School me on big bore handguns

Status
Not open for further replies.
I too am a lover of the .357 bore, but in my reading of Taffin? Seyfried? the author give's an anecdote of some correspondence with Elmer Keith regarding the .357, and Keith tells him to get rid of the .357 and get a .44. Why?

In my own study, it boils down to pressure and meplat size. There's a series of good articles on the beartooth bullet website but the one I want to draw your attention to is here: https://beartoothbullets.com/tech_notes/archive_tech_notes.htm/61

There are measurements of meplat and velocity with predicted wound track sizes. Basically, a .357 Keith style bullet is making the same wound track at 1100 fps as a .45 caliber Keith style at 800 fps. Less pressure and lower velocity to do the same work....

It is doubtful Keith was considering jacketed hunting hollowpoints, and if we're talking about wound track size, then it would be well worthwhile to consider. The beartoothbullets article you linked makes an argument that extreme penetration is not useful on medium-sized game like deer and antelope, but if wound track size is meaningful, then hollowpoints are also, particularly deeper penetrating hunting hollowpoints like the A-frames, Partitions, or Barnes XPB (not talking about LE/self-defense loads here).

The data in the article indicates that a larger caliber will produce a larger wound track for a given velocity and can produce the same size wound track at lower velocities than a smaller caliber, just as you wrote. The article makes the point of not using more cartridge than is really needed to avoid suffering unnecessary recoil, noise, and wear. But considering expanding projectiles, we can easily get .50" diameter from a .357 and a wound track size at least as large as a 50 caliber that is not expanding or at a very high velocity. While the hollowpoint will require higher velocity, and the smaller caliber will require higher pressure, powder consumption and recoil energy will still be lower. By the article's chart, none of the other cartridges had less than half the recoil energy of the .357, but none of the RPI's were significantly higher until recoil energy was 3, 4, 5 times higher.

So if I understand right, the big bores can probably be justified with hard cast bullet penetration depth and wound channel size on big game like brown bear, moose, elk, bison, but for medium-sized game like deer, black bear and antelope where a .357 can achieve good penetration with the kind of expanding bullets I mentioned, it seems the big bores with non-expanding bullets can claim neither greater wound track size nor meaningfully greater penetration. What they can claim is lower velocity and lower pressure, but not lower recoil energy. Feel free to argue my points because I'm not claiming authority.
 
I have three Ruger Blackhawks, one in .38/.357 Convertible, the second in .44 Special and the third in .45 ACP/.45 Colt Convertible ---- the Colt is my favorite cartridge to shoot.
 
It is doubtful Keith was considering jacketed hunting hollowpoints, and if we're talking about wound track size, then it would be well worthwhile to consider. The beartoothbullets article you linked makes an argument that extreme penetration is not useful on medium-sized game like deer and antelope, but if wound track size is meaningful, then hollowpoints are also, particularly deeper penetrating hunting hollowpoints like the A-frames, Partitions, or Barnes XPB (not talking about LE/self-defense loads here).

The data in the article indicates that a larger caliber will produce a larger wound track for a given velocity and can produce the same size wound track at lower velocities than a smaller caliber, just as you wrote. The article makes the point of not using more cartridge than is really needed to avoid suffering unnecessary recoil, noise, and wear. But considering expanding projectiles, we can easily get .50" diameter from a .357 and a wound track size at least as large as a 50 caliber that is not expanding or at a very high velocity. While the hollowpoint will require higher velocity, and the smaller caliber will require higher pressure, powder consumption and recoil energy will still be lower. By the article's chart, none of the other cartridges had less than half the recoil energy of the .357, but none of the RPI's were significantly higher until recoil energy was 3, 4, 5 times higher.

So if I understand right, the big bores can probably be justified with hard cast bullet penetration depth and wound channel size on big game like brown bear, moose, elk, bison, but for medium-sized game like deer, black bear and antelope where a .357 can achieve good penetration with the kind of expanding bullets I mentioned, it seems the big bores with non-expanding bullets can claim neither greater wound track size nor meaningfully greater penetration. What they can claim is lower velocity and lower pressure, but not lower recoil energy. Feel free to argue my points because I'm not claiming authority.

I'm no expert either, I have just read a lot on THR and in a variety of articles and books from some very experienced and astute individuals. I think you and I agree on the article, which concerns the right caliber and speed for game. I would take a fast .357 over a cowboy loaded 45 Colt for pronghorn on the prairie, not so much because I need the power (either will do) but because I need the range. I could use either one to hunt game up to deer size, and I would feel comfortable with either. One point that I have learned from other members of this board is that speed offers a second advantage at long range as there is less bullet drop.

Regarding speed and recoil, I have played with high velocity 158 grain .357 loads in a 5.5 inch Ruger Redhawk and at a certain point, I have to spend more money on bullets, as I need jacketed or gas checked bullets to prevent leading. I will say this, even out of the Redhawk, 1550 fps 158 grain bullets begin to hurt, and I have to change my grips out for Pachmayr Presentations that offer padding but don't fit my hand as well at that speed. I have also shot hot high speed 180's (not chronographed) from it, and it's fun but also uncomfortable on my hand. I never realized how underarmed with a .357 I was until I was within 20 yards of a moose and thought to myself "I want to have a larger caliber." In addition, the Redhawk weighs in the 55 ounce range, and while I do carry it, I prefer the weight and recoil of a Blackhawk in .45 Colt with a 255 grain at around 1000 FPS for bumming around woods where the longest range may be 50 yards.

I also agree with your thinking regarding modern hollowpoints, which is why LE agencies are again going back to 9 vs. 40 and 45. Modern hollowpoints are getting more reliable in expansion, even as they penetrate difficult obstacles that have clogged vintage hollowpoints. The hollowpointed bullet at 9-1100 fps is the right bullet for the right purpose: protecting society from a bad guy without over penetrating him, while taking in consideration barriers such as glass, wood, sheet rock, etc.

Regarding hunting, Keith did not have access to modern hollowpoints, but I believe that he would argue that 2 holes in game are better than one, as there is space for bleed-out. I believe that the appropriately hardened cast bullet of a Keith style, or an LBT bullet will always cause the wound diameter without the need for expansion, and can cut through bone better than a hollowpoint.

It's a matter of choosing the right bullet, the right velocity, and the right caliber for the game. If I lived in my beloved South again, a .357 would be all I need for hunting and self-defense. I don't, and outside of the urban areas of the West, prefer a heavy cast bullet at a modest speed in a .45 caliber. If I lived in Alaska or the mountains of Montana or Idaho, I would look into the .480 Ruger, or the .475 or .500 Linebaugh. It's simply a measure of the best all around effectiveness for self defense and hunting.
 
It is doubtful Keith was considering jacketed hunting hollowpoints, and if we're talking about wound track size, then it would be well worthwhile to consider. The beartoothbullets article you linked makes an argument that extreme penetration is not useful on medium-sized game like deer and antelope, but if wound track size is meaningful, then hollowpoints are also, particularly deeper penetrating hunting hollowpoints like the A-frames, Partitions, or Barnes XPB (not talking about LE/self-defense loads here).

The data in the article indicates that a larger caliber will produce a larger wound track for a given velocity and can produce the same size wound track at lower velocities than a smaller caliber, just as you wrote. The article makes the point of not using more cartridge than is really needed to avoid suffering unnecessary recoil, noise, and wear. But considering expanding projectiles, we can easily get .50" diameter from a .357 and a wound track size at least as large as a 50 caliber that is not expanding or at a very high velocity. While the hollowpoint will require higher velocity, and the smaller caliber will require higher pressure, powder consumption and recoil energy will still be lower. By the article's chart, none of the other cartridges had less than half the recoil energy of the .357, but none of the RPI's were significantly higher until recoil energy was 3, 4, 5 times higher.

So if I understand right, the big bores can probably be justified with hard cast bullet penetration depth and wound channel size on big game like brown bear, moose, elk, bison, but for medium-sized game like deer, black bear and antelope where a .357 can achieve good penetration with the kind of expanding bullets I mentioned, it seems the big bores with non-expanding bullets can claim neither greater wound track size nor meaningfully greater penetration. What they can claim is lower velocity and lower pressure, but not lower recoil energy. Feel free to argue my points because I'm not claiming authority.

To clarify my earlier remark, of the 3 deer I've shot with 44 Magnums 2 were shot with #429421 Keith semiwadcutters loaded over 21 grains of 2400 and the other was shot with a 300 grain XTP That chronoed just a touch under 1100 FPS. The XTP left a hole through the heart that I stuck my pinky through and never expanded on its way out through a rib on the off side. I also didn't recover the Kieth bullets, one of which went through the head both sides. (The deer was less than 50 feet away)
 
Thank you Max P. I have a few more but I don't even come close to yours and the hunting you and Craig C have done. I look forward to your books.
 
Judging by the amount of feedback in the 24 hours since this thread was started, Its beginning to look like this was a polemic question asked by a small bore enthusiast!
 
My max is .44 Magnum and .45 Long Colt. The 1911A1 in 45ACP is a sweet pistol, everybody should
have one. The S&W 29, (or 629) in 44 Mag, is a great handling gun.

Lately, the popular trend has been to .410 caliber revolvers, for guys working in snake infested
areas. The S&W Governor has a nice grip, reasonable recoil, and also shoots 45 Long Colt.
 
My max is .44 Magnum and .45 Long Colt. The 1911A1 in 45ACP is a sweet pistol, everybody should
have one. The S&W 29, (or 629) in 44 Mag, is a great handling gun.

Lately, the popular trend has been to .410 caliber revolvers, for guys working in snake infested
areas. The S&W Governor has a nice grip, reasonable recoil, and also shoots 45 Long Colt.

The problem with those is that they are neither fish nor fowl. They’re like an on- and off-road motorcycle — they can do both, but neither well. I’ve heard mixed reviews about their effectiveness on snakes.
 
A Ruger Blackhawk in 45 Colt will give you the most fun shooting. Loading's from Trailboss to
a heavy load of Unique will give performance levels where you want.
The big eye opener is shooting Black powder, finding that the single action is quite a
handful.
If you want higher performance then move to the Ruger Redhawk series of revolvers.
The 44 magnum can be loaded to levels that will tear apart lesser guns.
 
The problem with those is that they are neither fish nor fowl. They’re like an on- and off-road motorcycle — they can do both, but neither well. I’ve heard mixed reviews about their effectiveness on snakes.

You would be correct! I have seen first hand the lack of damage from the 410 defense shotshells as i spoke w a man shot at less than 5 feet with a judge. Ended up with no surgery to remove the cute little discs and balls and whatnot in that load bc they didnt really do any damage. He was fine.
 
.45 Colt in a Ruger can be a whole lot more than many are aware. When you get into “Ruger-only” territory, it’s a different animal. I’ve killed some really big stuff with the .45 Colt loaded to +P levels.
 
The problem with those is that they are neither fish nor fowl. They’re like an on- and off-road motorcycle — they can do both, but neither well. I’ve heard mixed reviews about their effectiveness on snakes.

Well, if you've heard. After all, I own one, so what do I know? I submit, from personal experience, they are
light weight, and surprisingly easy to pocket carry, although DeSantis and others make nice holsters for them.
They shoot 45LC, .410, and 45ACP, all fairly accurately, because of their accommodating grip, and well designed sights. IME they do BOTH, very well, thank you.

You should try one, some time. As to their effectiveness on snakes, it's killed all the snakes I shot, with one round.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I have shot them, rather extensively, but have not used them on snakes. None of them have been particularly good with .45 Colt ammo either. I submit that perhaps a dedicated.45 Colt May be a better option overall with shot shells. It’ll certainly pack better. I just never bought in to it conceptually. However, I am happy to hear that you have had success with yours. It’s good to hear as they’ve sold boatloads of them.
 
Last edited:
The “not as common as it used to be” S&W Model 25 in .45 acp gives you a lot of options. Especially if you spend most of your time at the range punching paper or swing plates. Buffalo Bore has 3 “+P” .45 AR (auto rim if you are new to the ACP in a revolver) including a 200gr 1350 fps loading that would suffice for some hunting.
 
For me, the advantage of big bores, especially the "really" big bores is the increase in range they give one. While most folks agree that a .45 cal SWC going 900 FPS will cleanly kill the buck of your lifetime within 50 yards, once it gets past that, things go down hill in a hurry. Add 50 yards to it and you have a foot of drop difference from the 50 yard shot. Try that shot @ 150 and you've got a 36" holdover from a 50yd sight in. Odds are most responsible hunters would not attempt a shot that far with that bullet/velocity combo. Push that same bullet to .460 velocities and even if you're sighted in for only 50 yards, you can still hold right on @ 100 and need only to aim a tad high @ 150 yards. While still a tuff shot, it is much more doable. Similar to why ardent bow hunters tend to go with the latest and fastest compound bow technology out there. Greater range while having a much smaller margin of error when distance is misjudged. More energy at a greater distance also, so better chance of a passthru and two wound openings to bleed from.

Now when using the .357 for deer outta a handgun, one needs to balance wound channel size and penetration due to it's ballistic performance. While it's nice to get the penetration for a pass thru, it's nice to get a little bigger hole than .357. Tuff thing is, much of the expanding .357 ammo available at Wal-Mart is made for use as SD/HD. Odds are it will not give you the penetration needed unless you go behind the shoulder and just hit ribs, like with a arrow/bolt. Use the same center/high shoulder shot you are used to using with your rifle and you'll end up with a wound that will probably make for a long blood trail. Still with proper bullets designed for hunting(like some JSPs and XTP-FPs), you can get good terminal performance, even with a shoulder shot. When I hunt with my .357 handguns, I tend to use them like my bow....as a 40 yard weapon. My .44s, I tend to think of as a 80 yard weapon, while I practice regularly with my .460 to the 150 yard mark. But that's just me and how I look at them.
 
Last edited:
For me, the advantage of big bores, especially the "really" big bores is the increase in range they give one. While most folks agree that a .45 cal SWC going 900 FPS will cleanly kill the buck of your lifetime within 50 yards, once it gets past that, things go down hill in a hurry. Add 50 yards to it and you have a foot of drop difference from the 50 yard shot. Try that shot @ 150 and you've got a 36" holdover from a 50yd sight in. Odds are most responsible hunters would attempt a shot that far with that bullet/velocity combo. Push that same bullet to .460 velocities and even if you're sighted in for only 50 yards, you can still hold right on @ 100 and need only to aim a tad high @ 150 yards. While still a tuff shot, it is much more doable. Similar to why ardent bow hunters tend to go with the latest and fastest compound bow technology out there. Greater range while having a much smaller margin of error when distance is misjudged. More energy at a greater distance also, so better chance of a passthru and two wound openings to bleed from.

Now when using the .357 for deer outta a handgun, one needs to balance wound channel size and penetration due to it's ballistic performance. While it's nice to get the penetration for a pass thru, it's nice to get a little bigger hole than .357. Tuff thing is, much of the expanding .357 ammo available at Wal-Mart is made for use as SD/HD. Odds are it will not give you the penetration needed unless you go behind the shoulder and just hit ribs, like with a arrow/bolt. Use the same center/high shoulder shot you are used to using with your rifle and you'll end up with a wound that will probably make for a long blood trail. Still with proper bullets designed for hunting(like some JSPs and XTP-FPs), you can get good terminal performance, even with a shoulder shot. When I hunt with my .357 handguns, I tend to use them like my bow....as a 40 yard weapon. My .44s, I tend to think of as a 80 yard weapon, while I practice regularly with my .460 to the 150 yard mark. But that's just me and how I look at them.

That .460's a killing machine with the right bullets. Tradmark (who posted above) killed thirteen animals in South Africa this last June with his BFR in .460 loaded with Swift A-frames (300 grainers at roughly 2,000 fps at the muzzle). It slapped everything down from Cape buffalo to warthog. But, I digress....
 
Try a 44 Magnum, also loading some 44 Specials to try, and then go from there. I would avoid 45 Colt, because it seems that Ruger is never quite sure what they are doing with that cartridge. Cylinder and bore are likely to be out of sync. All three of my contemporary 45 Colts have had work, although mostly to get better results with lead bullets..
 
So back to the original question, if a short high powered snubbie is what ya want for a variety of defensive tactics, i recommend the ruger alaskan, which i too, have hunted with and can kill extremely large animals with. In 454 its roughly the equal in penetration and damage to a 12 gauge slug and you can use 45 shot loads for snakes and your trapped little pests.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
These are great revolvers! The only setback is that some folks have trouble accurately shooting with such a short sight radius, while others don't. It does make for a great backup piece. JMHO.

Picture088.jpg
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top