45 Colt versus 44 Magnum

[Crankgrinder]

i do not own either one and i havent read all the posts this is an awfuly long thread, but is it possible that the 44mag will hold up to the loads it was designed for much longer than the 45 will stand up to the loads that they say it was not designed for?

[mavracer]

is it possible that the 44mag will hold up to the loads it was designed for much longer than the 45 will stand up to the loads that they say it was not designed for?

No it won't.
I know this article has been linked a couple times already but reading it really should be a prerequisite to posting in a 44 vs 45 thread lol.
http://www.customsixguns.com/writing...g_the_myth.htm

[Ole 5 hole group]

I read through this whole thread and thought I’d just add a couple comments. 1st off, good ole Elmer Keith crowned the 44 Magnum the King of handgun large bores back in the day. Then along came John Linebaugh who abruptly removed that crown and placed it squarely on the 45 Colt where it still resides when comparing the 44 Magnum with the 45 Colt.

I agree with some here that ole Elmer would have developed the 45 Colt had he access to good cases and revolver back in the day. I’ll post a picture showing what the balloon head looks like compared to a modern day 45 Colt.

Linebaugh went with a 5-shot cylinder and that can be loaded to 60K+ psi if one has the desire. You can also go to the 5-shot 44 Magnum if you have a desire and push that puppy to your heart’s content but you can’t quite catch the 45 Colt. You see, close doesn’t count here, maybe if we were talking about artillery rounds it might – but the 45 Colt is currently the King and it can run right on the heels of the 454 loaded to insane pressures.

I’ll also post a few pictures of the various cylinders some people like to talk about and you’ll notice there is a little difference and bigger is always better for Killing, all else being equal.

Those of you that have light weight 44 magnums and have shot +P loads – you have somewhat of an idea what it feels like to light off the 5-Shot cylinder 45 Colt loaded to 60K psi. Not your average plinking load.

If the 44 magnum is a little light for your needs, you could go to the 45 Colt but the better choice would probably be the 480 Ruger or 475 Linebaugh. If that doesn’t quite cut it then there’s a few 500’s out there that might. As for the 500’s – most have the 0.500 bore while the Linebaugh’s have a 0.510 bore. They will all get your attention if you load them full-on for maximum felt pain but the 500 Alaskan will probably take the honors in that respect.

[BusGunner007]

Excellent thread.
I'm happy with the .44 for as much as I'll ever need or use it.

[BIG P]

Best of both worlds,454 Casull. 45LC for the trail,454 when you need more.:
One gun does it all,

[Biff Tannen]

I love these debates... Learn something new every time, it never gets old...
From what I gather (and please chime in if you disagree), in general, the rule of thumb is:
- IF YOU'RE A HAND LOAD GUY, 45 COLT
- IF YOU'RE A FACTORY LOAD GUY, 44 MAG

[seeker_two]

From what I gather (and please chime in if you disagree), in general, the rule of thumb is: - IF YOU'RE A HAND LOAD GUY, 45 COLT - IF YOU'RE A FACTORY LOAD GUY, 44 MAG

But, with companies like Buffalo Bore, the heavy-load .45Colt isn't just a handloader option anymore.....

[fourdogs]

^ True, but companies like BB etc offer such a limited choice that I think what Biff said is true. Because the two rounds are considered so close, if you don't handload the 44 is generally a better choice if you want a rather large choice of ammo. Of course you can handload the 44 which I've done a lot to give even more versatility.

As everyone know's most of what's available on the shelves in 45 is pretty anemic for obvious reasons. There are hot loads you can find in 45 Colt which pretty much equal the hot loads you can find in 44, but if you handload both calibers like I have .452 for me offered more versatility and more terminal performance in a strong five shot gun like my 454 FA. That's why I sold my 44. Just couldn't justify having more than one handgun in todays economic climate. My do all including carry gun will remain my 454. I normally shoot the Colt cylinder and I can tell you there is very little difference between 45 Colt and 454 with good handloads in a strong gun.

Really good thread here with a bunch of great guys posting.

[stellite]

It is unfortunate that the 45lc just does not have the variety of guns available that the 44 mag does. Neither does the 454.

As for handloading, I think there is enough info referenced in this thread that either will get the job done. Factory loads, the 45lc has quite a few, but not anywhere close to what you can get for the 44 mag or even the 454.

In order to match the hottest factory 44 magnum loadings in the 45lc you have to handload since the 44 mag factory loadings go much higher in power than the 45lc factory loads. Does it really matter? Probably not. If I feel that I can't get it done with 1300-1500 ft-lbs in either caliber then I will go with something much bigger like a 460 or 500. Maybe Ruger will start making the 45lc Redhawk in all barrel configurations again, that would go a long way to gaining in popularity.

[stellite]

fourdogs, that freedom arms is a beauty.

[Pathfinder45]

I bought my first revolver in 1976. It was a convertible 45 Blackhawk. I had read quite a bit about the gun well before I bought it and I immediately purchased a Lee 252 SWC bullet mould to go with it. Since I started handloading right away, I never needed the ACP cylinder.

It is unfortunate that the 45lc just does not have the variety of guns available that the 44 mag does.

I didn't feel one bit unfortunate! Did I have second thoughts thinking maybe I should have got the Super Blackhawk? Heck, no! Would I have been just as happy with a Super Blackhawk? Maybe. There has been a huge 45 Colt Renaissance since then. I believe there is a wider selection of 45 Colt ammo today than 44 Magnum back then. We were far more limited back in the 70's than nowadays. But that didn't stop us handloaders. Today we are spoiled for choices in not only guns, but also ammo and components. Cowboy-action shooting games aren't the only contributing factors to the 45 Colt Renaissance. The introduction of Ruger's Blackhawk 45 was a huge boost to the come-back of what had been the magnum of the black powder age. The 44 Magnum has met its match. There's way more selection to choose from for both cartridges today than ever before.

[Sarge]

It is unfortunate that the 45lc just does not have the variety of guns available that the 44 mag does.

We could stand a few more. I'm not typically a big Taurus guy but if they would resurrect the 450 I'd buy one and make it work myself, if I had to. I'd also like to see a good 4 or 5 inch DA offered again in 45 Colt.

I used a 4" Model 29 for decades; loaded for it, carried if for hunting, defense and even duty. I had a lot of pure old fun with it too. But I always liked the 45 Colt and after I started shooting it exclusively, I really came to appreciate it.

I sure can't fault anyone for choosing either cartridge.

[Pathfinder45]

They claim they're strong enough for modern hunting loads. Has anyone here had any experience with these: http://www.hartfordarmory.com/remmies.htm The price is a bit out of my league, but they look nice.

[stellite]

Not saying that there isn't guns made in 45lc, as there is, but I would sure love it if Ruger brought back the Redhawk in all it's iterations of barrel lengths for the 45lc. hell, make it a 454/45lc. I use to have a SRH 454, but got tired of wearing beer goggles to look at it.

[testuser]

I didn't have time to read the entire thread, but I've had experience handloading both cartirdges.

Usually, the debate on who can load which handgun hotter. That's fine, but for a lot of us 240 grains between 900 - 1400 fps is plenty. If I need more power, then I'll shoot a rifle instead.

I prefer the .44 magnum...

- .44 magnum projectiles are cheaper for me to purchase than .45 Colt.
- Once fired brass is much cheaper and easier to obtain in .44 magnum.
- Higher working pressure means a better chamber seal, especially with moderate and light loads.

The biggest reason...

I've had problems with blowback in the .45 Colt using starting charges of Blue Dot (I like it in the 10mm). The same loads with a 240 grain .44 magnum on the other hand were excellent. I had equally velocities, but no blowback and a more complete burn.

The .44 magnum seems to be less fickle with powder selection at the moderate and light loads.

[fourdogs]

I'm still reading this thread because it's such a well balanced perspective with a lot of useful information. Thanks all....

[Noreaster]

I like the idea of having a 454 and being able to shoot lighter 45 Colt loads. The 454 brings the handgun up to a new level for hunting big game. I just wish there was a factory hunting load for 45 Colt that was milder then the Corbon/BB/double tap offerings. I don't do much long range hunting with my 44 mag and I've brought my loads down somewhat. As I mentioned before the WW 240SP seems about right for what I do.

[newfrontier45]

The 44MAG is NOT even close.

Sorry Terry, this might have been true 30yrs ago but no longer.

The truth is as easily accessed as Hodgdon's load data. Simply compare their .44Mag data to their "Ruger only" .45Colt data. The .44Mag beats the .45 by 100fps across the board. At the top end, the .44 beats the .45 with equivalent bullet weights, 355gr vs 360gr. With equivalent sectional densities (355gr .44 vs. 395gr .45), the .44 beats it by 200fps. All at standard .44Mag pressures and NOT in long cylinder Redhawks/Super Redhawks.

For the record, I have verified Hodgdon's data in a pair of custom Ruger Bisleys with equal barrel lengths. It's also worth mentioning that the .45 has been accurized but the .44's work was only cosmetic and it still outshoots the sloppily dimensioned .45Colt.

It is also worth mentioning that Linebaugh's article was written nearly 30yrs ago. Bullet selection for the .44 is much improved these days and if you read the articles with the notion that Linebaugh is selling .45's, you'll see the holes.

This would shade the 45 Colt in the same way the 45 does the 44 magnum, and would be in a packable double action.

Not hardly. The .44Mag and .45Colt are very, very similar. One having a slight diameter advantage, the other being more accurate and running slightly higher velocities. That's a wash. The .480 blows the doors off both cartridges. Which should be expected out of a cartridge that is significantly larger in diameter and runs at 48,000psi.

[rclark]

One having a slight diameter advantage, the other being more accurate and running slightly higher velocities.

Beg to differ on the accuracy claim. Both are as accurate as the shooter/gun. No accuracy difference (whether, .357, .44Mag, .41Mag, or .45 Colt). The .45 Colt does make bigger holes though.

The rest is just fluff. You can argue one way ... or the other (just like statistics). I like the .45 Colt. Others like the .44Mag. Both with do the job. How did Ross Seyfield put it? Oh yeah, "He did not dance, did not run as if flea-bitten; he simply went down while the bullet exited his shoulder and whined across the African woodland. This was not a .44 Magnum any more!". Good enough for me....

[newfrontier45]

It's not fluff, we're arguing minute differences. I didn't say one was better than the other, I basically said it was a wash. Guns chambered in .44Mag tend to be more accurate because they do not suffer from dimensional variations common with 140yr old cartridges. There wouldn't be the huge obsession with reaming undersized cylinder throats if it weren't so. Nor would there be the myriad complaints about sloppy chambers and oversized throats. Two of my .45Colt sixguns have grossly oversized throats. The lone Ruger had to be reamed. The rifle has grossly oversized chambers. Zero issues with my eleven .44's. Linebaugh and others wouldn't be rechambering so many .41 and .44Mag's to .45Colt if this issue did not exist. No such complaints with the .44Mag, I know you know this all too well.

I will also add that while I have the greatest respect and admiration for Ross Seyfried, his contribution to this was also written nearly 30yrs ago.

Both with do the job.

Which was the gist of my post.

[Stick_man]

Unfortunately, the .45Colt is a victim of birth. It originally came out as a black powder cartridge and there were many, many guns made for it. Because of using black powder, it didn't need to handle high pressures. That is why the SAAMI spec pressures are so low. Modern guns are made with smokeless powder in mind, capable of producing much higher pressures.

The .44mag was created after the advent of smokeless powders and was designed as a high pressure hunting cartridge. Even the early guns chambered specifically for the .44magnum are capable of handling pressures in at least the mid 30ks.

The .45Colt factory ammo has to take into account the possibility of its use in an older gun, not designed for modern high pressure loads. The .44 is not limited in that manner.

If a handloader has, for example, a Ruger Redhawk in each caliber, the .45Colt is capable of exceeding the performance of the .44magnum. Very few situations would require either cartridge to be pushed to the limits of it's capabilities though, so the bottom line is this is all just a matter of personal preference and an exercize in futility.

[seeker_two]

Sarge: I'm with you @ bringing back the Taurus 450. The CCW market is the fastest growing market, and the .45 revolver is getting left behind. I'd like to see the 450 in .45Colt that can also take .45ACP rounds in moon clips.....or just .45ACP without moon clips i.e. Charter Arms Pit Bull.....

[jtmckinney]

Thanks "Ole 5 hole group" for the picture of 45 colt cases showing the difference in the ways the cases are manufactured, good info.

I load 44 magnum but for a semi auto carbine rifle. I recently aquired a Blackhawk 45 convertible, love the firearm and reloading for it. I am also having fun loading for the 45 ACP cylinder but that is for another thread.

One thing I have found loading 45 Colt "Ruger Only Loads" is the maximum I want in recoil for a handgun. Hodgedon website using H110 says I can go little higher but I dont want too.

I have followed this thread from the beginning and enjoyed it, lots of good info.

Have a great day!
James

[Axelwik]

I like my .44 Magnum. It does everything I want.

I'm sure I'd like a .45 Colt if I had one, but probably for different reasons.

[stellite]

Here is a tidbit of knowledge about gun strength of 45 colt guns from one of the authorities. Now if he could only introduce hammerhead loads in 45colt and 454, the world would be a better place.

Old March 28, 2000, 04:28 AM #18
Randy Garrett
Senior Member

Join Date: November 2, 1999
Location: Chehalis, WA
Posts: 142

It's true that the Ruger 45 Colt Redhawk has excellent cylinder strength, and that the extent to which it takes a backseat to the 44 Magnums produced by Ruger in their double-action is not all that significant, but the Blackhawk in 45 Colt definitely cannot take the pressures of the Super Blackhawk in 44 Magnum or, of course, the 44 Magnum as chambered in the Ruger double-actions (it is well understood in the industry that the Super Blackhawk 44 Magnum can be safely loaded to a chamber pressure level 10,000-psi higher than the 45 Colt Blackhawk). Truly, the Redhawk and Super Redhawk 44 Magnums are in a strength class by themselves where 6-shooters are concerned, with the obvious exception of the new Super Redhawk in 454 Casull.

Best regards, Randy Garrett www.garrettcartridges.com

here is a good article on 44 mag loads, light to heavy. Not sure how dated the article is:

http://www.sixguns.com/tests/tt44mag.htm