Rclark said:
it's a lot of wasted space.
All depends on the powder you put in it, so don't see that as a 'argument'. Trail Boss? load tell it touches the bottom... Black Powder? Fill that case up and slightly compress.... 4227, 2400, 296/h110, SR4759, .... All depends what you load in it. Same with any cartridge. Say using Bullseye, the .357 case looks pretty empty.... No, give me a .451 over a .429 any day with a case big enough, but not to big ... gives lots of loading options with no downside. S. Colt know what he was doing when he designed the .45 Colt cartridge, and Linebaugh and Ross, and others took it to its potential... what's not to like?
. Has stood the test of time.
Firstly, this discussion started about the .44Spl, not the .44Mag. A discussion of the .44Spl could only be in the context of mid-frames. So any rhetoric about "Ruger only" loads is off topic.
The .44Spl is no spring chicken, having been born in 1907, with its roots going back well before the .45Colt. Its roots go back before Colt could even legally produce a breechloader. The .45Colt does not have a monopoly on history. The sixgun that led directly to the development of the .45Colt, was a .44. Arguably the most popular cartridge during the whole time period was the .44-40. While .45 fans love the "mine is bigger" nonsense, it's a lot like a high school Ford vs. Chevy argument.
The argument is that while the .45Colt is a large, imposing case, unless you're using blackpowder, it is a lot of wasted powder capacity at standard pressures. Which means you have to use more powder to reach the same velocity. Great if you like appearances, not impressive if you don't. The .44Spl is a much more efficient cartridge and a better balance in the mid-frames. Does that mean I don't like the .45Colt in a mid-sized package? Certainly not, I wouldn't own two of them if I didn't like them. The .44Spl is just a better cartridge for the platform.
And what did they have to do to take it to its potential? Custom cylinders with tight chambers and properly sized throats? If you want a good .44, buy one. If you want a good .45, you might have to build one. You're not going to tell me anything about the .45 I don't already know.
I have SIX .45Colt's and have enough money tied up in them to buy nearly three times as many factory .44's.
Winchester 1892 has chambers so oversized that it spit powder granules in my face with anything but "Ruger only" loads.
Ruger Bisley Vaquero had undersized throats. After a full professional tune-up and throat reaming, costing more than the gun did, it shoots almost as good as my box stock .44's.
Colt New Frontier actually shoots well with .452's, despite having .456" throats.
Early USPFA from Uberti parts, has .457" throats and shoots halfway decent. Shoots best with .454's.
Kirst gated conversion on a 3rd Model Dragoon, has standard spec, oversized chambers and throats. Prefers .454's, if I can find them.
Uberti Schofield also has standard spec, oversized chambers and throats. Shoots best with .454's.
I've never had to have any gunsmithing done on any of my five .44Spl's, two .44Colt's and seven .44Mag's for them to shoot well with standard .430" cast bullets.
On the .44Mag tangent, at "Ruger only" levels, the .44Mag retains a 200fps advantage for bullets of equal sectional density and a 100fps advantage for bullets of equal weight. IMHO, the difference between the two is insignificant.
Does any of that mean I don't like the .45Colt? Well, I probably wouldn't have a brand new Dillon 650 with casefeeder sitting in my loading room, waiting to be setup if I didn't like it. I just don't live under the illusion that it's a "clear winner" over the .44's. They each have their advantages and disadvantages. That's why I have both.
Fact is, the best .45's are built, not bought (unless it's an FA). If I'm going to the expense of building a proper .45, I would prefer a real big bore (.475 or .500).
