45 Colt versus 44 Magnum

Unfortunate 45?

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

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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
Last edited:
I'm still reading this thread because it's such a well balanced perspective with a lot of useful information. Thanks all....
 
Last edited:
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.
 
The 44MAG is NOT even close.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Last edited:
One having a slight diameter advantage, the other being more accurate and running slightly higher velocities.
Click to expand...
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....
 
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.
Click to expand...
Which was the gist of my post.
 
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.
 
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.....
 
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
 
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.
 
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. :D


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
Click to expand...


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
 
Last edited:
Bringing back an old thread.

I've recently bought a Ruger Alaskan 454. My plan is to shoot 45C often and 454 on rare occasions and I like the fact that the gun is built for 454 so it will withstand 45 "ruger only" loads. I am new to 45/454/44mag. My first gun was the SW 686 bought it in 1990. I have many semi since then but still love the big bore revolvers best in my heart.

I am not a reloader (yet!) but have wanted to start for quite some time now. Perhaps the high cost of factory ammo in 45/454 will give me the needed push toward the right direction ;)

In my search for 45/44 info I came across this thread. I commend everyone for being civil & informative. I learned a heck of lot benefiting from your posts.

Thanks everyone!
 
Last edited:
One might also ask why 44 Mag was ever developed in the first place, given that 45 Colt could have more than fulfilled the role. I'm not smart in these matters, but I have to think this was way more a matter of marketing and safety (loading super 45 colt loads into old 45 Colt guns).

To me, it's a real shame 45 Colt didn't transform into 45 Magnum, rather than have 44 Magnum appear on the market. It didn't, oh well. Move on.
 
I've recently bought a Ruger Alaskan 454. My plan is to shoot 45C often and 454 on rare occasions and I like the fact that the gun is built for 454 so it will withstand 45 "ruger only" loads. I am new to 45/454/44mag.
Click to expand...

I think you'll find the .454 to be a nasty cartridge to shoot. I have a S&W .460 X-Frame and would rather shoot .460 out of it than .454 Casull. If you look at factory loaded ammunition, and compare the recoil of each cartridge with 305 grain bullets (so that each caliber is using the same weight bullet), you will see the .454 has about 15% more recoil than the .460 and about 30% more than the .44 magnum.

The .454 is a handful in the X-Frame, and will be brutal in the Alaskan because of its smaller size and lighter weight.

I have a Ruger Alaskan in .44 magnum, and find it easier to shoot and control than my S&W M629 with the 4.5 inch barrel.

I've shot .44 magnum since 1972 and have a Ruger Super Blackhawk, Ruger Redhawk, Ruger Super Redhawk Alaskan, S&W M29, and S&W M629 revolvers. In .45C, I've owned a S&W M25, Ruger Blackhawk, and the .460 S&W.

My preference is the .44 magnum over hot loading the .45C, and want nothing to do with the .454 in a relatively small revolver.

The 45C is a wonderful round by itself - much like the .44 Special. Pleasant to shoot all day with manageable recoil.

Have fun with your new revolver. I'd be interested in your experiences and what you think about the gun after you've shot both .45C and .454.
 
Case efficiency

I don't see much difference when trying to attain the highest levels of performance. It's the in-between that creates the problems.

Sometimes the .45 Colt is operating at such low pressures, and has so much case capacity, that either position sensitivity or blow-by becomes a problem.

Light and mid range loads seem to work more consistently, and over a broader range of powders and bullet weights in the .44 magnum than the .45 Colt. It makes sense, the higher working pressure of the .44 magnum, even at lower powder charge weights means a more consistent burn. After reloading for both, it seemed easier to find a good load for .44 magnum using the powders I already had on hand.

For full tilt hunting loads, probably a draw. For target work, mid range loads, and full power loads, I prefer the .44 magnum.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top