Ruger Redhawk: .45 Colt vs .44 mag?

[NoirFan]

Hello,

I've been feeling the urge for a powerful big-bore DA revolver and the Redhawk is at the top of my list, but I have a few questions about the caliber choice: .45 or .44?

I don't intend to get this gun until after I start handloading so factory ammo cost is not an issue. What about handloading costs? Will .45 colt components cost significantly more then those of the .44 mag?

I've read of chamber sizing problems with the .45 colt version in the past. Also, Some have told me that the small rim on the .45 makes it unreliable in ejection. Does anyone have experience of this?

Is it possible to use .45 ACP in the .45 colt redhawk via moon clips or other means?

Any other comparison of the two that I did not think of here is welcome!

Thanks

 

[jmortimer]

In a Redhawk the .45 Colt is the clear choice. Lower pressure gets same "power/energy" and you get a bigger bullet as bonus. Reloading cost should be same.

 

[Eb1]

It is not the clear choice, but is a biased choice.

Doesn't matter. If ever needed the .44 Magnum will be way more readily available than a .45 LC. As most anywhere has .44 Magnum available. Either choice in the Ruger is awesome. I had to make a choice as well, and went with a .44 Magnum in a Super Blackhawk. I QM

 

[BCRider]

I suspect you'd find that the cylinder would need to be machined to accept the .45ACP and mooclips and once you do that it would no longer be able to accept the .45Colt rounds.

 

[Blue Brick]

I like 45 Colt or even better a RedHawk in 357.

 

[Arkansas Paul]

Doesn't matter. If ever needed the .44 Magnum will be way more readily available than a .45 LC. As most anywhere has .44 Magnum available.

He handloads, which takes ammo availability out of the equation.
You are right though, it is a biased choice. I happen to agree with him, but I'm biased as well. I love the .45 Colt.
As far as component prices, they'll be about the same. Bullets aren't any more money. They take the same primers and a lot of powders are interchangable for the two. The brass is a little harder to find for the .45 Colt though, I will say.
I loaded up 100 rounds today for a little over $25 and that includes the brass. (I got a great deal on some once fired stuff. I paid $52 for 408 pieces. I was in the shop with my brother and they said since I was with him, they'd give me his LEO discount. Mighty nice of them. The 408 is an odd number I know, but that's all they had.) So not counting the brass, I'm looking at about $16 per hundred. That's pretty cheap no matter how you look at it. You could do the same with the .44 mag though. It's really about personal preference.

 

[Eb1]

I know he said he handloads. I have handload too, but I have been shooting, and run out. I needed to run to the local shop and grab a box. I am sure I am not the only one who has been in that situation.

 

[MCMXI]

I've read of chamber sizing problems with the .45 colt version in the past. Also, Some have told me that the small rim on the .45 makes it unreliable in ejection. Does anyone have experience of this?

I'm a BIG fan of the .45 Colt. I have two Blackhawks, a Redhawk and a Super Redhawk all chambered in that cartridge not to mention a pair of USFA Rodeos and a Marlin '94 also in .45 Colt. I don't plan on shooting any .45 Colt loads in the Super Redhawk but the Redhawk has had zero ejection issues (the Marlin is equally reliable) and I've put more than a couple hundred rounds through it already. It's probably my favorite revolver at the moment and I have a Colt Python so that's saying something. As for chamber sizing problems, I slugged the chambers and barrel of my Redhawk and as you can see, no problems there at all. I like the Redhawk and Super Redhawk so much that I may eventually buy the .44 Mag versions of both ... we'll see.

 

[MovedWest]

Seriously... look for ammo for both and that should help you make a decision.

Since you reload, the 44mag is obviously a better choice due to the diversity. There's nothing you can do with a 45LC that you can't do with a 44mag.

-MW

 

[MCMXI]

There's nothing you can do with a 45LC that you can't do with a 44mag.

How about the ability to shoot .45 Colt loads in a revolver that also handles .454 Casull i.e. the Ruger Super Redhawk. Does the .44 Mag have an equivalent "upgrade"? If you read John Linebaugh's writings HERE you'll see that the .45 Colt compares very favorably to the .44 Magnum. I like the .44 Magnum too but if I had to chose one it'd be the .45 Colt ... no doubt about it.

 

[NoirFan]

Guys, I don't reload yet. I will buy my first press at the same time I buy this Redhawk. That brings up another question I forgot earlier. Since I will be learning reloading with this gun, is one of these calibers harder to reload than the other? Sorry if this question is dumb but I have yet to load a single cartridge at this point.

 

[Lovesbeer99]

Maybe I missed it, but with the 44 mag you can also shoot 44 special. I live the diversity just like my .357/38spl. 44spl is supposed to be a target round and a good defense round also.

 

[Walkalong]

If you have neither, go with .44 mag first, then get the .45 Colt. If I had to get rid of one Redhawk, it would be the .45 Colt. I enjoy shooting light .45 Colt more than heavy, and heavy .44 mag rather than light. YMMY of course.

.44 Mag is very versatile and ammo is much more available if you need to just pick some up. A wider variety of components are also available.

 

[jmortimer]

The .45 Colt is more versatile and shoot bigger bullets. The caliber itself is growing with
.454 and .460 added while .44 mag caliber is "dead" in that regard. The .45 Colt does everything the .44 mag does at lower pressure and, again, bigger bullets, something to consider if you intend to use LBT hard cast bullets. There is nothing to recommend the .44 as it is does nothing better than the .45 Colt and is a lesser (and "dead") caliber. There is a reason that new .452 caliber guns are being introduced and not .429.

 

[Arkansas Paul]

Since you reload, the 44mag is obviously a better choice due to the diversity.

I would argue the exact opposite. It's like Eb1 said. Our posts are biased. It's all a matter of opinion.
IMO, if you are going to handload, get the .45 Colt. If you're not, get the .44 mag.
And neither is any harder than the other to handload. Very little difference.

 

[Eb1]

@jmortimer

Yeah. The reason is marketing and hype. The object is to make money. Most everyone has a .44 if you are into big bores because the .45 LC revolvers are/were weak, and could not shoot the heavier loadings.
So there might be a move to produce the .45 LC stronger, but it isn't because it is a better caliber. It is because they want to sell guns.

I would like to add that a 310 grain Hard Cast bullet at close to 1400 fps is not anything to turn your head about when coming out of a handgun. I would bet money that you would not shoot a steady diet of ammunition at this loading for fun be it in a .45 LC or a .44 Magnum. So all of your rebuttals as to why the .45 LC is better than the .44 is null and void. It is just a personal preference. That is all it comes down too.

One more thing. Isn't the brass for the .45 LC weaker than .44 Magnum brass? Isn't most .45 LC brass made to handle the weaker loadings? This is something to consider, if true. You might get more loadings out of .44 Magnum brass than the .45 LC brass. Especially if you are loading to the max of either caliber.

 

[Arkansas Paul]

You're right about most of the .45 Colt revolvers being weak. To get the best out of them, you need a Ruger and handloads. I guess that's why a lot of people lean towards the .44 mag, and there's certainly nothing wrong with that. It's a dandy. You can find factory ammo and when you do, it's not watered down.
I'm just nostalgic about a .45 Colt in a single action I guess.

 

[kanook]

I suspect you'd find that the cylinder would need to be machined to accept the .45ACP and mooclips and once you do that it would no longer be able to accept the .45Colt rounds.
Yesterday 11:33 PM

www.moonclips.com has been doing this conversion for some time now. And you will be able to still shoot the 45 Colt

 

[Eb1]

Arkansas Paul, I am too. I love the .45 caliber, but I opted to go with .44 Magnum for the reasons I stated. My Ruger SBH .44 Mag has not had one factory loading shot out of it. I handload for it. If I didn't I could not afford to shoot it. .45 LC ammo is way more expensive than .44 Magnum around my parts as well.

Like we agreed on. .45 or .44, it is all just personal preferences. What gets to me is the argument of .452 vs .429, heavier bullets, and blah, blah, blah. Which with a little research is a false argument, and I doubt anyone who asks the question of which is better actually will be able to tell the difference when they shoot the gun, or shoot something with the gun. Be it a .45 LC or a .44 Magnum. Do you? I know I couldn't, and I have shot both. Now.

It all depends on if you want to take chances with the brass and the gun to shoot stouter rounds. I do want to shoot stouter rounds every now and then. So I opted for the safety and piece of mind with a .44 Magnum over the .45 LC. I know the gun is made to handle the pressures, and I can shoot bullets larger than 300 grains if I need, and the gun will handle it safely. I don't have to question if my revolver is going to handle the load that I choose to shoot. I know that the Ruger will handle the larger loadings, but still. Do I want to take a chance? I don't.

If I were to only shoot 900-1000 fps loadings then, yes, the .45 LC would be fine, and is fine for most any job I can think of when using a handgun. I personally wanted a 240 grain bullet at 1200 to 1300 fps, and the .44 Magnum was the optimum choice for me. That is not a stout load for the .44 Magnum. It is for the .45 LC. Well for most of the guns out there that do shoot the .45 LC.

I most likely one day will own a 4 5/8ths .45 LC one day, but for now I have all the handgun I can possibly need in my Ruger SBH 5 1/2" Stainless Steel .44 Magnum.

 

[NMGonzo]

Today you can get a 5 1/2 inch stainless redhawk in .44 magnum for like what ... $500 - $600 dollars?

The weapon availability and price has a lot to do with it.

 

[CraigC]

There is nothing to recommend the .44 as it is does nothing better than the .45 Colt and is a lesser (and "dead") caliber.

Dead??? This is pure nonsense.

There is NO clear choice of one over the other. Both have their advantages and disadvantages and as usual, there are no free lunches.

Firstly, the .44Mag is not dead. The .44Mag is one of the most useful and versatile cartridges ever produced and it has taken every single head of game on the planet, including the African Big Six. It can be loaded for anything from mice to elephant and do the job in a box stock sixgun. The handloader has no limitations. Cast bullets range from lightweight mousefart CAS pellets on up to 355gr Beartooth behemoths. The advantage is that factory ammunition is plentiful and relatively inexpensive. The guns are typically more accurate and chamber dimensions are pretty much set in stone. Expect case life to be excellent. Take a gander at Hodgdon's latest data and you will see that the .44Mag holds a 100fps advantage over the .45Colt, loaded to 30,000CUP "Ruger only" levels, across the board.

The .45Colt has a cavernous case capacity that is well suited to blackpowder and in strong guns, smokeless as well. The cases are NOT weak. In strong guns it can be loaded heavy with a multitude of cast and jacketed bullets ranging up to 360gr (practical limit). A handloader with a $400 .45 Blackhawk could consider himself well armed indeed. However, it is a 140yr old cartridge and chamber dimensions are all over the board. We see undersized and oversized chamber mouths, grossly oversized chambers, etc. As a result, they are typically not as accurate as your average .44 and case life suffers with heavy loads. Heavy factory loads from specialty loaders are prohibitively expensive. If you want an accurate .45 you 'may' have to factor in some gunsmith assistance.

Where the .45 really shines is in the Redhawk and the custom five-shot conversions. Here we see loads in the 50,000psi range and the .45 gets all the horsepower you need out of a .45 caliber sixgun. With a handloaded .45 in this range, the .454 is unnecessary. Although the factory .45 Redhawk will still suffer from the maladies listed above. However, all you're really gaining is velocity and anything over around 1200-1300fps is just flattening trajectory.

IMHO, if you want a really good .44, buy one. If you want a really good .45, buy a .44 and have it rechambered to tighter dimensions.

 

[Arkansas Paul]

I doubt anyone who asks the question of which is better actually will be able to tell the difference when they shoot the gun, or shoot something with the gun. Be it a .45 LC or a .44 Magnum.

I agree 100%

As for the brass, the older .45 Colt brass that was designed for blackpowder was significantly weaker than todays brass. In about 1952, they started using what they call solid head brass for the .45 Colt, making it equal. I don't know exactly what that means, but it supposedly brought the .45 Colt brass up to date with the times. Dick Casull did all of his testing in the 1950s for the .454 Casull using .45 Colt brass, so I don't see how it can possibly be weak. I know it'll stand up to 26 grains of H110 behind a 250 grain bullet just fine. That's way above SAMMI spec by the way (about 28,000 cup), and should never be used in anything but Ruger, T/C, or Freedom Arms.
The bottom line is actually the thing that we agree on though. It's personal preference, and they're both great. I'm actually wanting a Super Redhawk in .44 mag to scope.

 

[Eb1]

Some pretty good info here..

 

[Hastings]

I prefer 45colt to 44mag, but this was not always the case. I reload, now, so the potential of each cartridge is greatly increased. That being said, there are many good commercial ammo choices for 45colt, now. It will be more costly than the run of the mill 44mag ammo, but the real question for me would be what are you going to do with the gun. If you want to hunt, or use the gun for woods carry, you should be buying quality ammo if you don't reload. If you just want to blast targets and cans, the 45colt is a poor choice if you are limited to factory ammo. The cowboy ammo that is available is expensive, and slow moving. I chronographed some 250gr cowboy loads the other week and from a 4" barrel none of them broke 700fps. The run of the mill 44mag ammo that you will find on any gun store shelf will do the job on deer, but this is often not the case with 45colt. If you don't mind ordering online, Buffalo Bore and Double Tap make excellent standard and +p 45colt loads that will work on anything in the continent. They are not cheap, but they are worth the cost if you are going to be using the gun for something serious.

Reloading obviously opens up the options tremendously, and lowers the cost of both rounds to close to the same price. I like the 45colt because I can duplicate the energy and/or velocity of a normal 44mag round with lower pressure and recoil/muzzle blast. I don't think that makes it a better cartridge, just more to my liking because I don't like hearing loss and carpal tunnel syndrome. I would point, however, that a 44mag bullet of the same weight as a 45colt one will be longer than the 45colt. In my experience similar weight bullets of greater length tend to be more accurate and stable over greater distances than their shorter counterparts. This is irrelavent to me since I don't shoot a handgun beyond 50 yards, and my eyesight is such that 30 yards is a more practical limit. If you are inclined to shoot with a scope, or open sights, out beyond 50-75 yards, I believe the 44mag would tend to be more accurate, but no more lethal (in fact possibly less lethal since either round would go thru the deer, but the 45colt cuts a larger hole even without expansion).

Either way, you can't go wrong with a Redhawk in either cartridge. I say get one of each. A 4" 45colt and a 7-1/2" 44mag.

 

[Kernel]

If you have interest in long range shooting I’d urge you to get the .44 Mag. At any given bullet weight the .44 Mag bullet will have a better ballistic coefficient, and thus better performance at long range.

With practice, hitting a deer-sized kill zone at 100 yards is very doable (with either). The Mag will give you a slight edge, at a time when a slight edge might mean the difference between hitting good, hitting bad, and missing.

Otherwise, there’s hardly any difference between the two, especially if you’re just going to punch paper at 25 - 50 ft. For a non-handloader, it’s a no brainier, the Mag is the obvious choice.