to remove some of the tool marks, and that seems to have made a significant difference in extraction. There is still a bit of sticking, but it’s manageable. If you want to squeeze every ounce of power out of a 44 mag, this is the round that will do it.

I did not get a chance to do a crimp jump test, as it was not my gun of ammo, but I have shot a few cylinders worth and have seen a few more cylinders worth shot with no indications of crimp jump, I’m sure this ammo is fine in the Alaskan, and definitely good to go in a longer gun. Even with batt being said though, I would still like to see a crimp jump test done in the Alaskan if I were going to carry that ammo in one.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion of testing all theses various factory loadings, I would say that the Garretts and Buffalo Bore were the top performers, and would feel good about carrying either of those rounds. I am inclined to give a slight edge to the Garrets, if for no other reason than their track record. There seems to be quite a few people that have successfully used their 45-70 540 gr hammer heads taking the most dangerous and toughest game that Africa has to offer.

While I have no doubt the buffalo bore ammo is plenty capable, an article in the June 2005 issue of guns and ammo did a head to head penetration comparison between buffalo bore and Garret’s 44 magnum ammo, and wet newspaper as a test medium. The Buffalo Bore was the 340 gr +P+, and the Garrett was the 330 gr +p hammer heads at 1400 FPS. The Garrett out penetrated the Buffalo Bore, even though they used a lighter bullet moving slightly slower. A photo of each recovered slug showed that the Buffalo Bore round began to deform and expand, yet the garret retained its shape. Garrett seems to really have their bullet alloys dialed, hitting the sweet spot between hardness and toughness (not shattering). The article is available to read online and is very informative, so I would suggest anyone interested in that comparison to take a look.

One thing to keep in mind that this article was written 13 years ago at the time of this writing, and Buffalo Bore may have changed up their recipe since then to give better penetration, but I have not seen or searched for any evidence of such changes, so if someone has some info about that, then please chime in.
 

paul105

Single-Sixer
Joined
Oct 6, 2005
Messages
143
Location
Montana
As mentioned above, "Wow" lots of good info here. Fairly signifcant velocity differences can/will result when using different guns (even with same barrel length).

I've chronographed some (limited number) Underwood, Buffalo Bore, Double Tap and HSM. Veracity of velocity claims were pretty much in that order. Again, very limited and could have been my guns.

Two examples:

From my 2 1/2" Ruger Alaskan HSM 400gr JSP chonoed 855 fps at 40 Deg F and 5 long paces from the muzzle.

At the other end of the spectrum:
From my 3.64" Kahr CW45, Underwood 255gr +P chronoed 958 fps from one gun and 921 fps from another one -- at 50 deg F and 5 long paces.

Thanks for the effort and the info!

Paul
 

5of7

Hunter
Joined
Sep 22, 2010
Messages
2,296
Location
SW. LOWER MICHIGAN
I noticed a difference in velocity of about 200 fps when shot in the 2-1/2" Alaskan.

That is very much what I experienced with the 480 Ruger and 365 RNFP bullets. SRH 7-1/2" vs Alaskan 2-1/2 bbl.
 

wheatsnackbread

Bearcat
Joined
Mar 29, 2018
Messages
6
I could definitely see the barrel manufacturer playing a big part, along with the cylinder gap. And from a competitive marketing standpoint, using a Freedom Arms revolver would probably make sense to use as a test bed for getting advertising velocities with their tolerances being as tight as they are. I'm sure most ammo would clock in a bit faster in a FA than most other revolvers.

I also have a buddy that casts his own, so down the road I might slug my barrel and have him cast me up some bullets that fit a bit tighter than the factory stuff so I can keep chasing the 360 gr at 1500 fps dragon. Or I might learn to quit nitpicking and be satisfied with the factory loads that are more than enough to get the job done.
 

Orr89rocz

Bearcat
Joined
Apr 4, 2018
Messages
1
Surprised the hornady 300’s didnt measure closer to advertised. For the recoil they have to be moving pretty fast. I will have to try chrono mine sometime to see how they compare.
They are very accurate tho. I can get 3 shot groups in about a 2” circle at 50 using a red dot scope and at 100 yards its near same, maybe 3” circle. I havent tried anything else because of this lol working on reduced hand loads tho for less punishment lol
I did get my first deer with them. 40 yrds. Wasnt as impressed as i thought it would be. Hit low front shoulder and didnt see any exit hole, atleast nothing noticeable to the eye. Deer went 50-60 yrds and piled up. Like any other rifle shot deer i have hit
 

dougader

Hunter
Joined
Jun 18, 2008
Messages
3,108
Location
OryGun
Your crimp jump testing is a lot more tortuous than mine. I was loading for bear defense on Alaskan fishing trips. My Cast Performance 335 grain WLNGC slugs averaged 1428 fps in the 7.5" SRH, and 1174 fps in the Alaskan.

I only ran 12 shots on the same round to see if they would jump crimp, and none did. I used the Lee Factory Crimp Die to finish my loads.

I've since switched to the 480 Ruger and 400 grain bullets at about 1100 fps for the upper end. Hunting loads run closer to 1,050 fps with a 385 grain lead hp and 800 fps with a 370 grain RNFP slug for target shooting and general plinking.
 

protoolman

Hunter
Joined
Oct 15, 2001
Messages
2,114
Location
ND
I once thought I needed a .454 Casull until seeing tests like yours. Im shooting .45 Colt loads with my own handcast 320 gr. bullets. I am getting 1340 fps chronographed out of these out of a 4 5/8 Blackhawk with a heavy load of 4227. Brass drops out and brass life is good. It seems .454 Casull factory loading is not much more than heavy Ruger only .45 Colt loading.
 

dougader

Hunter
Joined
Jun 18, 2008
Messages
3,108
Location
OryGun
protoolman said:
I once thought I needed a .454 Casull until seeing tests like yours. Im shooting .45 Colt loads with my own handcast 320 gr. bullets. I am getting 1340 fps chronographed out of these out of a 4 5/8 Blackhawk with a heavy load of 4227. Brass drops out and brass life is good. It seems .454 Casull factory loading is not much more than heavy Ruger only .45 Colt loading.
For me, it was more a matter of my ability to tolerate and handle the 454 in case of a bear charge. My 335 @ 1428 fps was a self-imposed limit of power, accuracy, split times, muzzle flip and recoil tolerance. I'm pretty sure the gun and brass of the 454 SRH could have handled 1500 fps, but I couldn't.
 

wheatsnackbread

Bearcat
Joined
Mar 29, 2018
Messages
6
Modern 45 colt and 454 are pretty close to each other these days. Garrett is making a monster 45 colt loading that’s something like 400 grains at about 1300 fps if im remembering correctly. I wouldn’t feel under gunned with that at all.
 

Hillbilly Jim

Bearcat
Joined
Mar 28, 2006
Messages
54
Location
jefferson city
I think I've seen a variation or two of that number floating around... I've always used the 450435 to verify kinetic energy claims against velocity claims and gotten answers within 1 ft lb, so maybe that's just the most recent number. I know numbers like that can change depending on who you ask if they round up or down with decimals, and multiplying by 7000 can definitely magnify the rounding errors.

The HSM bear loads 45 colt list a velocity of 1155 fps and a kinetic energy of 963 with their 325gr bullet. When I did the math I got 962.532 ft lbs using 450435. Using 450420 would give 962.564, so it probably doesn't matter too much. You could even use a nice round 450000 and be within 1 ft lb if you had to do the math by hand I suppose.
450420 ? This does not compute.
 

Biggfoot44

Blackhawk
Joined
Sep 6, 2009
Messages
815
Thanks for all the detailed information !

Yes , Due to their very tight tolerences and very tight B/C gap ,Freedom Arms do give significantly higher velocities than " normal " mass production revolvers .

I have a simplified formula for ME , that works with even the most basic of calculators .

Take Note - Velocities are used in thousands of fps . ie , 1,100 = 1.1 , 900 = 0.9 , etc

Bullet weight X Vel X Vel X 2.2267 = Energy .

Comes within 2 or 3 ft lb , easy to remember , can be used with simple calculators in phones , watches , etc
 

Latest posts

Top