Redhawk in 45 Colt Long

[Gun 4 Fun]

CraigC,
There is a Layne Simpson and a Lane Pearce that write for ST mag.

Layne Simpson really does know his stuff. Lane Pearce is a newer writer to the magazine.

[Wleoff]

When HP White Labratories ran destruction tests on the Blackhawk, and Super Blackhawk, the Blackhawk blew at about 80,000 PSI. The gun, not the brass. The Redhawk went up to around 95,000 PSI by the way, still the gun, not the brass. When Dick Casull was working up loads for the .454, he used standard, plain jane .45 Colt brass. Some of his proof loads were well over 100,000 PSI.

I know that I should let this go, but since it's seems that I explained my point wrong, I'll try again. If someone, say Bubba, sees the above statement, then goes to a handloading manual and sees where the max load shown for a 45 Colt load is 20,000 psi (I'm not going to quote a specific load here, because I don't want someone to pick it up and try it by mistake./ 20,000 psi is actually a little higher than actual.) The above states that a Blackhawk will take four times (80,000 psi) the manual max load; so Bubba doubles the max load shown in the manual. He's assuming that this will be about 40,000 psi, or half of the 80,000 psi quoted above. This will blow when Bubba pulls the trigger. That was the point that I was trying to make.

I'd be interesting in knowing how they "blew" the Blackhawk at 80,000 psi? Powder, hydraulic or pneumatic? How did they measure the 80,000 psi? There had to be some type of transducer installed. 80,000 psi is a really high load for a revolver to take. I don't dispute your data, but that would mean that a Blackhawk has a safety factor of four.

As clarification, after about 20 years of reloading 45 Colt, I don't ever use loads hotter than the max loads listed in the loading manuals. Usually I use Hornady's for brass bullet loads and Lyman's for lead bullets.

There was an early comment about someone getting a 45 Colt or 454 Casull to 2000 fps. Boy, that's kicking. The fastest 45 Colt load that I use is with a Hornady XTP 300 grain bullet at 1300 fps and it's hard to hang on to.

I made a comment on something that Lane Pearce told me, and since you disagree, you're ready to make all kinds of derogative remarks about him. This is really surprising. Why didn't you question my misunderstanding of him before assuming that he's an idiot?

To start with, SwampYankee was looking for a 44 Mag Redhawk. SwampYankee, I apologize for my disruptions to your topic.

[Gun 4 Fun]

I screwed up earlier by stating the Blackhawk took 80,000 PSI. My bad. It was the Super Blackhawk, and it was CUP not PSI. The Blackhawk took over 60,000 CUP to blow. The two do not correlate to each other straight across, pressure for pressure.


If bubba does something so stupid as to try to use a statistic I posted for statistical purposes as loading data, he deserves what he gets. Anyone, and everyone should use load data found only in a reputable manual, as I posted earlier.

They used powder loads that were not published, or at least I'm not aware of of it if they were, to blow the guns.

There are tons of reloading references for loads that run 32,000 CUP for the .45 Colt. Hodgdens comes to mind right away. The Ruger Blackhawk is well documented as being able to withstand those kinds of loads all day long. The proof loads that blew the gun, were roughly double that level. That is what most gun makers strive for, a 100% safety margin. Therefore, the Blackhawk is safe to 32,000 CUP.

The Super Blackhawk blew at 80,000 CUP, or just a little over double what it is rated at by SAAMI currently, which is 36,000 PSI, and just about double what it was rated at, at the time which was 43, 500 CUP. Remember that PSI and CUP are not the same thing.

The fastest 45 Colt load that I use is with a Hornady XTP 300 grain bullet at 1300 fps and it's hard to hang on to.

That load would be running right at 32,000 CUP to obtain that velocity.

I made a comment on something that Lane Pearce told me, and since you disagree, you're ready to make all kinds of derogative remarks about him. This is really surprising. Why didn't you question my misunderstanding of him before assuming that he's an idiot?

I never made all kinds of derrogatory remarks about him. You need to re-read who said what. All I said, is that if he told you that, he's full of bean soup. Hardly a real put down.

[JohnKSa]

Keith wasn't stating it as fact. He was speculating as to where the term probably got its start.

Keith was stating as fact that there was, indeed, a short round made to chamber in the .45 Colt revolvers. A round that was not the .45 Schofield round many people think was the reason for the "long" designation. Here's the passage from Sixguns, you tell me what part he's speculating about:

Today we often hear the .45 Colt Peacemaker cartridge referred to as the .45 Long Colt. Some newcomers to the game claim there is no such animal, but if they had shot the short variety that Remington turned out in such profusion before, during, and after World War I, they would see there was some basis in referring to the .45 Colt as the .45 Long. These short .45 Remington cartridges for the .45 Colt were never very accurate due to the long bullet jump and the only thing that was standard about them was a 250 grain bullet. They were soundly cussed out in all the sporting magazines of the time and all old sixgun cranks deplored their use if either accuracy, or power was wanted. They were a disgrace to the .45 Colt gun. I never tried them, but I believe they would have worked in the old .45 break top Smith & Wesson guns, and that may have been the reason for their existence.

The only thing that could even be construed as speculation is whether they were intended to work in the .45 Schofield or not.

IF there ever was a .45 Short Colt it is so obscure that we are still arguing over whether or not it ever existed...

Keith is very clear that it did exist. You can argue that he was lying or mistaken (and you'd be wrong if you did), but aside from that there's no argument. For those who don't believe Elmer Keith, here's a picture of a .45 short Colt round. NOT a S&W or Schofield cartridge.
http://www.leverguns.com/articles/ta...short_colt.htm

Do the manufacturers recognize the .45 Long Colt as being a valid designation?

Colt does:
http://www.coltsmfg.com/cmci/saarmy45LC.asp

So does Smith & Wesson:
http://www.smith-wesson.com/webapp/w...-1&isFirearm=Y

The point is that while one can argue that .45 Colt was the correct original designation, saying that the .45 Long Colt doesn't exist is like arguing that the 9mm Browning Short doesn't exist because the proper designation that Browning gave it is really .380ACP. Or like arguing that it's incorrect to refer to a "dial telephone" or a "wired remote" because no one called them that back when they were in common use.

[Gun 4 Fun]

Originally Posted by JohnKSa

The point is that while one can argue that .45 Colt was the correct original designation, saying that the .45 Long Colt doesn't exist is like arguing that the 9mm Browning Short doesn't exist because the proper designation that Browning gave it is really .380ACP. Or like arguing that it's incorrect to refer to a "dial telephone" or a "wired remote" because no one called them that back when they were in common use.

This argument isn't what I would expect from you! This is lame. It still doesn't make it correct to call it Long Colt! It is Colt. Period. Anything else is just an attempt to validate your original stance which is wrong. If my given name is Charles, but everyone calls me Chas, it doesn't make it correct, or change my real name.

As far as whether or not there was a shorter round goes, I'm well aware that there was, and not the Schofield round.

You are debating with two different people in one post, and it gets confusing.

Originally Posted by Gun 4 Fun

Keith wasn't stating it as fact. He was speculating as to where the term probably got its start.

I made this statement earlier, and it is correct. Keith wasn't stating it as fact that that is where the LC term came from, but rather that, that is where it could logically have originated.

Originally Posted by JohnKSa

Do the manufacturers recognize the .45 Long Colt as being a valid designation?

Colt does:

As I posted earlier, when this debate came up on another forum, and the other guy made this claim, I called Colt. What I posted before is what the man that answered told me. They only use that term because so many confuse the term .45 Colt with the .45 ACP when chambered in a Colt 1911. Or in other words, someone calls and asks about getting his .45 Colt repaired when he is referring to his 1911 .45 ACP.

[JohnKSa]

Keith wasn't stating it as fact that that is where the LC term came from, but rather that, that is where it could logically have originated.

I posted the entire quote. Where's the speculation in it? He's specifically refuting the claims of "Some newcomers to the game (who) claim there is no such animal". Then he explains why they're wrong.

This argument isn't what I would expect from you! This is lame.

I think what you're trying to say is that: "Usually I agree with you, but this time I don't so your arguments are lame."

The point is that whatever it was called originally there is a good reason it became commonly known as the .45 Long Colt. To the point that many official sources recognize it as a valid designation today and ALL of them will understand what you're talking about if you use the term.

Similarly, go back to before push-button phones and start talking about dial telephones--you'd be corrected or you'd get blank stares. But once push-button phones came along then the term "dial telephone" came into common usage. And no one's arguing that there's no such thing because that term was not used before push-button phones hit the market.

In other words, when new products are introduced (like the Short Colt round or the pushbutton phone), they sometimes require a more descriptive term to be applied to older products (Long Colt or dial telephone). There's even a name for such a term--"retronym". In this case it's a bit more confusing because the new product became obsolete leaving a retronym in its wake but the principle is the same. Other common retronyms are "acoustic guitar"--before electrics came along it was just "guitar", "World War I"--before WWII it was called "The Great War", "analog watch"--before digital watches these were just "watches", etc.

[CraigC]

This is a rare occasion where I don't really care what Keith wrote. If there ever was a .45Short Colt, it was so obscure then that we're still debating its very existence. It certainly doesn't exist now so what are we differentiating by using .45 "Long" Colt?

Colt doesn't mark their guns "Long". They don't even recommend shooting their SAA so their catering to the uninitiated doesn't surprise me. S&W doesn't mark their guns "Long" either. In the text they use ".45Colt".

[Gun 4 Fun]

Originally Posted by JohnKSa

I think what you're trying to say is that: "Usually I agree with you, but this time I don't so your arguments are lame."

You are a very determined fellow it would appear. Me too. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree for once. Are we still friends?

CraigC,
It would appear that we're a party of two here.

[JohnKSa]

Originally Posted by CraigC

If there ever was a .45Short Colt, it was so obscure then that we're still debating its very existence.

I don't think anyone's debating its existence anymore. Not only do we have Keith's word on it, I provided a link to a photo of such a round a few posts back.

Originally Posted by Gun 4 Fun

It would appear that we're a party of two here.

Well not exactly, CraigC is still arguing that there was never a Short Colt round while you realize that there was.

Originally Posted by Gun 4 Fun

As far as whether or not there was a shorter round goes, I'm well aware that there was, and not the Schofield round.

Originally Posted by CraigC

This is a rare occasion where I don't really care what Keith wrote.

Yeah, I'm beginning to get the picture. This isn't an issue where actual facts are going to change anyone's mind, is it...

Elmer Keith was a pretty crusty old fellow, entrenched in many ways in the past. That's saying something given that he was doing his writing 40-50 years ago. If his crustiness & love of the past let him admit that there was a good reason to call it the .45 Long Colt then we all should be able to admit it really is an acceptable practice too.

Are we still friends?

It's the internet. The way I see it, it makes sense to use the internet to make friends, but it's not a good idea to use it to make enemies. It's just too hard to get a picture of the whole person from typed messages.

[CraigC]

This isn't an issue where actual facts are going to change anyone's mind, is it...

If indeed, it is fact, then it must still be kept in perspective. Like I said, if there ever was a Short Colt and thus a need for the Long Colt designation, that need is very, very long dead.

So where is this mystical .45 Short Colt you speak of and again, why do we need "Long" to differentiate??? Personally, I think the "Long Colt" protagonists are just grasping to justify themselves.

[JohnKSa]

http://www.leverguns.com/articles/ta...short_colt.htm

From the link.

These are not S&W or Schofield cartridges. The rim diameter is the same as the long .45 Colts, which is smaller than the Schofield rim diameter. These are true .45 Short Colts. The cartridge is listed in Cartridges of the World on page 306 as ".45 Colt - .45 Colt Government".

[CraigC]

I'm aware of both the article posted and the existence of shorter .45Colt cartridges. I also note that COTW does not use the "Long" designation and I reiterate that there is still no reason, not now and not 50yrs ago to differentiate the .45Colt from anything else. I submit that the "Long" designation comes from veterans and the use of "Colt .45" as a generic, ambiguous term. That in fact, "Long" is usually intended to differentiate it from the .45ACP. Which is just plain wrong as they are two entirely different cartridges with different names. It reeks of the same stink as the clip vs. magazine debacle.

[JohnKSa]

Originally Posted by CraigC

Like I said, if there ever was a Short Colt...

I'm aware of both the article posted and the existence of shorter .45Colt cartridges.

Up until this post you have been consistently calling the existence of the cartridge into question--repeatedly making comments about how if it existed at all... or whether or not it ever existed... In your last post you called it "mystical". But you knew about it all along???

I submit that the "Long" designation comes from veterans and the use of "Colt .45" as a generic, ambiguous term. That in fact, "Long" is usually intended to differentiate it from the .45ACP.

Why does that make more sense than "Long" initially being intended to differentiate the cartridge from the "Short" version of the same cartridge? As you point out the ACP and the Long Colt are "entirely different cartridges with different names" while it's clear that there were, at one time, two cartridges, both called the .45 Colt, one long and one short.

You could be right and Elmer Keith could be wrong, but his explanation makes a lot more sense, especially now that we're all in agreement that there really was a short version of the .45 Colt at one time.

I reiterate that there is still no reason, not now and not 50yrs ago to differentiate the .45Colt from anything else.

Keith was writing 40-50 years ago about things that happened 50-60 years prior to that. Things that he lived through. But, neither he nor I said that there is a reason now (or when he was writing) to differentiate the .45Colt from anything else. He does, however, point out that around the WWI timeframe there WAS a reason and says that's why the round was still often referred to as the .45 Long Colt in his day.

Frankly his explanation makes perfect sense, and in light of the evidence and his reputation as a revolver expert I see no reason to come up with a more tortured theory to explain his explanation away.

Now, it could very well be (per Gun 4 Fun's discussion with the Colt employee) that the term has been allowed to persist in order to differentiate the .45ACP from the .45 Colt--I don't really see the point of that--as you say, there's not much need for differentiation there. But that's a secondary issue, the origins of the designation seem to be pretty clearly related to differentiating a short .45 Colt from a long .45 Colt, just as one might expect.

It reeks of the same stink as the clip vs. magazine debacle.

If by that you mean that they are both nitpicky issues that have become convenient ways to rationalize the excoriation of those new to the firearms scene even when their meaning is perfectly clear then I believe I agree with you.

[HiBC]

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHH!!!!!
It just doesn't matter!!!And,it has nothing to do with the OP's question.

Myself,I do not care if I meet anyone's approval,in my circle,we don't even say the .45 part,we just call it the Long Colt,Like"They got a Bisley Long Colt at the pawn shop."
Somehow this seems more about two dogs visiting the same telephone pole than whether two folks understand the meaning of whut was said.Yup,I spelled whut wrong just so somebody could point out to me I spelled it wrong if that is what gets you off.Geez

[CraigC]

Up until this post you have been consistently calling the existence of the cartridge into question--repeatedly making comments about how if it existed at all... or whether or not it ever existed... In your last post you called it "mystical". But you knew about it all along???

My point is that there never was a .45 Short Colt. The shorter version, as obscure as it was, was never officially the Short Colt. It was just the .45Colt or Colt Gov't. It is the definition of obscure, was only used for a very short time in the late 1800's and has not been used since. It was a cartridge, not a chambering as it was designed to be used in both the Colt SAA and S&W Schofield revolvers. The .38 and .41 cartridges were officially designated Short and Long. There are revolvers chambered in each and the Long version won't fit a Short chamber. Since there were no .45 Colt Gov't chambers, there is no need to differentiate. Unless you're a late 19th century cavarlyman that needs ammo for his S&W. Far as I can tell, those are in short supply. So there is absolutely no need for the .45 Long Colt, which is also not an official designation. It's simply common, incorrect terminology that I believe is derived from other perceived "needs".

PS, about all those Layne's. Then Pearce is clearly smoking something but I still don't care for Simpson....never did.

[JohnKSa]

My point is that there never was a .45 Short Colt...was never officially the Short Colt.

Yes, the same argument you have against the .45 Long Colt.

...was only used for a very short time in the late 1800's and has not been used since.

According to Keith it was still being sold after WWI (Sorry, The Great War--it was never officially called WWI, they only started calling it that after WWII) which would mean if it became available in the late 1800s as you say, that it was sold for something like 30 years.

Since there were no .45 Colt Gov't chambers, there is no need to differentiate.

Somehow I think that anyone buying ammo who wanted one and not the other would see a need to differentiate.

[Pathfinder45]

........why, you'd argue with a buzz-saw! This post has severely degenerated! "What's your name?", asked one man at the state hospital to the other. "I'm John the Baptist.", replied the man. An argument ensued: "You are not!". "I am so!". Back and forth this continued until the first man queried, "Who told you, 'You're John the Baptist?' ". "Why, God told me so!", answered John. At this the first man vehemently declared, "I DID NOT!!!". ......Oh, yeah, this was supposed to be about the question of strength of the Ruger Redhawk in .45 Colt. I hope y'all got some sleep last night. I think I'll start new post that's more pertinent to the original theme.

[44 AMP]

Just my $.02, but regardless of poplular usage, I feel that it is correct to refer to a round/caliber (or even gun parts) the same way the maker does. Colt has used both .45 Colt, and .45 Long Colt as designations in its literature, if not in actual markings on the gun. Other makers, including ammo makers have produced both .45 Colt and .45 Long Colt marked items.

One may argue about the original designation, ar about how the popular term "long" get into the records, but one cannot argue about the fact that both are in there.

If you really want to stir up a storm of complaints, there are some manufacturers that actually list their magazines as "clips".

[Gun 4 Fun]

Originally Posted by 44 AMP

All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.

Enough said.

[HiBC]

Toe-May-Toe,Toe Mah-Toe,!!!

Shall we inform Mike Venturino of his great boo-boo when he titled his book"Shooting Buffalo Rifles".To be correct,it must be "Shooting Bison Rifles"

And,we cannot say "I'm going Antelope hunting" We must say"I'm going Pronghorn hunting"

Is it really 30-06? Or Cal .30 US? Can I call a Rifle,US,Model 1903 a Springfield? or is someone going to say,"Well,that could be a percussion musket,a trapdoor,etc...

I do not care who gets the last word of technical correct,it is a pain in the shorts.

I do not imagine such folks to be someone I would enjoy fishing with,shooting with,hunting with,or having a beer with.

I'm going to call it a buffalo.

[Gun 4 Fun]

Judging from the fact that you keep saying it's a waste of time to debate the point, yet you keep debating about about the debate itself, I imagine you spend a lot of time fishing, shooting, hunting, and drinking alone.

It probably wouldn't bother you too much either, if you stuck the wrong ammo in your gun while drinking a beer.

[SwampYankee]

Wow, that was quite a ride.

Thanks for all the input, even the off-topic posts were pretty informative.

It looks like I'm set whether I come up with a Redhawk in .44 Mag or .45 Colt. I did manage to find a 5.5" Redhawk for sale for $449 in .44 Mag, including shipping, I may jump on it. Although after this thread, I do think I might prefer the .45 Colt.

[Gun 4 Fun]

SwampYankee,
You can't go wrong with either choice. I prefer the .45 Colt, but with the Redhawk, either round would be a great choice, especially if you handload.

Sorry about hi-jacking your thread for a while. It happens a lot around people discussing firearms it seems.

[CraigC]

I do not imagine such folks to be someone I would enjoy fishing with,shooting with,hunting with,or having a beer with.

If you do not care to discuss the finer points of sixgunning, you do not have to.

[Slamfire]

Reading the Linebaugh article, one would note that the working pressure is half the level that destroyed the guns.

Which may mean the guns were designed with a 2:1 safety margin. The guns that broke, may not have had any manufacturing flaws.

Margins are there because manufacturer's cannot guarantee that every billet is perfect, every heat treat is the same, that there will not be flaws in the product. You can’t.

Safety margins are in all products. When you encroach on them, well don’t blame the manufacturer. He is just trying to make a safe product, not a grenade.