45 Colt ammo & gun question

[mothermopar]

Folks, my next gun is a 45 Colt Caliber (haven't decided).

While looking at ammo selections, I noticed something peculiar at least to me and was wondering if anyone could explain it:

Doubletap lists a 335 gr at 1300fps and 1258ftlbs.
Buffalobore lists a 325 gr at 1325fps and 1267ftlbs

Both are very similar.

Doubletap says this load is SAFE in Colt Anacondas whereas buffalobore says ruger, etc. No mention of the big Colt snake.

Question: Both rounds are near ballistic twins, yet the doubletap is safe in the anaconda and the buffalobore isn't?! Why is this???

 

[Walkalong]

From what I have read, the Anaconda won't handle what the Ruger will, but I don't really know. I am not going to shoot anything like that in mine. It will be reserved for my Redhawk.

Sounds like Doubletap is pretty sure of themselves, or they wouldn't publish it. I dunno. Pretty stout stuff.

I actually prefer my the Redhawk to the Anaconda.

Why is one safe and one is not? One firms willingness to stand behind the load in Anacondas vs the other one unwillingness is my guess.

 

[jmortimer]

If you want to "redline" .45 Colt I'd stick with the Redhawk. As a general matter as mentioned by Walkalong - if the manufacturer says it is O.K. then so be it.

 

[MachIVshooter]

The Anaconda can take the pressure, but the Colt's lockwork is not as robust as the RH. I wouldn't use them other than for critter defense carry in the snake. Out of time Colt = no fun.

 

[mothermopar]

Well here's a question...

If the DoubleTap ammo is safe in a Colt Anaconda... would it then be safe in a Smith and Wesson chambered in 45 Colt? I know the only way to answer that is to contact the company, but I'm just trying to wrap my head around this.

 

[rswartsell]

MachVShooter,

You don't know your Colts. In 1969 the action you are talking about with the "bank vault lockup" that only required correct maintenance (periodic replacing of the cylinder hand) to just keep on going, was replaced by the Mk III and then Mk V actions that are no more likely to go out of time than a Ruger or Smith. The Anaconda was introduced in 1990.

Some .44 Mag loads have an OAL too long to fit the S&W Mod 29 cylinder and that is the reason that ammunition producers will flag these loads as inappropriate for the 29. Check the OAL of the BB load vs Anaconda and S&W Mod 25 cylinders and see if this isn't your answer. The OAL may be neccesary to use heavyweight bullets seated so that the pressures are acceptable and designed with sufficient bearing surfaces. The Ruger SBH simply has a longer cylinder.

The .45 Colt Single Action Army is the revolver that manufacturers warn will not handle up loaded pressures.

 

[MachIVshooter]

If they're in fact that much more durable, then I stand corrected. It wqas my understanding that the Mk III was simply a switch from forged and hand-fitted parts to sintered iron, and the addition of a transfer bar. And that the only change in the Mk V was a switch from the sintered iron to cast parts.

As far as pounding .45 Colt guns with loads that generate 1,300 ft/lbs and more, I don't know that I'd even do that much with a standard Redhawk. That's why I bought a SRH; The beefed up cylinder and frame were designed specifically to handle the 65,000 PSI Casull.

I'm no Ruger fanboy, as you'll find if you read my other posts. I much prefer a Svelte N-frame Smith or MM Colt to the RH/SRH family. But if I feel like punishing a .45 caliber handgun and myself, I grab the SRH.

Some .45 Colt loads have an OAL too long to fit the S&W Mod 29 cylinder

I think they might be a little wide for a 29, too

 

[rswartsell]

MachIV,

Looking at my post again I believe that I was a bit rude and I apologize. The entire action was reworked and yes it was for the purpose of cost savings but also for producing a Colt quality product and they didn't do badly at all. They forfeited the bank vault lockup for elimination of a lot of the skilled hand fitting required when they brought out the Mk III in '69 and got in return an extremely strong framed gun that did not put such stress on a small steel hand that was the root of many examples going out of time because shooters did not understand or accept the periodic maintenance. As far as sintered parts are concerned (or MIM) they can be very good or very bad. Colt has always been superb at metallurgy, usually superior to anything they competed with. If you object to sintered parts on principle, well the Mark III series has them. If you question what is the quality and track record of these Colt sintered parts the answer is they are very good indeed.

You hear differing opinions about the new action, of course there is the wailing from the Colt lovers because their legendary Swiss watches are being "degraded", Smith afficianados claimed superior triggers, and the non Colt lovers were still perpetrating the "fragile action" myth. The result was a bit of a stepchild that never got it's due.

My opinion, even of the Mk III's, prior to shortening hammer fall and slicked up trigger action to result in the Mk V's in '82 (which also got cast steel parts instead of sintered iron and a slightly smaller frame because depleted uranium anti tank rounds were not anticipated), is of an immensely strong tank of a gun whose trigger you relearn if you are Smith shooter. This has been the case since Bullseye Champions either used Officer's Model Match or Smith K-38 Masterpieces to win trophies. The Trooper Mk III is a duty gun and has the expected heavier pull trigger, but I can go to the line stage the trigger and break it evenly, consistently and under great control.

The accuracy, longevity, fit and finish of the "Mark" series of Colt revolvers was as good or better than anything on the market competing with them. Thank you for pointing out my problems with 9's 5's and 4's, I have corrected.

 

[unspellable]

Pressure

You might note that identical ballistics at the muzzle doesn't always mean identical ballistics at the chamber. Or vice versa. A famous example being commercially loaded shotgun cartridges in which lite target loads run almost the same pressure as full house loads. This is done for two reasons. With the lite load you use a faster powder which allows you to use less of it. Save half a cent each on a million cartridges, that's $5000 saved. Second, powders produce consistent results in a certain pressure range. The optimum pressure is not always the lowest one. Shotguns run to low pressure to start with so you can't let it get too low.

Another point is that the specialist loaders are small outfits. They may not have the money to do extensive endurance testing with every firearm out there.


Also, here is more than one way to ruin a firearm with overly hot loads. A S&W 45 Colt will suffer catastrophic failure at the same pressure as a Blackhawk. The difference is that the S&W will not stand up as well to the cylinder slamming back and forth and will quickly develop end shake with Blackhawk only loads.

 

[unspellable]

PS. Regarding hot rod loads. Proof firing is designed to reveal hidden flaws in a gun, not to test the design. A super duper load may be inside the design limit, but over the proof load pressure. What about those hidden flaws?

 

[Hastings]

I have a S&W 25 45colt Mountain Gun, a Ruger Vaquero 45colt (older model) with a 45acp cylinder to go with it, and a BFR 454. I have owned a New Vaquero 45colt, a Ruger Redhawk 4" 45colt, and a S&W 25-5 45colt. I carry the Double Tap 335gr loads you mention in my Ruger when I go bear hunting. I would never attempt to shoot them in any S&W. They exceed the recoil and blast of any standard 44mag round I have fired, and are a handful. I regularly push 255-270 grain bullets to 950-1000 fps in the S&W, and am confident that those reloads are stout enough to handle anything I encounter in the woods of Vermont. The Double Tap stuff great, but it is approaching 454 levels. If you want to push stuff like that thru a double action revolver, I recommend you get a Ruger Redhawk.

I have no experience with the Anaconda, but with loads that robust, and with bullets that heavy the "overbuilt" qualities of a Ruger begin to make shine. I have to admit that I seldom shoot my 454 casull, and unless I was looking to increase the distance I was hunting at with a revolver I don't think all the noise and recoil is necessary. A 265gr LSWC moving at 950fps will go straight thru a 200lb deer lengthwise (I've seen it). Pushing the projectile past 1150fps usually leads to more tissue damage, but no quicker or more reliable kills. If I were going for brown bear or grizzly, I'd want the 454, but for black bear, moose, or deer within 50-75 yards I think you'll find that 850-900fps at the target (not the muzzle) will get the job done and leave your ears and carpal tunnels intact.

On a similar note, my brother has a 500 S&Wmag BFR, and we reloaded some rounds for it this weekend. We did some light loads with a 440gr LFN with a really broad meplat (looks just like the Double Tap stuff) pushing 1100 fps for plinking. The recoil was similar to a 44mag or heavy 45colt. We also loaded some Ranger Rick 700gr LFP rounds that look like a beer can sticking out of the end of the case. With 27.3gr of LilGun they chrono'ed at 1250fps, and the recoil was really painful. I think we could push them faster, but why bother. They cut a clean hole thru 20" logs we were using for a backstop, and create a two and a half foot deep clean tunnel when fired down into hard soil. My brother loves them. I think they're absurd, and would only be practical on big bear, rhino, elephant, or cape buffalo.

Going back to the 45colt, the Double Tap and Buffalo Bore stuff is actually 45magnum ammo. A S&W N-frame 45caliber revolver is a beautiful thing, in my opinion. I have a 22-4 4" 45acp S&W that I load 255gr lswc's at 950fps for. It is the equal of the 45colt Mountain Gun, and either one easily passes as my favorite handgun of all time. But they are not 45magnums. I suspect the Anaconda falls into the same category. The S&W's and Colts might do okay with the heavy loads for a while, but until you fire heavy projectiles at these velocities it's hard to appreciate the wear and tear it puts on the gun. I've had ejector rod housing screws shear off, front sights break off, and grips crack due to the recoil of heavy 45colt and 454 casull loads in lighter guns. You may not like Ruger's, but if you like the heavy loads and plan to shoot them a lot you would be wise to go with a Redhawk, Blackhawk, or older Vaquero (or a Freedom Arms or BFR for the really heavy stuff).

Good luck, and let us know what you decide/get.

Hastings

 

[BullfrogKen]

The one thing I like about the design of a single-action revolver is the way it rolls in my hand. I find super-stout loads shot in a modern double-action revolver unpleasant. I actually do enjoy it in my 45 Colt Blackhawk. At least I can enjoy it longer, anyway.


And the Blackhawk was less expensive compared to anything I was looking at on the market back in the mid-to-late 90's when I got it.

 

[rswartsell]

Ken,

I believe that you mean Ruger Blackhawk.

At this point I believe I will capitulate that .454 Casull rounds belong in .454 Casull designed revolvers, regardless of which brass you stuff them into and the point of putting them in .45 Colt drag is lost on me.

Just don't defame my Colts and Smiths because they aren't designed to join the costume party. You get to shoot .454 in your SBH with more bullet jump and all the wonderful things that brings to inherent accuracy. We are all very proud of you.

 

[StrawHat]

I have not used any of the extreme loads. In my several 45 Long Colts I have generally loaded the standard 255 grain bullet. Recently I switched to the 283 Keith bullet (RCBS Scovill/Keith) and find it as good as the lighter bullet. I get complete lengthwise penetration on whitetails with the 255 grain but have not yet shot a deer with the 283 Keith. I can't imagine what the 325+ grain bullets can accomplish that the lighter ones can't. But that is why there are more than one horse in a race. Everyone gets to choose what they like. Me, I like S&W revolvers and Colt Model P clones.

 

[Hastings]

I agree that the single action grip design is better suited for stout loads. In my narrow-minded opinion, nothing feels better than a Blackhawk or Vaquero. I prefer Smith N-frames in 45 caliber, with magna grips, or other frame-following grips, over any other handgun. That being said, a nice single action 41, 44, or 45 is pretty tough to beat. Unfortunately, BFR puts rubber grips on their single actions. The rubber grips grip your hand and prevent the shift and roll of typical single action recoil from occurring. I have wood grips on my 454, now, and it feels much better.

I think actual 45colt loads (250-270gr bullets going under 1000fps) are the best thing around. As I mentioned earlier, you can easily match this in a 45acp revolver with less powder, but I am no fan of moon clips and 45autorim is less common. I understand the allure of a mega-grain slug honkin' along at 1300+ fps, but part of the beauty of a large caliber is you don't need to rely on velocity to do all the work. I don't own a 357 magnum because I prefer the mild recoil and low muzzle blast of the larger, slower cartridges. The 454 is a just-in-case I feel the need gun, but I can get off three shots in 45colt to every one in 454 due to the recoil. The deer are just as dead with a 45colt at conventional velocities, and I save in powder and ibuprophen costs.

I'd love to try an Anaconda. I like the balance of the python and trooper, but don't care for the stacking of the trigger pull. Is the Anaconda action similar. I agree that a python is smooth as far as trigger pull, but the increase in resistance toward the end of pull feels awkward to an old S&W shooter. Can anyone offer info.

 

[StrawHat]

Hastings

I prefer Smith N-frames in 45 caliber, ...I think actual 45colt loads (250-270gr bullets going under 1000fps) are the best thing around. As I mentioned earlier, you can easily match this in a 45acp revolver with less powder, but I am no fan of moon clips and 45autorim is less common

It seems you and I have similar feelings and experiences. My favorite loads replicate the blackpowder ballistics but that is fodder for a seperate thread!

 

[Old Shooter]

Both BB and DT are hi-performance/hi-pressure loads.

Rugers are built to take it and both ammo vendors endorse them.

Rugers are relatively inexpensive. (Gunbroker Rugers $400-$600, Anacondas $1,100-$1,500)


They make new Rugers everyday and I could easily replace one if by chance something happened to make it shoot loose or whatever, not so with the Anaconda.

Please send your Anaconda to me and I'll give it a good home and will just feed it mild Colt 45 loads.

 

[robctwo]

I have been fooling around with the .45 Colt for a couple years.

Started out with the Taurus SA. That thing was so inaccurate that I thought the round was a waste of time.

Stumbled into a '92 Rossi Puma, 20" octagonal barrel, about a year ago and started loading again. The '92 action will take about anything I want to load. My shoulder has a limit without a sissy pad. For really hot loads the '92 is the way to go.

I found a nice .45 Colt Ruger Blackhawk to trade for a pos .44 mag Taurus a guy gave me for a debt. 4 5/8". Rolls in the hand like Ken says. Stout enough to take most anything. Prints high for me.

Decided to get the S&W 25 Classic. 6 1/2" nickel. I don't shoot super hot loads in it. Last range trip I shot 6.8 Red dot under a 200 gr SWC. Very accurate. I shot about 300 rounds in one sitting. Didn't have the chrono, but they are running in the high 800-low 900 fps.

Happened onto a used 25-13 S&W Mountain Gun. Shot some of that 300 rounds through it as well. Also very accurate. 4" barrel, easier to carry.

There really is a difference between what a gun can shoot and what I will shoot. I often take my box of hot loads to shoot one cylinder to check the poi, then move to light stuff for real shooting. I might put 5 or 10 hot loads trough the '92 if I'm on the rifle range.

If I'm headed for the woods in Oregon, any of the guns will keep me safe from anything around here, including black bear. If I think I need to shoot buffalo or grizz, I'd take the '92 and the Ruger. Unless I decide to take the 300WSM Browning.

 

[CraigC]

The Anaconda is plenty strong for "Ruger only" loads, intended for large frame .45 Blackhawks and running up to 32,000psi. This has been in print since their inception.

You don't know your Colts.

You don't know your Rugers. The Redhawk is the strongest factory .45Colt sixgun in existence, this side of the $2000 Freedom Arms 83. While the Anaconda and Blackhawk are strong enough for 32,000psi, the Redhawk is capable of withstanding a steady diet of loads in the 45-50,000psi range. Or just below the custom five shot level. The availability of factory loads in the 55,000psi range is the only advantage the .454 Super Redhawk holds over its .45Colt brother. Even the SRH should not be fed a steady diet at the industry maximum of 65,000psi.

Just don't defame my Colts and Smiths because they aren't designed to join the costume party. You get to shoot .454 in your SBH with more bullet jump and all the wonderful things that brings to inherent accuracy. We are all very proud of you.

The question of "why" is not really the topic of this discussion. It is a matter of how strong the guns are and in this case, the Anaconda is not as strong as the Redhawk. Condescending comments about use of such loads will not change that fact.

 

[MachIVshooter]

FWIW in regards to cartridge OAL being a restrictive fator, I measured my S&W 629-2 cylinder against my SRH last night. 1.700" vs. 1.750", respectively. In my experience, .050" is not an appreciable difference for seating bullets out to reduce pressure.

I don't have an MM frame Colt to measure, but I expect it is roughly the same.

 

[mothermopar]

Thanks for the information folks! I do not yet own a 45 Colt caliber revolver... but am sure looking! I'm a 45 ACP (Colt 1911) guy, but want a revolver in 45 Cal. too. Really like the Colt SAA's... but would also like to get a DA revolver for more practical HD in 45 Colt.

 

[BullfrogKen]

Ken,

I believe that you mean Ruger Blackhawk.

At this point I believe I will capitulate that .454 Casull rounds belong in .454 Casull designed revolvers, regardless of which brass you stuff them into and the point of putting them in .45 Colt drag is lost on me.

Just don't defame my Colts and Smiths because they aren't designed to join the costume party. You get to shoot .454 in your SBH with more bullet jump and all the wonderful things that brings to inherent accuracy. We are all very proud of you.

What's with the snark?

Yes, unless someone else makes a Blackhawk, I didn't feel the need to identify Ruger as the manufacturer.

Not taking anything away from a Smith or a Colt. I just happen to prefer the heavy loads in a single-action revolver. I like the way it rolls. I can enjoy shooting it longer. the 45 Colt has a pretty wide power range. I've gone as low as .44 Special to as much as .44 Magnum levels with my handloads; it'll even slightly exceed the .44 mag power levels because it can use heavier bullet weights.


I just don't understand the need for the snark.

 

[Hastings]

mothermopar

If you want a 45 cal. double action revolver, and are already into 1911's, take a look at the S&W 22-4. I have the Thunder Ranch 22-4. It is a fixed sight, tapered 4" barrel N-frame 45acp revolver with square butt grip frame, that uses moon clips for 45acp, or will take 45autorim without the moon clips. It easily handles +p loads, and will digest any bullet type for obvious reasons. There are a wide variety of appropriate HD rounds available commercially for the 45acp, and you can get heavy 45autorim loads thru DT and BB if you want stout 45colt level loads without handloading. The real beauty lies in being able to use the same ammo for your 1911 and 45acp revolver. I think everyone should have at least one 45colt revolver, but for carry, HD, and woods carry all in one, the 22-4 is hard to beat, plus ammo is cheaper if you are not a handloader. I've attached a stock photo of the 22-4 Thunder Ranch. The 22-4 classic model comes in blued, nickel, or color case hardened. I think they are the best looking currently produced S&W revolver. I like the retro look. They would be better without the lock, and with a hammer mounted firing pin, but mine shoots great. If they would just make the same model in 45colt, I'd finally have my ideal revolver.

Good luck.
Hastings

 

[Old Fuff]

Returning to the question of high-end .45 Colt loads on the far plus side.

A factor that seldom gets any attention is that extensive use (and sometimes as little as one round) can expand a chamber. This is something that can seldom be noticed by eyeballing, and is detected with a go/no-go plug gage.

If you expand the chamber(s) because of high pressure the chamber walls will be weakened, and from the manufacturer’s perspective the only solution is to replace the cylinder, because there is a chance something will give way in the future.

Depending on a number of things, a hand loaded high-end .45 Colt cartridge can come close or exceed the standard proof load for that cartridge. Also many manufacturers use different steel alloys and heat-treating processes in Magnum cylinders then they do in regular ones. Knowledgeable individuals sometimes rechamber .357 or .44 Magnum cylinders to larger rounds for this reason.

Few may be aware of it, but Elmer Keith, actually downloaded the .44 Magnum for general everyday use in his S&W revolvers. Bill Ruger, who designed the Blackhawk, Redhawk and Super Redhawk revolvers strongly objected to the use of some “Ruger only” loads in them. If there use could be determined in guns returned to the factory they would consider that the warrantee was voided.

None of this will change the mind of those who want to use such loads, and short of wreaking a revolver they are unlikely to stop, what manufacturers, engineers, and designers may say to the contrary not withstanding. I will suggest that being in the middle between “standard,” and “excessive” is perhaps the best place to be. Others I'm sure will disagree.

 

[Archer1945]

Doubletap and Buffalobore both test their ammunition very carefully and when they say it can be used in one particular gun and not another of the same caliber they know what they are talking about. I believe they also do not recommend a steady diet of their heavy loads even in the guns that will handle them.